Persian Crosses of South India and Its Possible Manichaean Origin

St.Thomas Mount cross

This is a controversial subject among Syriac Christians of Malankara. Majority of church historians put forward the Persian cross as the prime evidence for the existence of Persian Christianity in Malankara . These so called crosses have termed Persian crosses because of Pahlavi writing on them. Many scholars have tried to decipher the writing on these crosses and produced diametrically opposite results. This is the problem with Pahlavi script which is mainly Logogrammatic

Kottayam Cross -1,Kerala.,India.

We find two types of crosses named as Persian Crosses at various locations .These locations are

1)     St.Thomas Mount, Chennai, Tamilnadu:-The Cross is at Our Lady of Expectations Church under the Latin Catholic diocese of Chingelpet ( Madras-Mylapore).

2)     Kadamattom ,Kerala:- This cross is at St. George Orthodox Syriac Church, Kadamattom, Kerala.This Cross was found at the southern wall of the Madbaha.

3)     Kottayam,Kerala:- There are two Crosses at St. Mary's Syriac Orthodox Church, Kottayam,Kerala. One cross is considered of late origin (10th century) and the other dated between 6-8th century.

4)     Kothanellur, Kerala:- This cross is at St. Gervasis and Prothasis Roman Catholic (Syro-Malabar) church, Kothanellur,Kerala.The Cross said to have been discovered during renovation at 1895.

5)     Muttuchira,Kerala:-This Cross is at Holy Ghost Roman Catholic church(Syro-Malabar) at Muttuchira, Kerala.This is also said to have been discovered during renovation of the church.

6)     Alangadu, Kerala:-This cross is at St.Mary's Roman Catholic (Syro-Malabar) Church ,Alangadu,Kerala.This is a very recent discovery.

Besides these locations church historians state that similar crosses have been found at Goa, India; Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka and Taxila, Pakistan.

Goa Cross,India

Goa cross:-Among these  three crosses, Goa cross is   only similar to the cross of 

St.Thomas Mount but its origin is questionable because of Portuguese inscription on them .The cross has been discovered by Fr.Cosme Costa S.F.X near river Zuari at Agasaim on 27th April 2001. The Cross is now kept at Pilar Seminary Museum.

 The Portuguese inscription  state     “”A DE S. TOME DO R. ILEZVS 1642 “” . “A DE S.TOME” means ““which belongs to St.Thomas “” (by Pius Malekandathil).Why didn’t they use similar inscriptions in the other crosses of south India especially on the St. Thomas Mount cross?  Was it a later day copy to give credibility to their missions? We can not say anything concrete about this cross due to lack of research work on it.

Anuradhapura Cross,Sri Lanka

 Cross of Anuradhapura:- It is totally different from any of these crosses. It is placed (possibly) in a flower which is different from any of these Persian crosses. It is more similar to some of the Katchkhar crosses of Armenia . There is no Pahlavi inscription on it and no descending dove as like in the St.Thomas Mount cross.

Taxila Cross,Pakistan 

Taxila Cross :-It was found in 1935 in a field near the site of the ancient  city of Sirkap,Taxila,Pakistan.The local zamindar gave it to Mrs.C. King  wife of British deputy commissioner of Rawalpindi who then presented to the cathedral at Lahore. Most astonishing thing about this Taxila cross is that it does not even resemble  with the said Persian Crosses. But many Syriac Church historians wrote a lot about this without making a basic enquiry !                                                      

The two types(south Indian crosses) are easily distinguishable because of their pattern of construction. One group has clearly defined descending dove along with lotus base and creatures carved with the cross while the other group have no dove forms or lotus base. These distinctive styles are difficult for us to arrive in any concrete conclusion. The crosses at  St.Thomas Mount and Kadamattam along with one cross at Kottayam comprise the first group while the other cross at Kottayam leads the other group. Why and how did these distinctive styles come in to existence? It is still an unanswered question!

It is very difficult to prove the origin of these crosses because of the difficulty in deciphering the Pahlavi writing on them. We also have no supportive documents or evidences to indicate their possible origin. It is noted that Cross had been a symbol to many sects and religion before Christianity. Even Buddhists and Hindus used crosses in different forms as one of their symbols. This makes our task very difficult.

I think it is better to start our study by understanding the various translations of the Pahlavi inscriptions on them. We have many translations available with us. These translations are the best evidences to find their origin.

Different translations of Pahlavi inscriptions

1)     "In punishment by the cross (was) the suffering on this (one); (He) who (is) true Christ and God above, and Guide ever Pure" (Burnnell1873)

2)       He who believes in the Messiah and in God on high and also in the holy Ghost is in the Grace of Him who bore the pain of the cross(Martin Haug 1874)

3)       He who is the Messiah , the reconciler, the resuscitator, for ever purified by virtue of his crucifixion.(Harlez 1892)

4)      Such was the affliction of the wounding and spearing of him on the cross, who was the faithful Messiah, the merciful one, the descendant of the great Abraham, who was the descendant of Chaharbukht. (Sanjana 1914)

5)      I, a beautiful bird from Nineveh, (have come) to this (country).Written (by) Mar Shapur.I,whom(?)Messiah, the forgiver, freed from danger(or terror). (Modi 1924)

6)      My lord Christ , have mercy upon Afras son of Chaharbukht, the Syrian who cut this.(winkworth,1929) 

7)      Our Lord Messiah may show on Gabriel , the son of Chaharbokht (literally meaning having four sons), the grand son of Durzad (literally meaning born in distsnd land), who made this (cross) (Gerd Gropp 1970)

Now which one is correct and how can we find out the veracity of their claims. This is the problem with Pahlavi Language which is logogrammatic in writing. Probably we will never know! ( any body want to know what is logogrammatic writing plz google it ). I haven’t included the translations by Kanara Brahman and Fr.Burthey, S.J a Roman Katholic.

Why it has most probably a Manichaean origin?

1)     The most acceptable translation by Burnell indicates that the trinity suffered on the cross which is a heresy similar to Sabellianism or Patrippasianism

2)      These crosses are found only in places where Manichaean had considerable influence

3)      The place where one of the cross was unearthed –Mylapore- were found worshiped by all religion like Muslims, Hindus etc. There was no special importance to this place in the history of Malankara Nazranies. The detail about the excavations conducted by Portuguese surely indicates their special interest in the subject to attach the place to St. Thomas

4)      There is no believable records relating to Mylapore before the advent of Portuguese or Malankara Nazranies have any documents, myths relating to Mylapore story prior to the Portuguese Manipulations. Most of the travelers indicate the place where St. Thomas said to have been martyred as CALAMIANA which is yet to be identified

5)      Bl.Odoric of Pordenon a Franciscan friar visited India during the time of Jordanus Catalani talk about this so called Mylapore”””And in this realm is laid the body of the Blessed Thomas the Apostle. His church is FILLED WITH IDOLS, AND BESIDE IT ARE SOME FIFTEEN HOUSES OF NESTORIANS; THAT IS TO SAY, CHRISTIANS, BUT VILE AND PESTILENT HERETICS”””. (Wow, NESTORIANS and IDOLS!!) This indicates that the church belongs to some heretics who worshipped idols. Who else it can be?

6)      Arab geographer Abu Zaid about 916AD wrote about Sarandib(Ceylon) “there is a numerous colony of Jews in Sarandib ,and people of other religions especially Manichaeans””

7)      Manichaean used cross with decoration of plants, flowers etc. because they believed Mani the Jesus or the Apostle of Jesus died on cross. They were true vegetarian and respected plants, flowers and animals. All their paintings reflect their philosophy and attitude

8)      Manichaean adopted many things from other religions like Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism etc. and used it to propagate their religion in the respective countries/regions

9)      Mani considered himself as Paraclete and his followers naturally depicted him as descending “dove”

10)   Manichaean used Aramaic, Pahlavi and Sogadian languages to propagate their religion in respective regions and engraved/painted on their artifacts.

11)   The cross with descending dove is found only in the areas where Manichaean church existed and it is specifically towards the east

12)   If the cross with dove is peculiar to Persian Christians there must have been some literature related with it considering their rivalry with churches of the Roman Empire

13)   How many of this type crosses found from the places where the Manichaean church did not have any influence?

14)   Manichaean church was “DUALISTS” and so with NESTORIANS and the church historians always referred them as heretics and often misunderstood

15)   Manichaean practiced BEMA and Qurbana so the NESTORIANS

16)   Malankara has a peculiar name called “MANI” pronounced as “MAANI” which is unheard in  Christendom. How many Persian Christians have this name? (Please do not come with manipulations like Mani derived from Manual etc.)

Why is it a Manichaean cross?

Followers of Mani considered his death was by cross and gave much importance to cross in their religion. He himself considered as a Paraclete and it is possible that his followers depicted him as a descending Dove along with a cross

--The great historian of the early Christian church Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea also mentions the Manichaean religion: Mani the mad man driven by the devil himself. He was a barbarian and tried to represent himself as Christ by saying that he was the Paraclete----Page 37 (MANI by L.J.R Ort.)

---- There is an allusion in the Chinese Treatise to ‘the pure marvelous wind(spirit) which is a white dove’. This Christian image of the Holy Spirit as the ‘white dove’ recalls the argument maintained by Mani in disputing with Bishop Archaleus concerning the dove which descended upon Jesus in his baptism--- (Researches in Manichaeism by A.V.W.Jackson)

Read from the world renowned scholars from academics

Manichaean Art On The Silk Road By Hans-Joachim Klimkeit

If we trace the silk road towards the east we see four religion (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, & Manichaean) existed together along with local Persian/Chinese religions. A further study on their writings, paintings and other artifacts is sufficient to prove their religious syncretism. This may look little problematic /awkward to a blind believers of any religion of today, but the fact is fact. 

If we study the practices Christians follow with respect to their believes, festivals, religious costumes etc. are mostly from the Pagan background. The Christmas (date) we celebrate today have the pagan origin and do not have any biblical or apostolic background. If this is the case, then there is sufficient logic to suggest that the said Cross probably have a Manichaean origin based on the evidences stated here. It is also to be noted that the cross with dove mostly found from the places were Manichaean church existed. The authors whom I quoted have clearly answered the objection raised with respect to non occurrence of this type of cross in the west. The religious or cultural syncretism takes place not in the crucible rather the open world which is influenced by many factors.

It is also to be noted that the Manichaean church is culturally closer to Syriac Christianity of the east. The languages these religions used were also similar. Most striking thing is that the leaders/propagators of these religions were from the same background and even practiced both these religions in their life time. 

Again read 

Manichaean Art On The Silk Road By Hans-Joachim Klimkeit

 Now understand the position Of Mani and Manichaeism. He was quite aware of Christ and Christian teachings. Christianity faced maximum heresy during this period and he was fascinated by these teachings. No wonder he adopted many things from Christianity. 

 

It is quiet natural that Manichaeism was a dualistic concept closely identified with another dualistic concept called Nestorianism. 

History of Civilization of Central Asia, Vol.3&4 By Clifford Edmund Bosworth, M.S. Asimov 

Read above scholars and understand where a group of Syriac Church historians stand in front of scientific and secular studies. It is not the study of a separate group among Syriac Christians but world renowned scholars of Manichaeism and Eastern Christianity. 

This is not to embarrass the Manichean cross supporters but to stop the wrong identification of the same as Nazrani Cross.

Pahlavi Language as Evidence

The next argument the followers of Manichaean Cross put forward is the Pahlavi Language of inscription. This is an old argument that we find Pahlavi inscriptions on these crosses and Pahlavi literature like Pahlavi Psalter from Church of Fars. It seems logical from out side but if we go little deep on these languages used by these religions we will find the truth. The language Pahlavi was used by many religions of the region such as Zoroastrians, Manichaean, and Persian Christians etc. So there is no exclusivity of this language to any particular religion. So this is not an evidence to prove that the said crosses belong to Syriac Christianity. It is also noticed that these religions used other languages like Dari-Persian, Sogadian etc.

Read from “”History of Civilization of Central Asia, Vol.3&4 By Clifford Edmund Bosworth,M.S.Asimov””

Pahlavi was the language of Zoroastrians, Manichaean, Persian Christian etc. 

 Dari-Persian was also the language of these religions 

These religions also used Sogadian language for their writings and existed in Turfan side by side 

This shows that the language Pahlavi is not an evidence at all as put forward by supporters of Manichaean Cross (Kaldayavadikal of SMC and other Syriac Christian supporters).There can be any one like Manichaean also be the makers of these crosses. Since historians trace the presence of Manichaean in those places where these crosses are found, it is most probably the Manichaean behind the crosses.

Pahlavi Script as Evidence

Next argument put forward by the supporters of Manichaean Cross is based on Pahlavi script. They say that the script used by Manicheans is different and easily distinguishable. Some cases it is true where Aramaic or Sogadian influence were played a major role. Every religion in ancient times produced some exclusiveness in their practices and programs .But it is difficult to distinguish these traits when the concerned social organizations lived and thrived together. Any way, for the sake of argument let me agree with that the Manichaean Pahlavi is different or rather the script.

Which are the Pahlavi scripts? 

1) Inscription Pahlavi :- 

-Inscriptional Pahlavi is the earliest attested form, and is evident in clay fragments that have been dated to the reign of Mithridates I (r. 171–138 BC). Other early evidence includes the Pahlavi inscriptions of Arsacid era coins and rock inscriptions of Sassanid kings and other notables such as Kartir. This script contains 19 characters which are not joined 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taq-e_Bostan_-_Pahlavi_writing.jpg

 2) Book Pahlavi:-

Book Pahlavi is a smoother script in which letters are joined to each other and often form complicated ligatures. Book Pahlavi was the most common form of the script, with only 12 or 13 graphemes (13 when including aleph) representing 24 sounds. The formal coalescence of originally different letters caused ambiguity, and the letters became even less distinct when they formed part of a ligature. In its later forms, attempts were made to improve the consonantary and reduce ambiguity through diacritic marks. Book Pahlavi continued to be in common use until about AD 900. After that date, Pahlavi was preserved only by the Zoroastrian clergy (plz note Book Pahlavi is not Inscription Pahlavi) 

http://www.ancientscripts.com/pahlavi.html 

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mpersian.htm#mpersian

 3) Psalter Pahlavi:-

Psalter Pahlavi derives its name from the so-called "Pahlavi Psalter", a 6th- or 7th-century translation of a Syriac book of psalms. This text, which was found at Bulayiq near Turpan in northwest China, is the earliest evidence of literary composition in Pahlavi, dating to the 6th or 7th century AD. The extant manuscript dates not earlier than the mid-6th century since the translation reflects liturgical additions to the Syriac original by Mar Aba I, who was Patriarch of the Church of the East c. 540 - 552.The script of the psalms has altogether 18 graphemes, 5 more than Book Pahlavi and one less than Inscription Pahlavi. As in Book Pahlavi, letters are connected to each other. The only other surviving source of Psalter Pahlavi are the inscriptions on a bronze processional cross found at Herat, in present-day Afghanistan.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/psalter.htm 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438346/Pahlavi-language

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

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ELrRr0L8UOsC&lpg=PA328&ots=6kzpul3Ku4&dq=history%20of%20pahlavi%20christian&pg=PA328#v=onepage&q&f=true

4) Manichaean script. 

This script was used by Manichaean to write their holy books and was developed from Estrangelo with influence from Sogadian script. It was used extensively during the early years of Manichaeism. That does not mean that the Manichean used only Manichean script. 

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/manichaean.php

 Now understand these scripts and situation respect with Manichaean crosses of south India. It is clear from above that “Inscription Pahlavi” and “Book Pahlavi “are different. The same way “Book Pahlavi” and “Psalter Pahlavi” are different. Psalter Pahlavi was the language of Persian Christians and they used it starting from 6th century. It is not surprising that they used  Psalter Pahlavi for their cross inscriptions in Heart, in present day Afghanistan . This is one of the valuable evidence against the supporters of Manichean cross as Nestorian cross. If the said cross were belong to Nestorians or any form of Persian Christianity it would have been inscribed by Psalter Pahlavi script (since the very same Nestorians used Psalter Pahlavi to inscribe the cross in Heart). 

It is also noted that no scholar clearly identify the said inscription with established group of scripts. They agree that the scripts are cursive scripts some time it joined together and other times separated . Even if we identify the said inscription with Book Pahlavi , it does not prove that the cross belongs to eastern Christianity. Book Pahlavi was used by Zoroastrians, Manichaean & Persian Christians.

So this being the situation, how can we attribute these crosses to Nestorians? There is no logic or supportive evidence to prove without doubt about its origin. When we consider the so called translations of those inscriptions along with these linguistic realities increases the possibility of a Manichaean origin.

I have clearly stated that the usage of various forms of Pahlavi by different religions in central Asia during the 3rd to 10th century period  along with respective Photo shots of scholarly works. These religions also used other languages such as Sogadian, Dari-Persian, and Uygur etc to propagate their respective religion. Please be noted that the identification based on scripts/languages may not be a correct technique when we deal with religions which are extinct or almost assimilated to other religions.

A real time situation

There is another real time situation also to be considered before deciding any conclusion. Why would a Manichaean convert from Zoroastrianism or any pagan Iranian religion use Manichean Estrangelo script to propagate his new found religion? Why is it applied only to Manichean church, not to other religions?

THAT IS WHY THE PERSIAN CROSSES OF SOUTH INDIA MOST PROBABLY HAVE A MANICHAEAN ORIGIN.

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX 22- An additional clarification.

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

1) Content of the Codex

2) Script of the codex

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

4) Historical fact about the Yahballah V/Yahballah III

5) Scribe testimony

6) Portuguese manipulations/writings

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

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

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

Regarding the script I suggested that 

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

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

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX22 – FURTHER EVIDENCES.

VATICAN SYRIAC CODEX22 – FURTHER EVIDENCES.

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

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

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

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

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

ESTRANGELO manuscripts divided in to three

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

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

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

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

SERTO manuscripts divided in to two groups

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

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

NESTORIAN manuscripts divided in to two groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question of the Syriac script used in the Codex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 A Case study.

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

Have you heard a historian called Alphonse Mingana?

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

The Chronicle of Arbela or Mshiha-Zkha (1907)

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

i) A modern manuscript made old and Its success

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

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

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

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

ii) Forgeries by Mingana?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From another author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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