Talk:Jacobite Syrian Christian Church

Jacobite vs. Orthodox: confusing redirect, missing history

Does any reader who notices the subtle difference between Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church win some kind of reward? Since the second one is a redirect to this article, which is properly titled with the church's official denomination, why is that redirect so? It's very confusing.

By the way, both articles are extremely vague or even reticent, in their History sections, about the 1911 dispute that started the split between Orthodox and Jacobite churches, which is better described here. --176.247.145.53 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition of dubious content and removal of sourced content

@Johnchacks: most of your latest edits in this article has been undone due to the following reasons:

• You have not provided citations to show that the content is correct (eg. Archdioceses belong to JSCC etc.)
• You have not explained why you removed the cited contents (eg. Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India etc.) Jude Didimus (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus:, Your statement //most of your latest edits in this article// is NOT fully correct. Recently I did only one change in this article - reverted the changes you made in the article from 16th to 18th March and it was for the reason which I mentioned in the edit summary. Again, the title of this section //Addition of dubious content and removal of sourced content// is NOT correct in its true sense. I have not added or removed anything from my end. The addition/deletion happened was as part of the restore, and I clearly said its a temporary restore until reaching a consensus in other talk page. Since you already reverted my edit, I don't think anything more to discuss on the above bullet points here.--John C. (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnchacks:, what exactly do you meant by "temporary restore until reaching a consensus in other talk page"? Other articles, and their talk pages, should have no influence on this article. Also, just as a general notice, you are responsible for your edits, even if you're restoring material previously added by other editors. You essentially take "ownership" of that content, and are required to make a good faith effort to support it with reliable sources. More importantly than that, there's no good reason to remove reliably sourced information. If it was done as part of a reversion, you're generally expected go back in, and restore the cited information. I'm not chiding you here, but rather, hoping that you take this advice on board in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

Change the title,Jacobite Syrian Christian Church to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church 103.82.77.158 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see WP:RM/CM for the process of requesting a new article name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Please add irenaous paulose bishops name in the bishop list as he is the bishop of Calicut diocesan 152.58.203.100 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ancient links with the Church of the East

This article seems to erroneously suggest that Saint Thomas Christians were subject to the authority of the Miaphysite Patriarch of Antioch from ancient times. This is in stark contrast to the view put forward by many authoritative sources which unequivocally state that Saint Thomas Christians were part of the Nestorian Church of the East, headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century. Sources include,

• Thomas Christians authored by Sebastian Brock published by Gorgias
• Pages 24 to 28 of the book South Asia's Christians: Between Hindu and Muslim by Chandra Mallampalli, published by Oxford University Press
• Chapter 22 (page 673 onwards) of the book A History of Christianity in Asia, Vol. I Beginnings to 1500 by Samuel H. Moffett, published by Orbis Books
• The Gorgias article on the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church provides further insight. It reads,

While the dominant view is that the Thomas Christians were continually in communion with the Ch. of E. under the Cath.- patr. of Seleucia-Ctesiphon until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th cent., the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church holds that Thomas Christians held in great esteem the ecclesiastical authority of the patr. of Antioch over the ‘East’,...The first head of the Church, after it asserted a Syr. Orth. identity, was Archdeacon Parambil Thomas (1637–70), the chief protagonist of the ‘Coonan Kurishu Satyam’ of 1653 (Oath at the Leaning Cross, Mattanchery); shortly thereafter, he assumed episcopal dignity with the name Mar Thoma I and was subsequently consecrated canonically by the first Syr. Orth. delegate, Mor Gregorios ʿAbdel al-Jaleel, who arrived in 1665.

— Thomas Joseph

This means that the story about ancient ecclesiastical ties of Saint Thomas Christians to the Miaphysite Patriarchate of Antioch is Jacobite point of view. I could not find any reliably published, independent source that attests such a connection before 1665. In other words, Oriental Orthodoxy in India, began in 1665. It is also noteworthy that many other Wikipedia articles such as Saint Thomas Christians, Church of the East in India, India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) and Malankara–Persian ecclesiastical relations are in line with the mainstream scholarly view supporting ancient ties with the Nestorian Church of the East. Pinging user Logosx127 and Pbritti for their opinion on this matter as both these users have quite a lot of experience editing articles related to the historic Malankara church.--Macinderum (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Macinderum I'm not entirely sure what issue you're trying to convey. What part of the article did you find objectionable?
The section history says: According to Indian Christian tradition, the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala were evangelized by Thomas the Apostle, who reached Malankara in 52 CE. Due, at least in part, to migrant East Syriac Christians, the Saint Thomas Christian community gradually gravitated towards the Persian Church of the East headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and became part of its archdiocese of Rev Ardashir, by 420 CE. This communion with Nestorian church lasted till the arrival of Portuguese colonists in the 16th century. Inconsistent with this mainstream scholarly view, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church maintains that Saint Thomas Christians always acknowledged the ecclesiastical pre-eminence of the Patriarch of Antioch over the "East", which covers Persia and India. This teaching is primarily based on the canons of the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The Jacobite church further argues that the Persian bishops who governed Saint Thomas Christians, recognized the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch before 500 CE. Still, even the Jacobite church admits that Saint Thomas Christians had perpetual connections with the Church of the East from the 14th to 16th centuries.
I think this is in line with the available academic literature on the topic , which includes the above mentioned sources as well. Logosx127 (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Logosx127, Thanks for responding promptly! If you check the edit history of the article, you will find that it says what it says because I edited it a few minutes ago, based on reliable sources. It previously contained wrong information. I do not want an edit war over that change, so I decided to listen to a couple of experienced users.--Macinderum (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Macinderum: Good fixes. There is a common misconception that the Antiochian connection has been present since ancient times, despite its origins in the early modern period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, few things:

1) "Church of the East" does not always refer to Nestorianism, although that is the popular use. There were two factions of the Church of the East, one being the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, under the Maphrian of the East, and the other, the Assyrian Church of the East.

2) The reason why most scholars would only attest to the Nestorian presence, is because the largest of the St. Thomas Christian sects, is the Syro-Malabar Church.

3) There was the presence of the Nestorian Church in India, but according to St. Dionysius Bar Salibi, in his book "Ten Chapters", "the majority of the Indians.. accept the faith of the great Severus". (unfortunately can't find a copy of this online)

4) According to the "Narratives of Joseph the Indian", which was published in 1509 as "Novus Orbis", about an interaction between a St. Thomas Christian and the Pope of Rome, the Catholicos got his authority from the Patriarch of Antioch, which could only refer to the Maphrian. This is also present in this [1]https://www.nasrani.net/2010/06/05/the-story-of-joseph-the-indian-with-a-historical-appraisal-of-the-affairs-of-st-thomas-christians/ "During his visitation to Pope Alexander VI, Joseph declared that Church in the East is governed by the Catholicos Patriarch at Babylon and his right of appointing Bishops to Malabar. When Joseph was asked about the authority to the Catholicose Patriarch, Joseph clarified that when St Peter, who was the Bishop of Antioch, had to move to Rome, he left a Vicar at Antioch. It is from him, the Catholicos get the authority to govern the Church in the East."

5) According to "Christian researches in Asia" by Claudius Buchanan, "The European priests were yet more alarmed, when they found that these Hindoo Christians maintained the order and discipline of a regular Church under Epispocal Jurisdiction: and that, for 1300 years past, they had enjoyed a succession of Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch"(pg 106) [2]https://archive.org/details/christianresearc00buchrich/page/106/

6) According to a Latin translation of the election of Patriarch Ignatius David II in 1581(which I believe is in Vatican Archives), the Catholicos, under the Patriarch of Antioch is known as "Basilius cath(holi)cus orientis et Indiae sed. scil sancti Thomae Apostoli." (Pg 177) [3]https://archive.org/details/lecouventdebarsa0000honi/page/176/

7) According to Byzantine monk Neilos Doxapatres, who lived in the 1000s, he says "The Patriarch of Antioch holds all of Asia, and the East, and India, where until the present day, catholic who ordained catholics, sends the so-called Romogyreos, and Persia. Now and this Babylon, the now-called Bagda; and from there the Patriarch of Antioch was sending a katholikon to Eirinoupolis, the so-called Eirinoupoleos and the Armenians, and Avasgian, and Ivirian, and Midian, and the Chaldeans, and Parthian, and Elamites, and Mesopotamia.” This was brought up in the nodern jurisdiction arguments between Antioch and Jerusalem in the Eastern Orthodox Church, [4]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/blog/2013/04/29/the-official-response-of-his-beatitude-theophilos-iii-of-jerusalem-to-his-beatitude-john-x-of-antioch-concerning-the-canonical-jurisdiction-of-the-emirate-of-qatar/?print=print Halershes (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsvoLYCUvQE This is from Mar Aprem Mooken, who is the head of the Assyrian Church of the East in India. As you can notice the vestments and the altar style is from the Syriac Orthodox Church. Halershes (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry wrong video, you can study the history of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church in that one, but here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWpAeUIC_cU Halershes (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Halershes, First of all, let me point out that two your sources (1 and 2) are blogs, which are not admissible in Wikipedia. We need reliably published, secondary or tertiary English language sources, preferably having no connection to the Syriac Orthodox Church. Even according blog 1 (nasrani.net) that you cited, Joseph the Indian was a Church of the East priest, directly ordained by Catholicos-Patriarch Shemon IV. A reliable article on the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church authored by Thomas Joseph and published by Gorgias, clarifies that Joseph the Indian incorrectly identifies his Catholicos-Patriarch as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch. I have not seen any reliable source that uses the term 'Church of the East' to refer to the Syriac Orthodox Church. Scholars always use that term to denote the Nestorian Persian church. However, I agree that Claudius Buchanan's 1811 book Christian researches in Asia does say in page 107 that Indian Christians were under the jurisdiction of bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch for 1300 years. That is certainly incorrect. It must be treated as an exception that is very much inconsistent with a plethora of scholarly sources which explicitly state that Saint Thomas Christians were historically part of the Persian Church of the East headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Logosx127 and Pbritti, if you don't mind, please share your views.--Macinderum (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What are your objections to the source I've shown you records from the Vatican Archives? From the election of Patriarch Ignatius David II Shah that shows that the Jacobite Catholicos had authority over India, (Pg 177) [6]https://archive.org/details/lecouventdebarsa0000honi/page/176/]. Additionally, the source that I showed you about the Byzantine Monk, is not from a blog but from the translation of the official response of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, published on their official website "[5]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/".

Further evidence for the Catholicos of the East being under the Jurisdiction of Antioch, is "But in any case the diocese of John was ‘ great,’ beyond the power of any single man to do justice to; and it ia probable therefore thet he held the rank of Metropolitan, with other bishops subject to his supervision. He himself was subject to the Archbishop and Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who was, in his turn, a man placed under authority ; for this Catholicate “ was, as it w’ftre,^a vicarial jurisdiction of the see of Antioch, in the same manner that the Metran of Ethiopia was dependent on that of Alexandria.”"[[6]]

Also, I agree that Joseph the Indian was mistaken for calling his Catholicos appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch, but this nonetheless shows that the Syrian Christians of Malabar shows how the Indian Christians viewed the Patriarchate of Antioch. Patriarch Ignatius Yacoub III says the following about this, in his book "Syrian Church in India."

> He says "The Nestorians penetrated the church of Malabar in the name of the See of Antioch, as the above mentioned Joseph said in his book. In fact, when Pope Alexander VI asked him, 'By what authority does the Nestorian patriarch administer Malabar?' Joseph answered, 'The Apostle Peter first administered the Church of Antioch. But when the evil heresy of Simon Magus spread in the Church of Rome, Peter went to Rome to defeat Simon and help the distressed Christians. Before he left, however, he appointed a deputy. The present patriarch is his successor.' By this means, the Nestorian catholicos extended his authority over the church of India for a time. Joseph’s words remained firm in the minds of the Malabarians until the arrival of orthodox metropolitans to Malabar for the second time. We read in a Syriac manuscript that the Malabarian Abraham, priest of the Church of Angamali, wrote in 1702, to Paul, priest of Parur that, 'The Catholicos of the East is the same Patriarch of Antioch whose authority extends from Antioch to the farthest end of the East.' " [7]https://www.gorgiaspress.com/history-of-the-syrian-church-of-india

Evidence for Miaphysitism in India, cited by William Palmer in "A treatise on the Church of Christ: designed chiefly for the use of students in theology", "https://archive.org/details/treatiseonchurch01palmuoft/page/322/mode/2up" where he cites from Buchanan that " "the creed of the Syrian Christians of St. Thomas in India is stated to include a condemnation of the errors of " Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Manes, Marcianus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the Chalcedonians."[8].

Further evidence that the Church of Malabar viewed itself as under the Patriarch of Antioch is in "Narratives of religious identity" by Dr. Sarah Knight which was a Thesis submitted to the University of London. [9].

I'll make changes based on this, that I hope you'll be happy with. Please lmk if you have any objections. Halershes (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, further evidence that the Church of the East was under the Patriarch of Antioch, pre-1600. From World Council of Churches, "In 280, the Church of the East was officially organized under the Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Papa bar Gaggai of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and in 410 it renounced all subjection to the see of Antioch." https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east#:~:text=During%20the%20first%20century%20of,bk%201%2C%20ch%2013). Halershes (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti Can I ask why you revised by changes? I provided the evidence clearly, mostly from outside the Church, including from the World Council of Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as Syriac Orthodox Church evidences that reference primary sources and manuscripts. And the edits I had made addressed the East Syriac relationship aswell. Halershes (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Halershes I urge you to disengage yourself from edit warring as it is obvious that other users here clearly disagree with your arguments. Instead, I suggest you to get involved in the discussion. I am glad that you are already here. Wikipedia builds articles based on consensus. Logosx127 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edit? I've cited the sources as well as acknowledge the other side. I did not revert to my original edit, but acknowledged that it was under the Nestorian Churches Catholicate, which originally was under the Patriarch of Antioch, per the evidence above from multiple sources from various Christian denominations. If you can't tell me where I am wrong, please stop reverting my edits. You guys asked for independent sources. Meanwhile the current version of the article says "Inconsistent with this mainstream scholarly view, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church maintains that Saint Thomas Christians always acknowledged the ecclesiastical pre-eminence of the Patriarch of Antioch over the "East", which covers Persia and India. This teaching is primarily based on the canons of the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople." This is wrong, as I've showed you before.

Source from Eastern Orthodox Church:

Cited in jurisdictional arguments between Jerusalem and Antioch: [10]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/blog/2013/04/29/the-official-response-of-his-beatitude-theophilos-iii-of-jerusalem-to-his-beatitude-john-x-of-antioch-concerning-the-canonical-jurisdiction-of-the-emirate-of-qatar/?print=print

Neilos Doxapatres: "The Patriarch of Antioch holds all of Asia, and the East, and India, where until the present day, catholic who ordained catholics, sends the so-called Romogyreos, and Persia. Now and this Babylon, the now-called Bagda; and from there the Patriarch of Antioch was sending a katholikon to Eirinoupolis, the so-called Eirinoupoleos and the Armenians, and Avasgian, and Ivirian, and Midian, and the Chaldeans, and Parthian, and Elamites, and Mesopotamia."

Source from Anglican Church:

[11]https://anglicanhistory.org/england/riley/wolverhampton1887.html

"As Christianity gradually spread eastwards from Antioch, the Christians on the borders of Persia began to be known as the "Church of the East," and their chief bishop, or primate, as the "Catholicos of the East," who took rank as sixth in the Catholic Church, immediately after the five great Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This primate was immediately dependent on the Patriarch of Antioch, by whom he was invested with the dignity of the Catholicate, and this continued until the rise of the Nestorian heresy in the fifth century. In 431, Nestorius and his teaching having been condemned by the third Oecumenical Council (of Ephesus), the Church of the East threw in her lot with the arch-heretic, and was formally cut off from communion with the Catholic Church; shortly afterwards the Catholicos of the East assumed the further title of Patriarch.

Separated from the mother See of Antioch, the Church of the East [1/2] continued to flourish and increase; for a time, indeed, it seemed as if Nestorianism would vanquish the truth. "

Source from World Council of Churches(which the ACOE is a part of):

[12]https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east#:~:text=In%20280%2C%20the%20Church%20of,Afghanistan%20and%20south%2Dcentral%20Asia.

"In 280, the Church of the East was officially organized under the Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Papa bar Gaggai of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and in 410 it renounced all subjection to the see of Antioch. The eastward movement of the church saw Christian communities flourishing in what is now Afghanistan and south-central Asia."

Source from Scottish Missionary in India:

[13]https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501998/page/n107/mode/2up

"But in any case the diocese of John was ‘ great,’ beyond the power of any single man to do justice to; and it ia probable therefore thet he held the rank of Metropolitan, with other bishops subject to his supervision. He himself was subject to the Archbishop and Catlntlicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, w'ho was, in his turn, a man pla<red under authority ; for this Catholicate “ was, as it were a vicarial jurisdiction of the see of Antioch, in the same manner that the ]Metran of Ethiopia w-as- dependent on that of Alexandria.”"

So it is not against the scholarly consensus that the Patriarch of Antioch did not have authority over the East. I've also cited evidence before that the Malabari Christians viewed their Catholicos(even if incorrectly) as subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. All these points were acknowledged in my edit that it was based on "Christian Tradition" and the "Churches" beliefs. Halershes (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Halershes Information on the pre-sixteenth century history of the St. Thomas Christian community comes mainly from Portuguese records. The decrees of the Synod of Diamper, Jornada of Alexis Menezes, etc. are prominent among them. Per the accounts in these primary sources, Thomas Christians were in continuous relationship with the Church of the East also known as the Nestorian Church. How far this relationship extended is a matter of dispute, but it is clear that Syriac Christians in Kerala alligned with the Nestorian Church in terms of beliefs and rites. The Catholic Church emerged in Kerala in the 16th century and the Jacobite Church after 1665. According to the Roman ecclesiastical tradition, it is common practice to assume that the whole of the East was under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The same idea can be seen not only among Jacobite historians but also in the writings of Catholics and Protestants alike (Different versions of the same presumption can be seen in books by Ignatius Yacoub III, Placid Podipara, Milne Rae and Buchanan). However most modern historians reject this view. By 'The East' in this context is meant only the East province of the Roman Empire. The notes you quote from the 'Narratives of Joseph the Indian' are errors that occurred when the interviewer recorded the account given by the priest Joseph the Indian incorrectly . It must also be noted that this same Joseph went to the Nestorian Patriarch and received priestly ordination. Moreover, there is no evidence that he ever went to the Patriarch of Antioch (be it Jacobite, Melkite or Maronite). Moreover, it is a fact that by the time of the Diamper Synod in 1599 and by the Portuguese threat, the Christians of Kerala had begun to reject Nestorius. Among those who did this was Mar Abraham who was formerly a Nestorian Metropolitan. For the same reason, it would not be surprising if someone else did such a similar anathematisation in the 17th or 18th centuries. Logosx127 (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

What are your objections to this?:|

According to tradition, the Malankara Nasranis of Kerala were evangelized by Saint Thomas the Apostle, who reached Malankara in AD 52. According to Christian tradition, the Patriarch of Antioch had jurisdiction over the East, which included India. The Patriarch of Antioch had sent delegates to the Church of Malabar, evidenced by the Knanaya Migration in AD 345, when St. Eustathius of Antioch had directed the migration of 72 families of Syriac Jewish migrants from Edessa to Malabar, alongside their bishop St. Joseph of Edessa under the leadership of St. Thomas of Cana. In AD 420, the church came under the jurisdiction of the Catholcios of Selucia-Ctseiphon, who was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch in the beginning, as part of its archdiocese of Rev Ardashir. In the 5th century, it broke communion with Antioch and declared autocephaly, largely in part to its Nestorian Christology. Still, the Church holds that the Syrian Christians of Malabar viewed itself and their Catholicos as under the jurisdiction of Antioch, and there is evidence that it still adhered to a Miaphysite Christology. The Nasranis were administratively under the single native dynastic leadership of an archdeacon, which was a hereditary role held within the Pakalomattam family, traditionally viewed as having been appointed by St. Thomas the Apostle. Halershes (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Logosx127@Macinderum@Pbritti Please let me know which parts of this you find objectionable. Halershes (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Again please @Macinderum lmk what your issues with these edits are. Halershes (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Btw, the Synod of Diamper and the Portuguese records are considered objectionable by basically every single denomination of the community, including the Syro-Malabar Church. Considering that as the main source is questionable. Halershes (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the main authority of the Patriarch of Antioch was only over the Eastern diocese of the Roman empire. This is actually why many say the Catholicate was established, as the deputy of the Patriarch of Antioch over the area outside the Roman Empire, which is why when conflicts between the and Roman Empire increased, the Catholicos of Selucia broke from the mainstream church, and broke communion with the Patriarch of Antioch. Afterwards, in the Syriac Orthodox Church we had the Maphrianate of the East, which was founded in 559, abolished in 1860 and reestablished in Kerala in 1964, the Maphrianate being the "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". The same jurisdictional practices was practiced by the Patriarch of Alexandria, who appointed a Metropolitan of Ethiopia. Halershes (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Halershes, I'm afraid this discussion is becoming an intimidating WP:TEXTWALL and I'm struggling to make sense of it. I do not know whether the doctoral thesis of Sarah Knight that you cited is peer reviewed by recognized specialists or independent parties. If not, I very much doubt whether it is admissible as a source in Wikipedia. From the sources you provided, it seems like the Persian church had ecclesiastical connections to the See of Antioch before 410 CE. However, this connection was perhaps nominal and not very consequential or relevant because several superior sources don’t mention it. For example, the Gorgias article on the Church of the East does not mention the original link to Antioch, but rather says that it is a distinctive church that developed outside of the Roman Empire, which had a presence in South India, since 500 CE. It is also clear from a number of good sources that the Saint Thomas Christian community got integrated into the Church of the East archdiocese of Rev Ardashir by approximately 420 CE, after the church has severed all ties to Antioch. In other words, the supreme religious leader of Saint Thomas Christians from the early 5th century to the 16th century was the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and not the Patriarch of Antioch. Please check the reliable sources in the Wikipedia articles related to the Knanaya community. All of them say that the Knanaya were East Syriac Persian migrants, who were atleast, in part, responsible for drawing Saint Thomas Christians to the Church of the East. I have not seen a single reliable source confirming the prevalence of Miaphysitism in Kerala before 1665. Trustworthy sources, instead, say that Saint Thomas Christians were Nestorians till the 16th century.--Macinderum (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As you have stated, the Knanaya, who came in 345 AD predates the Church of the Easts independence from Antioch. The Gorgias article doesn't mention it because the unique nature of the Church of the East only comes after its independence from Antioch. Church of the East would trace themselves back to the preaching of St. Addai in Edessa, same as the Syriacs within the Syriac Orthodox Church. Obviously all these communities are interlinked. Dr. Sarah Knight is a recognized expert on the Syriac Orthodox Church in India and thus is a reliable source. [14]https://www.gorgiaspress.com/sarahknight Knanaya tradition itself traces it back to St. Thomas of Cana, who was sent by St. Eustathius of Antioch, and I have sent you relibable sources, and also the official website of Knanaya Valiapally Ranni, which is a major cathedral of the church. The sources on the [Knanaya] wikipedia, [St. Thomas Christians] wikipedia doesn't even provide nearly as many sources, or nearly as reliable sources as the ones you are asking for, so I don't understand what the issue is with my sources. My main issue with all these edits is that it is undermining the Churches traditions, not just of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India but the entire St. Thomas Christian Community. I think most of the pages in Wikipedia need to be edited to account for St. Thomas Christians own perception of history, instead of solely relying on the Portuguese and colonial era sources(which can be addressed ofc), which all St. Thomas Christian denominations both East and West Syriac rite reject. We have great historians such as those from Gorgias Press, SEERI, EM Phillips, and other historians that have documented and spent their lives researching on this issue. [Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View].

> But again, even though with us in the region of the East the catholicus and the patriarch are one; yet the holy apostles did not so deliver (to us); but they specified [or, “ordained"] either a simple bishop, or a metropolitan bishop, or a bishop-catholicus, or a bishop-patriarch. And this canon sustained in all part of the East until the time of the King [= emperor] Theodosius the Younger. In his days, when Cyril and John of Antioch and the rest of the Westerns had lawlessly anathematized saint Nestorius, and he had been driven into exile, then the East rejected the headship of the patriarch of Antioch from her, as was right, and set him aside, because he had erred, and did not accept his dominion. Nevertheless formerly he of Antioch was a patriarch, he of Seleucia a catholicus, and [the latter] was set under his [the former’s] authority. And also the Patriarch of Antioch was proclaimed before him [in the diptychs].

Excerpt from Tract 2 Chapter 6 of Pseudo-George of Arbela Commentary of the Ecclesiastical Services (9th century?)

^ This is from a source from the Church of the East itself

[15]https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Gewargis-of-Arbela-Pseudo- Halershes (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/71559/3/Mar-Emmanuel_Emmanuel_J_201511_PhD_thesis.pdf

Please also view Pg 98 of this source Halershes (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I also found this:

"The Anglican biased historian argues that the emergence of Jacobites in Malabar was a switch of allegiance from Nestorian Edessa and Babylon to Jacobite Antioch and thus from the tradition of St. Thomas to a heretical tradition of St. Peter.28 E.M. Philip29 in his book The Indian Church of St. Thomas, upholds “the tradition that St. Thomas himself came to India in A.D. 52, citing indirect evidence in its favor and arguing that, while it could not be proven, Rae had failed to disprove it with his conjectures.”30 He rejected Rae’s “neat division of the church history into Nestorian, Roman and Jacobite periods, largely because he was not convinced that the Syrian church to which the Kerala Christians were ecclesiastically linked had been consistently Nestorian prior to 1500; he saw it as a mix of Jacobite and Nestorian, with the Jacobite being the stronger part of the mix.”31

https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9781506461366/St-Thomas-and-India

This book has been endorsed by Malphono Sebastian Brock, and numerous number of other scholars. I've also showed you previously that Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi who lived in the 12th century said the same thing. Halershes (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Halershes, I'm sorry to say that most of the sources that you provided are either dubious or of poor quality. The Gorgias press article on Sarah Knight that you presented says that she is from Kerala, India.(Exhibit 1) Other sources confirm that she is actually a member of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and that her works reflect her community's own narrative.(Exhibit 2,Exhibit 3,Exhibit 4) The website of the church in Ranni that you spoke about, belong to the Jacobite faction within the Knanaya community.(Exhibit 5) Obviously, Jacobites would want to propagate their point of view by all means possible. But an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should not be used for that. Frankly, this WP:TEXTWALL that you helped significantly to build, will repel well-meaning users, who might otherwise have participated. Bring verifiable sources authored by recognized, independent experts in Syriac and Indian Christianity, from well-known publishers with page numbers. We can discuss those. Or else, I am not interested to further extend this textwall by talking to you, endlessly. On top of that, I urge you to abstain from edit warring to make this article in accordance with Jacobite point of view.--Macinderum (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based solely on church traditions or community traditions. What we need are critical academic sources. Each church in Kerala has different traditions which often contradict each other.Most churches in Kerala accept the idea that St. Thomas the Apostle came to Kerala and spread Christianity, but each church differs as to which church family they were associated with after that. For example, according to Catholics, Christians in Kerala were Catholics from the beginning. Similarly, Jacobites believe that their ancestors were Jacobites from the first century. The problem is when these church traditions are added to Wikipedia articles, each church's history will become inconsistent to each other. That is why the books of independent academic historians should be taken as references here. All of these point to a connection with the Church of the East, or the Nestorian Church. Available primary sources, such as the 16th century records and pre-16th century accounts of various travellers, are consistent with these as well. While citing traditions, it is important to note when these traditions were actually recorded. Because traditions can be created at any time. Each church has developed traditions according to its interests. Examples of these are the Jewish tradition of the Knanaya and Bahminical tradition of the other St. Thomas Christians. Among the seven and a half churches said to have been founded by Saint Thomas, Syro-Malabar Church counts Palayur while the Orthodox counts Arthat. There are many such conflicting traditions among St. Thomas Christians. So it is difficult to record history based on existing traditions alone, especially when traditions of different denominations are at odds with each other. As far as I know Sarah Knight is an English linguist and professor and incidentally a Malayali Jacobite Christian living in the UK. Logosx127 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding my voice to express my support for the version restored by Logosx127. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep it as is, but I will add the Jacobite view, and the evidence for that(all from sources from outside the Jacobite Church aside from Dionysius Bar Salibi who lived in the 12th century, but the translation is from someone in the Church of the East). Halershes (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Halershes, I have already advised you to stop making arbitrary edits which are clearly opposed by the majority of users involved in this discussion, and to add new edits only after a consensus is reached in the discussion. But it bothers me that you have not followed the path of discussion. It is the way Wikipedia functions and should function. Kindly realize that such attitudes of yours will end up causing troubles for yourself. So you should undo the edits you just made in this article and restore the status quo ante until a new consensus is made. Along with this I would also like to elaborate some of the errors in the content that you have unilaterally added.
The Jacobite Syrian Christian Church recognizes the ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the East. Canon 33 further grants him authority over the Bishop of Seleucia and the entire East, a decree signed by John of Persia, then Bishop of Seleucia, who had claimed authority over Christians in India.
There is no Canon 33 in the First Council of Nicaea. It actually has only 20 canons as per the corresponding Wikipedia article on the topic. The sources you have added to support this erroneous statement are unreliable ones.
The Church of the East itself emerged when the Catholicos of Seleucia reorganized itself in AD 410 and declared independence from the Patriarch of Antioch around AD 424.
This is one of the passages where you have added content that is completely contradicted by the reference given. For instance, the Baum source in p. 21 says: Concerning relations with the patriarch of Antioch, no claim of Antiochene jurisdiction over the Church of the East during the synods of 410, 420, and 424 can be found. In fact, none of the ancient ecclesiastical sources claims a dependence of the East Syriac church upon Antioch as mother church.
Additionally, in the 12th century, Dionysius Bar Salibi, the Metropolitan of Amid, noted that most Indian Christians followed the teachings of Severus of Antioch.
The source you have added here is a primary source which cannot be used without the aid of a secondary or tertiary source. Unless it is not satisfied, the statement cannot be included.
Local historian E. M. Phillip argues that the belief that Nestorians were the dominant Christian group in India stemmed from a Western bias, and that there was both a Nestorian and Jacobite presence, with the Jacobite's being the stronger faction. According to Vatican archives from the 16th century, the Maphrian of the East viewed itself as having authority over the St. Thomas Christians in India.
This is yet another example of the distortion of the given source. The source clearly says Sedes Sancti Thomae Apostoli which cannot be translated as 'Saint Thomas Christians'. Even if the phrase is translated as throne or a diocese, this interpretation is never correct.
However, the Jacobite Church acknowledges the longstanding connections between the Saint Thomas Christians and the Church of the East, particularly from the 14th to 16th centuries. Despite these ties, the Church maintains that the Saint Thomas Christians still regarded themselves as under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch. This is supported by the account of Joseph the Indian in the 16th century, who incorrectly claimed his Catholicos derived authority from the Patriarch of Antioch. Although Joseph was ordained by the Catholicos of Babylon, this is interpreted as evidence that the Saint Thomas Christians still perceived themselves as being under Antioch's authority.
This interpretation you are making is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. Such an interpretation itself is wrong as the editors here have repeatedly demonstrated to you. It is a known historical fact that Priest Joseph was ordained by the 'Nestorian' Catholicos-Patriarch (see the GEDSH source) and the source that you provided clearly say about what Joseph said to the narrator: the authority they say they have from the Roman Pontiff. It is obvious that the priest is talking about the Pope and not about the Patriarch of Antioch. Logosx127 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

On the whole, I support Logosx127's arguments. It seems like Halershes is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their sole focus is on pushing Jacobite point of view. They intentionally turn a blind eye to what reliable sources explicitly say. Talking to them appears to be a sheer waste of time.--Macinderum (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would appreciate it if we can reach a consensus that is actually reasonable to all sides, including the Jacobite Church, which is the subject of this article. I do understand somewhat why you might want to keep this article consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of the sources on the other pages, like St. Thomas Christians are not even from independent sources, the majority of them are from Syro Malabar and Chaldean Syrian Church sources, including Mar Aprem Mooken, thus not independent sources.

1) Canon 33 does exist, I believe, I have provided the sources. It might be a part of a pseudo-Nicene Canon which isn't accepted by the West, but it has been historically cited by the Church of the East to validate their Catholicate of Selucia-Ctszeiphon, which is established in the same canons. I will amend it to say that.

2) Yes, and I addressed that in the edit. "The Church of the East itself emerged when the Catholicos of Seleucia reorganized itself in AD 410 and declared independence from the Patriarch of Antioch around AD 424." The source said that the Church of the East declaring independence of Antioch in 424 wasn't necessary after it was reorganized in 410.

3) I understand your point, I misunderstood the reason of your edit as promoting the "Throne of St. Thomas" POV, which is a matter of controversy in present legal disputes between the IOC and the JSCC. I will amend it to "Diocese of St. Thomas."

4) I added a secondary source from Ignatius Yacoub III quoting the same. As this is just a secondary source and Mar Aprem Mooken was cited extensively in the St. Thomas Christians article I assume that this is fine. He actually offers a variety of sources and even talks extensively on the Nestorian presence, trying to give a wholistic history.

5) This exact view is present in the Gorgias article. [16]https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/entry/Malankara-Syriac-Orthodox-Church Mor Ignatius Yacoub III also talks about this "As late as the 16th cent., when the ecclesiastical relation with the Ch. of E. was in ascendancy, the recognition of the canonical pre-eminence of Antioch in Malankara is attested in the ‘Narratives of Joseph the Indian’ (1507), although incorrectly identifying the cath. as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch. It further argues that the fragmented evidence concerning the pre-Portuguese period is insufficient to establish the doctrinal confession of the Malankara Church as that of the Ch. of E. or preclude at least intermittent relations with the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. However, it concedes continuous relations with the Ch. of E. between the 14th and 16th cent."

Please let me know if you have any additional changes you have concerns with. Wikipedia seeks to have a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which the vast majority of St. Thomas Christian articles don't have, entirely basing the article on colonial era sources(from people that burned the majority of St. Thomas Christian books in Syriac), as well as Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Syrian(ACOE in India) and Anglican sources, all of which cannot be considered "Independent". Atleast the Jacobite page should have the evidences for the Jacobite POV. Halershes (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Before you respond to the talkpge, the first thing you should do is revert your edits and restore the article to its status quo ante dispute. NPOV is not meant to accept all arguments on equal footing. There's nothing wrong with including a Jacobite POV, but it should be done in a way that makes the reader aware that it is simply a POV and not academic opinion. The Aprem Mooken reference is included in the St. Thomas Christians article for details specific to the Chaldean Syrian Church and not for the general history. When talking about general history, the books of generally accepted historians should be taken as references. Although this is an article about the Jacobite Church, the controversial issue here is about general Saint Thomas Christian history. On such a subject, it is wise to adopt references from academic historians, rather than a Jacobite Patriarch whose version is incompatible with the academic versions available. I'm not saying don't include it. But how to include it should be discussed and decided here. I have already pointed out the error in your interpretation of other references. I must reiterate especially the Baum source which actually says: Concerning relations with the patriarch of Antioch, no claim of Antiochene jurisdiction over the Church of the East during the synods of 410, 420, and 424 can be found. In fact, none of the ancient ecclesiastical sources claims a dependence of the East Syriac church upon Antioch as mother church. Logosx127 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The majority of my sources are from independent academic sources. I only added the source from Patriarch Yacoub as a secondary source, the primary source being from an academic translation by a member of the ACOE. I will add "According to the Jacobite view". Halershes (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Determining whether this is the case and, if so, how to build the article is subject to consensus that has to be reached through discussion. Therefore kindly restore the status quo ante dispute before proceeding any further in the article page. Logosx127 (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Matthew 7:3-5. "Consensus" on wikipedia isn't the majority opinion, but something everyone is happy with. I have been the only one making actual consensions Wikipedia:Consensus, using only secular sources, aside from one secondary source from a Jacobite Patriarch. Yet everyone here is adament that the Jacobite POV shouldn't be accurately represented on the Jacobite wikipedia page, when all the other articles are one sided. Please tell me what revisions you would be happy with for this "consensus" instead of reverting my changes. Halershes (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Halershes, These are not simply one-sided but academic sided and are fundamentally based on reliable sources. Editors cannot add original research into Wikipedia. Jacobite POV is necessary in the article but not as a substitute for academic history. Logosx127 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you specify your desired changes here, other editors can give their suggestions and make necessary modifications. Logosx127 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References