.png)
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.
Author:
Unmasking the Syriacs.
Documents
1) Email communication with Dr. Sarah Knight .
No comments:
Post a Comment