History of Christianity in India based on modern historical studies.@ph...

Reply to Dr. Sarah Knight's (Jacobite scholar, Cambridge, UK.) objections:

 

                     It is an irony of history that the Mani wrote down his revelation meticulously, so little of his books have been preserved. What is preserved in rich measures are hymns, prayers, and dogmatic treatises which stem from a later generation of disciples, but these writings make us aware of the great importance of imagery in Manichaean literature. This imagery is often reminiscent of imagery of Syrian Christians, which has been systematically studied by R. Murray. Imagery appealed to the oriental mind, more so than the conceptual type of thinking that we find in the Greek and Roman traditions, and perhaps this is one reason why Manichaean survived a thousand years longer in the orient than it did in the Roman empire.

                                                                  (Manichaean Art on The Silk Road, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit)

 

      I am extremely pleased to read Dr. Sarah Knight's response to my book, Unmasking the Syriacs. Firstly, I want to correct her mistake (one may call it her fallacy); this is not a newly released book, but rather published exactly one year ago, in March 2022. Since its publication, I have been eagerly waiting for any response from official or unofficial church historians, but nothing materialized. Subsequently, I approached some journalists to give a short description of the book in their medium to reach out to readers, but none were ready to do it since the study may be objectionable to certain sections of society. However, sales of the book picked up slowly through social media promotions, and some comments were received from readers. That was not satisfactory from the author's point of view because the amount of data, analysis, and discussions with the help of most modern research papers from famous scholars and universities were enormous. One of my friends, a Catholic priest who claims to have read the book twice, suggested that the response will come but will take time because the data and analysis I provided are much more extensive, which requires time and effort. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there was a brilliant editor who read the book, telephoned me, and told me that we are going to do it. That was the beginning of the media attention, which forced church historians to react suddenly to my book without noticing its year of publication. Anyway, thanks to my old telephonic friend, Dr. Sarah Knight.

Going through her misleading comments and misinterpretations, I still think that she did not read my book completely or the way it should be. This will be explained through the following observations. Since her response is not in an orderly manner, I shall also follow her footsteps (points).

I)Wrong premises, fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims in Mr. Jeevan Philip's book

It amuses me because there are no premises or fallacies; rather, hard data that I collected from the previous studies of well-known scholars in the academic and non-academic fields. The majority of these scholars are from famous universities around the world, and the rest are famous writers or independent scholars.

1)False histories of the Syrians:

I think her problem is with my book's title, "Unmasking the Syriacs." It is specifically meant to impart the literal meaning of it. Yes, the Syriacs' stories (a large part of it) are not historically correct and verified based on modern studies and research by recent scholars using new evidence and methodologies. Some of them I have discussed in detail in my book, which Ms. Sarah might have missed or been unable to understand. Besides this, the claims of Syriacs concerning the ancient Indian church are absolute falsification of facts for religious colonialism. I do not want to repeat it here because my book contains plenty of evidence and explanations.

It amuses me again when she writes about Niranam Grandhavari, Kandanadu Grandhavari, and Vettikuttel Mathai's brilliant story narrations.

2)Lack of 'proper evidence':

 Yes, my book considered almost all material evidence unearthed from the Indian Peninsular region, which is worth considering. If she finds anything new, let her put it forward. Certainly, I would love to consider it. Here she talks about my claims which are none rather only data and their analysis and results. Based on these results, the book arrives at a specific conclusion substantiated by direct, alternate, and parallel evidence. The book is in front of those who want to study it.

3)How new religions and philosophies are spread:

Philip upholds a false premise, which is that new religions and ideas are spread only as a result of the 'migration of people' and asserts that: 'The migration of Christianity to distant places, especially in South Asia, happened through Afro-Eurasian (sic) trade.' (Dr. Sarah)

She probably confuses herself with the amount of data and length of discussions. My statement was a new religion or philosophy that migrates or transfers to another geographical location requiring a medium. This medium is the movement of people or the transfer of people for a purpose. There may be different purposes or causes like trade, war, calamities, etc. In the case of trade, it is through Socio-commercial networks developed for Afro-Eurasian trade. Please read chapter 4 "Indian Ocean Trade: People and Places" (pages 116-123).

Let me be more precise by quoting from my book:

"The migration of religion, culture, or philosophy to distant lands generally occurs through people's contact and movements, mainly done through trade networks. Individual proselytization, like the Apostle's sojourn in unknown foreign lands, might have initiated the first phase of migration of the religion of Jesus or, more precisely, the philosophy of Jesus, but that movement also demanded a previously existing socio-commercial network. If the religion of Jesus transferred to Antioch within a few years of the death of Jesus, it means there existed a socio-commercial network (movement of people) to take the individual or the group to Antioch, resulting in the migration of the religion. That means there is no possibility of transferring religion without the network of people moving for a general exchange of goods. There may be accidental movements such as wars, calamities, etc., that also transfer religion and culture, but as a continuous and peacetime process, trade plays a more prominent role. That is the logic behind searching for Pahlavi crosses through the socio-commercial networks that brought Christianity to India." (Unmasking the Syriacs, Chapter 5, pages 127-128)

Again, in Chapter 4 on page 97 of "Unmasking the Syriacs", it is stated that "The migration of religion and its symbols requires some paths or roads to enter new territory. The spread of faith involves the exchange of ideas and philosophy through person-to-person contact, which demands an existing medium. This medium is obviously the exchange of goods, which we refer to as long-distance trade. Hence, we should understand the possible long-distance trade between India and the outside world along with its identities to trace the migration of religion in question."

Likewise, on the Introduction page, xxvii, of "Unmasking the Syriacs", it is noted that "To walk back along the migration route of Pahlavi crosses, one is undoubtedly required to go back to the transfer of Christianity to India through the socio-commercial network that developed for the ancient Afro-Eurasian trade. Whether Christianity spread to distant places like India through the work of any apostles or merchant diaspora, the role played by the socio-commercial network is undisputed. The basic logic of this study is to identify the nodes of these trade networks, find all possible archaeological remains unearthed, compare them with the Pahlavi crosses and possibly help us identify the origin of these crosses."

I believe that the subject matter is clear. The rest of the fallacies and allegations in this subheading do not require any further response.

4) Archaeological evidence left by traders:

The argument put forth by Dr. Sarah reveals her inability to grasp basic research methods. She uses the non-availability of any archaeological data apart from the Pahlavi crosses and Tharissapalli plates from old Thamizhakam to argue that India does not have any archaeological data, inscriptions, or ceramic remains from its past. I sympathize with Dr. Sarah for not having a basic understanding of the archaeological data available in India and its rich past. She should have been aware of the IVC, Keezhadi, Arikkamedu, Poopuhar, Pattanam, and numerous other archaeological sites, as well as the literary evidence like Cangam literature and various trade guild agreements that have been unearthed in South India.

Now, coming back to the point, my suggestion was about the basic settlement of the Christian community (if any) that existed from the first century in South India, probably in the trade routes or nodes of the socio-commercial network in Thamizhakam, as explained in the book. They should have produced and used their daily life utensils, lamps, censers, symbols like crosses, ornaments, headstones, etc. for their daily life. If we could unearth Roman coins, beads, amphoras, and potsherds, from archaeological sites all over South India, then what about the Christian settlements in these areas from the first century to the 10th century? Contrary to Dr. Sarah's argument, we have plenty of artefacts, splayed-armed crosses, chains with crosses, other ornaments, lamps, mirror frames with crosses, headstones, etc. from the Sassanian Empire to Central Asia, China & Mongolia, where Syriac Christians played a crucial role in spreading the faith.

Sadly, Dr. Sarah considers the archaeological remains only as Greek/Roman pillars or monuments. Kindly understand the folly of Dr. Sarah's proposition that the Syriac Christianity of the Persian Empire (in her particular case it may be Antioch) was wholly responsible for the development and liturgical practices of South Indian Christianity but did not produce any of its crosses or artefacts or even headstones like in their homeland Persia or their similar mission fields like Central Asia, China, and Mongolia. The detailed data of this archaeo-linguistic evidence are given in two chapters of my book (Chapters 5 & 6). So that is why my proposition of the origin of Indian Christianity possibly a post-10th century affair becomes more valid.

I hope humidity will not wither away any stone or metal carved artefacts.

5) Manichaean origins:

‘Based on the wrong premises above, Philip introduces the fallacy that ‘the Mylapore and such other crosses are ‘not a witness to ancient Christianity but vestiges of Manichaeism, and the Manichaean prophet, Jesus.’ But then he finds that the Mylapore Cross is different from the ‘splayed-cross’ of the Manichaeans found elsewhere, but nevertheless concludes that the Mylapore Cross ‘may belong to some Gnostic groups like the Manichaeans’. (Dr.Sarah)

This is the problem of not reading the book properly. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the various syncretic evolutions of crosses from basic splayed armed crosses to the Quinjiao crosses of China (please read pages 218-237). The reasons and possibilities are also discussed in detail with examples and evidence. In chapter 7, there is a classification of crosses showing the possible influences (page 256) and the evolution along with the chart showing the development of cross arms (page 262) and their decorations. Separate lines are addressed as the Indian Manichaean line and the Central Asian Manichaean line to understand the syncretic evolution of crosses. Besides this, I have explained the semiotic aspect (pages 269-274) of the Pahlavi cross based on the ontological principles of Manichaeism. The Makaras, pearls released from the mouth of the Makara depicted on the bas-relief structure, are corroborated with Manichaean hymn scroll manuscripts containing Manichaean prayers to Jesus to save their souls from the clutches of creatures of dark forces like Makaras. What else does Dr. Sarah require?

‘From this he jumps to the conclusion that Christianity in South India ‘generally date from the 13th c.’, and asserts that ‘Indian Christianity originated after the 10th c. with the conversion of Manichaeans and other pre-proto-orthodox groups by Nestorian traders’. (Dr. Sarah Knight)

She is making a lot of such mistakes all over in her emotional reaction to my book. This is probably because of her staunch belief and love for her Christian sect, which prevents her from analyzing my book by remembering points of discussion. Yes, I understand the amount of data and complexity of discussion requires the utmost attention from a reader, but a person of her background should have shown some maturity by reading the book two or three times before attempting to analyze it.

“This Manichaean colony and the colonies of Sri Lanka and Goa (where the presence of original Manichaean crosses was noted) were the first forms of Persian Christianity (the Manichaean Church) or, more precisely, Syriac Christianity, to reach South India. Probably in the 9th or 10th century, the Nestorians who happened to come to India would be responsible for converting these Manichaean church members to Nestorianism.” (Page 326, Chapter 9)

“My suggestion is not based on direct material evidence but rather on the Pahlavi-inscribed crosses and their artistic representation, as explained earlier. This has been supported by the absence of any Nestorian archaeological remains, artefacts, manuscripts, inscriptions, etc., in Malankara before the 9th century, which categorically rejects any early Nestorian work. This is a highly positive assessment based on the Mar Sabor and Mar Phrot being Nestorians; otherwise, they may be corrected to the 11th or 12th as suggested by A.C. Burnell.” (Page 326, chapter 9)

I used the phrase "before the 13th century" 18 times in my book, and in each case, it was meant to indicate the absence of inscriptional or manuscript evidence for Christianity in South India before that time. It was not intended to support Dr. Sarah Knight's claim that "Christianity in South India generally dates from the 13th c." as she alleges.

As far as pre-proto-orthodox groups mean the different groups that sprouted after the death of Jesus Christ until around 200CE. Descendants of the one among these groups people like Bart D. Ehrman calls as proto- orthodox later become the flagbearers of present-day Orthodox/Catholic Christianity. That is pre-proto-orthodox groups are those groups which competed along with proto-orthodox( or ancestors of Proto-orthodox) to get prominence often claiming their beliefs as the authentic ones.  It was only after the edict of Milan (313 CE) by the Roman emperor Constantine the proto-orthodox group became victorious. Read my discussion regarding the origin and evolution of Syriac Christianity in Edessa (pages 302-304). There is no chance of any confusion for anyone who read the content under the subheading A Pre-Proto-Orthodox Group called Hindu Nazranies or Judeo -Dravidians (page .329, chapter 9).

Another important question here is, why copies of this so-called ‘Manichaean Cross’ have not been found in Mesopotamia where Manichaeism was powerful and widespread at one time. He does not address sufficiently the question of why they did not produce the Manichean Crosses in Mesopotamia if they produced them in Mylapore. (Dr. Sarah Knight).

Who said they didn't produce Manichaean crosses? It is a misunderstanding of the analysis of crosses unearthed from archaeological sites. Please read Chapter 7 and see Figures 7/1 and 7/2. The evolution of crosses through syncretism is well explained in Chapters 5 and 6. The cross in the hand of Manichaean Jesus depicted in the wall hanging (Figure 6/26) from Seiun-Ji Zen temple in Kofu city, Japan is the best example of the evolution of the cross through syncretism. Another example can be found in the hand of the staff held by Jesus seated in the Uygur Manichaean hanging scroll (Figure 6/32(1)) found by Le Coq in 1913 from the Manichaean temple in Quocho. It is observed that crosses undergo changes, imbibing the influence of different religions and cultures. So, the Manichaean cross is identified not mainly because of its shape but as a combination of factors, including semiotic considerations, which are described very elaborately on pages 269-273, 280-282, and 290-305. Of course, there is very little archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia or Persis concerning Manichaeism due to severe persecution after Mani's execution in 277 CE, which is also explained well in the book.

Hilarious explanations by Dr. Sarah Knight.

The rest of the explanations or arguments made by Dr. Sarah require no answers because they are not factually correct in light of modern research and studies. Today, Manichaean or Christian studies have grown out of the clutches of hagiographic literature and its extrapolations. Look at the way she narrates her arguments under the below-mentioned headings:

• Alternative narrative to the St. Thomas story of the Syrians: What alternative narrative is she proposing? As a student of history, I prefer to listen to evidence-based arguments and propositions, not wishful thinking.

• The facts of Gnosticism and Manichaeism: I think she should do her homework before attempting to explain Gnosticism or Manichaeism. A basic reading of the different groups that existed in the first 200 years of Christianity will certainly enlighten her.

• Mani the Persian sorcerer and Manichaeism: She is very concerned about oral stories and prefers to consider them as historical facts without any evidence. I am sorry to state that I am not a storyteller, nor am I interested in such tales.

• The so-called 'Manichaean Cross' of Mylapore: I have already explained the development and evolution of various crosses under syncretic environments using archaeo-linguistic analysis, ontological and semiotic explanations supported by manuscript evidence. When a book deals with such hard data, only staunch believers can come up with such silly arguments.

• St. Thomas Christians in South India: The only two pieces of material evidence that are wrongly considered by Christians are the Pahlavi crosses and the Tharisssapalli plates. The Pahlavi cross has been credited to Manichaeans and now the Tarissapalli plates are in question because of their structural dissimilarities and the conspicuous loss of Tamizh witness plates. However, as I already stated, the post-9th/10th-century origin of Indian Christianity is only based on the credit of the Tarissapalli plates being Christian, otherwise, it will be further extended to the 11th or 12th century, as suggested by Dr. Burnell.

• The St. Thomas Cross of Mylapore: Such miracles and narrations by Roman Catholic priests and Portuguese authorities (read chapters 1 & 9) are discussed in my book with references from original sources, along with other scholars’ observations, including T.K. Joseph's. Dr. Sarah should have shown some respect to historical research, barring typical arguments like the miracle that happened with the cross and believers’ reactions, etc. I am not interested in believers' perspectives, but rather in some valid historical evidence. Dr. Sarah should have known that the word "Cruz" itself is a post-Portuguese adaptation.

• The Pahlavi inscription: It appears that Dr. Sarah may not have understood the various linguistic analyses concerning the translations of Pahlavi inscriptions presented in my book, leading to her making mere statements without any explanations.

• The importance of tradition and literature in researching Christianity in the ancient period: Dr. Sarah seems to be making grave mistakes about my book without actually reading it, which I suspect to be the case. The methodology of the study and the archaeological data excavated from the Afro-Eurasian trade routes are extensively discussed and analyzed in my book. It is quite hilarious for a doctoral fellow from SOAS to propose beliefs like Peter in Rome, James in Spain, Matthew in Turkey/Ethiopia, etc., to defend archaeo-linguistic evidence. One should be clear about the subject of discussion before making such flimsy arguments or propositions. If there existed any Syriac Church or any form of Christianity from the 1st to the 9th century, there should have been plenty of archaeological evidence from India, as we get from the Sassanian Empire, Central Asia, China, or Mongolia. Arguments like Peter in Rome will not be sufficient because it is not a matter of a single person but rather a community, for which we have plenty of evidence from Rome. My simple request to Dr. Sarah, a SOAS research scholar, is to show some basic intelligence in understanding my book. Of course, when blind beliefs take the place of logic and reason, anything can happen, no matter whether you live in a modern scientific world or the medieval dark ages.

• Continuous and consistent literary evidence of St. Thomas the Apostle evangelizing South India: Dr. Sarah should know that these hagiographies have nothing to do with history unless supported by logical evidence. That is why the subject is studied with utmost care and analyzed critically against material evidence. Dr. Sarah’s hagiographies are just hagiographies, but modern historiography requires direct evidence along with parallel and alternative ones. Until that time, these are wishful thinking of such faithful, nothing more, nothing less.

As you know very well, it was from the writings of Ephraim the Syrian that the name India came in relation to St. Thomas, except for Didascalia which is a later production and not considered as history but rather a literary work to propagate Christianity and the claims of respective churches. There was no mention of a specific place except for Parthia and the vague name India, which usually referred to an extended geographical region from the borders of Ethiopia to South Arabia, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka (read chapter 4). It was Pseudo-Sophronius (7th century AD) who first clearly noted the place as "Calamina." There is a very interesting narration noted by H. Hosten that before AD 303, we hear of one Mar Zadoe, the chief of the monastery of St. Thomas in the country of India, whose seat was fixed under the country of the Qatraye, near (or 'below') the black island (gazarta ukamata). The text does not refer to Ceylon or Mylapore. This 'Baith Qatraye' is, however, an island in the Persian Gulf. Does it indicate that St. Thomas is buried somewhere in the Persian Gulf?

The name of Calamina or Dilmun continued until Marco Polo's visit to South India, who noticed the location without mentioning any specific place name. It was Blessed Odoric (1325) who actually pinpointed the geographical location without naming the exact place. Later, John D. Marignolli (1349) was the first to address the place by the name of Mirapolis, which, as observed by Yule, is a Graecized form of the name Mylapore. This name was used by later travellers as Malpuria, Mailan, Malepur, Mirapolis, and finally Mylapore.

The astonishing thing is that the bishops (1504) of the Church of the East (COE), who claimed that the Malankara Church was under the rule of their Catholicose of Seleucia since its origin, placed the location of the tomb of St. Thomas in the province of Silan, which is present-day Sri Lanka. This shows the level of knowledge about the tomb of St. Thomas even with the ecclesiastical authorities in the sixteenth century. It raises questions about the historicity of such myths or traditions.

Dr. Sarah Knight's Conclusions

Her conclusions are quite interesting as well as revealing because she unknowingly gives the impression that she did not even read the initial chapters of the book, including the introduction. Had she actually read the book, she would not have made such blunders, as explained in this reply. She states that it is unclear who he means by the term "Syriac Christians," as it only accurately refers to the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Christians of Kerala. I am extremely sorry to state that the single sentence is quite enough to understand the level of scholarship that Dr. Sarah Knight possesses. In my book, I have passively discussed the origin and different sects of Syriac Christianity, their symbols, differences, practices, etc., along with opinions of world-renowned scholars on the origin and development of Syriac Christianity. (Read pages 231-232, 282 & 302-304.)

I have discussed the quality of Dr. Sarah's evidence, such as hagiographic literature, myths, traditions, etc., against scientific studies based on archaeological, linguistic, semiotic, and ontological methods, along with the help of Afro-Eurasian trade-related excavations, ceramic studies, etc., which is enough to expose Dr. Sarah's sectarian historiography without any credible evidence or logical arguments. She is more concerned about her own church - the Jacobite Church - and its Syriac Christian status compared with the COE in matters of Malankara Nazranies. This is a universal problem or rather a disease usually found among sectarian church historians. They usually write history to promote their church without any sheer respect for the subject called history. This is why sectarian church scholars like Dr. Sarah Knight often take help from post-16th-century productions like Niranam Chronicle or Ramban Pattu, etc., to build their brand of church history. They often blame Roman Catholics or especially the Papacy and Portuguese forces for destroying the evidence of their ancient past. Another strategy they often resort to is Indian's attitude towards writing and preserving their historical antiquity. These arguments are born out of unawareness of modern historical research and archaeological findings that recently took place in the world, including India. There are 3000 archaeological sites in South India identified, and some of the excavations conducted in places like Kodumanal, Keezhadi, Pattanam, etc., produced very interesting findings that extend up to 600 BCE. But still, our sectarian church historians like to re-emphasize our old stories like St. Thomas's conversion of Namboothiries, 71/2 churches, Knaithomman stories, Syriac subjugation stories, etc., even in this modern scientific world.

The regurgitation of mythical stories as credible history has already made Indian Christianity a laughing stock in front of the modern scientific world. I believe that Dr. Sarah would not have made such blunders if she had read my book completely, even once. The semiotic explanation of the bas-relief structure of the Pahlavi cross and the manuscript evidence kept in the British Museum, explaining the connection between the Makara symbol and the Manichean ontological principles displayed in the Pahlavi cross, will certainly haunt every Indian Christian, including Dr. Sarah, for years to come.

Tailpiece

Dr. Sarah Knight is not unknown to me. She first contacted me over the phone on 15th May 2018 to clear her doubts concerning my findings stated in one of my Facebook articles. That time she introduced herself as a research scholar Sarah Knight a Malayali married to a British gentleman, doing research Dept. of Religious and Philosophies, SOAS, University of London. During our introduction, I specifically revealed that my official name is Jeevan Philip and Thomas George is my pen name for Facebook writings. She informed me then, this was regarding my article published on Facebook which was recommended to her along with my mobile number by one of her friends whose identity she kept secret. "That day we spoke for around one hour regarding my article, my work on the history of Syriac Christianity in Malankara, India. I have given her links to my blog site (https://jeephilip.blogspot.com/) and briefed her about my works."

"After that, she sent an email on June 4th, 2019, requesting help regarding my article on the Vatican Syriac Codex 22, as if she was not aware of our conversation a year prior. Interestingly, our first conversation was not particularly about the Vatican Syriac Codex 22, but rather my article on Facebook and my work on Syriac Christianity. It was actually me who sent her the links to my blog regarding the Persian crosses of South India and their possible Manichaean origin (four articles) through WhatsApp. The necessary photo shots were given in my blog. Later, she searched and found out about my work on the Vatican Syriac Codex 22 from my blog. She approached me with questions about the subject, and I educated her on my methodology, findings, etc. At that point, she mentioned that she had also come across similar findings through another methodology, which she refused to reveal to me."

She also said that these things would be added to her doctoral thesis which would be submitted soon. Suddenly, I understood the purpose of Dr. Sarah Knight's actions since 2018. Understanding the plagiarism practised by many researchers, I categorically told her that if she takes methodology, analysis, findings, or any part from my blog-published works, she should declare it and must give accreditation through a byline in my name, which she outrightly rejected by saying that I did not write a book, hence it is not possible. I sent emails that day warning her not to take any part of my research works from my blog or any site published online without proper accreditation; otherwise, it would be considered an infringement on my intellectual property rights.

Readers can understand from my emails, which are given below. I don't know whether she used my works without giving any credit, but I am happy that this book, "Unmasking the Syriacs," was a result of such gullible characters masquerading as church faithful and believers of God label, who pretend to protect the Syriac Orthodox Church. Readers can go through my blog article detailing this incident, in which I temporarily stopped writing blogs until I publish my book. If the Syriac Orthodox Church or any Syriac church keeps this kind of personality as their flagship historian, I have nothing more to advise them except "Vinaashakkaale Vipareethabuddhi." History is a pure subject, and it should be studied and constructed for the sake of historical facts based on evidence supported by logical deductions.

Since Unmasking the Syriacs raises many important issues that badly affect the very historical foundation of Syriac Christianity in India, it requires a more serious approach from the Syriac churches. Understanding this situation, contrary to Dr. Sarah Knight and her team's casual approach to my book, without even going through the core subject and its analysis, the largest Syriac church in India has already deputed a team of their scholars to study Unmasking the Syriacs thoroughly and produce a reply to my findings, including the possible Manichaean origin of Pahlavi crosses in South India.

Anyway, thanks to Dr. Sarah Knight and her team.

Jeevan Philip

Author: Unmasking the Syriacs.

Documents 

1) Email communication with Dr. Sarah Knight .

 2) WhatsApp screen shot as attachment with above email 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pahlavi Crosses of South India are Remnants of Gnostic Groups

 

(Interviewed by Light of Truth, a fortnightly published by the Syro-Malabar Church) 

A reply to Dr. Kurian’s opinion about my book Unmasking the Syriac, as reported in The New Indian Express on February 25, 2023.

 

1) “First, he wants to establish that the St Thomas origin of Syrian Christians has not happened.,” (Dr. Kurian in Indian Express)

Though I agree that everyone has the right to express their opinions, spreading such outright lies is not one of them. There is a fundamental mistake in reading my book by Dr. Kurian Thomas. My book has explicitly stated that this study is to find out the origin of Indian Christianity, especially South Indian Christianity. It was never intended to disprove the St. Thomas origins of Syriac Christians. This has been categorically stated in my introduction itself, which I am reproducing here.

“This book primarily tries to understand the history of Christianity in old-Thamizhakam based on evidence suggested by church historians since the advent of European colonisation.” (Introduction, page. xxiii).

I also state categorically in the introduction that

“Let me be clear that this deduction has nothing to do with the Apostle Thomas' mission in India, which needs to be analysed on the basis of historical evidence if any” (Introduction page. xxxi)

while discussing the adoption of a nomenclature called "St. Thomas Christians" instead of "Malankara Nazranies."

And again, in Chapter 5, page .128

Arguments based on Acts of Thomas, references in the writings of early church historians and medieval hagiographers, etc., are not enough to establish St. Thomas’ proselytization story as a historical fact. An evidence-based approach to the question of St. Thomas in South India probably has nothing to offer us other than a few vague ideas of India (which is often described as the geographical area that includes Ethiopia, South Arabia, Afghanistan, North India, South India, or even Sri Lanka) in various early antiquity writings. Though the purpose of this book is to trace the origin of Indian Christianity, specifically South Indian Christianity, the approach would not be to follow the stories of St. Thomas’s apostolic activity narrated in the early apocryphal or hagiographic writings. Instead, it would follow an evidence-based approach, mainly studying the archaeological evidence. Hence, I would first proceed with my inquiry about the people responsible for the Pahlavi Crosses of South India


So, my goal for the study was to discover the origins of Indian Christianity from an archaeo-linguistic standpoint, which led me to a comparative study of Pahlavi crosses with Mesopotamian or Sassanian crosses, which revealed the historical fact of apostle Thomas' martyrdom in Mylapore. In those circumstances, how can anyone blame me for the inevitable result of a study based on hard data?

It was not my intention to disprove the origin of Indian Christianity connected with St. Thomas; rather, the archaeo-linguistic study of the evidence put forward by the Syriac Christians themselves attests that no such incident ever took place. Please don’t blame the mirror because of your image.

2) “Two, he tries to prove that Mani, the East Syriac or Persian heretic, or his disciples have founded Christianity in India. To establish it, he has tied up various facts with no obvious connections,”(Dr. Kurian in Indian Express)

This is even more hilarious because it shows he did not seriously read my book or he could not have understood it.

Read ….

“The Manichaean settlers who happened to have contact with Nestorians probably in the post-9th century are absorbed into their group (the Nestorians) of Persian or Syrian cousins.  Later, due to some reasons, these recent converts from Manichaeans migrated to the western coast, whereby then another Judeo-Dravidian group (the pre-Porto-orthodox group) of Jesus believers who were the result of an Afro-Eurasian trade network also subjugated to Nestorianism.” (A short Conclusion, P.336)

Again

This was an act of prudence on the part of Nestorian prelates when we consider the creation of a new Persian Christianity dissolving different Judeo-Dravidian and Farsi-Dravidian groups in Thamizhakam. This amalgamation of gnostic believers on the coastal belt of the Indian Ocean under the supervision of Nestorians and their subsequent administration passed this St. Thomas legend along with the notion of "children of St. Thomas" to later day colonialist entrants in the region, the Europeans, who in turn publicised this unhistorical as well as contradictory nomenclature in the entire Christendom. (A short conclusion, P.337) 

Again ….

Besides that, there would have been plenty of archaeological, manuscript, or epigraphical evidence like we find in the Persian Empire, Roman Empire, Central Asia, or China. What I suggest is that the religion of Jesus probably migrated via a socio-commercial network that already existed on the coast of Malankara when the Nestorians or any sect of Syriac Christianity ventured into south India for the first time, probably by the ninth century. This contact with the Christianity of the Persian Empire subjugated the very native Judeo-Dravidian group of Jesus followers into Syriac Christianity. Probably in the same period, Nestorians ventured into the conversion of the Manichaeans of Mylapore. The Knai Thomman story of Sri Lanka also suggests a connection between the Mylapore Manichaeans and the Manichaeans of Taprobane. Today, what the world refers to as "Syrian Christians of India" or "St. Thomas Christians" is nothing more than an amalgamation of Manichaeans and other pre-proto-orthodox groups. (Chapter 9. The historical connection between Pahlavi Crosses and Malankara Nazranies)  

Or one could have read the blurb which categorically states

the origin of Indian Christianity is through the amalgamation of different gnostic groups comprising Farsi-Dravidian Manichaeans and Judeo-Dravidian groups in the post-9th century period under the supervision of Syriacs.

3) One of the glaring mistakes, according to Dr Thomas, is to assume that since there are no literary evidence of those periods of St Thomas, there is no possibility of the apostle’s arrival in India. (Dr. Kurian in Indian Expresss)

My entire book discusses material evidence (archaeo-linguistic evidence), while Dr. Kurian puts minor corroborative evidence as my foundational argument. It is the usual foul play by church historians.

4)    Dr Thomas says Mani, the Parthian prophet who founded Manichaeism in the 3rd century AD faded away after his death. “I have spoken to two professors, one from Australia and another from Canada, who have done extensive study on Mani and Manichaeism. Both have found no evidence of any relationship by Mani or his disciples with India,” he added.  (Dr. Kurian in Indian Express)

I am extremely sorry to Dr. Kurian for his ignorance of research on Manichaeism. Many world-renowned scholars' studies have been included, including those by SNC Lieu, Hans J. Klimkeith, G. Kosa, D. Scott, H.H. R. Hoffmann, Z. Gulacsi, W. Sundermann, G.G. Straumsa, J.P. Asmussen, S. Armstrong, and others. Please read Chapter 8, Mani and his religion Manichaeism, to understand the most modern research going on presently. Dr. Kurian should have educated himself about Manichaeism, which lived up to the 16th century in China. How can an Indian orthodox church historian comment on Manichaeism and at the same time boast about the Persian Nestorian Christianity, which has a tombstone of Yelikewan (Christian) bishop Mar Shlimen, who died in 1313 CE and was an administrator of Manicheans and Nestorians? (Please read Unmasking the Syriacs, P. 238; you can find a picture of the tombstone.) Also read the book,p.  286

   According to Ibn-al-Nadim, Mani wrote a Great Epistle to the Indians, confirmed by the Middle Persian fragment M1221. (Read the whole chapter 8)

I recommend that anyone who wishes to comment on my book read it first in order to avoid this type of situation.

Still, I like to think that the reason Dr. Kurian made such comments about my study may have been because of his uncompromising love for his church, which could be understood. This is the prime requirement of any official church historian. But as far as my study is concerned, it follows modern historiography without any partiality or prejudice.

(Kindly note that there may be a difference in the mentioned pages in the international edition)

 

Jeevan Philip 

Author: Unmasking the Syriacs

 

 

Apostle & Apocrypha

St Thomas’s India story rests on the Mount Cross in Mylapore but a comparative study of Pahlavi inscriptions on the crosses in South India point to their Manichaean origins.

( An article published in Times of India newspaper, Kochi ,February 11, 2023 based on the book "Unmasking the Syriacs" )

"Faith is one thing, historical verification is another"

 (and response to my book by a well known senior Catholic priest Rev. Fr. Paul Thelakat, former spokes person, Syro-Malabar Church.)