.png)
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
No comments:
Post a Comment