PALAMATTOM OR PAKALOMATTOM ?

It is very interesting to read the story about Archadiyokons of Malankara. The word Archdiyokon is a syriacised Greek word 'Archon' .So I suggest that we should use Moopan instead the Greek import Archadiokon of 15^th century. It is also noted that the word Moopan is associated with Dravidian Tharakootangal. Some argue that this position is called Jathikku Karthavyan without knowing the etymological origin of the words called ‘Jath’ & ‘kartha’. These words came to Malankara only after 8^th century when Malai Nattu Tamil undergo Sanskritisation at large scale.

Coming to the topic let us seek the information about the first known Archadiyokon(Malakara Moopan).We have no information about any Archadiyokon earlier than Ghevarghese Moopan .The information we get about Ghevarghese Moopan is limited. Niranam Grandhavari makes a passive reference about him. Though people claim that he is from Pakalomattom family but there is no convincible evidence. This seems to be a claim put forward by some vested interest in later period. Niranam Grandhavari gives information about a Moopan called” Malanara”. Though the name is unfamiliar the period coincide with Ghevarghese moopan. It is also noted that there is no information available about this Moopan except some passive reference in Niranam Grandhavari.

But interestingly there is another document gives light into this period. “””A padiyola document written in palm leaves which is now in the possession of Pothanikat family at Kothamangalam mentions an Archdeacon in the early years of Sixteenth Century. The document says that in the year 1509, Archdeacon Ittikuriath effected a compromise between two parties contending for the ownerships of two Churches at Kothamangalam. Archdeacon Ittikuriath seems to be the George Pakalomattam mentioned earlier.”””

The pallies mentioned in this document seems to be Kothamangalam Marthamariyam Valiapalli and Marthoma cheria Palli . That means the said “Ittikurian” was Malankara Nazrani Moopan during this period. How are we going to solve this issue. Niranam Granthavari talk about “Malanara” and the document in possession with Pothanikkattu family talk about Moopan ‘Ittikuriath’.It is also noted that the Niranam Grandhavari also talk about Ghevarghese Moopan in a passive way. Some Portuguese documents talk about Archdeacon George in their documents. Now how are we going to solve this confusion. To understand the situation we need to read “Kadamattath Achanmar” portion of Niranam Grandhavari. It clearly states that the portion containing details about the Moopans destroyed by termites

http://marthoman.tv/Books/Niranam%20Grandhavary.pdf (page 127).

However it gives information about the moopans from Malanara. This is a valued information and more authentic than many of the Portuguese documents. It is also noted that the said Grandhavari speak about Moopan Ghevarghese .It is possible that the said Malanara and Ghevarghese are one or the same person. The “Malanara’ may be some syriac word like “Maronitha”.What ever it may be the same Grandhavari talk about both names indicate that the same person. Then how are we going to solve ‘Ittikuriath” moopan? It is not easy to solve this problem. Since Niranam Granthavari states only the date on which he died give us another option that Ittikuriath may be someone else who reigned before or after him. This is possible because the Niranam Grandhavari talk about another Ittikuriath who died on Kollam 815 Meenam 5(1640).It may be possible that the date mentioned by the Pothanikkattu document may entered wrongly. That is  Ghevarghese moopan and Malanara are the same person.

Another interesting thing is that  no document mention about his family and all we have got is the wild imagination created by partisan authors in later period! But Niranam Grandhavari states that the Malanara belongs to Palamattom family .At the same time it refers passively about the Ghevarghese moopan . It is logical to conclude that these two names belong to the same Moopan from Palamattom family.

Yohannan Moopan(1570-1593)

Next Moopan we come across is Yohannan (Niranam Grandhavari) who died on Kollam 768 Meenam 30(1593).But Katholic sources created another Archdeacon Jacob in between without any records. So far no records have been produced in support of this Archdeacon Jacob.NSC (Nasrani.net) states it is purely based on tradition! God knows where this tradition comes from? This seems to be a creation of Katholics to give credibility to Rome!

 http://nasrani.net/2007/06/14/the-tomb-of-archdeacons-kuravilangadu/#identifier_1_231

Ghevarghese moopan(1593-1604)
He was Malankara Moopan during the troubled days of De Amperitana Synodo. He put up valiant resistance to Roman forces. Many records are available about this Moopan and his activities. No records reveal his family name as Pakalomatton while Niranam Grandhavari clearly mentioned that he was from Palamattom Family (Niranam Grandhavari page.127).But Pakalomattom family propaganda along with Katholic interests propagated that he belongs to Pakalomattom family. But it is interesting to note that there is no single evidence to show that he belongs to Pakalomattom family of Kuravilangadu!

It is the stupidity and subservient attitude of Katholics named him “George of the cross” to give credibility to their argument.

Ittikuriath Moopan(1604-1640)
Niranam Grandhavari states that he died on Kollam 815 Meenam 5. It is also possible that this Ittikuriath Moopan solved the dispute between the pallies of Kothamangalam. It is also to be noted that there was a dispute between Marthamariam Valiyapally and Marthoma Cheriyapally existed during this period. The manuscript with Pothanikkattu family clearly states about this. The wrong recording of the date may be considered as a mistake.

He was the last Moopan ruled Malankara Nazranies and Romo-syrians together. After this Malankara Nazranies were ruled by Palamattom Thoma and Romo-Syrians were ruled by Parambil ThomaKurien Arkadiyokon. This Parambil Thoma Kurien was appointed by Stephen  Britto(History of Christianity in India. Vol.2 By Joseph thekkedath)

Katholic historians made a blunder by thinking the said Ghevarghese Moopan died in 1640.Niranam Grandhavari and other documents like Pothanikkattu Manuscripts clearly give us the details of Moopan Ittikuriath. This mistake was deliberately committed by Romo-Syrian historians in order to create a link between Parambil Chandi and Ghevarghese Moopan. That way they intended to give credibility to the enthronement of Parambil chandy as a substitution. But Niranam Grandhavari spoiled the whole manipulation. This mistake has been copied by some Malankara Nazrani historians like Z.M.Paret. It is possible that Z.M Paret might not have seen Niranam Grandhavari before writing this as reported by P.V.Mathew.

Palamattom Thoma Moopan.

Niranam Grandavari states that he was from Palamattom Family. Paremmakkil Thomman Kathanar’s Varthamana Pusthakam states that Thoma Moopan was from Palamattom Family (varthamana Pusthakam Bhagam 2)

Mavelikkara Padiyola states”Palamattathu Tharavattil kazhinja melpattakkarude vasthuvakakalum seminariyil varuthi””.It is  noted that the property of Palamattom(Kadamattom) melpattakkar (24 title deeds) was also included while settling the case with Anglican Missionaries regarding Seminary and other properties.(The Malabar Syrians and Church missionary society by P. Cherian –appendix R.Page 402)

But the Romo-syrians were ruled by Parmbil Thoma appointed by Stephen Britto. Plz note that there is a tug of war going on between Palliveetil(kalliveetil) family and so called Pakalomattom family of Kuravilangadu about the family of parambil Thumi!!!

That is why I stated that Paranbil Chandi is the relative of Parambil Thoma, not Palamattom Thoma of malankara nazranies. This Palamattom Thoma was the Moopan Of Malankara Nazranies while Parambil Thommi was a duplicate created by Rome.

Now the picture is clear. Malankara nazranies ruled by Palamattom Moopans and have nothing to do with Pakalomattom story of Kuravilangadu. This story is created by vested interest to elevate absurd family called Pakalomattom in later period. The translators of Niranam Grandhavari are also taken for a ride with this propaganda. These story writers have no references or manuscripts to prove their stories except their wild imaginations.

Malankara Nazrani moopans lineage is continuous and clear with family name Palamattom of Kadamattom. But the Romo-Syrian lineage is built on changing names or adopting fictitious characters like Jacob, Kunnel Mathai etc. They conveniently forget the last Moopan “Ittikuriath” who ruled Malankara Nazranies and Romo-Syrians in order to create continuity in their lineage. The policy of creating duplicate Archdeacon was practiced by Rome when ever required like in the case of Kunnel Mathai. Read it from a Katholic Historian.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=chkD52PhJZUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA132#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was Rome directed and played the major role against Malankara Nazranies. The role of Romo –Syrians were just like slaves. They obeyed their Latin masters to destroy Malankara Nazranies. All Malankara Moopans tried to resist this colonial power and protected their mother church. But the   Romo-Syrians enjoyed money and facility provided by Rome against their help in destroying Malankara Nazranies. Now this Romo-Syrians is trying to re- write their history  through manipulations and fake documents.

Now those who need the story of deplorable manipulations and family story writers in search of greatness plz read.

http://kallipalliveed.org/history.htm

http://pakkalomattam.indians123.com/

They think history is a manipulative science! The struggle put up by each Malankara Nazrani  can not be used to elevate such  families. It is hilarious to see Pakalomattom added all successful families of Malankara to its list. This is nothing but propaganda created during the early 19th century to elevate certain families. It is amusing to read Palliveetil historians claiming greatness by explaining the manipulation by Pakalomattom. They do not know that history has its own ways to reveal the truth!

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