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.

HYPOTHESIS OF EAST/WEST SYRIACS SUBJUGATION OF MALANKARA NAZRANIES

East/West Syriacs subjugation of Malankara Nazranies is an important argument put forward by majority of church historians. This is mainly designed to fill the gap exist in Malankara Nazrani History during its early years. The non-availability of documentary evidences forced blind believers to create stories to give credibility to their respective church allegiances .Many of these learned historians blinded by their allegiance spoiled their duty as historians. This can evidently be seen in their arguments and their so called evidences.

East Syriac Hypothesis

Propagated by Romo-syrians, COE , and a section of IOC.

Argument: Malankara Nazranies were under East Syriacs and part and parcel of the Nestorian church. Many of the east syriacs visited Malankara to build this church .They used East Syriac in their liturgy and anaphora of Addai and Marri since the beginning.

Propagators of east Syriac hypothesis say that they have documentary evidences but they are not keen to understand that these documents are not older than 13^th century(majority of them date after  A.D.1700 ) On the basis of these and some earlier geographical references they argue that Malankara church had relations only with Nestorians. How far it is true?

West Syriac Hypothesis

Propagated by Antiochians (Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch), IOC

Argument: Malankara Nazranies were under West Syriacs or Antioch and part and parcel of Syriac Orthodox church. They say that this relation was from the beginning since the Persian church was under the jurisdiction of Antioch in its early stage. They also argue that they have an east Syriac branch which was in charge of Malankara Nazranies. They also put forward that the Metropolitan of Fars who was directly dealing with Malankara Nazranies turned to Nestorianism only after the Muslim invasion during 8^th century.

Argument of the west Syriac group is based on the early history of Persian church. Since the Persians were under Syriac church of Antioch in its early stage the daughter church of Malankara which was under Persians before the Nestorianism also was under Antioch. They also point out that after the Nestorian schism they have an east Syriac branch of Syriac orthodox under Maprianate of Tigris who used to look after the affairs of Malankara Nazranies. But interesting thing is lack of documentary evidence supporting their hypothesis.

So what I am saying is that both parties need to search for more evidences to prove their arguments. Is there any other method to understand this situation? Let us consider the documents before 13th century. But unfortunately we have no clear documentation except some references of visits / reported representations. Is it worthy enough to make a conclusion on the basis of this information?

Understanding the Identity. 

Before going into details one should have basic idea about Aramaic and the linguistic shift taken place after 8th century. This may some time indicate what happened. We all know that old Syriacs(Aramaics) used Estrangelo script before the linguistic shift into west/east Syriac after 8th century . The east syriacs developed ‘Madnhayo while west syriacs developed ‘Serto’.  Though there is not much difference between them the respective parties developed identities based on this. But the Persian church split into two groups; one accepting Nestorianism and other rejecting it. The group rejected Nestorianism continued with their old belief and relation with Antioch .But interestingly they used east Syriac script (Madnhayo) while continuing with old traditions. It is also to be noted that difference is in script and some pronunciation.

Most of the church historians put forward the Pahlavi crosses (or imitations) of south India as the important evidence to prove their respective church history. But it is sad to state that the inscription on these crosses do not convince us on its origin without any suspicion. Of course it is engraved / made by some one who knew Pahlavi but it does not give us any clear answer since Pahlavi was used by Zoroastrians, Manicheans etc.

Estrangelo scripts were used by syriac churches before the linguistic shift .It is also used by Manichean church, But We find Aramaic(Estrangelo) inscriptions on the cross of Kottayam which indicate some connections from earlier period. One may argue that some later day believers deliberately engraved this Estrangelo on the slab, but do not found logic because of the pattern in which it was written. That means a possibility of old Syriac connection before the linguistic shift. This makes situation more confused along with the scholar’s interpretation. Many scholars have tried to decipher these inscriptions but the interpretation by Dr. Burnell is regarded as most acceptable. It reads as follows

""In punishment by the cross (was) the suffering on this (one); (He) who (is) true Christ and God above, and Guide ever Pure" (Burnell1873)" 

The scholars like George Milne Rae finds difficult to attribute to any theological doctrine of the church. “””To me, at least ,it appears that the inscription does, in point of fact ,set forth a view of the person of Christ characteristic of Indian Nestorianism ; for in no other theological literature so far as I am aware, will the notion be found which this inscription seems intended to convey……………….On the one hand, it bears a certain resemblance to the Sabellian or Patripassian view on the other hand, if we admit, what it seems impossible to deny ,that Nestorians accepted the creed of Nicaea and were there fore Trinitarians, we can hardly ascribe to them the monarchian view of the divine  incarnation”””” (The Syrian church of India by George Milne Rae)

History of Eastern Church.

It is appropriate to study the early history of Eastern Church to understand the so called east Syriac documents. The origin of Christianity in Persia still shrouded in legends. But the origin of Christianity in Edessa can be considered as apostolic one. We cannot attribute it to Seleucian church or any other part of Persia. It is certain that the originators of the Persian church were Addai and Mari. It is obvious that the church at Seleucia were independent as like any other church in Christendom .The relation with church of Antioch started from when they ordained Abrosius (185-201) as Kohnoosa. I am not sure about that whether we could call him a metropolitan or not because the church at Seleucia was in its early stage. Why did the church of Seleucia take help from Antioch?

The church at Seleucia was at its infant stage when it started its relation with Antioch .This was during the end of 2nd century. There was an interesting development taking place during this period. Earlier Christendom had kahnoosas and shimshonos to perform duties. When the population increased the number of kahnoosas also was increased. This end up in creating a position called Reesh kohane (chief priest or bishop).Earlier the kahnoosas had the power to ordain a priest. This was the practice followed by early Christendom .The position of Reesh kohane was given to more than one person in major cities.i.e the earlier practice were not ordaining monarchial reesh kohane/bishop. This can be seen in writing of early church fathers. It is interesting to notice that St. Ignatius of Antioch was the early propagators in favor of Monarchial Bishops. During this period Rome had at least three bishops calling themselves Bishop of Rome. It was Antioch first developed practice of monarchial chair for a metropolitan city. The rest of the Christendom followed it. This was during the mid of 2nd century.

Now one can understand the request made by a junior church to a senior one. It is also being told us that Abrosius was at Antioch on a good will visit at the time of Mari’s death. The other thing which one should notice that the church at Seleucia were not a product of apostolic work which also explains the situation .If this is the case how can one suggest that the church of Seleucia was under Antioch. But Antiochians may ask why did the church of Seleucia approached Antioch not Edessa. To answer this one should go deeper in to evolution of episcopacy in early Christendom .As I stated earlier movement in favor of monarchial bishops were started from Antioch and it already established its prototype .It was early centre of Christian thought .These things gravitated Seleucia towards Antioch. This connection was misunderstood by historians and reported that the church of Seleucia was under Antioch in its early stage.

The next heads of the church at Seleucia were Abraham (201-213), Yacob (213-231) Ahod Abuei (231-246).Abraham was consecrated at Antioch .Death of Qom Yesu due to political reasons between Roman empire &Persian empire forced Antiochian fathers to send letter to Jerusalem fathers asking them to consecrate Ahod Abuei as Kahnoosa of Seleucia .But the understanding fathers of Jerusalem went a step further and gave him the authority to appoint other Kahnoosas. This was an act perfectly according to the practice of apostles. We get this information from our great scholar, philosopher BAR EBRAYO(Ecclesiastical History by Bar Hebraeus). But interestingly we get little different information from CHRONICLE OF ARBELA .It says that Ahod Abuei was the Bishop of Arbela during the reign of Shapur l and there was no bishop at  Seleucia during this period. It took many years to get even a bishop for Seleucia according to this chronicle.(Hand book of source materials by William G. Young) That means church of Seleucia was a far junior church to church of Arbela or church of Edessa .Also please note that the CHRONICLE OF ARBELA is considered as a manipulation(not whole but part) by Alphonse Mingana in 1907. Acording to Fr.Dr. V.C. Shamuel there was no bishop at Seleucia till towards the end of 3rd century. But our Roman Catholic historian Fr.Dr.A.M Mundadan skillfully avoid discussing about the early period in his book “History of Christianity in India” .It is also noted that the division of Persian church according to Mundadan is the heresy or schism from roman church. He skillfully forgets the Madnhayo Persians (How silly our church historians are!!!!)

Now consider the information we get from Nicaea Sunnahadose. There we get information about special status given to Antioch, Alexandria, Rome &Jerusalem but not a word about bishop of Seleucia though Bishop Papa and bishop of Edessa also attended the Sunnahadose.

How ever the Seleucian church managed to conduct a synod in order to control the affairs of the eastern church with the help of Mar Marutha of Maipherqat the personal envoy of Roman emperor Arcadius to the enthronement of the Persian emperor Yazdegard .The council adopted the Nicene Creed and elevated the bishop of Seleucia the Grand Metropolitan and head of all bishops. But it was not an easy way .Though forty bishops attended the council many of them objected to elevation of a junior church/chair to the head of all bishops. This reflected in 421 Dad-ishu was in chair. He was imprisoned by Persian authorities instigated by rebel bishops who challenged his primacy .With the help of offices of the ambassadors of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius ll he was liberated. He was persuaded to continue at the office by council of bishops held at Markabta in 428 AD. In this council the decision was taken to elevate the Persian church to an autonomous church. But if we read the history further we could see that many bishops from senior church of Arbela, Fars, Susa etc. objected to the supremacy of bishop of Seleucia(Christians in Persia by Robin E .Waterfield, Hand book of source materials by William G.young, Chronicle of Arbil by Mashiha-Zakha). It is also important to note that the church of Persia divided in to two groups; one accepting Nestorianism while other continuing with orthodox beliefs. The church of Seleucia turned Nestorian at the time of Acacius(485-498).but interestingly Yezdad the metropolitan of Fars never accepted or followed the Nestorian way of theology of the grand metropolitan of Seleucia .Again you can see the struggle between Catholicos Ishuyab lll (650-660)and Mar Shimun ,Metropolitan of Fars. Ishu Yahb accuses in one of his letters” closing the doors of Episcopal ordination in the face of many peoples of India and impending the gift of God for the sake of perishable gains which feed bodily desire. As far as your province is concerned, since your revolt against ecclesiastical canons, the priestly succession has been broken for the people of India (which India?).”

Our Philosopher bishop Dr. Paulose Mar Gregorios traces this independent and insubordinate stance of the Metropolitan of Rewardisher (Fars) up to the time of Patriarch Timothy l (779-823) in the early nineth century(The Indian Orthodox Church-An Overview by Dr.Paulose Mar Gregorios). All these point to the fact that The Metropolitanate of Fars was not Nestorian till it was run over by the Muslims. Now the truth is that the chair of Seleucia was not in a position to exercise its power even in Persia, how can it exercise in Malankara?

Analyzing the East Syriac Evidences

We have considered the early east Syriac history in detail and found no considerable evidences to show that Malankara Nazranies were under Nestorians. Then how did this misconception creep into our history books. To understand this we need to go even deeper in to its developments and related politics.
Now take each so called evidences put forward by Church historians of different denominations in favor of East Syriac subjugation of Malankara Nazranies in order to find out respective authenticity of their claims.

1) CHRONICLE OF SEERT:-It is claimed that’’ Chronicle of seert’’ refer about Malankara church.
‘’’The learned Bishop Dudi of Basra left his See on the Persian Gulf and proceeded to India where he converted many people to the Christian faith’’’ with this passive reference in Chronicle of seert which’s origin is itself is not sure, created such an irresponsible stories by so called church historians to prove their vested interest. Read

‘’’ It is not clear when the Chronicle of Seert was written. It cannot have been written earlier than the ninth century, as at one point in the text the author quotes the Nestorian patriarch IshoʿBar Nun (823-4). Some scholars believe that the Chronicle is the work of the ninth-century author Ishoʿdnah of Basra, who is known to have written a three-volume ecclesiastical history. Others put the date of composition as late as the eleventh century””.

Now suppose this is a true representation of history (for the sake of historians of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coe or any), then one need to consider the geographical region called India. Probably these so called historians might have forgotten to consider(or conveniently for the sake of their respective churches) the world Map according to Herodotus (450 BC) Eratosthenes (200BC) Strabo (18 AD) Ptolemy (150 AD).Those times even eastern part of Persia were called India. Even Marco Polo called Abyssinia as middle India in 1298AD, and then one with basic intelligence can understand the veracity of these so called church historians claims.

2) JOHN THE PERSIAN: – This is another interesting manipulation by Malankara church historians whom are eagerly searching for evidences. They claim that there was a bishop called John the Persian represented Indian church. Today majority of church historians attach the word India to Malankara church not even looking at its geographical perspective. Their argument is based on the History of Gelasius of Caesarea (395) collected by Socrates Scholasticus/Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century. But historians differ on the opinion on whether the term ‘’’”and Greater India”” were there in the original text. If it was there what would be the surety that it indicates Malankara considering the time and geographical understanding during that era.

‘’’’According to H.Gelzer ,PATRUM NICAENORUM NOMINA, Leipzig,1898 the lists contain only “”john the Persian/of Persia”” NO MENTION OF INDIA, Gelasius Cyzicus(475AD) may have added”” INDIA”” to the original text !!!!! The way in which we create history!!

Read T.V.Philip in his book East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia

””” The Council of Nicea was called together by emperor Constantine and it was a council of bishops in the Roman Empire. It was very unlikely that a bishop from Persia had attended the Council of Greek bishops, officially representing the whole of Persia and great India. We need to remember that it was only in the Synod of Isaac in AD 410, almost a century later, that the Persian church, with some modifications, accepted the decrees of the Council of Nicea. Moreover, it is very doubtful that the various Christian congregations in Persia became a nation wide community by the time of Nicea so that one bishop could represent the whole of Persia. In all probability the inclusion of ‘John of Persia and Great India’ was a later interpolation to convey the truly ecumenical character of the Nicene Council.”””

3) CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY:- Cosmas Indicopleustes narrated in his book Christian topography, book 3

“”””””The gospel has been preached throughout the world. This I state to be definite fact, from what I have seen and heard in the many places which I have visited .Even in Taprobane there is a church of Christians, which clergy and body of believers, but I don’t know whether there are any Christians in the country beyond it. In the country called Maale where the pepper grows, there is also a church, and at another place called Kalliana there is moreover a bishop, who is appointed from Persia. In the island of Dios-Korides which is situated in the same Indian Seas, and where inhabitance speak Greek, having been originally colonists sent by Ptolemies who succeeded Alexander the Macedonian, there are clergy who receive their ordination from Persia, and are sent to the island, and there is also multitude of Christians…””””””” this quotation is from J.W. McCrindle

This is being the translation different church historians manipulate things in favor of their vested interests. It is very interesting to read from one so called historian

”””535 AD- A Persian Bishop (whose name is unknown).Cosmas Indicopleustus mentions an anonymous Bishop in Malabar who was ordained from Persia, One among the former travelers to India, the Alexandrian Cosmas Indicopleustes who passed Malabar in AD 535, saw there, the Christians, Priests and Bishop.

In his “Christian Topography” he writes, “In the island of Taprobane to the interior India (ad interiorem Indiam), where the Indian Ocean is, there exists a Christian Church where clergy (clerici) and faithful are found; whether further also I do not know. So also is Malabar, as they call it, where the pepper grows. But (also) at Calliana (they call it thus) there is a bishop generally ordained in Persia””””

How hilarious people create history!!

Actually no one till convincingly proved that where” Kalliana” is, but Dios-Korides is convincingly identified

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RqdPcxuNthcC&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=dioskorides+another+name+of+socotra&source=bl&ots=b6-WGwQanb&sig=_71_05

 Church historians say it is Kollam/Kalian/Konkanam without any evidence. But there is some indications given by some historians, which we will be discussed when we take up MYLAPORE MYTH. What exactly cosmos might have described. Let us understand the situation here. He was a merchant traveler describing about Christian believers and their geographical spread. He start with Thaprobane and made a passive reference that he do not know whether any Christian towards further east of it .Again he talk about Maale which is certainly our Malankara where pepper grows. But it is logical to believe that he could not find any bishop appointed by Persians at our Malankara that is why he didn’t mention it. But he certainly mentions about Kalliana and Dios –Korides because he find bishops (Reesh kohane) appointed from Persia. Now if Dios-Korides can be away from Maale, why can’t Kalliana be little away something like ’Calamina ’’which many historians identify with Dilmun.

4) MAR KOMAI AND HIS INDIAN HELPER DANIEL THE INDIAN:- Iso’Dad of Merv((9th century) refer to one Indian priest who helped him in translating St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans from Greek to Syriac .Again one Mar Mana a writer(Pahlavi) of the last quarter of the 5th century ,is said to have send his translations of Diodorus to different countries ,including India(wow! this is also from Chronicle of seert which itself is a questionable manipulation by Nestorians in 9th or 11th century)Only vested interest can take this as an evidence to prove that Malankara church were under the Asserians without considering the geographical orientation of place called India which has a length of 1200 Parasangas!!

5) MAR MARUTHA:- Story goes like this our “”Khatha Nayakan”” goes to meet Patriarch(Catholicos) Shabrisho I (A.D.596-604) and received as presents from him perfumes and other gifts, which used to sent to the Patriarch from India and China. So Indian church historian’s logic say Malankara Nazranies under Patriarch Shabarisho. Let us go little deep asking which Marutha visited Patriarch. Our great Roman Catholic Historian Rev.Fr. A. M. Mundadn says Mar Marutha who was Ambassador of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice(A.D.582-602) to the Sassanid Emperor Khosrau II(A.D.590-628) visited the Patriarch. Mundadn as well as Research scholar of Orthodox church Rev. Fr .T.P.ELIAS copy pasted it from “Some Eastern Evidence Concerning Early and Medieval Christianity in India ”by Mr. E. R. Hambye.

But I have mentioned about this Ambassador Bishop in my earlier posting that this Mar Marutha of Maipherqat (bishop during 399-410) was ambassador of eastern Roman empire during the reign of Arcadius(395-408) and Theodosius II(408-450) to Persian emperor Yesdegerd I(399-421).It is very unlikely that this Mar Marutha ,the ambassador Bishop met Patriarch Shabaisho who reigned during 596-604.This ambassador Physician(he was a Mesopotamian physician) Bishop was instrumental in helping Bishop Izhaq to conduct a synod in 410 A.D. He visited Persia as a special envoy of Arcadius to the enthronement of Yesdegerd II (399) and again came to help with the reorganization of the Persian church (409) .The synod was conducted not at the chairman ship of any bishop but under the Marzban or provincial governor !!!! He even took our feeble Catholicos to King Yesdegerd II to get an order from him favoring the synod and catholicos. Now Mundadan and Elias project historically impossible meeting of Patriarch Shabarisho with Mar Marutha.(See How the so called Syrian Christians create History!!!!).

Now let us check any other Marutha lived during the period when Patriarch Shabrisho(596-604) was in chair so that he could share the gifts send by so called subjugated Malankara Nzranies as our great historians of Syrian Christians describe. Yes there was another Marutha lived during this period. Mar Marutha of Takrit, Maphrian of Madnhayo Syriac Orthodox.(He was Maphrian from 628-649).Is it possible Mar Marutha(even in his younger age) of Takrit from rival group of Madnhayo syriacs visted a Nestorian Catholicos to get his share of gifts which is sent from India. More over him was not an Ambassador Bishop as described by E.R.Hambye. So it is also out of question. Now every secular historian knows that propagandist writers of church history tend to make this kind of mistakes.

Dr. Paulouse Mar Gregorios in his book “”The Indian Orthodox Church-An Over view”” put another angle of this story that “””””Marutha (Ex.600 A.D.) of Takrit who later became the west Syrian Mphriana of the east received gifts from India and China. Orthodox Church also takes their dig in the pool. For the sake of argument let us agree with Mar Gregorios, but what is the surety that the gift sent to Catholicos is from Malankara. It is illogical or foolish if we argue that “”India”” described in these manuscripts/books/Manipulations is Malankara When India represent a vast geographical region comprising Abyssinia ,east of Persia to far east with many kingdoms, races, cultures and languages. On the basis of this only a propagandist Historian can say that we were under East Syriacs

6) THIODORE THE MONK:- It has been noted by church historians like Mundadan that St. Gregory ,bishop of tours, wrote around AD 590 in his In Gloria Martyrum which is a Hagiographic work that a certain monk called Theodore visited the place where St.Thomas buried in India and found a monastery and church of striking dimensions’ elaborately adorned and designed. But we know that it took so many centuries till Portuguese to understand that our St. Thomas buried in Mylapore and about the striking dimensions of elaborately adorned church. The way in which people collect evidences!!!!

 7) MAR SABOR AND MAR APHROT AT KURAKKENIKOLLUM( around 825 AD):-Migration of these Christians to Kurakkenikollum due to religious intolerance in Persia/Armenia will not be taken as East Syriac subjugation theory since we do not know where these people belonged or which section of Christianity they represented. We have no documented evidence other than the Tharisappally Cheppedu which was seen by Menezez himself from Tharisappally (Thevalakkarapally-Read Jornada ).If Eastern Syriac had any bishops in above mentioned name then there might have been some documentation available since history of East Syriacs is pretty well documented during this period.

 Le Quien a church historian says that “““These bishops were Chaldeans and had come to Quilon soon after its foundation. They were men illustrious for their sanctity, and their memory was held sacred in the Malabar Church. They constructed many churches and, during their lifetime, the Christian religion flourished especially in the kingdom of Diamper.””” Now who was “”Le Quien “”?

’’’’Michel Le Quien (Boulogne-sur-Mer 8 October 1661–Paris 12 March 1733) was a French historian and theologian. He studied at Plessis College, Paris, and at twenty entered the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, where he made his profession in 1682. Excepting occasional short absences he never left Paris.’’’’’ Which is the source? How did he arrive his conclusion?

8) LETTERS OF MAR ISHU YAHB III (650-660) :-It is said that the patriarch wrote a letter to the Metropolitan of Rewardashir Shimun “””closing the door of Episcopal ordination in the face of many peoples of India and impending the gift of god for the sake of perishable gains which feed bodily desire as far as your province is concerned, since your revolt against ecclesiastical canons , the priestly succession has been broken for the people of India “””

Most of the historian are putting this forward as the evidence to prove that the Malankara church were under Patriarch of Babylon . But most of them fail to recognize that if this letter shows that the India refers to Malankara Sabha then that is enough to show that Malnkara Sabha was not under the Catholicos of Seleucia .I have already described about the politics behind the formation of the grand Metropolitan of Seleucia that most of the senior churches of Persian Empire objected to the enthronement of a junior church to a grand metropolitanate. Metropolitan of Fars (Rewardshir) was also objected to the Nestorian theology of the metropolitan of Seleucia. i.e. this put propagators of only Nestorian connection of Malankara in a difficult position. The independent stand of Fars continued till it run over by Muslims in 8th century.

But, can it be possible that a name “India” in a letter said to have been written by a disputed authority possibly indicate a remotely placed church called Malankara or could anyone take it as evidence of a subjugation theory? Various literature related with old geographical knowledge indicate that the proposal by these church historians will make one of the blunders in the Malankara church history.

9) LETTERS OF MAR TIMOTHY I(779-823):- This letter has been reported by IBN-AL-TAIYIB a Nestorian monk, writer, philosopher, priest in his book “Fiqu an-Nasraniya” (around 1049).Based on E. R Hambye’s “Some eastern Evidences” Dr. Mundadan argue that the letter is clearly addressed to malankara church and Arkn, their so called Arkidiaoqon.

The first letter he talk about deal with the election of Metropolitan which means he specifically taking to a particular church in the sub continent called India. i.e. he is talking to a particular church existed in those various kingdoms of India which spread over 1200 Parsangas. Now think about a metropolitan writing to his followers advising certain church matters addressing the people by calling the subcontinent’s name (wow!!). It is logical to say that the metropolitan either has no knowledge about the church or he is writing to some Indian congregation near to the Persian Empire (like somewhere in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, etc.).Otherwise he would have used the particular church name or the place name so as to distinguish the congregation from multitude of races, region, local kingdoms & nationalities. If the first premises is applied and letter was definitely to Malankara church then he was trying to establish his authority over a new found congregation like Patriarch of Rome’ s appointment of Jordan Catallani as a bishop of Quilon when he informed him about the Christianity in India. But the interesting thing is that the Pope send three letters addressing (a) to all Christians of India (b)to catholic converts from paganism (c)one addressed to the Nazcarini(nazrani) Christians of Quilon which means the inference arrived by the so called historians are not reflects the facts.

The second letter is even more interesting as stated by Dr. Mundadan because it addressed to one “ARKN” which is the abbreviation of the Syriac Arkidiaqon borrowed from Greek.

We all know that the position called Archdeacon mean head of deacons or Shimshonos as far as history of Orthodox Church concerned with a little exception of Coptic orthodox where some times laity also gets this position. The letter which said to have been written to ARKN of India (Which India?) by Patriarch Timothy according to A.M. Mundadan””some canonical abuses that had crept into the Christian community of India, especially in the matter of Ordination of Metropolitans, bishops, priests and deacons”” (see the patriarch discusses these issues with head of Shimshonos-and do we used to select Metropolitans, bishops, priests and deacons?).If any body is kind enough to call him a proxy of Bishop should tell me why Malankara Nazranies would be ruled by a position (Role&Meaning) which is unheard in all Christendom.

It is logical to suggest that this letter (if it is true) might have been written to a congregation some where in Indian subcontinent near to Persian Empire where there may be a practice of electing Metropolitans, Bishops, Priests and deacons existed. It is definite that the place or the church Patriarch Timothy mention in his said letter not indicates Malankara since we have no evidences indicating a full fledged hierarchy during this period. It is only an imagination by overenthusiastic Malankara church historians. There may be some vested interest to prove their church allegiance also played a catalyst role in this historic blunder.

Another point to be noted here is the practice of Coptic Orthodox Church appointing laity as Archdeacon. If we read this along with Malankara church’s earlier connections with Copts, its practices such as consecration by twelve Kahnoosas gives us an entire different possibility. The said Arkn may be of Coptic origin and the Timothy becomes an imposter like in the case of Roman pope and Jordan catallani. This practice of stealing sheep is not a new thing in the world of Christendom (especially by Romans)!!!! But chances are rare since the Arkadiakon itself a 13/14th century invention in Malankara.

Now we have discussed the so called evidences, documents etc.(up to the period of patriarch Timothy) of early subjugation theory of east syriacs. This is enough to show the veracity of claims of these so called church historians. The Smc, Orthodox, Coe or Jacobite historians all are alike in giving importance to their respective churches rather than finding the historical truth. The way in which Syrian Christian historians write history is pathetic and made Malankara Nazranies a laughable stock in front of secular and scientific thought.(to be continued)