VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX 22- An additional clarification.

This is an additional clarification with respect to Syriac scripts as asked by some of the readers. I have questioned the historical veracity of the Vatican Syriac  codex 22 based on

1) Content of the Codex

2) Script of the codex

3) Contradiction in the explanation of additional writing in the codex

4) Historical fact about the Yahballah V/Yahballah III

5) Scribe testimony

6) Portuguese manipulations/writings

7) Lack of information from the cotemporary historians like Bar Ebrayo.

8) Lack of information about Mar Yacob(with in Malankara or COE),  ST.Kuriakose Pally etc.

Please read all the three posts to understand and avoid confusion (http://jeephilip.blogspot.in/2012/04/vatican-syriac-codex-22-another.html  , then http://jeephilip.blogspot.in/2012/04/vatican-syriac-codex-22-reply-to.html , then http://jeephilip.blogspot.in/2012/06/vatican-syriac-codex22-further.html  )

Regarding the script I suggested that 

“”Now on the light of the above information it is obvious that any Manuscript used East Syriac (Madnhaya) must be originated during the 14^th century or later. That means if any portion or whole of the said manuscript used East Syriac script likely to be originated much later than the attributed period. That makes this manuscript suspicious. The other Portuguese manipulations (Portuguese names etc. ) also give a possibility of a forged document. But if the Manuscript is in Estrangelo with East Syriac dialects, then chances of genuineness can be proved provided the information supplied is correct with other records or traditions.”” (from the first post). Then I came across the William Hatch’s book.

 An album of dated Syriac manuscripts By William Hatch clearly states that the codex is written using Estrangelo and Serto letters. He clearly states that during this period Nestorians used a mix letters to write their manuscripts. It is also stated that whenever they use Estrangelo they used it with Nestorian Vowel signs which indicate a later day origin. But as far as Vatican codex 22 is concerned the author states it as an example of mix letters (see the foot note no.19).That is why the boy scribe stated that he did not know the language. It is also to be noted that even after the introduction of Serto script the Syriac Orthodox of Tur-Abdin continued to write in Estrangelo till the end of the sixteenth century.

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX22 – FURTHER EVIDENCES.

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX22 – FURTHER EVIDENCES.

 Following information is based on the book “”An album of dated Syriac manuscripts By William Hatch”” This is an excellent book which gives information about Syriac MSS available with libraries of the world .It analyze these MSS based on their script and various other parameters like materials used, writing methods applied etc. It also gives us details of classification of these MSS based on their scripts. No doubt it is a valuable work as far as Syriac MSS are concerned.

The question of Script.
I have already stated in my first post regarding this subject that we need to clearly identify the script to understand the genuineness of this MSS. If it is written completely in Estrangelo, then the document’s genuineness can be accepted provided that it answers question related with the history of the content. But the content question only arises if it passes the test related with script.

Let us check what William Hatch says about the script used in the said codex. He clearly states that the document is written in Nestorian script on page 226. But the promoters (so called supporters of East Syriac subjugation of Malankara Nazranies) of the said MSS argue that it is Estrangelo. This is a deliberate attempt by this group to make it more reliable. This is the way our Syriac Church historians create history!

An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, by W.H.P. Hatch (page 226)

Now let us go little deep in to the classification of Syriac MSS by the same author to understand the situation.

ESTRANGELO manuscripts divided in to three

1)  Period I:-From AD 400 to middle of the 7^th century.

In this period the letters are well formed and clear and the hand is strong and legible. The best writing produced during these two and a half centuries is characterized by lightness, grace and simple elegance.

2) Period II:-From the middle of 7^th century to AD 900
in this period the handwriting is clear and legible, but it has less lightness and grace than the best writing of the proceeding period.

3) Period III: - From AD 900 to middle of 13^th century.
This is a period of decline. The letters are often heavy and angular ,and writing is stiff and lacking grace. After the middle of the 13^th century the Estrangelo hand have gone out of general use. Nevertheless, it continues to be employed in the region of Tur-Abdin as late as third quarter of the sixteenth century. (Note it was Syriac orthodox)

SERTO manuscripts divided in to two groups

1) Period 1: -AD 700 to AD 1100.

2) Period 2:- AD 1100 to end of the 16^th century.

NESTORIAN manuscripts divided in to two groups

1) Period I: - AD600 to middle of 13^th century.
During these 650 years the Nestorians used the Estrangelo script with Nestorian vowel points.

2) Period 2:- From the middle of the 13^th century to end of the 16^th century.
Throughout this period both the Estrangelo and Serto style of writing were employed by Nestorian scribes and in some manuscripts both kinds of letters were used. It is astonishing to note that the author classified our codex in BOTH KIND OF LETTERS! This is what the propagators of “East Syriac subjugation “manipulated so long as Estrangelo script. It is also astonishing to note that Nestorians adopted their rival’s (Syriac Orthodox) script Serto during this period!

Now it is proved that the said Codex is written in Nestorian using Estrangelo and Serto script. THAT IS WHY OUR BOY SCRIBE STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LANGUAGE. This has been manipulated by our Syriac church historians as probably he could not have spoken the language. The way in which church historians create history is amusing!

An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, by W.H.P. Hatch caption (read page 44,45,46,47)

The said 1301 AD date is given to this MSS because of the colophon, but there is no date or details are given. It is also noted that the Greek calendar was not used by Kerala Chroniclers except when some foreign origin church officials involved. Again the Yahballah V and the Prayers of Church Kokhe as stated in my earlier posts confirm its doubtful origin. To our surprise the scribe itself states that he do not know the language. This indicates that he wrote this for some Nestorian authority. I think it is logical to believe that the said codex is the work of East Syriac bishops arrived in AD1490.

An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, by W.H.P. Hatch (page 26 )

To those who still insist the Codex is Estrangelo Please read page 26 of this book. It says --- “”During the13th century the Estrangelo had continued to flourish, but after making a diligent search the present writer has not been able to find an example of dated Estangelo Manuscript which was copied in 14^th or 15^th century.””----- read yourself

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX: 22 – A reply to Nasrani.net

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX: 22 – A reply to Nasrani.net

Happy to read ‘nasrani.net’ response to my post dated 03/04/12 named  VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX: 22 -ANOTHER MANIPULATION? The post in my blog was not an original but my post in Orkut  forum  (Indian Orthodox) answering an enquiry regarding ‘Mar Yacob ‘and ‘Vatican Syriac Codex22.’ After posting it in this blog I tried two times to give the details in ‘nasrani.net’ but the admin deleted it without any reason. I wonder why these educated people are afraid of discussions. Any way let me study his post.

There is no new information in the nasrani.net other than the repeated claims of its authenticity without answering my doubts. I have already given the link to the description about the Vatican Syriac Codex :22 By Katholic Scholar J.P.M VAN DER PLOEG O.P. in his famous book called THE SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS OF ST.THOMAS CHRISTIANS (page187-189)in my earlier post . The Admin of NSC site copy paste (along with his changes ) it to prove the codex’s veracity. But the J.P.M. Van Der  Ploeg himself is contradicting in his book about the said Catholicos Yahballah V ( see  Page 4^th and page 188). This I have clearly noted with quotes in my first post dated 03/04/12 in this Blog. The scholar himself is assuming that the boy scribe might have mistaken when he himself is not sure about what he writes. Even considering this as a mistake by the scholar won’t make the MSS authentic until and unless provided by some solid evidences because assumptions without circumstantial evidences will not make history!

--------The MS is the oldest one known to have been copied in Kerala. Levi della Vida remarks that it was rebound in “legatura europea” of the 16th century (op. cit., p. 176). On the first leaf, of the same time as the binding and added to the book, mention is made of Portuguese personalities, whereas a European hand of the 16th century wrote in Italian an indication of the contents : “The epistles for the Sundays of St Paul for the whole year in Chaldean characters and language.” This is followed by a note in small ES script, attributed by L.d.V. to Mar Joseph (op. cit., p. 526 ; see also tavola X, 2). The note indicates the readings of Genesis and Isaiah for the 1st Sunday of sûbara (= Advent ; Gen 17, 1 ss. ; Is 42, 18 ss.). This is followed in somewhat thicker characters by the Portuguese name Gela Fonseca, the pronunciation of which is secured by the addition of an Arabic gim under the g and fa under the p.-------- this is from J.P.M VANDER PLOEG’S Book (the link is already given)

What do you understand from this explanation? It is Levi Della Vida attribute the small ES script to Mar Joseph (it is his opinion and what is the basis of that opinion?). There is Italian scripts denoting content information and a Portuguese name Gela Fonseca using Arabic gim under  g and fa under the p. What does it mean? The writing (manipulation) is done by some one who knew the Middle east languages. Now what is the difference in script noted by the said Mar Joseph and the Original script? Who is this great man called Gela Fonseca? We have to do a lot of home work before claiming anything based on a document (forged?) hidden in Vatican.

---------According to J. P. M. van der Ploeg, this book may have been in the hands of the Portuguese. It was given by “Gela Fonseca” to Mar Joseph Sulaka who took it with him on his last journey to Rome. Mar Joseph Sulaka, is the brother of Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Simon VIII Sulaqa ( 1551-1555). Mar Joseph Sulaka was consecrated as the Bishop of India by Chaldean Catholic Church Patriarch Abdisho IV( 1555-1571) in 1557 or 1558.Mar Joseph died in Rome in 1569.³  (from Nasrani.net)-------

Now see what J.P.M Vander pleog exactly says in his book . -----The book may have been in the hands of the Portuguese and given by the pious Gela to Mar Joseph, who took it with him on his last journey to Rome.------(Page 188) this is an opinion of J.P.M.V. PLOEG based on the assumption of Levi Dell Vida that the small E.S. script might have the work of one Mar Joseph. This is the way in which our desperate Syriac Church Historians create history!

Question of the Syriac script used in the Codex.

Which is the script used by scribe to copy the codex? Are there more than one script used to copy the codex? Whether the script used by the scribe is in Estrangelo or East Syriac (Madnhaya)? Without answering this we will not be able to find the truth behind the so called Codex:22. As I stated earlier in my previous post if any mixing of script will indicate a forged origin of this codex. So far no linguist has done any thorough study about the script used in this codex.

Yes I am aware that the J.P.M.V. states in bracket –Estrangelo- but later uses E.S to denote the script and also interesting to note that he uses E.S. for majority of later day MSS. See in the case of codex 17------Vat.syr17. A volume of 480ff.(478+2)15x10 1/2cms 1col21-23 lines E.S.-----(page186),---vat. Syr.4.A volume of 285ff,20x15 1/2cms,1col.,21-24 lines;6 pages are blank E.S.----- (page 186).He uses W.S. whenever West Syriac is applicable.

Now let me consider another option that the said codex is written Estrangelo in east syriac dialect(Whole portion) then it can be proved genuine provided that the other objection like the church mentioned, lack of information and record about Mar Yacob(with Malankara & COE) , contradiction about the  Mar Yahballah V, question about the liturgy of the church of Kokhe, lack of information in contemporary historians of  Madnhayo syriac orthodox as well as Nestorian, the  mortal remains of the said Mar Yacob etc. That is why I think it is the work of an over enthusiastic Propagandist church historians(or a group) whom are eagerly looking for evidences to prove their Church allegiances. 

There is another information from J.P.M.VAN DER PLOEG Book regarding Yahballah V (page 8)-------the first of these was Mar Joseph, brother of the deceased Patriarch SimonVIII sulaqa,who had died as a martyr for the union of his church with Rome(1551-1555).he has been  succeeded by AbdishoIV maron(1555-1571),former bishop of Gazarta .His successors were Yahballah V(1578-1580) and simon IX(1581-1600). All of them lived in union with Rome. ---------- Things are pretty clear now!

I wonder why Vatican keeps these types of MSS secretly without allowing any secular scholars to study and research on it.

----------There are scores of evidence from extant manuscripts associating many East Syrian prelates with India and the hierarchical relationship Church of India shared with Patriarch of Seleucia- Ctesiphon of the Church of East. There are references about David of Basrah ( ca.295 AD), John of Persia and Greater India ( 325 AD), Mar Komai ( 425 AD), Ma’na of Riwarddasir ( Persia) ( 470 AD), a Persian bishop whose name is not known ( 535 AD),  Patriach Sabrisho I ( 6/7th century), Bishop Thomas ( 8th century), Mar Sabrisho and Mar Peroz ( 9th century), Mar Jacob (14^th Century).Precise evidence is available in the letters of two East Syrian Patriarchs, Mar Ishoyahb III ( 647/8 or 650/1) and Mar Timothy I ( 780-823 AD). Patriarch Thimothy in 8th Century calls Archdeacon ( Arken), head of faithful of India. -----------(nasrani.net)

Detailed discussion is there revealing the truth about the so called east Syriac connection in this link

http://jeephilip.blogspot.in/2011/09/hypothesis-of-eastwest-syriacs.html

-----According toBishop Francis Roz ( 1604 AD) who succeeded Mar Abraham , based on a Chaldean book he has read, there were three Churches in Cranganore. One was dedicated to the Apostle Thomas, another one to Saint Kuriakose, and  the third one was dedicated to Our Lady.-------  (nasrani .net)

Which is the book and where are these churches now? Did any one do any study or excavations to find those three Churches? People have memory or created myth about our so called 7 ½ churches but forgot about 14^th century headquarters of Metropolitan who ruled the church of Malankara. Today many of the secular historians attribute the presence(considerable) of Nazranies in Kodungalur later than 14^th  century.

 A Case study.

There is a strong chance that this MSS most probably a forged one because the respective church historians has a habit of doing this to prove their side.

Have you heard a historian called Alphonse Mingana?

Alphonse Mingana; was an Assyrian theologian, historian, orientalist and a former priest who is best known for collecting and preserving the Mingana Collection of ancient Middle Eastern manuscripts at Birmingham. Like the majority of Assyrians in Zakho, his family belonged to the Chaldean Catholic Church. This “ Katholica Katha Nayakan” in 1907 started the publication of series he called “Sources Syriaques” of which only one volume appeared in two parts .The first part contain the so called chronicle of Arbela that Mingana attribute to MISHIHA ZKHA.

The Chronicle of Arbela or Mshiha-Zkha (1907)

The so-called 'Chronicle of Arbela' is one of the enigmas that Mingana buried with him in the tomb. I am not sure we can make full sense of it, but I will try to give as much information as possible, interpreting the facts we possess.

i) A modern manuscript made old and Its success

In 1907, Mingana started the publication of a series he called 'Sources Syriaques', of which only one volume appeared, in two parts (271 + 204 pages) (52). The first part contains the so-called 'Chronicle of Arbela' that Mingana attributed to Mshiha-Zkha. He published the Syriac text with a French translation (p 1-168).

This text became very famous. On the 21 October 1907, that is to say immediately after the publication of the document by Mingana, the Preussische Staatsbibliothek of Berlin acquired the MS for 3500 French Francs (plus the expedition expenses), on the assumption that it was from the 10th century.

In fact, an expert examination done in the 1960s established that the MS was written in our century, and was deliberately made to look older by means of fire, wax etc. The copyist is even known: he was the priest Abraham Shakwana of Alqosh (52b), who told a friend how Dr Mingana taught him to make the MS 'older' by putting it in the oven and so on. Mingana was clever enough to let people think that the MS was from the tenth century, although he did not assert this clearly.

The text was translated into German in 1915 by Eduard Sachau (53), and into Latin in 1927 by Franz Zorell (54). The most famous orientalists and Church historians studied it, among them A Allgeier, Adolph von Harnack, Anton Baumstark, J B Umberg, H Dieckmann, Giuseppe Messina, Ignazio Ortiz de Urbina (55), Julius Assfalg (56), Nina Viktorovna Pigulevskaja, Arthur Vööbus, M L Chaumont, Wilhelm de Vries (57), Jean-Maurice Fiey (58). Recently, in 1985, Peter Kawerau reedited the text with a German translation (59).

ii) Forgeries by Mingana?

Once again the problem is that of the authenticity of the Syriac original.

The first to question the authenticity of this Chronicle, for historical reasons, was Paul Peeters SJ, a famous orientalist (60), in 1925. Since the publication of his article, most orientalists have expressed their doubts regarding the authenticity of the text, although some (like Peter Kawerau) still consider it an important historical document (61).

Mingana's argument in attributing this work to Mshiha-Zkha (an unknown Syriac historian, mentioned 'en passant' by 'Abdishu of Nisibis in his 'Catalogue of Syriac Authors') lay in the fact that the title and the name of the author were written in the margin of one of the folios, in an old stranghelo writing. But Father Vosté OP revealed, in 1941, that these Syriac words were written by a monk from Alqosh at the request of Qass Alphonse (ie Mingana) (62). This marginal note ('Book of Ekklesiastike of Mshiha-Zkha') can be seen today on folio 27 verso of the Berlin manuscript, and has been reproduced twice by Julius Assfalg (63).

In 1967, Father Fiey OP revealed the name of the copyist: Thomas son of Hanna, of the Battota family from Karamlaiss, a Chaldean monk from Our Lady of the Seeds, easy to identify through his handwriting (64).

These two incidents in the life of Mingana, which remain partially unclear, prove that, for some unknown reason, he did not publish the Syriac texts faithfully. This fact is indirectly admitted by a great scholar and a friend of Mingana, his only Oriental friend, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Aphram I Barsaum. In the last page of his 'History of Syriac Literature', after having sharply criticised many Orientalists (65), he adds: 'Nevertheless, we have found some of them who were moderate, like Brooks, Haase (66), Sprengling (67), Graham (68), Mingana at the end of his life (69), and Gustave Bardy' (70).

At the end of his studies, Father Fiey, a well-known historian of the Syriac Oriental Church, concludes by saying that the real author of the Chronicle of Arbela is... Alphonse Mingana (71). My own opinion is that this conclusion may go too far.

It therefore appears that Qass Alphonse made two blunders. TO my knowledge, he never repeated this kind of textual manipulation. But it was too late, and, as we will see, some Orientalists will never forgive him these youthful mistakes.

 ALPHONSE MINGANA (1878-1937) And his contribution to early Christian-Muslim Studies  by  Samir Khalil Samir SJ

Read the article http://www.mingana.bham.ac.uk/biog.pdf

From another author

-----------In 1937, Mingana died, but his “Chronicle” still remained accepted by many eminent scholars, though the voice of doubt continued to be raised. In 1966, J. Neusner, discussing the “reliability of the Arbela tradition”, found himself on the horns of a dilemma. The confusion of names and dates in the “Arbelan Chronicle” forced him to use such phrases as “if the lives are sound”, or “this fact does, however, pose difficulties”, and so on. He could not entirely reject the “Chronicle’s” information for there was no way of checking it, some of it covering the period for which no other version of Parthian history is available.

At last, an article published in 1967, by J. M. Fiery in L’Orient Syrien XII. summarized in no uncertain manner the full evidence, proving beyond doubt the falseness of Mingana’s “discovery”.

Fiery told how even the very paper upon which the Chronicle was written, copied in a modern monastery by an old monk, was bought in Baghdad and then burnt to make it appear authentically antique.]-------

------------Internal evidence was also overwhelmingly on the side of the accusers. Mingana had ignored the “Diptychs of Arbela”, and contradicted their known data, AD. 362. The old monk’s grammar was not always correct and did not conform to sixth century usage, the doctrines incorporated into the teaching of the bishops, was Nestorian and the script used was Estrangela. There has been no further sign of the “original manuscript” for Mingana himself wrote that, nor did Mshiha Zkha exist – he was, in reality, Thomas, son of Hanna, a monk of the convent of Notre Dame des Moissons, where Mingana went to write the manuscript Thomas copied. Fiery noticed that the chronicle possessed a style which resembled greatly that of the Professor of Syriac at the Seminary of St. Jean between 1902 and 1907, and declared: “Je crois de moins en moins à l’existence de ce manuscript hypothétique.” To bolster his Church-history, Mingana had also to provide possible historical events in his crucial period, and this necessitated the manufacture of kings as well as of martyrs and bishops, a task he took in his stride. ------------

A Question Concerning Certain Views of Parthian History Dr. B. G. Zichy-Woinarski,   

Read more       http://www.magtudin.org/Parthian%20History.htm

Now please understand majority of the Syriac church historian’s bed time stories regards with our Persian/Nestorian history is based on this forgery. I am sad great men like our Philosopher Bishop Paulose Mar Gregorios (my sincere apologies to his great soul) take evidences from Chronicle of ARBELA to prove our relations with church of Fars. Then what to talk about our historical MURI-VYDIANMAR?

But still I think there exist enough evidences (circumstantial or documented) to believe that an independent church at the shore of MAALE. Its origin and development can be traced with the help of world maritime  trade history. But please do not make it laughable by forging documents and claiming unreasonable Episcopal hierarchy.

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX: 22 -ANOTHER MANIPULATION?

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX: 22 -ANOTHER MANIPULATION?

The Syriac church historians promote Vatican Syriac Codex: 22 as one of their best evidences in support of East Syriac subjugation hypothesis. This is all about a note (writing) by a boy scribe on its colophon of a Syriac MSS named Vatican Codex 22.It has been stated that the codex copied in SHENGALA (Kodungalur) during AD 1301.

 Let us understand the VATICAN CODEX 22. The codex gives us information about a metropolitan called Mar Jacob who ruled Malankara Nazranies from Kodungallur. The colophon of the said codex states it.

What exactly this colophon states?  Let us understand this. “”” the holy book was written in the royal renowned and famous city of Chingla in Malabar in the time of the great captain and director of the holy catholic church of the east… our blessed and holy father Mar Yahd Alaha V and in the time of Bishop mar Jacob metropolitan and director of the see of the apostle Thoma, that is to say, our great captain and director of the entire church of Christian India”””(The rise and decline of Indian church of the ST.Thomas Christians By Placid J.Podipara Page 15)

The book is written in East Syriac script as reported by authors and deals with some prayers  and epistle for the Sundays etc. there is a detailed description of it in”” The Syriac Manuscript of ST. Thomas Christians”” by J.P.M Van der ploeg o.p. “””””‘’’’according to its colophon it was copied in 1612 A. Gr. (=1301 AD) in the royal town of singala, in Malabar , in the country of India….. At the time of copyist the see of Mar Jacob, Bishop Metropolitan Superintendent (qayyoma) and ruler of the see of the holy apostle of Thomas………

On the first leaf, of the same time as the binding and added to the book, mention is made of Portuguese personalities, where as European hand of the 16^th century wrote in Italian an indication of the contents……………. This followed by a small note in small ES(east syriac )script, attributed by L.d.V. to Mar Joseph (op.cit. P. 526; see also tavolaX,2)……….. This is followed in some what thicker characters by the Portuguese name Gela Fonseca. the pronunciation of which is secured by the addition of an Arabic gim under the g and fa under the p.the book may have been in the hand of the Portuguese and given by the pious Gela to Mar Joseph,who took it with him on his last journey to Rome. The copyist was a young boy of 14 yers already a deacon and called Zakharia  bar Joseph bar Zakharia he knew syriac pretty well, though he denies he had any knowledge of the language. The later probably means that he could not speak it well, as older well instructed members of the clergy certainly could. Even in recent years  I have met Jacobite priests who could speak syriac.His patriarch ,Katholicos Patriarch of the church of the east is called by him Yahballaha III, whereas in reality he was 5^th of this name, while  he gets from him the surname TurKaya= the Turk .He was an Uygur of the far east; the uygurs were Turkish stock and were considered as turks, a more common name.”””””””

http://www.e-corpus.org/eng/notices/83480-The-epistles-for-the-Sundays-of-St-Paul-for-the-whole-year-in-Chaldean-characters-and-language.html

 SYRIAC SCRIPTS

“”””””The Syriac language also developed different scripts. The earliest Syriac  inscriptions of the first and second centuries A.D. (all pagan) use a script similar to Palmyrene cursive writing. By the time of our earliest manuscripts  (early fifth century A.D.) however, this script has taken on a more formalised  character, known as Estrangelo (derived from Greek strongulos 'rounded'). The Estrangelo script continued to be used well into the middle ages. Furthermore, it enjoyed a dramatic local revival in Tur'Abdin in the twelve century. During  the course of the eighth century there emerged, side by side with Estrangelo, a new and more compact script developed from Estrangelo correctly known as Serto  (literally 'a scratch, character'). This is normally used by the West Syrians  and the Maronites. A few centuries later, among the East Syrians, we see the gradual emergence from Estrangelo of the other distinctive script known as Eastern but generally called Nestorian script by European writers.””””” (Nestorian.org)

http://www.nestorian.org/a_bird_s_eye_view_of_the_syria.html

“””””””Western scholars divide the Syriac script into four branches, a) Old Syriac, hand produced  (in mosaics, coins and handwritten documents), and dating from the 1stcentury to the 4^th century; b) Estrangela, a developed form of book-hand Syriac that began appearing  in copied religious manuscripts of the early 5^th century; c) Serto, a more compact book-hand that took over from estrangela in the West Syriac region during the 8th century;  and d) East Syriac, another distinctive book-hand that appeared within the ecclesiastical context of the Church of the East. This development paralleled the Serto of the West but appeared later during the 14^th century. It is this last script that the American missionaries elaborated when they committed the spoken Eastern dialects to writing and printing in the Syriac script during the 19^th century “””””””””(Coakley, 2006:4-16).  

The earliest Syriac inscriptions of the first and second centuries . (all pagan) employ a script with many similarities with Palmyrene cursive writing, but by the time of our earliest manuscripts (early fi fth century .) this script has taken on a more formalized character, known as “Estrangelo” (from Greek strongulos, “rounded”). h e British Library preserves many superb pieces of calligraphy in this hand. Although the script continued to be used well into the Middle Ages (and indeed enjoyed a dramatic local revival in Tur Abdin in the twelfth century), during the course of the eighth century there emerged, side by side with it, a new and more compact script developed from estrangelo. h e correct name for this [14] new script is serto (literally “a scratch, character”), but in European works it is often designated “Jacobite,” since it became the normal script employed by the “Jacobites” (i.e. Syrian Orthodox); it is in fact also used by the Maronites as well. A few centuries later, among the East Syrians, we see the gradual emergence from estrangelo of the other distinctive Syriac script, today employed by Chaldeans and “Assyrians;” it is generally called the “Nestorian” or “Chaldean” script by European writers.( An introduction to syriac studies by Sebastian Brock)

Now on the light of the above information it is obvious that any Manuscript used East Syriac (Madnhaya) must be originated during the 14^th century or later. That means if any portion or whole of the said manuscript used East Syriac script likely to be originated much later than the attributed period. That makes this manuscript suspicious. The other Portuguese manipulations (Portuguese names etc. ) also give a possibility of a forged document. But if the Manuscript is in Estrangelo with East Syriac dialects, then chances of genuineness can be proved provided the information supplied is correct with other records or traditions. 

The manuscripts contain a lectionary for the readings of St Paul in the Eucharistic liturgy of Sundays, feasts and commemorations of the whole ecclesiastical year according to the rite of the church of Kokhe  . Now this create some doubts because this lectionary was alien to Malankara as the Malankara was claimed (by the very propagators of this manuscript) to have relations with church of Fars. This is also goes against the usual Syriac MSS as reported by Van Der Ploeg. The church of Kokhe never played a major role as per the propagators of Persian subjugation of Malankara Nazranies.

When we analyze the content of information provided by the manuscript arouse many doubts. The first one is about the historical veracity of the Catholicos of Seleucia Yahballaha V. The script copier clearly wrote that he copied the said script at the time of Yahballaha V as per  the historians . In order to make the document historical church historians explains that the Boy script writer by mistake wrote as Yahaballah V. Please be noted that the Vander Ploeg explains this with Following words .Read it yourself from  Fr. Vadakkekara Benadict

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=pAncGlpGW8wC&lpg=PA163&dq=The%20Myth%20of%20Saint%20Thomas%20and%20the%20Mylapore%20Shiva%20Temple%20BY%20ISHWAR%20SHARAN&pg=PA299#v=onepage&q=The%20Myth%20of%20Saint%20Thomas%20and%20the%20Mylapore%20Shiva%20Temple%20BY%20ISHWAR%20SHARAN&f=false

But please also take time to read the same Van Der ploeg explains more when he discuss the codex 22 in detail

‘””””””””The book may have been in the hands of the Portuguese and given by the pious Gela to Mar Joseph, who took it with him on his last journey to Rome. The copyist was a young boy of 14 years, already a deacon and called Zakharya bar Joseph bar Zakharya ; he knew Syriac pretty well, though he denies he had any knowledge of the language. The latter probably means that he could not speak it well, as older well-instructed members of the clergy certainly could. Even in recent years I have met Jacobite priests who could speak Syriac. His Patriarch, “Katholikos-Patriarch” of the Church of the East is called by him Yahballaha III, whereas in reality he was the 5th of this name, while he gets from him the surname Tûrkaya = the Turk. He was an Uighur of the Far East ; the Uighurs were of Turkish stock and were considered as “Turks”, a more common name. “”””( Link has already given)

Now tell me which is the correct explanation?

Now, let me take you for an evening walk with me through the pages of east syriac Christianity. I have always admired people with great caliber in accepting truth in spite of beliefs and opposite views. I want to introduce a great personality called BAR EBRAYO who lived during the time of Uygur Katholicos called Yahballah III. This great Catholicos of Syriac Orthodox (Madnhaya syriacs) was a historian, Philosopher, Mathematician, Teacher etc. what not? Some of the typical propagandist historians tried to paint him a partisan .The scholars like Wigram despite all his efforts in the opposite direction failed to suggest anything concrete against him. It is surprising to note that the Great Wigram himself noted that many of his historical statements are correct when compared with cotemporary Nestorian historian like IBN-AL-TAYIB.

This great Catholicos (Mafrian) was a good friend of our KATHANAYAKAN Uygur Catholicos of Nestorian church. Read from the link

http://www.archive.org/stream/sketchesfromeast032348mbp#page/n261/mode/2up

plz read page 249-256(necessary) ,but suggest whole chapter.

Now this scholar wrote Christian history of the east extensively, not a word about the relation ship of Metropolitan see of Malankara! I don’t think he was a partisan since he wrote about Nestorian church. That is why I question the Vatican codex 22.

Now I want you to free wheel with me in search of historical truth. Was there any Catholicos named as Yabhallaha V in history? Let us check?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahballaha_V

Now it is our duty to find out the details of this Yahballah V from so called conventional church historians. Also plz search for details of Portuguese relations with Nestorian unites!

Quite interesting, isn’t it? That is why I like History very much.

THARISAPALLI PLATES (QUILON COPPER PLATES-TABULA QUILONENSIS)

 THARISSAPPALLY CHEPPEDU.

Syriac Christian Historians have written a lot about their prestigious plates of THARISSAPALLI. Their imaginative stories have created an aversion among secular historians toward these elevated stories. The building of Kurekkenikollam and starting of new Calendar calculations are nothing but a wild imagination by propagandist church historians. It is surprising to note that none of these historians or Malankara Nazranies asked for a modern study on these plates with the help of new scientific techniques.

There are two sets of copperplates, first group contains three plates and the second set contains four plates out of which one plates is missing from first set(some say one each from both sets). One plate from the first set and three plates from the second set are kept at Syriac Orthodox Catholicate Kottayam and other plate from the first set and one from the last set are kept by Pulathin aramana, Marthoma church, Thiruvalla.

DONOR : Ayyan Adikal thiruvadikal(aynadi kudiruvadi),at the time of Thanu Ravi(Kothanu eravikthan)  Time not before A.D.885. Generally historians misunderstand that Thanu Ravi and Ravi khulashekharan are one person .It is a mistake based on recent historical research. There are four SHASANAS dealing with Thanu ravi (Tharisappally shasanam -5^th admin year,Iringalakkuda shasanam 11^th year,Thiruvattuvay shasanam 17^th year,Kadamba mahadevi’s thillai sthanam shasanam ) are available clearly noting his name and one can easily calculate his time of rule . (Read Pracheena Keralathinte Rashtriya charithram By K. Shivashankaran Nair Page133-137)

BENEFICIARY: Kurekkeni kollam Tharissappally ( not today’s Kollam)constructed by ESHODATHAPARAI.  There is no clear indication of Mar sabarisho  but at the  last of the shasana state that ‘AYYANADKAL THIRUVDIYEKONDU MARUVAN CHAPARICH NEERVEEZHTHI ‘ which indicate that the pally was constructed by ESHODATHAPARAI and person who got persuaded the King to grant  the tharishapally shasanam was MARUVAN CHAPARICHA. This is from original PADANUPADA reproduction of shasanam.

Please read the content from ‘PADANUPADA’ reproduction.

“”””””””SWATHSREE,

KOTHANU IRAVIKTHANU PALA NOORAYORATHANDUMUMARUKUTHALAI

CHIRANTHDIPPADUTHU THALANINYANDULA CHELANINTRAYANDAINTHU

IVANDU VENADU VAZHKINTA AYNADI KUDIRU VADYUMU

MATHIKARARUM,PIRAKIRUTHIYUMU,MANIKIRAMUMU,MANJUVANNAMUMU, PUNNAITHALAIPATHIYUM,
MULUVYYTHU KURAKKENI KOLLATHU ESHODATHAPARAI CHEYVEETHA

THARISSAPALLIKKU AINADI KURIDUVADI KUDUTHA VIDUPERAVATHU.””””””””””

Now how can any one arrive that above words indicate Mar Sabhor Isho .I really want to prove this plates belongs to Mar Sabor Isho but sincerely it lacks logical evidences.

LANGUAGE & PLATES: The language of the Shasanam is Tamil along with Koofic, Pahlavi, Hebrew signatures. There is some dispute about the plate which contain signature of the witness in Koofic, Pahlavi, Hebrew. Some historians say the plates belong to first set but others say it belong to the second set. Historian P.V.Mathew gives more details about the signature in his book Keralathile Nazrani Kristhianikal Vol.1. He includes details of missing plate which he got from ZEND AVESTA BY ANQUETTIL DU PERON vol.1 Page 175-178.

The claims of Mr. P.V. Mathew is seems more logical to me since the first set of plates contain three OLAS (plates) tied through a ring with equal length and width(each them was two palms in length and four fingers broad) and in diverse characters as reported by Antonio De Gouvea in his JORNADA page (389,390).That is the witness signatures in diverse characters belong to the first set of plates. But the position of  by P.V. Mathew on the subject of witness  with respect to the list provided by Anquettil Duperon may be wrong because the first chepped give incomplete names ie. Two names from the Du Peron’s list with a little deviation – VELKULA SUNDARAM (velkula chandran in duperon list), VIJAYA (vijaya narayan), rest are incomplete. That means this first two names of complete list produced by Du Peron some what agree with minor mistakes. This makes the first set of plate complete .Hence the missing plates may belong to the second set of plates. This puts us in a difficult situation that the donor of the second plate are not clearly defined as the first plates are missing (by some authors). There is also another contradiction that the First set of plates contains no mention of PULAKKUDIPATHI while the witness in Tamil has an entry as PULAKKUDI THANEYAN. This asks more authentic study by scholars to understand the true nature of the Plates. My analysis on the base of translations with me in English and Malayalam by Aquettil Du peron ,P.V. Mathew, and one English copy from a book of Maulana Azad Library ,AMU Algarh.( The author of the book cannot be traceable because that portion of the copy was eaten by termite) .It is also noticed that the translation is done considering  the both sets are one!

Following are the translations with respect to the witnesses(Kufic,Pahlavi & Hebrew) .Interesting thing is that CPT WINKWORTH translated all signatures but only two of the Pahlavi signatures.

Witness name in Kufic                                                 

      1)      Ibrahims’s son Mymoon                                                                                                 

      2)      Mani’s son Muhammed                                               

      3)      Ali’s son Sule’                                                                                

      4)      Al Mazhsiban son Uthman                                                         

      5)      Yaha ‘s son ahmed                                                                              

      6)      Ibrahim son Amar                                                          

      7)      Athe’s son Ibrahim                                                      

      8)      Mansoor ‘s son Backer                                                

      9)      Mahmmed’s son Al-kazim                                                             

     10)   Isa’s son Mansoor                                                        

     11)   Yacoub’s son Ismael

Pahlavi

1)      Sharbhakth’s son Aphras
2)      Ormasd (8^th name)

Hebrew

1)      Hassan ali
2)      Issak
3)      Benmechael
4)      Abraham

Majority of the historians consider this plate belong to the second set of plates without any good evidence. We have more convincing evidence with the names of Tamil witnesses to the first plates (but P.V.Mathew says it is of second set of Plates).Following are the translation of Tamil names provided by Anquttil du Peron in his book Zend Avesta.

Tamil

     1)      Velkula Chandran(Velkula Sundaran  in the original plates)

     2)      Vijaya narayan(Vijaya in original plates)

     3)      Ithirakshi odiya Kannan nandanan

     4)      Madhineya vinaya dinan

     5)      Kanna nandanan                                                                                         

     6)      Nalathirinju thiriyan

     7)      Kaman kannan

     8)      Chennan kannan

     9)      Kandan cheran                                                                           

    10)   Yakondayan

    11)   Kanavadi athithyenen

    12)   (anayude rupamulla mudra)

    13)   Murugan chathan

    14)   Murugan kamappan

    15)   Poolakkudi thanayan

    16)   Punnathalakodi udayan inkannan

    17)   Punnathalakoranaya komaram kannan

    18)   Sambodhi veerayan

 

Recent study by some of the scholars was able to translate some more names with much difficulty. They are not quite sure about the correctness of these names.  Those who are interested to know more please use this link

 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=b3gOdaiXNKkC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=The+Pahlavi+Signatures+on+the+Quilon+Copper+Plates+(Tabula+Quilonensis)&source=bl&ots=cVqvozURIv&sig=tyzvfeFzPgq3yIIbT_NIPf513Ms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C_B3T-3IJcnSrQewwqCVDQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Pahlavi%20Signatures%20on%20the%20Quilon%20Copper%20Plates%20(Tabula%20Quilonensis)&f=false 

Is it enough to make such a big story about Nestorian /Madanayo Syriac connection? Syriac historians are making tall claims on the basis of these Pahlavi signatures. Please remember the other signatures include Muslim names and some Jews names. If you argue that they were witnesses then the same logic must be applied to the Pahlavi signatures. They have nothing to do except being witnesses. That means the plate was given to Tharissapally which constructed by some YASHODATAPARAI and got a grant from Ayyanadikal  with the instigation of MARUAVAN  CHAPARICHA. So far we are not able to prove any thing except tall claims. It is amusing to note some families of MALANKARA NAZRANIES of Kollam/Kayamkulam claim that they belong to family of Mar sabor Isho.

KURAKKENI KOLLAM

The place called Kurakkeni kollam is considered as modern Quilon by many of the writers. But some writers clearly states that the Kurakkeni Kollam may not be present day Quilon. Present day Quilon was capital of Deshinga nadu and came in to prominence only after Portuguese made it their centre after 1503.In those days ports were not exactly what is meant today. Many of the earlier maps by colonialists clearly indicate that these places were comparatively open spaces with comparatively less population. Most of the population was concentrated around the capitals where administrative heads lived. It is also noticed that these ports were often shifted to places where more facilities available according to the buyer. This can also be based on the natural calamities , war etc.

William Logan states that the word Kollam derived from Kovilakam. Ibn-batuata wrote about three Kollams of Malabar. First one is at a distance of 5days from Kozhikkod ie.Kollam- Kodungallur. The second Kollam is the capital of Kolathiri nadu ie. Panthalayai Kollam. He stated that he was there for three months taking rest after his illness. He also gave information about an attack from pirates during the travel between this Kollam and Hanover. The third Kollam is at a distance of 10days from Kozhikkod ie. the last Kollam of Malabar –Kurakkani kollam where Panakav kovilakam was situated. This was the capital of Venadu. This indicate that  these Kollams are the places of kovilakams of respective dynasty ie. The Kurakkeni kollam may be in and around the Pnakavu Kovilakam not the Portuguese Kollam of today .

The earlier Kollam port most probably some where nears the mouth of  Ashtamudi kayal region. This is not an assumption rather based on some calculations. Chinese ships mainly traded with Kollam as reported by most of the travelers. Ibn-Batuta  reported that the Chinese ships stops only at kollam on their return to china even though many other leading ports were there on the way. This is because of the peculiarity of the Chinese Junk design. The Chinese junks’s hull design are flat compared to European designs. So they can go into shallow waters and carry out their trade activities. The Kurakkeni kollam being inside the mouth of Ashtamudi kayal these junks are safe from the turbulence of deep see. It is also difficult for them to load the ship with trade items while anchoring at the open see like Portuguese. That is why they preferred Kurekkeni kollam. On the other hand Portuguese ships have comparatively deep Hull design makes them difficult or even impossible to go inside. That is why the port shifted to present day Kollam by Portuguese initiative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_(ship)

http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Genealogy/Documents/Asia/asiaShips.html

Now let us find out what is meant by “Kurakkenikollam”. It is obvious that the Kollam of today is not Kurakkenikollam of 9^th century. The word meaning may give some clue in that direction. “KURANK” means curved and “KENI” means small streams(Neer  thodukal), kinar (well),small pond etc. as noted by V.V.K.VALATH in KERALATHILE STHALA CHARITHRANGAL. Is this indicating that the Kurakkeni kollam is known by such name because of the curved ship channels inside the Ashtamudi Kayal? It is well known that any place name is derived from the particularity/specialty of that place. Some historians like K. Shivashankaran nair in his book Prachina Keralathinte Rashtreeya Charithram give another explanation to this. He says that the place which is projected towards the see (south of Ashtamudikkayal) where the new port is situated is called Kurakkenikollam without any evidences. This may be because of over influence of Syriac church historians whom are very eager to promote that Mar Sabor Isho built the new Kollam and started Kollavarsham . It is true that the months of the Kollavarsham has a similarity with months of Greek year but hardly came from Mar Sabor isho who might have followed Syriac calendar or Persian calendar. Over enthusiastic church historians built stories like Sabarisho built the city of Kollam and started the new calendar calculation –Kollavarsham. What a great idea to promote! If it was true then it would be the first time in world history a group of refugees who fled their country because of religious intolerance built a city and started another calendar calculation in the country of their migration!

But it is interesting to note that the evidence against these church historians is there in the Tharissapalli cheppedu itself. It clearly state that the church is built by YASHODATHAPARAI and the cheppedu is given to Tharissapalli on the influence of one MARVAN CHAPARICHA. This itself shows that the Pally was built by some one else and the role of Marvan Chaparicha in this cheppedu is only a facilitator. Hence the arguments of the so called Syriac Church historians are nothing but wild imagination to elevate their position.

THARISSA PALLY

Church historians differ in the meaning and origin of the word ‘THARISSA’. Most of the Katholic historians state that it is Theresapalli the cheppedu is mentioning and so they were Katholics. These historians have not taken any care to study the history of eastern Christianity before jump into conclusions. Now it has convincingly proved that the word “THARISSA” represent”TRISSO “ a Syriac word denote ‘ORTHODOX’ . If it is true then the Tharissa pally means an eastern church. It is also interesting to note that there is a similar word called THARSAKAN in UYGUR language denoting orthodox Christians. Plz note that UYGUR language was used by Syriac Christians, Manicheans etc. in Central Asia.

Now let us find out the possible location of the Tharissa pally. Most of the church historians state that the Pally which was handed over to Prtughese could be the Tharissapally. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the Kollam of today is Kurakkenikollam and Mar Sabor built the Kurakkani kollam. But we found that was unlikely on the basis of evidence from the Cheppedu itself. Another important thing to be noticed here is that the leaders of Kollam Nazranies were from KAYAMKULAM , CHATHANNUR, THEVALAKKARA area . One among them noted by Portuguese writers was MATHIAS OF KAYAMKULAM and he was staying in new Kollam and leading the NAZRANI traders. He was very friendly with Portuguese and even written to King Manual I(Albuquerque,Cartas,II,Page268f,History of Christianity in India Vol.I by M. Mundadan Page278).He helped Portuguese in acquiring the required pepper and other items in return they disburse money for his expenses during his stay in cochin(for business purposes). This clearly suggests that the Nazranies of Kurekkeni kollam shifted to New Kollam for business purposes and even built church there for their use. This church was placed some where near the new port where Portuguese built their fort. The church built by Nazranies of Kurakkenikollam at the new port was in the name of ST.Thomas as evident from Travancore State manual Vol.I page 679. “’The Portuguese commander pursued the Mohammedans to Vilinjam and burned the palace which gave them refuge. The later retaliated by burning St.Thomas Christian Church at Quilon in 1516””(Yes there is some confusion here but will be cleared later) But the Nazranies built another church above the new Kollam town and worshiped there. Though the church is known as Kandisha pally it was originally named after ST. Thomas church as confirmed by Anquettile Du peron. He  visited the church during AD 1758(Zend Avesta by Du Peron Vol.I Page 188) .It is logical to believe that the new church was built to replace the old church which was burned by Muslims and used by Portuguese. But if this was the church built by Mar Sabor or buried , Malankara Nazranies would not have handed over  it to Portuguese at any cost.  So it is logical to believe that the said church was built by Malankara Nazranies of Kurakkeni kollam in new Kollam in order to use when they shifted to new Kollam for business purpose. Another interesting thing to be noted that the church rebuilt by the Portuguese after the destruction by Muslims named after ST. Mary (St. Thomas encyclopaedia of India , a detailed story is available in History of Christianity In India by Mundadan  Page 280,281, Keralathile Nazrani Kristhianikal  Vol.1 By P.V.Mathew,Jornada by Antonio De Gouvea Page378).

On the light of these evidences we can be sure that the Tharissa Pally is certainly not the pally in new Kollam or near to it but possibly some where in the region between Kayam kulam to Ashtamudi kayal. But we do not know whether this Church exist today or not because of lack of clear evidence. But one can logically deduct that if the church exist it must be some where in the Kurakkeni kollam (old Kollam) area.

Now let us study the other evidences in tracing the Tharissa pally. We know that the OLAS of Tharissa palli cheppedu are kept in the custody of the Malankara Orthodox Syriac Church and Mar Thoma Church. But we know that Arch. Bishop Menezez after the DE AMPERITANA SYNODO visited important churches to force the decision of the synod. On his journey he visited THEVALAKKARA CHURCH in the old Kollam area. He was faced much resistance from the members of this church. After the repeated promise from the bishop they showed him their Copper plates which received from the rulers of old Kollam. This was the first time any European authority came across the prestigious Tarissa pally Cheppedu. Plz read what Antonio De Gouvea in his JORNADA page (389,390)

………….and before leaving the Christians brought to show him big olas of copper written in diverse characters, which contain many privileges and incomes which king who founded Coulao gave to the church which was built there by the two who came from Babylonia, Mar Xapor and Mar Prodh as we have said above ,which olas are retained by Christian of this church as an invaluable treasure …………

…… and each them was two palms in length and four fingers broad, written on both sides, and all the three kept hanging by an iron ring……….. This is valuable evidence, indeed!

This evidence forces me to suggest that this is the Pally we are searching for? But the history student in me does not agree until and unless I get more evidences to support the suggestion. Are there any evidences available related with this? Yes I think there is.

Let us go back to Portuguese documents. “””””””””According to Damio de Goes in Cronica dofellicissimo Rei D. Manuel vol .l p 169 there were some 2000 families of these Christians in the whole kingdom of Quilon. According to Empoli in the town itself there were 3000 of them residing around their church and they were called Nazareni Christians. In the town there stood an ancient church (strangely enough, called our lady of Mercy) which according to the tradition of the community was built either by st.thomas the apostle himself or by one of his servants or by sts sapor and Prot, who lay buried in it.””””””””””””(Cited in History of Christianity in India by M.Mundadan).

We have discussed that the church at new Kollam (the one who burnt by Muslims) was in the name of St.Thomas and  the Nazranies easily left the church to Portuguese and built another one at Melekollath( upper land of thangassery). If this was the church built by their saints and buried any one’s body there, would they leave it so easily to Portuguese? That force me to suggest that the said church is not the  Tharissapally . But we know that the church at Thevalakkara has a saint called Mar ABO is buried and often confused for Mar Sabor(or Aphrot). Is it possible that the Said Sabor (or Aphrot) is the same ABO. I think there is a strong possibility. The Mar Sabor (or Aphrot) is associated with one of the Malankara Nazrani’s Head Pally called KADAMATTOM PALLY. The Guru of one of the Kadamattathu Kathanar(Magician Kathanar) was this Mar ABO. We have historical record that the church members had the first set of Tharissapalli cheppedu with them. This along with evidences related with Kurakkenikollam and other various records by Portuguese sources force me to arrive a conclusion that the THEVALAKKARA PALLY  certainly has connection to Tharissapally or it maybe possible that it itself is the THARISSAPALLY.

Kindly note that this analysis is true provided that YASODATAPARAI and MARUVAN CHAPARICHA has something to do with Mar Sabor and mar Aphrot. I think future study by scholars will prove this. It all depends on the wish and will of MALANKARA NAZRANIES.

Addendum

This is  added to the article in response to readers request. “Tarissa or Tharissa” is most likely from Syriac word “Triso”.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=nLRADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=TRISSO+IN+SYRIAC&source=bl&ots=7HmskfG8TV&sig=UWk-3ZzDecjixmnP-ByYhlSLFt4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPzbf2oeLeAhXBvI8KHYmUAkoQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=TRISSO%20IN%20SYRIAC&f=false 

It is also to be noted that  “Tarsakan” was the Iranian word for Orthodox/Nestorian Christians beyond the Oxus river ,which passed on to central Asia through Uygur Language . Malankara nazranies have a group called Dhariyaykkal (Orthodox Christians) or Tarissa chettikal- at Thiruvithamocde ,who excelled in trading . It is evident from Thaliyola preserved in a Malankara Nazrani family called Karuthedathu of Mavelikkara.

http://www.oxuscom.com/Nestorian_Christianity_in_CA.pdf   (page 5)

Thanks

Jeevan Philip.
20/11/2018.