Surviving MSS- Old Testament Manuscripts, Psalms and New Testament Manuscripts of Christians of Saint Thomas

Marvelous!, Incredible!
We must bring a copy of the manuscript to Kerala and preserve it.
I could also understand that the “Peshista Bible” which were used by our Great, Great, Great Grand Parents in aramaic is kept in a Monastry at Mount Sinai. Actually the worship has changed to Sunday from Saturday lately under influence. Ofcourse, we also must observe the old tradition.
Actually, we are the lost sheep from the 12 tribes. St. Thomas came to India in search of these lost sheeps.
I congratulate the author(s) of this site for the tireless efforts.

You should get the back Bible back to Kerala.

Dear George Mathew,

I would differ from your view point.

It should be the other way round. Instead of first bringing back our cultural values before the Peshitta Bible, we should bring back the Peshitta Bible first and the rest of the things will be taken care of.

This is because the Peshitta Bible has a long history and heritage of preserving the original values. Whenever and wherever this Bible was found out, it has changed the course of history.

Historically the Syriac Peshitta Bible and the Greek Manuscripts came from the single source.

Today there are even Bible scholars who argue that the Apostles, since they were Aramaic speaking, first wrote the New Testament in Aramaic (Peshitta) and later got them translated into Greek as Greek was the international language of the Roman world.

Wherever these original Peshitta and Greek manuscripts were found we see less corruption in the churches.

The Greek church as well as the Nazranis were less corrupted when they kept their respective Bibles.

Today there are even historians who claim that the famous Renaissance of Europe that saved it from the Dark Ages was a direct result of the spread of these Greek Bibles. When the Turks attacked and conquerred Byzantium in the 14th Century the Greek Christians escaped and went to western Europe with their Greek Bibles there. These Greek manuscripts got diffused among the Waldensians, a sect known as heretics by the traditional churches. However even their opponents agreed they were more pious.

Later on Erasmus used these Greek Manuscripts and compiled a text which later was known as Textus Receptus or Received Text which differed from the Alexandrian Texts which were corrupted by Gnostic and other philosophies.

It is based on this Received Greek Text that Martin Luther started his Protestant Revolution.

It is also claimed that William Tyndale who translated the Bible into English used Erasmus’ Greek Text as his source which later “caused” indirectly the Anglican Church split. (80 % of King James Bible is Tyndales’ own translation). Tyndale was burnt for such translations before the Anglican revolution!

So before bringing the Peshitta Bible we should consider all these historical facts and decide whether we need another revolution in here.

I personally believe that the nazranis have all split into different denominations and today nothing can bring them back into one fold. Even Syriac language is unable to bring them back into one fold.

If at all anything can bring them together it will be the Peshitta Bible considering its background.

Also, it is good to remember that prior to Portuguese Padroado, we had Peshitta Bible with us and all the Mar Thoma Christians were one ethnic group. After Padroado we lost our Bible and lo, we are various denominations today shamelessly fighting among ourselves providing entertainment to outsiders.

Let us have a brainstorm session for unity.

Most of our churches have two rival groups.When the problem between them become acute, the bishop may change the priest and appoint a new priest to solve the problems.As soon as he lands a new group emerges and he will be the undisputed leader of the new group.Then the earlier rival groups merges and forms an “anti-achan” group.Then this story repeats .
We nasranies have a highly inflated (baloon like) ego and priests are no exception.The root cause of all the church problems is the clash of egos and not issues

Can the peshita bible alone save us ?
Is it so different from the Greek transalations?
The Maronite church (another syrian family church in communian with Rome) is using it for centuries.

I think our Lord’s words are clear in the bible versions we are using.Though peshita bible was here before the arrival of Portughese, it was beyond the access of common man as only select priests knew syriac.They took no initiative to transalate it into malayalam.
The important thing about peshita bible is that it is a piece of evidence that shows our connections with east (or west) Syrian church and thus part of our syriac heritage .

Dear Joseph George,
Yes! first the BIblle should be brought to Kerala and then the other things will follow. That sounds nice but the ‘other things’ that follow will be a serious row as to who should ‘own’ the bible.

Are we united enough to undertake the safe keeping?. Perhaps something like what we did in ‘Nilackal’ can be done. Are our church leaders listening? Why not get started/organized and get back this priceless treasure. … and make sure to thank England for safegaurding our great treasure for so long.

Oh another thing … the Introduction to the Syriac New Testament that I mentioned earlier is a very good read. There is a quote from Buchanan on how when he was traveling through Malabar (Mavelikara specifically) he hear the tolling bells of the church (St. Mary’s Orthodox) and immediately forgot that he was in a Hindu land. It’s very interesting and paints a fascinating, but brief, picture on how our land was back them.

Dear John Mathew

Madenhoyo Jacobites with their East Syriac engaging in missionary activities in Malabar are very romantic thoughts just like the thought that before the Syond of Diampoor all Bishops who came to Malabar coast are Chaldeans or like never broken direct communion of Syro Malabar with Rome.I just call this being very romantic.

There is not even one place where Madenhoyo Jacobites were engaged in Missionary activities. Assyro- Chaldeans missionary activities are very well documented and it did not end with Malabar.

On the terminology of using Nestorians, it is mostly used by Latins/ Jacobites and Protestants. Church of East did had Nesotiran influence for a very limited time. If you consider that limited Nestorian influence to give a stamp as Nestoiran then why do limit that to one party ? What should be the equivalent word to call churches including Syriac Orthodox Church and others who went on different directions. Though most of the modern Christian churches are Chalcedonian, in the 5th – 8th centuries AD the ascendancy of Chalcedonian Christology was not always certain. The Jacobite church went too far in ascendancy of Chalcedonian Christology.

Syriac-speaking Christians looked to Edessa in East Syria as their center and from 4th century onwards Edessa is the center of Syriac Christianity. The formation of separate Chaldaean Patriarchate happened only in 1552 but there were sporadic contacts with the Assyro- Chaldeons ( Church of East or Nestorians) and Rome until the 13th century. In fact the final communion in materialized in 1552 was started in 11th century with a short communion and break off. There were Bishops visiting Rome and announcing communion and on return in Persia dennocing the communion. The political reason in Persian empire was a major hurdle and problem. The situation was identical to todays Kerala landscape among Methran Kashi and Bava Kashi.Shift of alleginace was so common.

Coming to the Kerala situation after Coonan cross oath, from 1653 to 1665 the dissident faction under Archedocon were using East Syrian liturgy. The gradual introduction of West Syrian forms started only after 1665, that too over a period of time. Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel has been brought here by Dutch. Dutch does has knowledge about Eastern Christians. Had Dutch been not here in Malabar coast we might not even had west syrian presence in Kerala.

Why Puthenkoor are called secessionists is basically because of this reason. Before the Syond of Diampor the Bishops who were here are Chaldeoans and the liturgy and other forms used are East Syrian. From 1653 to 1665 both the factions were using East Syrian vestments and the gradual change happened with Puthenkoors. In this way you can say Syriac Orthodox Church India is the recent invention of Dutch.( I am talking about the old Syriac Orthodox Church in India ( not specifically about Methran Kashi or Bava Kashi)).

I am also interested in knowing how do you define the legal heirship to all the factions in Puthenkoor. Who represnts the old Puthenkoor in legitimate sense ? As part of the heavy Antiochnisation the Puthenkoors lost most of the prevailing traditions. The widely popularized recent Throne of St.Thomas has been given to Mar Thoma Church long time back.

On the real Patriach of Antioch and claims of sole legitimate successor to the Christian community founded in Antioch by the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul.

The major claiments are the following,

Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite Church , Syriac Orthodox Church ,Syriac Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

Greek Orthodox Church has more legitimate claim. The Maronite claims a never broken communion with Rome.
I hope you are aware of the The Council of Florence, Council of Basle, Council of Constance. In fact reunion was even achived in some of these councils but were short lived and some of the Eastern Catholic churches who are claimants for the title of Patriach of Antioch are results of the short lived re union. Basically they hold also claim as being a faction with legitimate claims.

Dear John Mathew,

Since the Mar Thoma I sent letters to Antioch, how can we presume that we had connections to the Church of Antioch? He might have sent letters to all the eastern churches known to them but only the Antiochian church responded. I do not think the Nasranis at that time were so stupid that they did not know much about the churches in the Middle East? Since we had strong trade connections etc, they knew about other eastern churches and wrote to them. As Antiochian church had not much people under them and as they got a chance to get a good number, they tried to use their opportunity!!
Do you know, in 1665, Mar Gregoriose had arrived in Kerala. Did he ordinate the Mar Thoma I as a Bishop? No. Mar Thoma I to Mar Thoma V all died without getting a legitimate Bishopric ordination. It was only in 1772 the Puthencoor leaders get a legitimate Bishopric ordination – Mar Thoma VI was ordained as a Priest and as a Bishop by Jacobite Bishops Mar Yohannan and Mar Gregoriose, as Mar Dionocius. The Jacobites even did not accept the Priestly ordination of Mar Thoma VI !! (Even before this, in 1663, Parambil Chandy methran from Pazhayacoor community became a Bishop and ordained at Kaduthuruthy church. He was accepted by 64 out of 110 Nasrani churches fully and 20 partly. Only 26 out of 110 joined the Mar Thoma I. So, the vast majority of Nasranis were in Pazhayacoor, besides they continued to use the Chaldean liturgy. That was why; they were called Pazhayacoor and the other party as Puthencoor. It should be noted that no one has tried to question this names so far!!).

Antiochian church was interested in getting a faction of Nasranis. (Just like the Portuguese and the British and the Dutch). That was why the Puthencoor faction had to wait until 1772 to get a Bishopric to one of their leaders. So, please do not tell us that the Antiochian church was helping the Nasranis. They were also like Portuguese; they antiochianised the Puthencoor even without a synod of Diamper. Once Mar Thoma VI got the Bishopric ordination, he tried to join the Pazhayacoor. He wrote to Bishop Francis Sales etc and it was by the result of this that Kariattil Thoma Malpan and Paremmakkal Thoma Malpan went to Rome to negotiate with Rome and Kariattil Thoma malpan was ordained as a Bishop from Rome, got all authority to receive Puthencoor back to Pazhayacoor and came back, but on the way, he died in Goa, before reaching Kerala. If Mar Joseph Kariatti had returned to Kerala, the history of Nasranis would have been different!! ( Varthamanapusthakam)

Dear John Mathew,

I am sorry if I was wrong about the consecration of Mar Thoma I to V. I was quoting the information from a book. Later I checked various websites. But I am curious why Mar Thoma VI had to be reconsecrated as Mar Dionocious? (I am not questioning you).

I agree with you that the east Syrian Church of Trichur is the real Pazhayacoor. I had an opportunity to attend a marriage in their main church in Trichur a few years ago. That church looked very similar to my parish church in Champakulam. I do not remember well about the liturgy. Their church is the result of the so called Rochos and Melus schism. It should be noted that most of the Trichurian Nasrani Catholics were under Melus schism and Nidheerickal Mani Kathanaar worked very hard and stayed in Trichur for many months to get them back, now, the Trichurian Syro Malabars are the most resistant about returning to our East Syrian traditions (along with Ernakulam). Again, they were with Syro malabar till 1870 etc. So, 1659 to 1870s, who was pazhayacoor ? And now, Syro Malabar is an independent church with its own canon law, its own synod,its own head of the church but in communion with the Universal Catholic Church, alongwith the Roman Church. So, we are not under anyone.

Regarding the connection to Rome in the pre Portuguese period.

In the records of Roman Church, it is seen as an Indian Bishop in 1122, visited Rome via Constantinople and received palium from the pope. ( Tisserant, Opus cit., P22, foot note 2)

1329, Pope John 22 sends a Bishop called Jordanus to Quilon but he died on the way.

1329 John D Maringoli visited Quilon as a representative of the Pope Clement IV and received a big sum of money from the Nasranis. So, roman pope was not something new for nasranis.

These are the reasons why people think that there was at least some indirect connection with Rome in the past. Otherwise, why would we all come under the pope for some time? Again, in the Coonan cross oath, the oath was not against Rome.

Ignatius Mar Ahathalla came to India and sent a letter to the Archdeacon claiming that he has received the authority from the Pope to rule the Nasranis. Why did he have to claim that he has the authority from the Pope? The oath of Coonan cross was also not against the Pope of Rome- it was against the Jesuits.

As far as I understand, so far, the Vatican curia has not ratified the synod of Diamper. Many times, Rome was compelling our old leaders to return to the old traditions but our leaders were resistant! What Menesis could not do was done by our own leaders.

There are only 4 churches in the world who claim the heritage of St Thomas the apostle- they are Persian, Indian, both were established by St. Thomas himself and Chaldean and Edessan, both were established by Mar Addai and Mari, the disciples of St. Thomas the apostle. That is the reason why we had connection with these east Syrian churches.

Antiochian church was established by St. Peter. It has no apostolic heritage of St. Thomas. It is a sister church of the Roman Church! Only similarity with Antiochian church is that they use another dialect of Syriac as their liturgical language.

Dear Thomas Antony

According to the catholic encyclopedia the first who informed the world of the existence of Thomas Christians was Friar John of monte Corvino in 1292.

Friar Jordanus a dominician visited in 1321 and Odenic of pordenone in 1324-1325 period. Both of them reported that the Malabar Christians were extremely hostile to them and were Christians only by name .All of them were on the way to China and visited the Malabar coast by chance .
This clearly shows that Rome was not aware of Malabar Christians until the visit of Corvino and didn’t show much interest even after coming to know about their existence. The reason is they were heretical Nestorian Christians. That is why both Jordanus and Pordenone planned their visit for China and not Malabar.

But all of them baptized some people here. Corvino reported that the inhabitants prosecuted Christians. It seems what he meant by the inhabitants was the Malabar Christians and used the word Christians for the newly baptized people .Jordanus also reported that the local Christians were extremely hostile to them.All these clearly shows the Roman Church was completely alien to Malabar Christians at that time

Once Jordanus returned to Rome he was ordained as the bishop for kollam. But he didn’t visited Malabar again. By the time Marijoli visited a very small group were aware of Catholic Church and he got much a better reception. All these visits paved the way for Portuguese and Jesuits to start their work.

Some of the Syrian catholic historians make great efforts to prove that “koonan kurrisu satyam” was not against the Pope and only against the Jesuits. Almost 99% of the nasranies participated in this revolt .But then Latin church had the support of Portuguese army and Cochin Raja. So many are forced to return to the Latin church including Parampil Chandy Cattanar one of the leader of the revolt .Many others including Arch deacon and Anjilimoottil Ittythomman cattanar, the other leaders of the revolt, fled to the south. The group which were retuned to the Roman church were named as “pazayakoottukar”. Nobody dared to ask why because of obvious reason.

Regarding Ignathius Ahathalla,well he was imprisoned as soon as he landed here and his life was under threat.So even if this story was true he might have told so to save his life .Some people say he was killed by the Porthghese

The so called pazayakoor faction remained Latinized in liturgy and vassal and can’t ordain any bishop without the permission of Rome for many years. Even recently a bishop who commanded much respect by all factions of Thomas Christians were denied the top post of the church because some people thought he will be a threat to the Latin church.

Things are much worse in the other side of the story ie “puttencoor”. Court case, Police and street fight are all become a daily affair. Thus it is time we consider these puthencoor, pazayakoor issues as obsolete.

ı hope you are very fine and happy also.I have got a holy Bible,that
around years old and written with gold on deer skin in Sryiac
language.It is 28 pages.Ithink,you are an intersting in it too much.Any way I
want to sell this rare holh Bible now. I will send to you 28 pages photos .
from TURKEY

PS-We are waiting your answering.Thanks mr AHMET

Dear Jogy Mathew,

Yes you are right, but your statements need some extensive amendments.

“The rituals and beliefs had nothing in common with the roman catholic church”
may be amended as -there were so many differences in rituals and beliefs of Nasranis with the Roman Church, as there are/were so many things in common also.

“ the early years of the present Syro Malabar church was under latin metrans” should be amended as- the early years of the present Syro Malabar church and the present Orthodox /Jacobite churches using antiochian liturgy all were under latin metrans.

“ those who did not want to stay with the latins were the Syrians(puthencoor)” should be amended as- those who revolted and broke away from the latin church were the Puthencoor Syrians, as the Pazhayacoor Syrians(Romo Syrians) were also not happy to be under the latin rule and that was why, they became evolved into the present Syro Malabar church. Most of the Nasranis joined the Koonana Cross oath but a significant number- majority returned to roman side due to (1)political reasons-Portuguese influence on the local kings, (2)the fact that the Mar Thoma I did not have a legitimate Bishopric where as Parambil Chandy Metran on the Pazhayacoor side had a legitimate Bishopric,(3) the whole church was under latin bishops for long time and many people were grown up under the latin bishops and they had legitimate bishopric and then why going along with a pseudo bishop etc.

“ in the early years, pazhamcoor were called romans and puthencoor were called Syrians” to be amended as Pazhayacoors were called “Romo Syrians” and later “Chaldeo Syrians” when the Puthencoor adopted antiochian liturgy and then “Syro Malabar” when Chaldean bishops Rokos and Melus created a split in Pazhayacoor.The puthencoor were called as Puthencoor from the beginning as after many years under latin bishops, Puthencoor broke away keeping the same old east Syrian liturgy and rite but no legitimate bishopric where as Pazhayacoor stayed under the many years of latin rule without changing the allegiation, keeping the same East Syriac liturgy and rite under the leadership of Parambil Chandy Metran with legitimate bishopric.When the Puthencoor adopted a new liturgy and affiliation- the antiochian liturgy – the name became more appropriate for the time.

“now saying that it is east syrian .. any way almost same to jacobites…” is also not true. We were always East Syriac until part of the Nasranis were antiochianised. So, the “now saying” is inappropriate.
“…anyways almost the same to jacobites…”needs more explanation. I can’t understand what you are saying.

“regarding the patriarchs of antioch…which one is real successor….the answer is rome can make any parallel patriarchs if they want and they will make it the right one(eg. rite in kerala)” The first part is true. In the present world, political and financial power is everything and influencial people can do anything.But what is the context of “eg. rite in kerala” ? St Thomas Christians in Kerala now follow different rites, Jacobites, Mar Thoma, Syro Malankara and Indian Orthodox follow antiochian rite, Syro Malabar and Chaldean church of Trichur follow East Syrian rite, etc.This statement needs more explanation.

Dear Thomas Antony

‘’’’’’those who did not want to stay with the latins were the Syrians(puthencoor)” should be amended as- those who revolted and broke away from the latin church were the Puthencoor Syrians, as the Pazhayacoor Syrians(Romo Syrians) were also not happy to be under the latin rule and that was why, they became evolved into the present Syro Malabar church. Most of the Nasranis joined the Koonana Cross oath but a significant number- majority returned to roman side due to (1)political reasons-Portuguese influence on the local kings, (2)the fact that the Mar Thoma I did not have a legitimate Bishopric where as Parambil Chandy Metran on the Pazhayacoor side had a legitimate Bishopric,(3) the whole church was under latin bishops for long time and many people were grown up under the latin bishops and they had legitimate bishopric and then why going along with a pseudo bishop etc.’’’’’’’

It is quite interesting to read the history repeatedly from Thomas Antony.Your parambil chandy story, koonen cross oath, birth of syro Malabar church, legitimacy of latin bishops- all are quite interesting.

If you understand the history of malankara church , many of the explanations which you put forward do not fit in the right place.

# There were no such100 years rule by Romans

# There were no such split taken place in the malankara church

# Koonan kurishu sathyam was attented by a handful of people from in and around kochi

# Marthoma l had legitimate bishopric and he also had a position called Malankaramoopan which more authenticate his position while Parambil chandy’s position was a cheep substitution.

# Puthenkoor were called SYRIANS and pazhayakoor called ROMO-SYRIANS(please verify records)

# Antiochianisation is not true, syrianisation /aramaicisation is the word to be used

# Malankaranazranies used Aramaic liturgy of St. James

Hi John,

Were you waiting for me to reply so that you can find fault with my agruement ?
Anyway, thanks.

I did not mean that west syriac is less syriac or Puthencoor is less syriac. I always appreciated the courage of the then leaders of the Nasranis who consecrated a Bishop by laying hands by 12 Priests. But, I have to say, in the history, Pazhayacoor showed a bit more syriac heritage than others. In the post Diamper period, due to latinisations etc, SMC developed some indigenous syriac chants. I learned this point while studying about Qambel Maran CD and the research of Rev Dr Palackal about syriac music tradition in Kerala. When latin missionaries wanted to introduce some latin prayers/ services, as latin was not acceptacle to Pazhayacoor community, our leaders translated them into syriac chants. This unique feature was a surprise to me as syriac was not our mother tongue and we had people here to write syriac songs.( Note that Kadavil chandy kathanaar was a great poet). See my article about Qambel maran CD. Are there any examples of development of indigenous syriac songs in any other syriac Christian community in Kerala ?

Regarding ruled by latin Bishops, I agree with you, what I meant was both were under latin Bishops for some time.

Regarding Bishopric of Mar Thoma I, I have a few reservations. I have commented in this forum earlier that the Puthencoor had to wait until 1773 to get a Bishop consecrated from them. Recently, while reading the varthamana pusthakam by paremmakkal Thoma Kathanaar, published by Oriental Institute of Religious studies in Kerala, vadavathoor, Kottayam, I found a letter written by Mar Dionycius on 12/03/1772 to Pope of Rome sent through Mar Kariatti and Parammakkal requesting to recognise him as a Bishop of all Nasranis, stating that Mar Thoma I did not receive a Bishopric Consecration from the Antiochian Bishops, he continued with the Consecration by 12 priests. When Mar Thoma IV became the next Mar Thoma, the Jacobites and the Roman catholics commented that he did not have a legitimate Bishopric and hence he was reconsecrated as Mar Dionycius receiving ordination as a priest and Bishop.( Jan 1772 at Niranom). This letter was translated from the library of the Sacred Congregation for the Propaganda of faith in Rome.This was part of the missing 14th and 15th chapters of the Varthamana pusthakam.
Does this mean that Mar Gregoriose and other jacobite Bishops in Kerala did not give a Bishopric consecration to Mar Thoma I to VI, until the Puthencoor community were ready to accept the Antiochian liturgy and rite ?

Dear M. Thomas Antony:

1. “But, I have to say, in the history, Pazhayacoor showed a bit more syriac heritage than others.” I think this is debatable. On the Puthenkoor side we do have Konatt Malpan and other Syriac scholars who did contribute to the general body of Syriac literature. Of note is Konatt Malpan who was enough of a contributor/scholar to warrant mention from Patriarch Afrem Barsoum’s encyclopaedic work “The Scattered Pearls: History of Syriac Literature and Sciences”. Note: Barsoum seems to have been a bit of a racist (note: this is second-hand unconfirmed data) and is quite dismissive of Indian Syriac scholars in general, so mention by him is quite an honor. The point: we in the Puthenkoor have a great tradition of Syriac Malpans.

Now, did the Puthenkoor translated foreign (Latin) hymns into Syriac? No, obviously not. We seem to have been a little purer in what we admitted into our Church: pure west Syriac rites and hymns.

I think both communities developed in different ways: none were pure adherents of the old ways. Both gave up Nestorianism. The Pazhaya added Latinizations, and the Puthen adopted a new Syriac rite. To be honest, the first time I learned that there were “Syriac Catholics” other than the Syro-Malankara was only a few years ago (when I went to Edathua and saw a Syriac icon there and decided to research how a Syriac icon would be in a Roman Catholic Church). Prior to that I though that, based on the Romo-Syrians I’ve met (with names like Xavier, Francis, Robert, etc., and going to pure Latin Churches here in the West) the Romo-Syrian community was fully Latinized. That is, based on the Romo-Syrians I met, I never realized you guys even maintained Syriac! So I think the term of “more Syriac” is highly relative and dependent on where you are. For example, are there any Syrian Pazhayakoor in Kollam? Aren’t they all basically Latin now?

2. Re: the canonicity of Mar Thoma I, etc., ordination. I guess I’ll have to go and look at the documentary evidence. The period of the 18/19 centuries were pretty messed up for the Puthenkoor, depending on which bishop happened to come from Antioch. Some would claim the predecessor as being invalid, etc. So, for every bishop that claims legitimacy, there are reports to claim illegitimacy. The situation is the same nowadays, with both Orthodox factions claiming the other to have descended into heresy.

3. I didn’t wait for your reply to criticize you. I agree with you on many historical points. And on the points I disagree with you, it is usually only one of degree and not polarity.

dear john,

I have seen the same eagle with two heads in kothamangalam marth mariyam palli (1300 years old).

what is the significance..what it represents

Dear Jogy,

From what I’ve learned, it appears that although the Pazhayakoor were under Latin bishops for a long time, they retained the basic East Syriac liturgy. But the best source would be an actual Syro-Malabar Catholic: Antony, could you confirm this?

As Antony mentioned, the Pazhayakoor had a strong distaste for Latin, and so translated everything fed to them by the Latin bishops from Latin into Syriac.

Some of what you’re saying seems to be reminiscent of standard Puthenkoor storytelling. I think you should surf around this site — we’ve had this debate several times and you can see both sides.

The basic story is:
1. we were something (likely a mixture of several communities, including Nestorians and Manichaeans) from the 1st to 12th centuries
2. we were Nestorians
3. we were Chaldeans and Nestorians
4. we were Latinized Syrians
5. we split into a Latinized Syriac community accepting Latin authority, and a Latinized Syriac community rejecting Latin authority
6a. the former developed into the modern Syro-Malabar Church
6b. the latter developed into the modern Orthodox/Jacobite Church, after adopting the West Syriac liturgy and the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch
7. several other schisms form both communities created the current state of affairs

This story is pretty much uncontroversial amongst the Syro-Malabar (correct Antony?), “Chaldean” Church of the East, and the Malankara Orthodox.

The Jacobites do not generally believe it because they claim continuous Jacobite allegiance (unprovable).
The Mar Thomites do not believe it because they claim some “primitive Christianity” untouched by any doctrine (totally untenable — but what else would you expect from Protestant converts).
And as for the remaining communities — who really cares about the Malabar Independent Syrian Church or the Syro-Malankara anyways…?!

Dear John,

1 Yes, Marthoma l did have a legitimate position not because of Mar Gregorios. It is because of his selection as a leader of Malankara nazrani community. He had been consecrated by laying hands by 12 priests. If you say it is not legitimate then we have to go back to 1st century practices of Christendom or the practice of kahnooso& shimshono or look back to THE BIBLE itself (please read post 8692).

2 John, what do you mean by a split? Is it when the two factions have comparatively equal (at least 20% of them) number of people? In that case it was not a split. The vast majority sided with Marthoma and the number of Romo-Syrians was under thousand. They are mainly from the family of those so called priests whom are ordained deliberately by Menesis before the DeAmperithana synodo of 1599.Also note the work of Jesuits and Carmelites which helped in creating today’s syro-malabar church.

3 I know that Syriac is not Aramaic. But how far it differs? When did the linguistic shift started? What was our liturgical language in the first five centuries in malankara? There is a possibility that Malankaranazranies used YACOB’S TAKSA since it was the first one formulated by early church fathers.

4’’’“patriarch of antiochization”’’’’’ what an avial term! It seems you always propagate an AVIAL history to please every one.

Dear Thomas Antony,

1 Malakaranazranies never ruled by Romans as you put forward. Menesis tried hard to control them by visiting their churches. But could not do so because of resistance by the brave Nazranies .Many of the churches rejected to receive him .But he ruled feeble Romosyrians since he was the man who created the Romo-syrians.

2 At the time of Coonan kurisu sathyam malankara was divided in to many nadukal and many Malankaranazranies never even heard of the oath. Eg. kunnamkulam Nazranies. Now the case was this, how can you say that the majority joined the oath?

3Jathikku karthavyan/arch deacon is a term invented by western/coe missionaries/prelates for to degrade the position of malakara mooppan. The continuous mental exploitation/propaganda by westerners (Jesuits/Carmelites) forced the malankaranazranies ask for a re- consecration which was otherwise unnecessary.

4 ‘’’’’’’Regarding the last part of your sentence, (Parambil chandy’s position), I do not want to comment because that does not deserve a reply.’’’’’’ Yes it deserves a replay. Parambil chandy’s position was a substitution.

Dear Jogy,

The only Indian connection with a double-headed eagle is the Mysore Royal family of Wodeyar whose emblem is found: GGPHT

I doubt that is connected to the Churches you’ve seen the symbol in though…

the catholicos patriarch of babylon was under the patriarch of antioch until 498 ad. ultimately the authority binding the east is the patriarchate of antioch..

Jogy:

The Catholicos-Patriarch of Babylon *was* under Antioch. *Was* is a *long* time ago. Incidentally, so were the primates of Armenia and Georgia, but they *all* declared/became independent. Antioch no longer controls *any* of those Sees. In fact, apart from the Jacobites of India, Antioch really controls nothing substantial anymore. Genocides and conversions managed to substantially decimate the Jacobite Church in the Middle East (which is possibly one reason why Antioch is so interested in Kerala…).

Next, regarding the Pazhayakoor and the East Syriac Liturgy. There is nothing funny there — even in Mesopotamia there is an East Syriac Church of the East that is independent and under their own Catholicos-Patriarch, and another Chaldean Church that is in communion with Rome. Consult the posts by M. Thomas Anthony or Wikipedia to understand how the “Surais” arose in Kerala— it was as a result, ironically, of activity by Chaldean (Catholic) prelates from the Middle East!

remember that the original patriarchate is an independent one.

Dear Jogy,

Sorry, I am late- busy with work.

As John has mentioned, all these are discussed several times here. I assume that you are new here and you have missed all those. I will give you a concise account of the origin of the Chaldean Church of Trichur- The Indian diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East.

In the last part of the Pre Diamper Period, the Nasranis were affiliated to the Chaldean faction of the Church of the East which was in communion to Rome. After the synod of Diamper and Coonan cross oath, both the Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor communities continued the same East Syriac liturgy and traditions but with different affiliations- Pazhayacoor to Patriarch of Rome directly rather than through the Chaldean Patriarch to Rome and Puthencoor later to Patriarch of Antioch. Even though the Puthencoor adopted West Syrian liturgy and affiliation to the Patriarch of Antioch, they also wanted to go back to East Syriac Liturgy.

The Pazhayacoor community sent several petitions to the Chaldean Patriarch of Babel in communion with the Pope of Rome to send Bishops. But the Portuguese missionaries opposed to it and exerted pressure on the Chaldean Patriarch through Rome not to interfere with the Church in Kerala. A representative group even visited the Chaldean Patriarch in Bagdad under the leadership of Kudakkachira Anthony kathanaar and Thondanattu Anthony kathanaar.When they were even ready to approach the Assyrian Patriarch, the Chaldean Patriarch Mar Joseph Audo consecrated Mar Thomas Rokos as a Bishop for Pazhayacoor in 1860 and sent to Kerala and was received by large mass of Pazhayacoor. By the time, the Portuguese missionaries exerted pressure on the Chaldean Patriarch to withdraw Rokos back and started propaganda against Rokos that he is coming against the wish of the Pope. As many of the Pazhayacoor priests were educated by the missionaries, it was easy for them to win the clergy. Fr. Chavara Kuriakose Elias etc worked hard among the common people against Mar Rokos to win the Pazhayacoor back to the side of the Missionaries.

At last, the Chaldean Patriarch withdrew Mar Rokos but he refused and thus it became a schism. In 1862, Mar Rokos returned to Iraq. I think, at this point, Thondanattu Anthony kathanaar went to Iraq with Mar Rokos and requested the Chaldean Patriarch Mar Audo to consecrate him as a Bishop but he refused due to the opposition of Rome. He then approached the Assyrian Patriarch Mar Ruwel Shimun in Mosul and got consecrated as a Bishop as Mar Abdisho in Mar Shallitha Cathedrel in Quochanis and returned to Kerala, but he was not accepted by many in Pazhayacoor as he was consecrated by the Assyrian patriarch who was not in communion with the Pope..

Then due to further requests by Pazhayacoor community, the Chaldean Patriarch sent another Bishop Mar Elias Melus to Kerala in 1874 and Mar Abdisho joined him and became in communion with Rome. The Missionaries opposed Melus also and forced the Chaldean Patriarch to withdraw him also. Melus also refused to obey the patriarch and thus the movement became a schism. Again, with the help of Pazhayacoor clergy who were trained by the Missionaries, they fought with the movement and Nidheerickal Mani kathanaar was in the front of the anti Melus fight and won the community back to the side of the missionaries but a group in Trichur remained with Melus.

Melus also returned in 1882 but as Mar Abdisho had been consecrated as a Bishop by the Assyrian Patriarch, he then led the movement and they became affiliated to the Assyrian Church but kept the name Chaldean as the original movement was for communion with the Chaldean church.

I think Fr Kuriakose Elias Chavara and Nidheerickal Mani kathanaar joined the missionaries to prevent a split among the Pazhayacoor which would definitely weaken them and they would loose the bargain power against the missionaries as Nidheerikal Mani kathanaar was a great leader and fighter against the rule by the missionaries and was a promoter of the fraternity with the Chaldean church.

Ref.
1 website of the Church of the East in India under nestorian.org
2 Changanacherry athiroopatha innale, innu, ( History of the arch diocese of Changanacherry)Ed . Jacob Nellikkunnathu,1998

Jeevan:

Too much to respond to — and I think it takes a Syro-Malabar member with access to their Churches details to give the best response. But two small points:

You speak of our retaining our Church architecture, etc. What are you talking about? Almost every Nasrani Church is built in the Portuguese style that was imposed in the 16th century. What Church remains that has not been built in some kind of European style? Note the bulk of our “old” Churches all have the standard Portuguese facade.

You write: “Today Malankara Nazranies are well recognized in whole world of Christendom .Marthoma church as a part of Malankara nazrani community has its own position in Christendom.”

1. The various churches are “well-recognized” for various reasons. The Syro-Malabar constitute one of the largest groups in the Roman Catholic communion, and maintain an old Syriac rite. The two Orthodox churches constitute large groups in the Oriental orthodox communions and maintain old Syriac rites. And all have been very active. So, yes, we are “well-recognized” — but this is also due to the fact that we are members of bonafide “Christian” communions. We are not lone cults without any connection to the rest of Christianity.

I note that Mar Thoma Church is *not* at all accepted by any “true” Christian communion. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches rejected the validity of the Marthoma orders, sacraments, etc. They are without any validity in the strictest sense (ecumenical kindness aside, since it is meaningless without acceptance of the actual orders!). The Mar Thoma are indeed a lone cult that just started out of nowhere. The only people who accept them are similar cultists: Protestants, Pentecostals, evangelicals and the rest of the non-Orthodox non-Catholic “innovations” that plague modern western Christianity.

The rest of what you write has no evidence. It may be “logical” but you are writing new innovative history. If you have actual evidence, show it. Otherwise, you’re just spinning a story. Even a cursory read of the SRITE project will show that before full Antiochization, the Puthenkoor were using a liturgy that contained Roman, Jacobite and Nestorian aspects. The best evidence we have is the Nestorian/Chaldean connection during the 12-15th century, then we were Romanized during the 15-17th centuries, and then slowly Antiochianized during the 18-20th centuries. There is little evidence to prove how we operated and what we believed before that. Some romantics (like me, formerly) like to spin all sorts of stories about Alexandrian-style ordinations, the old Jewish Christian affialization, allegiance to the Jacobite Maphrianate, etc. ALL of these have no evidence at all. None. If you have some, provide it.

Dear All,

Jeevan has not answered any of my questions directly, instead, he is surfing through it with some twisted stories. He is just writing something without any evidence or reference.
“The rest of what you write has no evidence. It may be “logical” but you are writing new innovative history. If you have actual evidence, show it. Otherwise, you’re just spinning a story” Thanks John, very correct indeed.

Even Jeevan has no logic. For example, his argument about the number of SMC that the number of Pazhayacoor were very nominal-(he has an exact figure of 1000 !!) and the current 3.5 million is due to the efforts of missionaries by converting the so called “lower caste Hindus” to the Pazhayacoor is indigestible and ridiculous. You cannot sell this idea to anybody who has at least some knowledge about Christianity in Kerala. We all know that the Portuguese wanted to convert all Syriac Christians to Latin.

(When there was a conflict with a Portuguese padre called Panteago in 1516 in a Nasrani church at Cranganore, the Portuguese Governor advised the Nasrani representatives that even Hindus, Muslims and Jews all over the world adopt the same faith and rituals and the Christians of Malankara also should adopt the Latin rituals and practices. )(Mundadan, History of Christianity in in India).

We saw the same attitude in the Synod of Diamper also. THEN WHY WOULD THEY CONVERT MORE PEOPLE TO THE PAZHAYACOOR WHEN THE PAZHZYACOOR WAS STILL USING THE EAST SYRIAC LITURGY AND PRACTICES? The missionaries and the Roman authorities were actually restricting the activity of Pazhayacoor between the two rivers in Kerala- Pampa and Bharathapuzha to contain this “error/pollution”. Those people who move out of this area were not allowed to use the east Syriac liturgy and forced to adopt Latin rite until 1955. So, your theory is unbelievable and not logic.

All know that the Syriac Christianity in Kerala is/was based on some ethnic feelings also. Even when the Pazhayacoor were administered by Latin Bishops in Latin dioceses, they had a separate administrative set up and separate parishes with different liturgy and practices. Initially, all Syrians including Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor were in Archdiocese of Angamali under Chaldean Bishops- Read about the synod of Angamali in 1583 by Mar Abraham. The Latin missionaries wanted to make Angamali as a suffragan under the Archdiocese of Goa. When Mar Abraham died in 1597, they succeeded in it. . In 1599, Francis Ross was appointed as the Bishop of Angamaly for the whole Mar Thoma Nasranis and made it a safragan diocese of Goa. In 1600, The Angamaly diocese became under Padruado- under the King of Portuguese. In 1608, Angamaly was elevated as arch diocese again and separated from and made equal to the archdiocese of Goa. Later, Ross moved his head quarters to Cranganore and it became the arch diocese of Cranganore.

In 1624, Stephen Britto became the Archdiocese of Cranganore.
In 1641, Francis Garcia became the Bishop of Cranganore.
In 1647, Bishop Garcia appointed a Portuguese priest Fr. Jerome Furtado as the vicar general of Cranganore and downgraded the archdeacon.
In 1652 Mar Ahatalla in Mylappore.
In 1653- Coonan Cross oath

So, until 1653, the whole Syriac Christians were under Latin Bishops. The new converts were called Latin Catholics and they were under the diocese of Cochin.

After the Coonan Cross oath, the Pazhayacoor were kept under the Cranganoor archdiocese and the Puthencoor under Mar Thoma I Read by recent previous postings about how, large number of Syriac Christians left the Mar Thoma I and joined Parambil Chandy Kathanaar.(post 9626). At that time out of 110 Nasrani parishes, 64 fully and 20 partially accepted Parambil Chandy metran and 26 accepted Mar Thoma-I (A double regime in the Malabar church, Thomas pallippurathu kunnel).

Jeevan’s quoting of Milne’s numbers is absolutely wrong and he might have meant it as the number of Syriac Christians vs. Latin Christians. So, read the book once again and quote the sentence he used. (I have downloaded his book from archives and going to read it). When the Latin hierarchy was established by Rome, Pazhayacoor were admitted in Verapoly archdiocese with Latins also but the Syriac parishes were separate using east Syriac liturgy and Latin parishes were separate using Latin liturgy with separate vicar general for Syrians. So, even when there was mixing on the top administration, both the communities were separate. BECAUSE OF THIS MIXING, THE PAZHAYZCOOR ACTUALLY LOST SOME OF ITS PEOPLE TO LATIN RITE. SO, OUR NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER. When Syro Malabar hierarchy was established, the new converts and some of the Syrians who became part of Latin due to mix up were put into the Arch diocese of Verapoly and the Syrians were separated into the vicariates of Kottayam and Trichur.

Now, I think after he does not have any logic arguments, he is trying to denigrate SMC as lower or lowest caste !! I am not interested in caste. I have never considered myself as upper caste or superior to any other human beings. Now, in the last 10 years, I have been living in a modern world where all humans are considered equal.

I do not think we Christians would talk about race or caste. “Church is to be seen as a spiritual tradition, not as a mere ‘cultural’ or ‘ethnic’ reality”.( Arch Bishop Joseph Powathil, Clarifications given to the Paper presented by Archbishop Henry D’Souza of Calcutta in the CBCI Meeting held in Tiruchirapalli from 4th to 14 January 1982. Christian Orient (March June 1982) 50-59. )

Dear Jeevan,

See my post 9588. I could not find any answers to that in your reply 9603.

My post 9626

Your point 1- if the Nasranis were not under Roman Rule, why did the “brave resistant nasaranis” participate in the synod of Diamper and underwent latinisations ? and why a Coonan Cross oath ? Where is the answer ? Read about Synod of Diamper. It was well attended by the Archdeacon, priests and 4 laymen each from each parish. If nasranis were not under Rome why there was a Coonan cross oath ?

Your point 2- You may be right , Kunnamkulam nasranis may not have heard about Coonan cross oath, that does not mean that rest of the nasranis were not aware of it.So, what is your point ? majority were not supportive of Coonan cross oath or even Coonan cross oath itself was a myth introduced by the Roman catholic Missionaries or the Church of the East as you argue?

I was asking you what is your point ? Was majority of nasranis supportive of the Coonan cross oath or not ? No answer yet.

Your point 3- “Jathikku karthavyan”- means administrator of the caste- even in the current Kerala community, you can….

I said, the Malayalam term was jathukku karthavyan, which may be interpreted as moopan. This is equal to the position of the General secretary of NSS or SNDP yogam.
You haven’t provided any references about this malanakara moopan. Instead, you are stating something else. I can provide so many references about jathikku karthavyan. Babel patriarch Thimothy I in a letter addresses the archan of India (Mundadan) The term jathikku karthavyan is seen in an ancient document from kothamangalam about Archdeacon ittykuriathu. (J Kollamparambil, The archdeacon of all India).I have found the term Mooppan only in Yuhannon Marthoma’s book but you have admitted that you are not aware of that book.

Your point 4 – what I meant was your denigrating statement does not deserve a reply. Now, what do you mean by Parambil chandy metran’s position was a substitute ? He was consecrated as a Bishop before Mar Thoma I. We do not know whether Mar Thoma I was consecrated by any Antiochian church Bishops or not as there is a letter found which was written by mar Dionycius stating that none of my predecessors had a legitimate Bishopric and that was why, I received a reconsecration by the Antiochian church bishops in 1772 ( my post 9587)

In 1663, Parambil Chandy metran was a Bishop but Mar Thoma I was not a bishop and waiting for Antiochian Bishops to come and consecrate him.You are saying he does not need a Bishopric consecration as he is the malankara moopan. But he wanted a Bishopric consecration as he requested many eastern churches for help. You have not produced any references for malankara moopan. Again, he was already the moopan/archdeacon. So what is new ?

…. then why did he want a Bishopric by laying hands by 12 priests ? Why did he/the community requested other Eastern churches to consecrate him as a Bishop ? (my post 9688) No answer yet, instead, you are putting forward something else.

Your answer 5-Now, from your post 9895, who is twisting the history ? Any references for your arguments ?

Your argument about the numbers of pazhyakoor-Thomas Whitehouse in his book “Lingering of light in a dark land-researches into Syrian church of Malabar”, says the number of Romo Syrians were 100, 000, independent Syrians 50,000 and latins 50,000.in 1787. Again, it says 86 parishes with Romosyrians and 30 with Mar Thoma I. In the book “Missionary enterprise in the east” Richard Collins says in 1873, the number of Syrians and romosyrians almost equal. Roulini in 1745 says out of 128 churches, 15 latin and 113 syrian churches, of which 30 are schismatics- Puthencoor- that means 83 pazhayacoors and 30 puthencoors. Du Perron 1758- 31 syrians, 57 Romo Syrians and 20 mixed churches. Mar Dionycius told Buchanan in 1806-“I am the father of 54 churches”.

George Milne Rae in 1892 says – The relative proportions of the Puthencoor and palayacoor being probably then as now about 3 to 1. He does not think that the proportions have changed over 250 years from Coonen Cross oath period till 1892 which disprove your conversion theory in 17th century. He also admits that the numbers are “may be” as it was not from a trustful source. Whitehouse states-“some strangely exaggerated statements as to the numerical strengths of Syrians in former times having found their way into print, and being repeated by one writer after another…..”

Edavalickel Philippose Chor Episcopa in his book “Syrian Christians of Malabar “(1869) explains about 84 years of papal rule and describes why Puthencoor is called Puthencoor. He states clearly who are palayacoorcar. This was written in 1869 and there is no conversion theory in it.

Re – Coonan Cross oath, the same Thomas Whitehouse’s book says “ Their numbers were so great that all could not touch the cross when they took the oath, they tied long ropes to the cross itself and those in distance held some part of the rope as the medium of connection with one another and the sacred symbol, in the sight of which they pledged themselves to united action in defence of their religios rights and liberties”

You are not answering anything. Every post, you are producing new theories with no supporting evidence or logic

I am still saying that you close your eyes onto certain facts and open your eyes widely to certain facts/misrepresentations.

All the books I have quoted above are written by non catholic/anti catholic authors. Many of them came to Kerala and did some research. None of them reported anything supporting your conversion theory.

You have to remember that when Pazhayacoor had Portuguese missionaries to help(but we were fighting with them), Puthencoor had other- Dutch and British missionaries (as friends) to help and there are quotes in the above mentioned books about increase in the number of churches and number of people with the help of missionaries.

Dear Thomas,
I have arranged this post with your questions first and then my previous answers along with new explanations for your better understanding.

(I) ‘’’’’’’’’ Your point 1- if the Nasranis were not under Roman Rule, why did the “brave resistant nasaranis” participate in the synod of Diamper and underwent latinisations ? and why a Coonan Cross oath ? Where is the answer ? Read about Synod of Diamper. It was well attended by the Archdeacon, priests and 4 laymen each from each parish. If nasranis were not under Rome why there was a Coonan cross oath ?

My answer no.1 in post9605’’’’’’’’’’’’’1 Malakaranazranies never ruled by Romans as you put forward. Menesis tried hard to control them by visiting their churches. But could not do so because of resistance by the brave Nazranies .Many of the churches rejected to receive him .But he ruled feeble Romosyrians since he was the man who created the Romo-syrians.’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Answer no.2 inpost9895’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’1 What do you mean by the rule? When I say Malankaranazranies never had been ruled by Romans I mean they never took orders from Romans .The Romans were not in a position to administer their day to day affairs since Malakara moopan were totally against any infiltration in their temporal matters. It is true that the moopan and some of the kasisas attended the synod but the orders passed by the synod were not acceptable to them. The malakaramoopan acted as the real power centre despite all politics played by the Menesis side. Many times Menesis asked for the audience of the moopan with the help of Portuguese, but he avoided it by leaving the territory where Portuguese had influence .To avoid the influence of Malankara moopan, Menesis directly contacted the individual parishes and tried to exercise the power but he could not do so because of the naïve attitude shown by most of these parishes.

Latinization-I am not quite aware of the latinization of Malankaranazranies. As far as I know they continued to practice their old customs such as Nombukal,Perunnalukal,Jewish Christian names, Pally architecture, Pally administration(pothuyogam,kudumbapllikal)Practice of jyothisham,Burial practices(40 days pela,shradham),.

Koonan kurishu sathyam was a sudden outburst against Rome caused by the death of Mar Ahatallah .it was participated by Nazranies in and around Kochi.’’’’’’’’’IS THIS NOT ANANSWER? I think I have covered all points you mentioned.

Your new point’’’’’ It was well attended by the Archdeacon, priests and 4 laymen each from each parish.’’’’’please read any book deals with synod of Diamper in detail. Menasis gave priest hood to many people in udayamperoor(38)and kaduthuruthi before the synod (Tissarent:Eastern Christinity).The total number of such priests were closer to hundred .These all new priests attended the synod. This hurried action was to create a falls majority in the synod.(Kralathile nazrani christhianikal by P.V.Mathew)

(II ) ‘’’’’’’’’’ Your point 2- You may be right , Kunnamkulam nasranis may not have heard about Coonan cross oath, that does not mean that rest of the nasranis were not aware of it.So, what is your point ? majority were not supportive of Coonan cross oath or even Coonan cross oath itself was a myth introduced by the Roman catholic Missionaries or the Church of the East as you argue?
I was asking you what is your point ? Was majority of nasranis supportive of the Coonan cross oath or not ? No answer yet.’’’’’’’’

Answer in post9895’’’’’’’ 2majority were not supportive of Coonan cross oath or even Coonan cross oath itself was a myth introduced by the Roman catholic Missionaries or the Church of the East as you argue?’’’’’I never said this. You are misleading the discussion I said and repeat that koonan kurisu sathyam was attended by a handful of people in and around Kochi. It was not represented by whole of Malankara. There were parishes without any knowledge of this oath for months in malankara’’’’’’’’. My point is very clear here. IS THIS NOT AN ANSWER?

Answer to Your new point ;Yes majority of Nazranies were in support to the koonan kurisu sathyam.

(III) ‘’’’’’’’ Your point 3- “Jathikku karthavyan”- means administrator of the caste- even in the current Kerala community, you can….
I said, the Malayalam term was jathukku karthavyan, which may be interpreted as moopan. This is equal to the position of the General secretary of NSS or SNDP yogam.
You haven’t provided any references about this malanakara moopan. Instead, you are stating something else. I can provide so many references about jathikku karthavyan. Babel patriarch Thimothy I in a letter addresses the archan of India (Mundadan) The term jathikku karthavyan is seen in an ancient document from kothamangalam about Archdeacon ittykuriathu. (J Kollamparambil, The archdeacon of all India).I have found the term Mooppan only in Yuhannon Marthoma’s book but you have admitted that you are not aware of that book.’’’’’’’

Answer in post no.9895’’’’’’3 Again you are misleading the discussion. Malankara moopan is the prime position in kahnooso-shimshono model of Malankara nazrani administrative set up .It has nothing to do with SNDP OR NSS .What I am saying that the western missionaries misunderstood the position called MALANKAR MOOPAN and compared this position with their western model of administration and equated this position to said Arch deacon position (present in their church).This is kind of degrading of position of Malankara moopan. This misunderstanding of position is from the time ofcoe/Portuguese and the Governodor copied it in his Varthamanapusthakam. I am sorry I have no knowledge about Yuhanon Marthoma’s book.’’’’’’

It seems you have not understood my answer.the word ‘’‘jathikku karthavyan’’’is derived from sanskrit and the word in Malayalam has later day origin since the modern Malayalam language itself originated during 14 th century period. This means the term jathikku karthavyan is not older than15 th century. In that case this word is a translation of arch deacon and have a later day origin. The term moopan has a dravida origin and a larger antiquity. Now I have a doubt that why is there no syriac word for your arch deacon when all other position have syriac substitution.Is it because of a later day origin of this term. Archan/Achchan is most probably not a short form of arch deacon because the term arch deacon is an English word. The English language itself came with British .More over we have a Malayalam word for arch deacon-Arkadiyokon

(IV) ‘’’’’’’Your point 4 – what I meant was your denigrating statement does not deserve a reply. Now, what do you mean by Parambil chandy metran’s position was a substitute ? He was consecrated as a Bishop before Mar Thoma I. We do not know whether Mar Thoma I was consecrated by any Antiochian church Bishops or not as there is a letter found which was written by mar Dionycius stating that none of my predecessors had a legitimate Bishopric and that was why, I received a reconsecration by the Antiochian church bishops in 1772 ( my post 9587)’’’’’’’ NOW YOU ARE MIXING THE POST NO.9626&9587 .

Answer 1in post9895 ‘’’’’’How did Parambil Chandy methran get his position? Every one know that the Dutch captured Kollam in 1661,Kodungaloor in1662and Kochi in1663.Immediately after the capture of Kochi ,the Dutch ordered all foreign priests and monks in their jurisdiction to leave the country. Before leaving the shores of Kochi, Bishop Joseph consecrated Chandy kathanar with the title of Alexander De Campo on February1; 1663.That is why it is a substitution. There is no comparison with Malankara moopan Thomas since he was raised as the head of the church (Nazranies) with the title of Mrthoma I on May 22, 1653’’’’’’’’

Answer 2 ‘’’’’’’’But knowingly or unknowingly Kariyattil failed to represent the proposal to Rome in right perspective. Rome rejected the proposal. Rome’s proposal was not acceptable to the Valiyamar Divannasiyos and he rejected it out rightly. Before getting any conclusion on this one should analyze it with documentation available. The documentations related with this subject are(1)Varthamanapusthakamby Paremackil Thomman kathanar (2)Manuscripts/copies of letters(3)Niranam Granthavari-which include diaries ofMarthoma VI .many historians produces copies of the letters which said to have been written by Marthoma according to their side. I think these letters have no historical value. But it is interesting to note that the governodor’s book certainly can give some credible information, but unfortunately we get very little Information from this book. It is interesting to note that the kathanar himself give us the information in chapter47 that the book contain the details about the Marthomas letter on chapter(padam)13,14,15( publishers says it is damaged ) .since the situation is this we are left with nothing but to study available documentation .Here comes the importance of work like one conducted(conducting)by ISTVAN PERCZEL. Their initial study suggests that the letters produced(MarthomaVI’s) in different languages have serious differences in content. One should check this difference with related documents such as NIRANAM GRANDHAVARI. Again we have to compare this result with incidence took place after their Rome expedition to get the truth.’’’’’’’I think you understand the answer or read the post in full.(post no.7956 in general talk)

‘’’’’’’’then why did he want a Bishopric by laying hands by 12 priests ? Why did he/the community requested other Eastern churches to consecrate him as a Bishop ? (my post 9688) No answer yet, instead, you are putting forward something else’’’’’’’

‘’’’’’ Answer in post no.9616: The continuous mental exploitation/propaganda by westerners (Jesuits/Carmelites) forced the malankaranazranies ask for a re- consecration which was otherwise unnecessary. Laying of hands by 12 priests was a practice of early Christendom , which was known to malankaranazranies.’’’’’’
I think I have cleared my position .The point about conversion will be covered in next post.

Dear John,

Thanks for your nice words

1 Is this based on marthomaVI’s liturgical book kept in Piramdom dayara showing interesting blend of Jacobites, Chaldean and Catholic service or you have any other source of information ?Please give source? Before judging on the basis of Marthoma’s book one should at least study the ordeal he went through under Mathootharakan and Paremakkil governodor at Thathampally. He was under house arrest for 32 days and forced to celebrate Qurbano using patheera. Any one with common sense can understand that Catholic/Latin portion of his liturgical book is from that period .It is quite obvious that Marthoma would have copied those portions in order to celebrate Qurbano in Roman way to satisfy Mathootharakan and party. How far it is right if we judge on the basis of this single manuscript? There may be some influence of Latin tradition had existed (like icons in Mulanthuruthy pally for a brief period) in and around Kochi but not as whole in Malankara.

2’’’’’More absurdity. Fasts (Nombukal), feasts (Perunnalakul), Old & New Testament names, burial practices are *general* Eastern Christian characteristics! They are not specific to Nasranis. The Romans also have fasts and feasts! Our Pally architecture was Portuguesized back in the 15/17th centuries, and seems to have never recovered. Has Jeeven even seen an old Nasrani Church? They all have the standard Latin facade. And much of what has been built recently is heavily Westernized.’’’’’’’’ What absurd are you talking? Did I say that they do not have fasts and feasts? Why do you twist the words? I just wanted to say that Malankaranazranies continued the old fasts and feasts like those one before the arrival of Romans. The Romo Syrians have changed/included more feasts according to the Latin tradition (Feast of St. Sebastian, St. Francis etc.).

Jewish-christian names: Malankara Nazranies follows the practice of Jewish-Christian names while Romo syriyans have Roman names like Sebastian, Francis etc. (please refer one of your earlier post in which yours self quoted)

Burial practices :Do the Romo Syrians have practices like 40 days pela (fasting),shraddham ,lighting oil lamp for40 days where the dead body is kept in the home etc.

Palli administration: Do the Romosyrians have kudumba pallikal or an effective pothuyogam? W ho is the owner of the palli in Romo Syrian tradition (read Joseph pulikunnel)

Practice of jyothisham: Traditional Malankaranazrani family practice avoidance of rahu and write jathakam etc.

Pally architecture: Traditional Malankaranazrani palli has four box structures. They are Athivishudha sthalam (madhubaha), Vshudha sthalam (where altar boys stand), Prakaaram (where people stand), &Poomukham. All pallies of malankaranazranies built facing east .Now how many Roman pallies have this kind of structure. First of all they started constructing churches facing any direction. John please go and see the churches at udayamperoor, pala etc. All romo Syrian churches have two box structures i.e.madhubaha (you cannot say it a madhubaha) and prakaram except pre Portuguese ones. Many of the malankaranazrani churches had entrance like temples, but fools in Malankaranazranies forced to change it. Eg.Akaparambu pally. (I don’t know it exist with any other church)

‘’’’’’’’Has Jeeven even seen an old Nasrani Church?’’’’’’’’’ No, I live in Tanganica!…….Man; you should go to Kunnamkulam and have a look at Arthat pally!

3’’’’’’ Arkadiyacon is *Greek* and not (like most Nasrani terms) Malayalam. The Syriacs use the Greek term as well. This is nothing strange: the Syriacs use other Greek words as well, Christos, episcopos, anaphora, kurieleison, etc., etc’’’’’’’’ I agree; I am not a Greek scholar .But my point still exists. The term’’ Arch deacon, Jathikku karthavyan ‘’is an invention of fifteenth century.

4 ‘’’’’’Jeevan seems to have an affection for third-hand sources of dubious merit. In his earlier posts on the pseudo-Alexandrian connection, I dismissed many of his sources as being of poor quality. Jeevan, why don’t you read some more books, and not just the obvious propaganda you’re citing?
I think this debate is meaningless, as it is clearly lop-sided: M. T. Antony is much closer to actual fact than Jeevan’s Puthenkoor fantasies. Moreover, no new info is being provided: the same old facts to counter the same old myths.’’’’’’’’’’’ Do I need to answer this, John? When are you going to grow up? Please, please stop judging others.

Dear John,
Yes, I do agree. There is no point in discussing these subjects with you since you have not cared to answer or tried to understand them except twisting words or asking Mr. Thomas Antony to explain.

1‘’’’’in the old days, before the days of Mar Athanasius and the greater control exerted by the Syriac Orthodox over the Malankara Church’’’’’’ Now you are going back to much older days! The church shared many things in early church fathers period. Please do not bring those things for the sake of argument.

2’’’’’’’’By the way, just to dispel yet more of your (copious) ignorance: St. Sebastian is not solely a Roman Catholic Saint — he is a general Christian saint.’’’’’’ ’Argument for the sake of argument. Malankaranazranies do not celebrate feast in the name of St. Sebastian, St. Augustine etc.

3’’’’’’ But one can’t deny that almost all of our “old” Churches have the Portuguese-style facade. Even Arthat Church has the Latin façade’’’’’’’ Yes church needs to have walls and roof every where in the world. I have given the level of architecture .Open your eyes and see, that’s all.

4’’’’’’’’Jewish-Christian names. What are you talking about? You’ve never met a Catholic named Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Mathew, John or Thomas?’’’’’’Again twisting the point! ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’ But us Puthenkoor (and the Pazhayakoor too) also use names like Kurian (Kuriakose, Cyriac, etc.), George (Varghese, etc.), Andrew and Alexander (Chandy, etc.) which are not Jewish-Christian names. They are Greek names.’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ Jewish-Christian names mean Jewish as well as early Christian names like you stated. Malankaranazranies also use typical Hindu names like Perumal.

What I understand from your earlier posts that you have a talent in arguing for the sake of arguments. Please read your posts; in many places they are contradicting each other. HISTORY is not reporting references but applying your mind logically with alternate possible evidences like sociological studies, cultural studies, demographics, archeological studies, linguistics etc.

catholic encyclopedia on western rite-

The Syrian Catholics use the same rite as the Jacobites. But (as is the case with most Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) it is better organized with them. There is not much that can be called Romanizing in their books; but they have the advantage of well-arranged, well-edited, and well-printed books. All the great students of the West-Syrian Rite (the Assemani, Renaudot, etc.) have been Catholic.. The lessons only are in Arabic. It was inevitable that the Syrian Liturgies, coming from Monophysite sources, should be examined at Rome before they are allowed to Syrian Catholics.

The West-Syrian Rite has also been used at intervals by sections of the (schismatical) Malabar Church. Namely, as the Malabar Christians at various times made approaches to the Jacobite Patriarch or received. Most of Malabar has now returned to the Nestorian communion; but there are still Jacobite communities using this rite among them.
The rite used by the Jacobite sect in Syria and by the Catholic Syrians is in its origin simply the old rite of Antioch in the Syriac language.

The oldest Jacobite Liturgy extant is the one ascribed (as in its Greek form) to St. James. It is in the dialect of Edessa

RE: the Buchanan Bible and the 13th century

Fact: Yes, the Buchanan Bible is most likely a Jacobite Bible.
Fact: Yes, it does appear it was written in the 12th century.

However, there is no evidence to support that it was in Malankara from the 13th century.

Like most (if not all) West Syriac documents in Kerala, it might have been brought to Malankara in the 17th century (or after) when the Syriac Orthodox prelates started to come to Kerala.

There is no evidence (correct me if I’m wrong) that suggests the Buchanan Bible was in Kerala pre-17th century.

Try again Jogy …

(By the way, we also have a copy of Bar Hebraeus’ canon of Church Law in Kerala, written shortly after Bar Hebraues’ death in the 13th century. But that doesn’t prove anything either — it was, by all indications, brought to Kerala by one of the Syriac Fathers who came to help the Puthenkoor in the 17th+ century).

Jogy:

Detach your emotions and biases for a moment, and try to think, if you can.

I am not anti-Jacobite — I *am* Jacobite/Orthodox. However, I reject propaganda from *any* group/historian, if it flies in the face of provable facts. Myths are nice for feeling good about one’s Church, but they don’t satisfy the urge for history.

I don’t care about whether St Thomas came to Kerala. I’m more interested in getting a defensible history of the Nasranis. Yes, a *defensible* one — one that has solid justification that I can put to a critical historian to establish that our history is in fact history and not myth.

And for this, the most logical reasonable place to start is now (2009) and go backwards. Why? Because it’s easier. It’s too hard to start at Thomas and move forward—there’s 1500 years of basically dark ages from the supposed 52 AD arrival up to the Portuguese (except for a scattering of anecdotal evidence).

So starting now, and going back we find plenty of evidence for the idea that we were first East Syrians, and then after the 17th century, the West Syriac rite arrived. There is *no* evidence that the West Syriac rite existed in Kerala before the 17th century. Or can you provide some proper evidence, and not b.s. posted on a propaganda site?

RE: the Persian crosses. There is nothing about the inscription that is definitively Jacobite or Nestorian. So to try to prove pre-17th century Jacobitism in Malankara due to the Persian Cross inscriptions is fruitless.

RE: Mar Dionysius and the Bible. Mar Dionysius was not a historian, and did not have the tools for history. He was centuries separated from the Bible he possessed. He could claim all he want, but it does not produce evidence that will convince a historian. He may have been true, or false. I don’t know—but it does not make for evidence. Most historians and scholars believe that, like all West Syriac docs in Kerala, the Buchanan Bible just arrived with the other treasures that the West SYriac fathers brought in the 17th century and later. And there is nothing in the Buchanan Bible per se that indicates it was written in KErala, or when exactly it was brought to Kerala. It could have been brought in the 12th, or it could have been brought in the 17th. There is *nothing* to establish which. So relying on either is fruitless in establishing a defensible history.

I am not “pro-East Syriac”. The East SYriac origin theory is the only properly defensible theory. The West SYriac origin theory is only accepted by *one* community in Kerala—pro-Patriarch Orthodox (Jacobites). Personally, I don’t care about the Bava/Methran fight. But I do care about history, and I have a strong (almost hateful) aversion for any attempt to distort history for political means—even if my own side is doing it.

If you lack the capacity for logic, reason, and lack an appreciation for provable history (versus mythical stories and fairy tales), that’s fine for you. But some of us here want evidence so when we run our mouths we don’t look like imbeciles when an actual historian critiques us.

Now, calm down, forget your biases, and actually think (with whatever menial mental faculties you may possess) about this:
how does the existence of a 12th century West SYriac Bible in Malankara prove that Malankara had relations with the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate in the 12th century? (This, if you can understand what you read and write, is what the author whom you *copied* is actually saying. Utterly moronic.)

To make it simpler for you, since you obviously need help, consider this:
does the fact that ancient Mesopotamian documents are preserved in museums and homes in the US prove that ancient Mesopotamians were in the US? No. There is another plausible answer: that the documents were written in Mesopotamia in ancient times, and then brought to the US at a later date.

That latter explanation is simpler, defensible, and probably accurate.

We can apply a similar argument to the Buchanan Bible issue. And since there is *NO* other evidence of West Syriac connections in KErala prior to the 17th century, it satisfies Occam’s razor too—i.e., it is the *simplest* explanation.

I was corresponding with Istvan Perzcel a while back, because I was looking for documentary evidence of West Syriac literature in Kerala from ancient times (back then I was sick of the unconvincing Jacobite propaganda I was reading and wanted hard evidence to definitively *prove* that we were originally Jacobites and not Nestorians—ah, my good old naive days!). And he told me that based on his research, the earliest West Syriac docs come from the post-17th century. He also mentioned that the earliest Puthenkoor copies of West Syriac rite material was copied in the East Syriac script! So it appears that based on current available evidence there is *NOTHING* to prove that we had West Syriac origins, when we consider the literary evidence. What’s left then?

Jogy, I’ve written quite a bit to respond to your ridiculous posts. You falsely claim that I haven’t (e.g., you mention my “pathetic” answer). This leads me to suspect that you either have diminished intellectual capacities, or that you are illiterate (the latter seems apparent, considering the manner in which you “write”, if one can call your posts “writing”). I suggest you learn a little more about logic, history, evidence, and reading comprehension. It would help to ensure you stop looking like a plagiarizing fool with nothing but propaganda to contribute (like another person who posts noise on this forum).

Jogy:

Note: I am not the admin of this site; I’m only one person who posts to it.

Next, it’s obvious that you either can’t read, or can’t analyze. If either of the two capacities existed in you, you would not claim that I am merely writing rhetoric without analysis—my posts are immensely logical, at the very least. My only fault is an extreme form of conservatism: that is, I, unlike you and some others, do not entertain fairy tales, unless they have proof or evidence. I demand proof before I’m going to accept anything. You seem to demand nothing other than an aesthetically-pleasing story. Good for you; perhaps when you graduate from the primary school that is your mind, you will eventually learn to start *critically* examining facts, and rejecting stories that have no proof.

Also note that while there are several possibilities that *may* explain events of the past, only a select few of those possibilities are historically *defensible* using actual *evidence*. Science is about *pruning* the tree of possibilities to include only those leaves that have empirical evidence. *EVIDENCE* is the key. *Anything* may be possible, that is without doubt. But history (and most disciplines) is not about the possible, it is about what *is*. Don’t worry — one day, you may become sufficiently enlightened as to be able to comprehend this. Until then …

You have posted certain “possible” explanations. However, the grounding for those possibilities are far less solid than the grounding for other possibilities—this is why the actual history books on this subject (i.e., those that are by scholars and not by apologists or mental children, such as yourself) speak about the “Nestorian” or East Syriac origins of the Christians of St. Thomas in Kerala (or the “Nasranis” as we call them). This position has *copious* evidence to support it.

Again: the basic summary of what I’m saying, simplified so that you can understand it without much taxing of your limited intellect:
1. *Anything* is possible, but only *some things* actually occurred.
2. In order to determine the latter, one must look for which possibilities have solid, objective, incontrovertible evidence.

Dear Joseph George:

RE: icons. Yes, that’s one of the many elements that indicates an East Syriac connection. However, there are some outliers—ref. the NSC articles on the Kerala mural traditions showing that the Churches at Cheppad, Angamale, and maybe some others do have images in the alters.

My question is: were those Churches in fact built before the connections with the icon-friendly Roman Catholic and Syriac Orthodox Churches? If so, were the *murals* painted before the RC/Orthodox arrival? If *not*, then perhaps they were due to the iconographication instigated by the R.C. and Orthodox clerics in the 16th and later centuries.

If so — something is fishy … or perhaps, our people being so far off from Mesopotamia, were allowed some local “variation”…

on what basis you claim/brand the unique crosses found in kerala and mylapore as persian/marthoma/nestorian cross…any evidence to prove this branding?

Regarding Jogy’s response to Joseph George:

2. “regarding iconography..the syrian churches donot have a tradition of using icons on the altar.(both eastern and western) .”

Yet, the Orthodox Churches at Cheppad and Palliakara and Angamale are drenched in murals, some behind the altar facing the people.

4. “the nestorian churches have only one altar..but the syrian orthodox churches have a main altar and two sub altars. ”

Obviously not: see “Ref 9a.136 One of the 15 altars in the chapel.” at page “http://inculturation.chi.ac.uk/viewcat.cfm?subCatId=81”.

Iconography in Church of the East was lost by the negative influence of Islam. If you look into the ancient Mesopotemia, they had a very rich and beautiful culture of pictures and sculptures. The East Syriac church might have had iconography etc before Islam. The Indian church was not under Islamic persecution and that will explain why we had iconography in our ancient churches. I have heard that when the Portuguese rebuilt our ancient churches, in one of them, they could not destroy the madbaha and hence they kept the original in and built the new one in front of it. William Darlymple’s BBC programme “The Doubting Thomas” clearly shows a church in Kerala with new altar covering the ancient one just behind it with Indianised icons ! As John has commented (post 10739), it may be a local variation as the murals show Indian iconography.

The three altar- “madbaha” and “thronoses” seen in old churches in Kerala are seen in Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor churches. Could they be something imported by the Portuguese ? Many churches in the Europe also has the same structure. The Syriac Orthodox churches in Kerala might have got that during their period under Latin rule. What is the situation in the Syriac Orthodox churches in the middle east ? If they also have the same, then this may be from Greek influence on both Roman and Orthodox churches ?

Re Jogy’s comment about the Eastern Catholicate in Tikrit. Actually, the Jacobites in Persia are conversions from East Syriac church by the missionaries from the church of Antioch due to the condemnation of the accused Nestorianism. “AD 540- monophysite revival of Syria and the east by Jacob Baradaeus (c 500-578), appointed missionary bishop of Edessa, organises west Syrian Jacobite church, becomes monophysite apostle to Asia for 35 years (c 542-578).(Ref. “World Christian trends ad 30- ad 2200”, David Barrat, Todd M Johnson,Christopher Guidry) The East Syriac church used the East Syriac liturgy- anaphora of Addai and Mari from the very beginning. If the Catholicate established by the Church of Antioch continued using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, we could have concluded that they are a group just wanted to continue the allegiance with the church of Antioch, against the decision of independence by the CoE. But that was not the case.

Dear thomas antony,
//The Pazhayacoor remained in Roman side because

(1) last part of our pre Diamper period, we were with the Chaldean faction of the East Syrian Church which was in communion with Rome. That was why, even the Puthencoor also used the name of Pope to legitimate things, for eg, even MarGregoriose was received in Kerala as a patriarch sent by Rome !!( Joseph Thekkedathu, History of Christianity in India) // by thomas antony.

your explanation is not straight forward.the uniate chaldean church was formed in 1551 and by this short time it is not possible to convert the nestorians present in malankara to the uniate caldean church. this is a twisting to show the kerala christians had a connection with rome from ancient times.

it is not the syromalabar but the assyrian church in kerala is the pazhayakoor. why syro malabalar church stood with the latins is because of the force from the latin metran. and forsure the bishop chandy ordained by the latin metran cannot claim the lineage of syrian christians in kerala.the syrian christians only accepted the syrian metrans and their kaiveppu…thats why the putherkoors accepted any metran from middle east. since accepting the latin kaiveppu , how can u claim a east syrian tradition?

the people in malankara were under forced latin rule for 50 years…thats why the Puthencoor also used the name of Pope to legitimate things..the bad remainings of the latins among syrians….

please see this,
By all accounts the Chaldean church came into existence in 1551 because of a dispute in the Assyrian “Church of the East”, the dissidents formed a separate church under the leadership of Yohanna (John) Sulaga, a monk of Rabban Hormizd located 30 miles north of Nineveh. This church was recognized by the Roman Catholic church and was later called Chaldean.

Dear Jogy,

“your explanation is not straight forward.the uniate chaldean church was formed in 1551 and by this short time it is not possible to convert the nestorians present in malankara to the uniate caldean church. this is a twisting to show the kerala christians had a connection with rome from ancient times.”

Has anyone claimed that Kerala Christians had a connection with Rome from ancient times ?

All we have discussed here is- Kerala Christians had connections with the Church of the east from ancient times, later after the split in the CoE in 1552, we had Chaldean uniate connections, after the Synod of Diamper, the Kerala Syrian christians were under latin Roman catholic Bishops, after the Coonan cross oath and its aftermaths, the community split into two, one kept the connection with the Roman catholic church but fighting with the Portuguese missionaries and kept the old liturgy- east syriac liturgy- and practices with some modifications from the synod of diamper and the other continued the old east syriac liturgy modified in the synod of diamper and practices but were gradually forced to adopt a new liturgy- west syriac liturgy of the church of Antioch.

If you read the official web site of the Indian Orthodox Church, you can read the same as above.

Re. who is Pazhayacoor- we had a lot of discussion about this. I think the most important certificate of who is Pazhayacoor is of Edavalickel Philippose cor episcopa, (the cathanar of great church of kottayam, travancoore).- in the book The Syrian Christians of Malabar, Philippoose cor episcopa was questioned by Rev Howard clearly, why the other party is called palayacoor and your party is called Puthencoor. This discussion was in 1869 and hence it is more authentic.

You are talking about Nestorians. I think it is incorrect to state as Nestorians.I think I have discussed this issue here before.The accusation of Nestorianism seems to be a misinterpretation of ideas in a multiplex of languages. Nestorius was considered by the Church of the East as a representative of diophysite Christological tradition who was unfairly condemned at the council of Ephesus in AD 431. For Oriental Orthodox, Nestorius was an arch heretic who divided Christ and taught that there were two separate sons, the son of God and the son of Mary.

Prof Sebastian Broke in his paper, writes “As a result, one important outcome of the second meeting of Syriac Dialogue was a welcome clarification of the Church of the East’s understanding of the term qnoma: whereas in Syrian Orthodox usage, qnoma corresponds to Greek hypostasis in the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith, for the Church of the East it has a very different sense, corresponding instead in meaning to Greek idiotes, or ‘particularity’ (which explains why the Church of the East speaks of ‘the two Natures and their qnome/particularities’). Unfortunately European scholars have all too often translated qnoma in East Syriac texts as ‘hypostasis’, or even ‘person’, thus giving rise to serious misunderstandings”. ( Syriac dialogue Vienna pro oriente 1996. Ref. Sebastian Broke, The syriac churches and dialogue with catholic church.)( I have quoted the above paragraph before also in this forum).

The Church of the East did not take part in the synod of Ephesus because they had declared independence from the Western Communion in the synod of Persia in AD 424 itself and due to the political situation where the Persian empire and Bysentine empire were in opposition.

Collins and Kendal write in a paper-“ It has often been called ‘Nestorian’, a name the Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV has expressly asked not to be used because of various negative overtones that name has come to imply. The appellation refers to
the Council of Ephesus in 431, which condemned Nestorius (then Patriarch
of Constantinople), insisted on the unity of Christ as one divine
acting subject and proclaimed Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God.
Although the isolation of the Assyrian Church of the East from the rest
of Christianity is often represented as going back to that date, hostility
between Rome and Persia was more decisive than the Council of Ephesus
in isolating the Church of the East from the Western communion. A Persian
synod of 424 had already made a kind of declaration of independence
from the West; and the Persian Church simply did not participate
in the conciliar business of the fifth and sixth centuries”. (Overcoming Christological differences- Collins and Kendal Heythorpe journal vol 34 issue 3)

Modern research has discovered a book written by Nestorius, known as the Book of Heracleides,(Bazzar of heraclides- extracted and edited from manuscripts as Liber Heraclides, P Bedjan, Paris 1910) in which he explicitly denies the heresy for which he was condemned. Rather, he affirms of Christ that “the same one is twofold,” an expression not unlike the orthodox formulation of the Council of Chalcedon (451). This points to the high degree of misunderstanding which characterized the entire controversy.( H Griffith Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nestoria.htm).

Whether Nestorius was wrong or the actual Nestorius was not that was interpreted by others or not, the actual Christology of the Church of the East was written by Babai the Great (551-628) which is clearly distinct from the accusations directed on Nestorius. In his book, ‘Book of the Union’, Babai the Great teaches that the two qnome (essences, or hypostases) are unmingled but everlastingly united in the one parsopa (personality) of Christ.( Wikipedia article about the Church of the East)

According to some interpretations, the origin of this belief is mostly historical and linguistic: for example, the Greeks had two words for ‘person’, which translated poorly into Syriac, and the meanings of these terms were not even quite settled during Nestorius’s lifetime.(Wikipedia- Nestorianism)

Was Malabar Nasranis, Nestorians ? Jonas Thaliath- The Synod of Diamper-quotes a letter by Fr Dionycio in 1570 in which he writes about Nasranis- these people accepts nicean creed, holy trinity and their equality, single personality and dual natures in Jesus, agree the Pope of Rome as the head of church and believe Babel Patriarch receives his authority from the Pope.( Quoted from Changanacherry athiroopatha innale, innu, Ed.Jacob Nellikkunnath,1998)

Malabar Nasranis were accused as Nestorians by all the foreign churches came here to conquer her- The Portuguese Roman Catholic, The Antiochian church, The British, the Dutch etc.They all wanted to purify the Nasranis. The Synod of Diamper, the conversion to the West Syriac rite of Antiochian church, reformation etc.

So, the CoE in 1552 was not Nestorian, and there might have not much difference between CoE and the Chaldean uniates.
(Chaldeans were not as latinised as Syro Malabar. Even with much latinisations in Syro Malabar, even today, in Syro Malabar Qurbana, you cannot find the word “Christ”. Every where it is “The Lord” and “Iso Mshiha”. So, if the Chaldeans were not latinised as SMC, you may not find much difference from the CoE.)

Again, John has stated about the Chaldean uniate connections. Also read the article about Jordana of Dom Alexis…. And the discussions under it.

You are talking about kaiveppu and tradition and lineage. It is so complicated. You will never get an answer. Everybody can tell that we are real lineage and tradition, but no one is real. Latin kaiveppu comes from Peter, ( Church of Rome)west syriac kaiveppu also comes from Peter. ( Church of Antioch).

dear john,
your obsevation is in the right and unbiased way.why puthencoors went to the west syriac is to be noted.
the tradition was the acceptance of the syrian metrans from the middle east.it may be from alexandria/antioch/constantinople but not from rome since it was a western one. the kerala christians were tortured by the latin metrans to accept the rome.but the syrians didnot ever accepted the latin kaiveppu as genuine as per their tradition.in retaliation the rome played a clever powerplay propaganda saying that the the syrian bishop has not a valid kaiveppu. many of the surians returned to the latin faction believing this.there arised a need for a proper kaiveppu. either west or east it doesnt matter at all since all are syrians.

Dear John,

I am happy to withdraw the word “conquer” with respect to the Church of Antioch, but, read the following paragraphs from the official website of Indian orthodox church-www.malankaraorthodoxchuch.in

“From 1665 under Mar Thoma I a relationship with the west Syrian Patriarchate was established when there arrived at their request a certain Gregorios. Again in 1685 two bishops of that persuasion came. From 1751 also present three bishops from there. These West Syrian bishops’ presence was helpful to preserve and strengthen the Malankara Orthodox Church’s desire for Syrian identity and internal freedom as an Indian church against the encounters of the Roman Catholicism Romanization. But, on the other hand, this relation in the cause of time became harmful to that church similar like that had happened during the Portuguese period through Roman Catholicism. That church since 1653, which was continuing in East Syrian ecclesiastical qualities was damaged and taken over to the West Syrianization through the presence and actions of the West Syrian bishops. Moreover, the West Syrian Patriarch seeing the plightful condition of this church tried, several times to have control over it like papacy, especially in church jurisdiction thus endangering its desire to preserve national freedom and administrative independence. But till 1876 the leaders of this Indian church was able to desist all such attempts. As the result from time to time there were divisions, quarrels etc. Therefore, the West Syrian connection of Malankara Orthodox Churches did not help much the latter to develop and strengthen as a free church in Kerala with its own national identity. The West Syrian church too due to its centuries oppressed conditions under Muslim rule had lost appropriate vision of Christianity. Hence all the troubles in their relation with the Indian Orthodox church.”

“As the Portuguese had done in 1599 by extracting submission to Rome from the Indian church the West Syrian Patriarch from the beginning of the Indian Church’s relationship with him desired similar submission of the Indian church to him”

“When Mar Thoma V refused a rival metran was consecrated against him getting a group of supporters from the adherents of Mar Thoma V. In 1772 the appointment of Thozhiyoor metran secretly by Gregorios was another attempt in the same direction”. (History is repeating- similar to consecration of Parambil Chandy metran)

Synod at Mulanthuruthy in 1876.-(repetition of synod of Diamper!)

“The Synod of Mulanthuruthy was an important milestone in the history of the Orthodox St.Thomas Christian in the 19th Century. This Synod represents inauguration of an official relationship of a section of the Orthodox with the patriarch of the West Syrian Church. This Synod was called and Presided over by Patriarch Peter IV of the West Syrian Church. 103 churches of the Orthodox presented there but the churches followed Athanasius did not participate saying that this Patriarch has no right. So the Synod was the meeting exclusively that of the Dionysian party.
The Synod decided to adhere closely, with the West Syrian doctrinal, liturgical and Church disciplinary norms. And resolved a registered deed to be executed in this regard and presented to the Patriarch declaring the official adherence of this Indian section with the Patriarch accepting his jurisdictional claims. But unfortunately this registered deed was not executed and given to the Patriarch although the patriarch expected that would take place soon. Knowing that he was deceived thoroughly by Dionysius V he reacted as he desired. He consecrated 6 bishops of his own accord himself without the consent of the church or of Dionysius V, taking from each of them registered deed, to ensure and strengthen but also over their dioceses. Indeed it was these new bishops formally and systematically not only West Syrianized their dioceses but also stabilized the jurisdictional claims of the Patriarch thereafter. Dionysius V was ignored by the Patriarch seeing that he was a threat and was against his plans regard to the Indian Church. Thus patriarch Peter organizing an independent hierarchy of his own in the Dionysian followers he left to Syria.”

The effects of the Synod of Mulanthuruthy.

“One, the faith, liturgy, episcopacy, church polity, church disciplines etc. of the Orthodox of India were became or were carried away to that of the West Syrian Church. Two, the church administration became like that of the West Syrian Church. Three, the patriarchal supremacy, was enforced upon the Orthodox of India. Four, the patriarch did not desire to strengthen Dionysius V, whom had invited him to India. But tried to weaken him and to degrade his status as Malankara Metropolitan. Five, by rescinding the royal proclamation in favour of Athanasius, by calling the Synod of Mulanthuruthy and enacting resolutions therein, by consecrating bishops and dividing the Church as dioceses, etc the patriarch made it clear that he, indeed, was the head of the Orthodox in India. Moreover, this church thereafter was forced to believe that it was to help Dionysius the Patriarch did all those things. Indeed the patriarchal Supremacy was well established by all those actions. Dionysius was placed in dilaphidated and voiceless state. Six, it could not been seen anything done either by the patriarch or by the Synod of the Mulanthuruthy to heal the divisions between the reform groups and their opponents. The creators of all such divisions were the actions of the West Syrian Patriarchs from time to time. He tried his best to exploit the pathetic situation and those who relied on him were cleverly brought under his supremacy and those who opposed were banished. Thus creating sad situations and exploiting the divisive condition thereby found in the church he stabilized his power. The reform group as well as their opponents were responsible to this. Seven, the impact of the Synod of the Mulanthuruthy and that of the judgement of the Royal Court were highly disastrous on the sense of history of the St.Thomas Christians in India. These held at one stroke that the St.Thomas Christians from ancient times were under the West Syrian Patriarch whether this could be substantial or not was not the concern there neither of the patriarch nor that of the representatives present in the Mulanthuruthy Synod or that of the reform group. Because of the patriarchal support to them both to Athanasius and later on Dionysius to they blindly distorted their own history. Moreover, even in the 20th century since then the Orthodox had to remain in darkness about the fact and figures of their own ancient church in India. What they were forced to maintain was a few myths and useless things about their own past and about their connection with the Patriarch. As the result the Orthodox and the reform party themselves had tried to distort and ignore their own history. Together with these that Indian Church deteriorated to a miserable condition of knowing not what it was in the past. No church anywhere else around the Globe had undergone such a painful plight due to the deliberate and unwise actions of their own”.

This looks very similar to the Synod of Diamper. See how the treated Mar Dionycius just similar to the portuguese treated the Archdeacon.

Again, Thomas Whitehouse in “Lingering light in a dark land- page 225-226” explains the import of three Jacobite churchmen by Mar Thoma IV promising to pay 4000 rupees to the Dutch to help them as an offering from the faithful. The Dutch undertook the task, and on 23/04/1751, three Jacobite bishops Basilius, Gregory and John arrived with two Syrian priests.
“These churchmen from Syria were received with great pomp, and had large expectations, but when, by and by, the question of payment was mooted, the native bishop then living, Mar Thomas VII, refused to incur their cost of their expedition, because they after all, declined to consecrate him though this was the chief inducement in sending for them, and had virtually set him aside, though the acknowledged head of the Syrian community in Malabar……..
…The Syrian narrative frequently referred to the three bishops who came in Malabar in 1751, tells us that in the space of nineteen years after their arrival, there were disputes about different things about them and the Syrians.

This narration from 1873 also proves that the relation of Puthencoor with the Church of Antioch was very stormy and they refused to consecrate Puthencoor Bishops before embracing the West Syriac rite. The community and leaders were not happy for this and hence they refused to pay the money. Does this prove that west syriacisation was against the will of the community and its leaders? Then can’t I say that it was forceful and they conquered the community?

Dear M. Thomas Antony:

We both know that reading “official” Church histories is a fool’s game — i.e., each Church in Kerala has it’s own political position, and historical accounts by each Church are severely colored by these positions.

The Malankara Orthodox Church wants to maintain this concept of a national Church, an autocephalous Indian Church. We both know that this is a novel idea — i.e., even prior to the 16th century, we were not a national, autocephalous Church, but rather a metropolitanate of the East Syriac Church. There’s not even any evidence that we even had our own (i.e., local, Nasrani) bishops, just a *mere* archdeacon. I guess the Christians in Bombay (Kalyan) and Patna and China had it better with their own bishops (maybe).

At any rate, the MOC has a vested interest in presenting our Church as a truly independent one, but subjugated by various “foreign” colonialists throughout it’s history. To that end, their newer histories tend to vilify the West Syrians, painting them as similar to the Portuguese (since, invoking the Portuguese/Roman Catholics seems to induce a negative reaction in most Puthenkoor). So I wouldn’t take their history at face value at all. It is propaganda (the inverse propaganda to what Mr. Jogy Mathew has reported).

The early Syriac clerics who came to Kerala (Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel, Mar Ivanios, and the two Maphrians Mar Baselios Yeldho and Mar Baselios Shalkrullah) were not imperialists at all. At least there’s no evidence that they were imperialists, since there was no conflict that surrounded their arrival.
They consecrated many native bishops in Kerala (the Mar Thoma I-… line were all consecrated by them).
And slowly, West Syriacization happened. Not as an ominous revolutionary step, but as a sequence of small steps, slowly over two centuries. The East Syriac rite is missing many things that the West Syriac rite has (since the West Syriac is a blend of the early proto-Syriac rite that is common to both the West and East Syriacs, plus some Byzantine and Jerusalem Greek stuff), such as certain sacraments, Hail Mary, and many post-Ephesan developments. So the West Syriac clerics and the Puthenkoor backfilled our rite to include the missing elements. And slowly as the influence from the W.S. continued, more and more was changed and morphed over.

By the time of the Synod at Mavelikara and Mulanthuruthy, however, the situation was grossly different. Protestantism infected the Puthenkoor due to the Dutch and British “assistance” and the Puthenkoor made the mistake of asking the Patriarch to come, and essentially take over to purge Protestantism and reestablish Orthodoxy. This was the beginning of many problems. If you want to say that the W.S. conquered the Puthenkoor in the 19th century, that would be more accurate—but even then, since when is it conquest when party X takes over party Y at the *request* of party Y???

dear joseph george,
//However, my point is not about the theological aspects of the iconography of the Church. What I pointed out was the historical fact that the lack of icons and statues in the Malabar church shows clearly that the pre-1498 Nasrani church was neither under the direct/indirect control of Antioch (as the Orthodox “historians” claim) nor under the direct/indirect control of Rome (as the Latin “historians” claim) WITHOUT denying the fact that many friendly people came here and stayed for visit from several Patriarchate churches.//

your opinion may be correct wrt rome but u cant say that wrt to antioch at least up to 400 AD. the catholicate was started by babai around this time and the names added before that are all legendary figures.and also see when the east and west rites formed. we can roughly say like this..

from AD 52—AD 700—THE FAITH WAS EASTERN ORTHODOX(NON CALCEDONIAN)
AD700-1550——-EASTERN NESTORIAN(NON CALCEDONIAN)
AD 1550-1650— LATIN CATHOLIC FAITH(CALCEDONIAN)
AD 1650 ONWARDS—-1) LATINISED SYRIANS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNIATE CALDEAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SEPERATED FROM THE ANCIENT CALDEAN CHURCH IN 1550.

2)THE LATINISED SYRIANS REVOLTED AGAINST THE LATINS AND FOLLOWED THE EAST SYRIAC TRADITION FROM TIKRIT(ORTHODOX FAITH)..LATER TURNED WEST SYRIAC OWING ALLEGEANCE TO THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX(JACOBA) OF ANTIOCH.
3) LATER SOME FACTION FROM THE PUTENCOORS REPUDIATED IT AND FORMED INDEPENDENT MARTHOMA CHURCH.(A HYBRID FAITH OF ORTHODOXY AND PROTESTANT)
4) A BISHOP LEFT THE ORTHODOX FAITH AND JOINED CATHOLIC FAITH CALLED MALANKARA SYRIAN(ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH)
5)A GROUP FROM PAZHAYAKOOR REVOLTED AGAIST THE LATINISATION AND OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE EAST SYRIAC NESTORIAN PATRIARCH( ANCIENT CALDEAN CHURCH OF THE EAST–NESTORIAN)

NOW WE CAN SEE WHY THE THE PAZHAKOORS ARE CALLED SO AND PUTHEKOORS ARE CALLED SO.

dear thomas antony,

This narration from 1873 also proves that the relation of Puthencoor with the Church of Antioch was very stormy and they refused to consecrate Puthencoor Bishops before embracing the West Syriac rite. The community and leaders were not happy for this and hence they refused to pay the money. Does this prove that west syriacisation was against the will of the community and its leaders? Then can’t I say that it was forceful and they conquered the community?// by thomas antony.

the one you quoted is not from a trusted source.(from indian othodox church) these things are the creations of the indian orthodox church to claim auto cephaly and the affirm the st.thomas throne
theory.
you are awere of the church fued in puthencoors(bava and metran)_.view these under this context.

I think Jogy’s understanding of History has some problems as John has several times mentioned. See his posting 10880.
He is completely confused in between orthodox, Nestorian and Church of the East. I do not know whether he knows the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental orthodox. He thinks that CoE is Eastern Orthodox ! See his timeline-
AD 52-700- eastern Orthodox !! Eastern Orthodoxy was evolved in post 1000AD. I think he meant it as CoE
AD 700-1550- eastern Nestorian !! There was no Eastern Nestorianism. CoE was accused nestorianism in AD 430 period. After the Period of Babai the Great, (ad 551-628)one cannot accuse CoE as Nestorian.
1550-1650- latin catholic faith- we have never followed latin catholic faith.

Shall I rewrite it like this ?

AD 52- AD 1552- CoE
AD 1552 onwards- CoE to Chaldean patriarcate-Jurisdiction under Rome
AD 1563- Under latin rule/administration but East Syriac rite Roman Jurisdiction
AD 1599 Pazhayacoor status quo , Puthencoor- self rule with East syriac rite.
AD 1772 Puthencoor West syriac rite, Connection with the Church of Antioch
AD 1876 Puthencoor under the jurisdiction of Church of Antioch- Synod of Mulanthuruthy
AD1896- Pazhayacoor self administration and East Syriac rite.

Again, you must understand the CoE Patriarcates switched their allegiance to Rome and back while the original Patriarcate joined Chaldean at the end ! So, all the so called CoE present today whether it is in India or Persia, was under the jurisdiction of Rome at some period.

Re. my quote about the relation with the Church of Antioch, I have quoted the IOC and also Thomas Whitehouse (who visited Kerala, visited almost every nasrani churches and interviewed so many people and wrote his book) His account is more trustworthy. There were problems with the relations with the church of Antioch. That will explain why Mar Thoma VI had to be reconsecrated with a different name. Mar Thoma VII also wanted to be reconsecrated and he even approached Mar Gabriel, the CoE Bishop when he was dying at Kottayam ( as per Thomas Whitehouse’s book)

SYRIAC-The Character or Form of Writing.

The forms or characters of the written Syriac are various. The form called Estranghela is the oldest of all, so scholars say. According to Assemani this word Estranghela comes from a Greek word meaning ‘round’; but as it is hard to see where the roundness comes in, others derive the word from an Arabic compound meaning “Gospel-writing.” This latter opinion seems more probable. [See Philip’s Syriac Grammar. Introduction p. 6; also O’Brien. p. 24.]

But another simpler form, which is not much different from the Estranghela, was introduced by the Chaldeans owing to the facility with which it may be written. Perhaps because the Nestorians first employed this peculiar form it is called the Nestorian character. It is in general use among the Syro-Chaldeans of Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Malabar &c., Indeed, some historians indiscriminately called all those, who used this Estranghela, Nestorians.

A third character similar to the second but doubled in writing, is called “Double Character”.

Finally a fourth character which is written in orbicular form is called Psitha i.e., simple character, which is generally used by all Occidental Syrians, viz., Catholic pure Syrians of Antioch, Syro-Maronites of Lebanon, Syro-Melchits of the East, and all Monophysites or Jacobites of Antioch and Malabar.

WHO MADE PESHITTA BIBLE! LET US SEE THIS!

Another important Syriac work is the Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the
Holy Bible, it is one of the oldest translations of the Bible and its Old Testament
displays a clear Jewish influence. The Peshitta is recognized as the authorized
version of the Sacred Scriptures by all the churches of the Assyrian Christians,
including those in India. The word Peshitta (Pshitta is a more accurate
transliteration), in Syriac means ‘simple’ or ‘plain’. Through the Peshitta it is
possible to read the entire Bible in the language of Christ and his disciples. The
Peshitta may have been translated by the Jews of Babylon and Assyria for their
own use (as a Targum) or it may have been translated or revised by the Christian
community with Jewish assistance.

Assyrian tradition recorded by the Jacobite historian Bar-Hebraeus says that it was translated under the command of King Abgar, by disciples from the Holy Land.

REF-(http://www.oxuscom.com/ch-of-east.htm#_ftn7

you think that this peshitta was the creation of east syriac people.
then see this study …who used peshitta…

SYRIAC-The Character or Form of Writing.

The forms or characters of the written Syriac are various. The form called Estranghela is the oldest of all, so scholars say. According to Assemani this word Estranghela comes from a Greek word meaning ‘round’; but as it is hard to see where the roundness comes in, others derive the word from an Arabic compound meaning “Gospel-writing.” This latter opinion seems more probable. [See Philip’s Syriac Grammar. Introduction p. 6; also O’Brien. p. 24.]

But another simpler form, which is not much different from the Estranghela, was introduced by the Chaldeans owing to the facility with which it may be written. Perhaps because the Nestorians first employed this peculiar form it is called the Nestorian character. It is in general use among the Syro-Chaldeans of Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Malabar &c., Indeed, some historians indiscriminately called all those, who used this Estranghela, Nestorians.

A third character similar to the second but doubled in writing, is called “Double Character”.

Finally a fourth character which is written in orbicular form is called Psitha i.e., simple character, which is generally used by all Occidental Syrians, viz., Catholic pure Syrians of Antioch, Syro-Maronites of Lebanon, Syro-Melchits of the East, and all Monophysites or Jacobites of Antioch and Malabar.

REF- INDIAN CHRISTIANITY

si its clear that it was jacobites who made it. it was done before 200AD during the time of king abgar.

mr.john mathew,
Moreover, whatever idiot is claiming that the Peshitta came to Kerala in 325 AD, on the basis of the Buchanan Bible, should do us all a favor and shut up. The Buchanan Bible was dated by scholars to be from the 12th century; most likely, it was brought over by the Syriac Orthodox bishops during the 17-19th centuries

i think you may be correctly knowing who brought it here..please make another guess.. really i feel pity on you .

Jogy:

I never said the Chaldeans (Mid East) or the Syro-Malabar are using the “original” liturgy. As far as I know, their version still contains Latinizations, and modifications due to the period of “Latin rule”—which is why a significant fraction of them are agitating to remove the Latinizations and restore the liturgy to a more pure Oriental form, which less Latinizations. I believe Rome is in favor of this as well. It’s some partisans in India who object.

What I’m saying is that the Chaldeans (Mid East)and Syro-Malabar are at the very least *using* the Liturgy of Adai and Mari, in some shape or form. Of course, the Chaldeans/CoE in Trissur are probably using the Liturgy in a form closer to the original: I don’t think anyone doubts that.

The Church of the East, Armenia and Geogia were all under Antioch originally. But they all declared independence. What is your point? That doesn’t mean that the CoE rites were developed in Syriac in Antioch and them imported to the CoE. It’s the other was around!

What you don’t understand is that the Syriac tradition was developed in the East, Edessa. When the Jacobite schism arose, it was an ethnic as well as a theological schism: the people who split were ethnically different. Antioch originally contained both Greek and Syriac peoples. When the split occurred, the Syriac peoples split. They translated the liturgy from Greek into Syriac (this is the scholar’s view at this point), and imported Syriac songs, hymns, poems, from the Eastern tradition. You seem to think that Antioch was Syriac all the way back. That is not supported by history at all. It was solidly Greek for a long time. The West Syriac rite is younger than the Greek, and contains elements from Greek elements from Antioch, and Syriac elements from the East (Edessa and further). This statement is based on currently available fact. It is uncomfortable to us “pro-Syriacs”, but discomfort is often a product of learning truth, and dispelling propaganda.

Re: The syro-Malabar. I used to think that they were all Latins. That was the way in which some Orthodox writers presented history. However, on doing some research, I found that although heavily Latinized, the Syro-Malabar continued to use Syriac all throughout their period of foreign rule. Quite admirable, in my opinion, when you consider that the Puthenkoor, without any political/military pressure to induce them, abandoned the old rite and jumped onto the West Syriac rite. The latter fact is, again, uncomfortable, and hard for us West Syriacs to swallow, but it seems to be a fact supported by evidence.

So who do you think brought the Buchanan Bible to Malankara? Who cares what you think… it’s probably based on tradition and not fact anyways. Scholars say it’s a 12th century Bible, and it supposedly has Jacobite annotations, written in Mesopotamia. The first recorded arrival of a West Syriac prelate to Malankara is in the 17th century. What does Logic then dictate? Nothing from AD 300 remains in Kerala. Hell, nothing from AD 1000 or AD 1200 remains. Our oldest manuscripts are from the 15th century, with Assemani reporting a 13th/14th century one in the Vatican library.

Do you even own a Peshitta? Go and buy one from Gorgias Press, and read the introduction by George Kiraz, who is a bonafide Syriac scholar, and a Syriac Orthodox member.. You’ll learn about the multitude of Syriac translations of the Bible, of which the Peshitta is the most commonly used because it is the “simplest”. And you’ll get an idea of the dates. Stop reading propaganda off the internet, unless it’s based on solid sources.

Jogy:

The West Syriac tradition is a mix of the original Greek tradition with Syriac added in after the split of the Antioch Greeks and the Antioch Syriacs.

The East Syriac tradition *is* the Syriac tradition, with very little Greek.

You need to study the Syriac tradition and history some more.

Jogy:

I have no problem with Greek! I only mentioned the high mix of Greek in the West Syriac tradition because you seemed to have been denigrating the East Syriac tradition by claiming it is “no match” to the West Syriac one. The East Syriac tradition is quite admirable, in that it preserves many ancient Semetic forms that have since evolved away in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

Now, as far as I know, the earliest texts were possess in Malabar are of the East Syriac rite. Every scholarly work on this topic very clearly states this, e.g., the Srite project, various works written in the 18/19th century, the proceedings of Diamper, etc.

There is *nothing* that supports the claim that the Malabar Christians used the West Syriac rite before the arrival of Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel. We don’t have definitively Jacobite monuments, texts, inscriptions, etc. The only definitive evidence we have are East Syriac books from the 15/16th century. The Persian Crosses have Pahlavi on them, and their inscriptions are generally Christian, so at the most we can say is that they are Christian. (But they are so similar to the Nestorian Crosses in China … that the balance is tipped more in favor of a Nestorian origin than a Jacobite one).

Or do you have some evidence for the latter?

Do you understand this Jogy? There is *NO* evidence for your claim, none. I wanted to believe that claim long ago, and searched for evidence in the literature only to find nothing. The only evidence out there points to the East Syriac tradition.

I’ve mentioned this before: science and history are about what *IS* based on current evidence, and not what *can be*. If you want to talk possibilities, then the door is open to any of a number of possibilities (e.g., Manichaeanism, primitive Jewish Christianity, pagans/lapsed Christians, etc., etc., etc.). And there are any number of idiots out there who are claiming each of those, and perhaps more (e.g., the idiots who wrote the wikipedia page about the Nasranis claiming we were Jewish Christians, the Mar Thomites who claim we were “primitive Christians” that were spoiled by the Roman Catholics, some Latinized Catholics who claim we were Manichaeans, some Malankara Orthodox who claim we were under some “throne” of St Thomas, some Jacobites who claim we were under the Patriarch of Antioch, some Knanaya who claim we were Jewish Christians under the Patriarch of Antioch/Babylon, etc., etc.). These are idiotic theories with no basis in fact, and are often advanced by small minded individuals with no concept of proof. This kind of intellectual masturbation should be regarded for what it is: totally unfruitful and unable to result in the birth of verifiable historical facts.

Once evidence arrives that gives any of those *possibilties* some basis, then we can start talking. But until then let’s take your comment, i.e.,
“there is enough room to claim for the west syriac tradition also.”
for what it is:
an absolutely silly, juvenile, ignorant, idiotic statement.

By all means, come up with and present some evidence if you want to advance this theory—in fact, if you find this evidence I would be the first to congratulate you, since the West Syriac tradition is my tradition, and I’ve spent more time and effort studying its rites and language than studying any other tradition.

dear john,
with some east syrian books of 15/16 th century how can you predict that the whole of malabar were nestorians from 1st century to 15 th century?

about the the estrangela/pahlavi crosses, both scripts are diffrent from the nestorian script and jacobite script. so we are not defInite in this aspect.,

Is there any nestorian script peshitta discovered any where in kerala? at least a jacobite script peshitta was there.
but the inscripted christology is orthodoxy!

Again mentioning about the three altar churches in malabar by the portuguese. who might have probably used it?

I wont deny the influence of nestorianism in malabar. BUT it can be suspected that the creed and customs were not identical that of the nestorians.

syriac :-
The origins of the Syriac script are shrouded in mystery. It was orginally used as the medium for the extensive religious literature of Syrian Christians. In 489 AD there was a schism between the east Syrian followers of Nestorius in Persia and the west Syrian followers of Jacob of Edessa. Over the years, the scripts used by the two groups started to diverge from each other. The Nestorian’s script was known as Nestorian while the Jacobite’s script was known as Serto (linear) or Jacobite. A version of the Nestorian script is still used for religious writings by Christians in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
Many other scripts developed directly or indirectly from the Syriac scripts, including Nabatean, Palmyran, Mandaic, Parthian, Pahlavi, Sogdian, Avestan and Manichean.

aramaic:-
Aramaic, a Semitic language that was the lingua franca of much of the Near East from about 7th century BC until the 7th century AD, when it was largely replaced by Arabic. Classical or Imperial Aramaic was the main language of the Persian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires and spread as far as Greece and the Indus valley.
After Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, Aramaic ceased to be the official language of any major state, though continued to be spoken widely. It was during this period that Aramaic split into western and eastern dialects.
Aramaic was once the main language of the Jews and appears in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is still used as a liturgical language by Christian communities in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and is still spoken by small numbers of people in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Armenia, Georgia and Syria.
Aramaic has also been written in versions of the Latin, Hebrew and Cyrillic alphabets, though the Syriac is the most widely used script to write Aramaic.

Syriac, an eastern dialect of Aramaic spoken by Christians in the lands in between the Roman and Parthian empires between the 1st and 12th centuries. Syriac is still used used nowadays as ritual and literary language by speakers of Neo-Aramaic in Syria. It is also used for sermons in Syrian churches in the southern Indian state of Kerala.
Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, a diverse group of Eastern Aramaic/Syriac dialects spoken by about 200,000 people mainly in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia, Georgia and Turkey. The Syriac, Latin and Hebrew scripts are all used to write Assyrian Neo-Aramaic.

Jogy,

You seem to be either retarded or are incapable of thinking. Here’s a simplification:

1. The evidence says that at the time of the Portuguese we were Nestorian/Chaldean Catholic.

2. There is no evidence for any other rite in Malabar. The Buchanan Bible you speak of is not proof since it could have been brought by Jacobite prelates post-1650: there is nothing suggesting otherwise. As you agreed, the Pahlavi Crosses are inconclusive.

Based on 1 and 2, we can say that the theory that we were Nestorian has far more support than the theory that we were Jacobites, Manichaeans, Jewish Christians, etc.

But 1 and 2 is not all there is. We have sporadic testimony from (1) Cosmas Indicoplaeutus, (2) Patriarch Timothy, (3) Assemani, about the connection between the CoE and Malabar. On the other hand there is *NO* testimony from the Jacobite Patriarchs or Maphrians or anyone else on this topic, pre-1650.

This is it for me. You’re in a mental loop, incapable of fathoming logic. Or you are a troll. If the latter, then I’m a fool for indulging your manifold stupidity.

Dear M. T. Antony:

Check out: The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West By Robert F. Taft (partially on Google Books), which refers to another article that discusses the relationship between all Syriac rites on p. 239.

Dear john,
I read your pompous verbal diarrhoea.
You stated that we were Nestorians/caldean catholics whilst the coming of the Portuguese.
Dou you mean we were Nestorians and /or caldean catholics?
When was the caldean catholics formed?
1551: When patriarch John Sulaka goes to Rome and professes his Catholic faith, many Nestorians follow him. Others do not accept his conversion. The Catholic branch comes to be called Chaldean, or Chaldean Catholic.
When was the udayamperoor synod ?
Syond of Diamper (Udayamperoor) convened on June 20, 1599 .

So in between 1551 and 1599 we Malabar people converted to caldean catholic? Is there any rationale?

Okay , taken granted that they converted to caldean catholics with in this 48 years; then

Dou you rememember the magnificient Menesis insisted all the priests to dessert their wives?

So ,you are trying to say the caldean catholic priests were married?

Again you say we were Nestorians, okay, then

When was nestorianism evolved?

Its after the 4th century and when it might have possibly reached Malabar?

You say the jacobite peshitta found in Malabar might have reached here after 1600 s—this your
pre occupied view.

Could you find out any Nestorian peshitta?
Could you find out anything specifically to prove that we were Nestorians /caldean catholics?
Not only me, everybody is interested to hear that !!!!!

Jogy doesn’t seem to be ready to accept other people and their opinions. See his derogatory comments. I do not know what he is trying to prove.

He is not aware that many Eastern Catholic Churches have married priests. I think Chaldean Catholics also have married priests. According to one web site, at least 20% of Catholic priests are married globally- Eastern Catholic priests, those priests who joined Catholic Church from Anglican Church etc who were married already. He is now trying to prove something on the basis that Menesis ordered the then Nasrani priests to leave their wives!

(I think the problems with Eastern Catholic churches in Kerala are that they were made Sui iuris status only many years after their formation. They were practically functioning as a few dioceses with a different liturgy. Hence, they were following the Roman Church’s rules as before even after they are made Sui iuris churches).

Celibacy and continence of Priests is not an obligatory rule even in Roman Church. It is not a doctrine but only a discipline. A Pope can remove that rule. If the Holy Synods of Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara churches decide, they can revoke the rule. The second largest Church in the Catholic Communion, the Ukrainian Catholic Church (10 million strong) allows married priests ever since the beginning. The Byzentine Catholic Church, Maronite, etc are other examples.

Jogy is still talking about Nestorian etc. Actually it is a derogatory term to the Church of the East. They no longer teach the so called doctrine of Nestorius. They follow the doctrine of Babai the Great. (551-628). Even the Doctrine of Nestorius itself is not what it is accused, according to latest studies.

Again, he is talking about “Jacobite Peshitta” and “Nestorian Peshitta”.

I wish if he put his arguments if any, with logic so that we all can learn or at least it will stimulate us to read further.

Dear John,
I have made some initial contacts and will be able to use the library and talk to the curators re Buchanan Bible. Unfortunately, it is in a fragile state and we won’t be able to view it. They provide a microfilm presentation.They also provide microfilm/electronic copies of some of their manuscripts, I am not sure whether I will be able to get an electronic copy of it untill I meet the curator.
They also have a number of Persian manuscripts from India donated by the East India Company. I will find a day in the next few weeks and have a look on all these and get maximum information.

I have heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain 90% Hebrew and only 10% Aramaic & Greek.
Some of the scrolls where not published until recently in the Facsimile Edition available on the Internet.
This would mean that Jesus could have been speaking much more in Hebrew than previously thought.
Of course there are a lot of Aramaic words in the NT and He did speak in Aramaic but not as much as one might have thought.

If this claim is true, then that famous Gospel of St. Mathew scroll that our traditions say Thomas Sleeha brought with him was more probably (i.e. 90% chance) in Hebrew & not in Aramaic/Suriani that is so dear to our hearts!!

By the way, I am from Trissur…. It the Assyrian church is now split between the Ancient Assyrian and the more Catholic Assyrians (not the Chaldiens). All my pride about them (catholic Assyrians) holding to the tenants of their ancestors from the earliest times evaporated when I saw that they are using the modern Assyrian bible which is not even a direct translation form the original famed Peshita!!

Only the Syrian orthodox still uses the original though in the western script… its true to the original 100%

Another trent among Assyrians that is of concern to me is to equate Syrian/Eastern Christianity with Assiranism. Which of course, is incorrect.

Dear John Mathew,

what is your source reference for
“Maruta” as cited below,

i’m very interested in this information.
Please email me at: mstavrinides@yahoo.com.

” They were one people, ethnically, and I’m sure there were those (e.g., Maruta and his followers) who wanted to maintain the faith of Nicene, Constantinople and Ephesus.”

Dear John Matthew,

(1) You are not sure if one can conclusively prove if Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Well, Dead sea scrolls reveal a lot about the language the people who where using them! Actually, there is not point in getting them if you don’t know Hebrew! You will have to look for Aramaic to find it. People have tried to water down this find labeling these people as heretic group in Judaism as there was no proof that they participated in the temple worship. But, that bubble has now burst after the Temple treasury scroll that was also among the finds was opened.

These people who used these scrolls where wiped out by the Romans in AD60 the Titus sacked Jerusalem. That means one can conclusively say it is a fossil of the language used in Judea exactly in the time the N.T. was written.

As now all of DSS have been released in a Facsimile edition recently: Google: “Facsimile Dead Sea Scrolls” and go to Amazom .com) Almost 90% of the Dead Sea Scrolls (not including the O.T.) is in Hebrew. And the remaining 10% is in Aramaic & Greek.
This discovery does cast some serious doubts on weather Christ really spoke in Aramaic.

Anyway, no one can deny that many Aramaic words can be found in the Greek N.T. However, it is possible because of the close connection between Aramaic and Hebrew that some of these Aramaic words can be also used in Hebrew. Even today native Hebrew speakers use some Aramaic words.

And at the same time it is also true that some words in NT are clearly Aramaic. And Aramaic outlasted Greek as a spoken language in the Middle East. This could have happened due to Islamic conquest of the entire Middle East and Islam’s insistence on Arabic, And Arabic being closer to Aramaic than Greek.

(2) The Church of the East is connected to the Addi & Marri Liturgy very intimately. I love this eastern liturgy and the eastern Aramaic pronunciation very much. Unlike the Greek bible versions, in the east we did not have several Aramaic bibles except some minute differences between eastern & the western versions of Peshita. But the Catholic Assyrian Church of the East has new bible that they say is a translation from the eastern version is not actually faithful to the eastern version at all.

(3) In fact, just like there is a highly revered original King James translation in English, there is a highly venerated first King Agbar translation in to Aramaic. Now, why all this fuss! Well, from the translation one can tell how the best scholars of the time interpreted the Greek (I mean the meanings of Greek words not just the Grammar) It also helps to decide which are the more reliable Greek manuscripts.

(4) The Assyrian church is tied to a King Agbar in Eddessa to whom supposedly Jesus him self had written a letter saying that Jesus will send some one to the King to heal him. (And I have seen this letter but have not fully believed it yet) And the legend says He did send someone. The king was healed and consequently his kingdom (ie Eddesa) became a great center for early Syriac Christianity. The Peshitta is said to have been translated in Eddesa from Greek & Hebrew originals.

“Assisi” i.e. Dear John Matthew,

Thanks to all that information. And thanks for reading what I had written.

First of all let me make some comments on language of Jesus. The evidence suggests to me that He spoke in a different dialect heavily influences by Hebrew (because His bible and several standardized prayers were in Hebrew). But let Syriac (not Assyrian) may be as close as one can get Jesus’ language. This is admonishment from Jesus Himself in Rev3:2 “Be watchful, and strengthen * the things which remain *, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.”

It is true that Assyrians had political power but they had to pay tribute to the Turks. They had a certain system of civil code as well. This Assyrian civil code could have been used by the Nasrani Kings here in Kerala. It is just a speculation.

What I said about King Abgar Version was an unnecessary exaggeration. Syriac as you might know is a dialect of Aramaic. The Aramaic in which most of the Book of Daniel is written cannot be called Syriac although it is Aramaic. This is the likely type of Aramaic that was Judeans where familiar with. The oldest Syriac writing known is from the second centaury. We don’t have any Syriac in the Dead Sea scrolls. (But we do have Aramaic ones!)

As a matter of fact from my experience as some one who has tried to learn Aramaic. Compared to a English (or Greek) speakers, it is a lot easier to learn it if you where a Arabic speaker or a Hebrew speaker in order to learn the language unless you are uniquely gifted. My friends tell me that in Iraq it is offensive to wear a t-shirt with English words written over it. But it is probably not as offensive to have some Assyrian written on it. It may surprise you to know that even today in the Middle-east there are 100% Muslim villages with 100% of the people speaking in some Assyrian/ Aramaic dialect. But I think it will be a bit harder to find Greek speaking Muslim villages.

During the time of Christ Aramaic was like Hindi & Greek was like English. Today almost any Keralite can understand both Hindi & English Movies. Similarly, St. Paul’s audience in most places he went would have understood him regardless of whether he spoke in Aramaic or Greek. In Kabul Museum in Afghanistan there was an exhibit of a photo of an ancient inscription on a rock which was in Kandahar of an edict by Emperor Ashoka of India in both Aramaic and Greek! It was dated around 300 BC. The script used to write Aramaic was the same in Dead Sea scrolls – the Hebrew script. By the way the current Hebrew script is ancient Aramaic script. (This has now disappeared from the museum)

Did not St. Jerome translate the Latin Vulgate directly from Greek and Hebrew like the great Scholars who translated the first standardized Syriac Vulgate, the Peshita? Also, where is Greece located? In Europe or in the Middle East? The Septuagint, the famous Greek Old Testament, did not the Roman Catholic Church have it all the while?

Of course I know that the church of the east had connections with the Greeks. My parents pronounce Jesus name “Esho” according to the eastern pronunciation which is very similer to Greek “Isas” but the western pronunciation of Jesus is “Yaesu” which is more Hebraic.

Of course I know that there are several versions of the bible in Syriac. My point was none of them was as widely used by various different people like the * Pshitta *.

Here is a quote from book called Assyrian Church Customs by Surma D’Bait Mar Shimun (Who was the sister of Mar Shimun)

“…The version of the Scriptures invariably used in our church is the * Pshitta *. This is freely used in their own homes by all our people who can read. The local dialects of our people vary so much, that it is impossible to provide any one * vernacular Syriac *) version of the Scriptures. The version in * Umri Syriac * printed by the Amrican Mission is actually is less intelligible on the Moiuntains than is the “old language” of the Pesshita…”

Here, you have a virtuous Assyrian woman supporting the idea of one version in the *old language* of Pesshita! Modern Assyrian is a vernacular Syriac. Obviously, in the Assyrian church also the bible version was standardized like in the Syrian Orthodox Church. Only, difference is the Assyrians has replaced the old sandernd by a new standard in a *vernacular* which * sadly * happens to be Modern Assyrian. Why * sadly *? Because this will make the church exclusive to Assyrians! Our historic connection (as Indians) was to the Church of the East which used the * old language * like the sister of Mar Shimun likes to call it.

Here is another quotation from the Aramaic bible I am using…
“The text of the Aramaic is taken from The Syriac New Testament and Psalms, published by United Bible Societies, *specifically* the Bible Society in * Turkey *. In 1905 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the Gospels in Syriac, reprinted by permission from a revised text of the Peshitta Version which had been prepared by the late Rev. G.H. Gwilliam, B.D., with a Latin translation and critical apparatus, and issued by the Clarendon Press in 1901. This is a critical text of the Peshitta that was completed from a collation of manuscripts at the British Museum Library. It is known as a “western” text of the Peshitta and therefore varies to *a small degree* from other eastern versions of the Peshitta.”

Here, what is the Bible Society in Turkey doing with the * Western* version! After all, turkey is not in the West. Are they not better of using the Eastern version? Actually, this version that I have does not have any vowel markers to denote pronunciation. Why am I talking vowel markers here? Because, originally like in the * modern * Hebrew in Israel today, Aramaic was written without any vowel markers (by the way Arabic was too), the reader whether western or eastern could read it with full understanding though in slightly different accents.

Do you * really * want the * old * diversity and unity? Paradoxically, though with out some standardization we cannot have this unity. The common thread that tied the various peoples in the Church of the East was the standardized elements… the peshitta, the rite etc…

Let me give you a verse that is different in the “Kitava Kadisa” (Bible) in Modern Assyrian but identical in both eastern and western script. In Matthew 25:1 Both eastern and western versions say: “Then the kingdom of heaven will be compared to ten virgins, those who took their lamps and went out for the arrival of the bridegroom and bride.” But all the Greek versions and the Modern Assyrian say: “Then the kingdom of heaven will be compared to ten virgins, those who took their lamps and went out for the arrival of the bridegroom.” The “arrival of the bridegroom and bride” is changed to “arrival of the bridegroom”! What is the motive for making this change? Well, one can only guess.

The liturgy of the Qurbana of Addi & Marri has a lot of biblical basis to it. For example, there is a particular order in which the prayers are to be said. The Latin rites start with “Mia Culpa” like the “sinner who stood out side the synagogue because he considered himself unworthy to enter inside” but the Eastern liturgy starts with Praises and Thanksgiving because the Lords prayer starts with adoration “Our Father in Heaven… Let Your name be kept Holy!” Here, you see that the church of the east believed that all the Christians are Saints where as in the middle ages the Roman church would have burnt people who claim they are saints with out the approval of Vatican as heretics! The church of the east has the priest facing the east and the two (usually) “shamashans” (deacons) one on either side of the priest. This is again following the bible very closely because shortly after His resurrection on the way to Emmaus Jesus walked with His two apostles explaining from the prophets about the death and resurrection of the Messiah. People who really understand the liturgy also understand the theology “Rasa” (mystery) of the church when these liturgies where instituted. I think the Latin rite is the opposite of the Eastern rite in some respects. Further, the Roman & Greek cultures have much in common. In Hebrew the same word “Kittim” can mean either Rome or Greece. Also, an Aramaic word for Rome also means dirt!!! So, in this theological sense the one is more “pure”. I know this is can be an embarrassment to some friends in the Syro-Malabar group who have foolishly mutilated the liturgy. They changed the “Vishuda Qurbna” three times when I was in school.

*INTERESTING NEWS*

The Khaburis Manuscript is a copy of a second century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD (internally documented as 100 years after the great persecution of the Christians by Nero, in 65AD). Given its origins, this would make it a copy of the oldest known Complete New Testament manuscript. And its in Aramaic!

Shlomo l-kulkon,

Although I am a Syriac scholar, I am also aware of many refernces to Isho`a Meshiha which occur in the Vedas and in ancient Buddhist manuscripts written in the Pali language. In particular, there is a life of Isho`a Mishiha in Pali which has not been edited. This apparently survives in several Mss in Northern India and Tibet. These two early literary sources may also contain references to the early spread of Christianity in India, but as far as I know these sources have not been explored. Why is that do you think? 🙂

Best regards,
Steven.

Dear John Matthew, Dear All,

Yes of course, I would be pleased to mention my sources. However, I cannot say whether the following two websites are genuine, or accurate. They do nevertheless contain cross-references. My skills do not extend to Pali or Sanskrit, so I cannot check these claims very well. Let the reader beware!
http://www.atmajyoti.org/sw_unknown_life.asp
http://www.salagram.net/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm

A few comments of my own, for what these are worth:
The Pali life of Christ is interesting in parts. The account of the trial and crucifixion of Christ is very different to the one in the gospels, but nevertheless it may have some historical features. For example, in the Pali account, it is the Jewish leaders who washed their hands during the trial, not Pilate. This detail interested me, because the idea of washing the hands for ritual cleansing was certainly in Jewish culture, but I am not so sure that it featured in Roman culture, (remember that Isho`a was criticised by the Jewish leaders because he did not wash his hands before meals).
The references to Isho`a in the Vedas cannot be 5,000 years old. Rather, if these references are genuine (and they might be at least partly reliable) they date from the time of Christ and they must have been added to the more ancient Vedic context, by later interpolation. In my view, if he really evangelized in India, the apostle Thomas must have encountered the Brahmins and IMO, it is very credible that some traces of that religious encounter could have been written in Sanskrit and included in the Vedic tradition.

I would be interested in your views and literary-historical comments on these data.

Concerning 19th century European Christian scholars. In common with many 20th and 21st century Christians, perhaps they were not interested in oriental Christianity, but only in the Romanized and Hellenized forms of the faith? This prejudice is all too evident in the theological literature of that period and the same prejudice is still common today, (and as a Christian interested in Syriac studies, I have encountered it more than once myself).

Best wishes,
Steven.

Thanks Steven. I look forward to going through this. Personally, I never believed the story that St Thomas came to India. I think the lack of any evidence that brings Christianity in India to the pre-5th century era is a serious blow to any claim that Indian Christianity has apostolic origins. As well, I’ve always been disappointed that, for all the big talking done by Indian Syrian Christians, we really have nothing to show for our Christianity other than our existence, and a small number of artifacts. Whereas, the Chinese Christians, despite their current non-existence, have a beautiful corpus of literature (the Jesus sutras) that show how they amalgamated Oriental Christianity to their own hyper-oriental culture.

In India, we merely have verbatim copies of the East Syriac liturgy — which points more to immigration as opposed to apostolic evangelization, to my eye.

So … needless to say, I’m very interested in looking into what you’ve brought up.

By the way, since you’re a Syriac scholar, could you please comment on the Buchanan Bible … as you may know, there are some people (a large group, actually) that point to this as proof of the antiquity of the West Syriac rite in India.

The reasoning goes:
1. The Buchanan Bible was in India for “a 1000 years” (as of the 18h century)
2. The Buchanan Bible has annotations that indicate clear origins in the West Syriac (and not the East Syriac community)

hence, the Indians were West Syriac for at least 1000 years.

What this reasoning ignores is:
1. The Buchanan Bible may not even be 1000 years old (i.e., the 8th century). I believe Brock and other scholars give it a date in the 12th century
2. The Buchanan Bible was written in the Middle East, according to many scholars (Brock, etc.)
3. There’s nothing that establishes that the Buchanan Bible was not brought along to India with other MSS by the West Syriac prelates of the post-17th century era.

I just wanted to get “scholarly” corroboration as to points 1 and 2. Hopefully to kill this ridiculous faulty meme.

Dear Steven,

Thank you very much for your scholarly response with link to the very capable English translation of the Peshitta NT done by Paul Younan. That is a very remarkable work indeed!

Another similar translation from the HRV Scriptures for your analysis and comments: Matthew 19:24 (also seen in Mark 10:25 & Luke 18:25)

KJV reads:
24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

HRV Scripture reads:
24 And again I tell you: it is easier to pass a large rope through the eye of the needle, than to bring the rich into the Kingdom of Heaven.

The HRV translator-author (Rabbi) James Trimm explains that “the word for “camel” in the Aramaic manuscripts is ”GAMLA” which can mean “camel” but can also refer to a “large rope,” which is certainly the meaning here”. I believe Paul Younan also has used “large rope” rather than “camel” for this passage, and again this modified translation appears to make better sense! Your views/comments, Stephen?

Best regards,

Kuruvilla Cherian

Dear Steven,

Thanks for your reply and your interesting perspective of the proper word usage in Mt 19:24, Mk 10:25 & Lk 18:25.

In the Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament at http://www.peshitta.org/ (by Paul Younan, I understand) in all the three places the choice apparently is “rope”. However, I could not find his reasoning for choice of “rope” over “camel”.

In the HRV Scriptures, Rabbi James Trimm too has chosen “rope” over “camel”. I remember having seen his reasoning for the choice, in the full text version of his translation; I will look it up again and let you know.

Best regards,
Kuruvilla Cherian

Dear Steven,

Since you have resolved the”GAMLA” mistranslation issue, I suppose it is not necessary to post Rabbi Trimm’s reasoning for the choice of the word “rope”… Here’s another translation example for your analysis and comments: regarding “Simon the leper” as seen in Mt. 26:6 & Mk. 14:3.

Mt. 26:6

The King James Version Bible reads:
“6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,”

The Hebrew Roots Version Scripture (Rabbi Trimm) reads:
“6 And as Yeshua was in one Beit Anyah, in the house of Shim’on the jar merchant,”

The Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament (Paul Younan) apparently reads:
“6. And when Yeshua was in Beth-Anya in the house of Shimon the potter”

Mk. 14:3

The King James Version Bible reads:
“3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head”

The Hebrew Roots Version Scripture (Rabbi Trimm) reads:
“3 And while He was in Beit-Anyah, in the house of Shim’on the jar merchant, while eating, a woman came who had with her an alabaster jar of ointment of pistachio, the best, very costly: and she opened it and poured it on the head of Yeshua”

The Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament (Paul Younan) apparently reads:
“3. And while he was in Beth-Anya in the house of Shimon the potter while reclining came a woman who had with her an alabaster vase of perfume of nard the best very expensive and she opened it and poured it upon the head of Yeshua”

Regarding the translation, Rabbi Trimm has commented that as any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (Lev.13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR’BA (leper), and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar, it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant, or jar-maker, and not a leper. Paul Younan uses the word “potter”, which is apparently comparable to “jar-maker” and not to “leper”. So this is another instance of mistranslation, perhaps. Your views and comments, Steven?

Best regards,
Kuruvilla Cherian

Dear Dr. Kuruvilla Cherian,

Thank you for taking the trouble to write up these verses.

However, in my opinion the use of this word Garbā in these verses cannot help us to decide textual matters. Trimm’s suggestion that grāvā = vessel, skin, jar or jug implied Shem`on was a ‘jar maker’ is tenable, but it is very speculative. This ambiguity does exist, but I don’t think it is possible to prove that the coincidence of Shem`on Grāvā/Garbā’s name or nickname with a jar of perfume mentioned in the same passage is anything more than a coincidence. This observation would be more significant if the word grāvā was used in the Syriac text to describe the vessel the perfume came in, but it isn’t.

Besides, there is a third possible explanation for this word; Grāvā or Garbā may have been part of Shem`on’s family name inherited for several generations.

Best regards,
Steven.

Pazhaya Koor , Puthiyakoor , all are nasranies, and syriac was the oldest language of kerala if you look the history the Sanskrit and Malayalam came later , may be tamil was exist , the words like , dhawani pavadai ( gold bordered skirt) “dawani” in syriac golden , also “Marthandan” means martha + andavan ( jesus)