FAITH SHARING SERIES                        #3

And you will know the truth,

and the very truth will make you free. (Jn 8:32)

 

General Introduction. (Contd) 

In modern times, much effort has been made by interested adversaries to make a case that the Indian Church was not started by Mar Thoma, but by someone else, many centuries later. They also claim that the Indian Church, whenever it was formed, was limited only to a small area within the present Kerala State and that this Church was a very weak and fledgling heretic Church. There is more than enough written and corroborative evidence, from both the western and eastern sources, to show that a vibrant, authentic, orthodox and catholic Nazrani community existed in Malabar, with an all India jurisdiction. Spreading of the Gospel by Mar Thoma, in India, has been an established tradition both in the West as well as in the East. Panthenus, the well known Alexandrian theologian, scholar and teacher is recorded to have visited India in the middle of 2^nd century and met the Nazranis, who had the Syriac Gospel written by Matthew in their possession. (This is recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea in his famous, first ever Christian historical book, Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History), written end of the 3^rd century AD. (Note that Eusebius is known as “Father of Christian History”.) Many early church fathers like St. Jerome (347-420), Mar Apraim (306-373) and many others make prominent references about the “spreading of the Gospel” by Mar Thoma in India. This Indian Nazrani church flourished, in the East Syriac (Aramaic) tradition with an all India jurisdiction for 15 centuries. The arrival of the colonial missioneries from the West turned the ecclesial life of the Nazranis upside down, slowly but surely. 

 The territory and administration of the Indian Nazrani Church of Mar Thoma (the present day Syro Malabar Church) got restricted by the colonizing missionaries to a tiny geographical area within the two small kingdoms of Travancore and Kochi, between the rivers of Pampa in the south and Bharathapuzha in the north. Any Catholic, including clergy, who found themselves outside this geographical area, for whatever reason,  automatically, came under western (Roman) jurisdiction. The clergy or the ministers could not take care of their flock or celebrate the liturgy and divine prayers according to their tradition, outside of their new territory, but had to strictly follow the Latin regime. While the Syro Malabar Church could not have an official existence outside of their restricted area, the Latin Church, and they alone, could set up and expand anywhere in India, even within the so called “Syro Malabar” area. A great majority of the Indian priests and missionaries who served in the Latin dioceses in India, were in fact children of the (Suriyani) Nazrani Church. (It remains so, even today). All the souls who came into the Christian fold due to the efforts of all the missionaries, everywhere, automatically became members of the Latin Church. (Vestiges of this imperial colonialism linger on even today, which we shall be seeing in later chapters).   

The followers of Jesus the Nazarene were called “Nazranis”. However, the term “Christian” (a Greek word meaning, followers of Christ) started in Antioch and this name soon spread throughout Roman empire, where Greek was the most common language. Note that the term “Christ” is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew/Aramaic term of “M’siha”. However, outside of the Roman Empire, the term “Nazrani” continued to be the name by which the followers of Easo the Nazarene were known. Within the Roman and Greek influenced areas, the followers of Jesus Christ, came to be called “Christians”, while outside the Greek influenced areas, especially in Persia and India, the followers of the Nazarene called themselves  “Nazranis”, right upto the colonial times. In this journey, we shall call ourselves as Nazranis, as far as possible. We will also find here, that at least some of the western-influenced terminologies have been replaced by their original “Nazrani” usages. Such usages were most common right upto the early living memories of the present-day elders, and only in recent times were replaced gradually by western imitations. It will be more appropriate for us to base our journey and studies  on authentic Nazrani foundations. It may be worthwhile to discuss just a few of these here, as they are closer to our hearts.  

1. Eeso: The name given to the divine Child, by his parents, Mariam and Yawsep, was an Aramaic name”Eeso”. Aramaic, (not Hebrew), was the language of Jews during that time and probably the only language spoken by the simple couple Mariam and Yawsep. It would, obviously, have been in Aramaic that the angel Gabriel spoke to the Virgin and to her betrothed; and that name was “Eeso”. That is how they named him:“Eeso”; no doubt. It was only a few centuries later that the Latin translation “Jesus” (pronounced “Yesu”) appeared. (Probably an adaptation of the Hebrew name “Yeshua”. Note that in Latin, the letter “J   is pronounced similar to the letter “Y”. The name “Jesus (Yesu)” became common usage amongst Christians of Latin tradition. When English language developed subsequently, as an offshoot from Latin, the name “Jesus” (pronounced also as “Jesus”), became the accepted and common name to call the son of God. But, still, the fact remains that it was the name “Eeso” that God the Father gave His son thru the angel, the name that Mariam and Yawsep gave him and the name by which he was called by his parents and people around him.  And it was the name “Eeso” that we inherited, being Nazranis of Aramaic tradition. The name “Yesu” came to be of common use among Syro Malabar Catholics only since 1980s. (We will discuss more details when we deal with “Peshitha” bible, later). Personal names do not get literally translated when being referred to in different languages. Just one example will illustrate this point. The Indian name “Priya” is very common among the Indian people. The literal meaning of this name is “dear or darling”. Should we address an Indian woman named Priya as “Dear or Darling” in English and as “Chere” in French? Yes, the names “Yesu” and “Jesus” have become absolutely legitimate in Latin and English traditions and context, as they have received those names as a part of their patrimony. But, not so for the East Syriac, Syro Malabar Nazranis. We have not received them as part of our heritage, but just as imitation or as copying the West.  

Similarly, we have retained many prominent biblical names, as far as practicable, in their original Aramaic usages. E.g.: Mariam (for Mary), Yawsep (for Joseph), Thoma (for Thomas) etc. 

2. M’siha. Again, for similar reasons, as give in (1) above, the Aramaic term “M’siha” would be more authentic and relevant to us than “Kristu/“Kristos” (Latin or (Greek) or Christ (English). This is not to suggest that use of the name “Christ” or “Kristhu” is wrong or inappropriate. They are usages which have become universally acceptable with its ancient origin and usages. The point that is being put forward is that the term “M’siha” is the term inherited by us, the Syro Malabar Nazranis, from apostolic times and which has been in most common usage till very recently. As such, the term is preferentially used in this study, wherever possible.
3. Nazrani. The preferential use of the term “Nazrani” is explained in an earlier paragraph.
4. Holy Qurbana. We have seen that the most important proclamation of our faith is seen in the way that we conduct the Eucharistic celebration. Each particular Church has its own Eucharistic theology. Each Church calls its Eucharistic celebration by a name which gives expression to their particular theology and, as such, the name is important. Churches of the Greek tradition call their Eucharist Celebration as “Divine Liturgy”, the term which is fully expressive of what they celebrate. Churches in the Aramaic or Syriac tradition call theirs “Holy Qurbana” or “Holy Qurbano”, which means “sacrifice” or “offering” to God. Our Qurbana is fully expressive of this “Offering” and the resultant fulfillment of the mission of the Son of God. The Armenians call theirs as “Badarak” which also means “Divine Liturgy” in Armenian language. The Latin Church, in the middle ages, began to call their Liturgy as “Mass” or “Misa”. This name is evolved out of their “Dismissal Prayer’ or “Missa prayer” which is prayed at the end of their celebration; to dismiss the congregation, calling them to go forth to the world and be true witnesses to the teaching of our Lord. The term “Mass” has no relevance to our celebration of the Eucharist. Roman documents make this point very clear that “Mass” is a term applicable only to Latin celebration” and that “to call “Mass” with reference to Syro Malabar Qurbana is most inappropriate” and that “the appropriate name for the Syro Malabar liturgy  is “Holy Qurbana”. Again, it is another Western imitation that many of our faithful cling onto. 

Our journey and study will be much beneficial to all of us if we embark on it and sustain with a prayerful and open mind and heart. May God the Father mercifully receive  our prayers thru His Son, our Lord and savior Easo M’siha. And may God send forth His eternal Spirit to open our hearts and enlighten us. Let us also pray that our blessed mother, Mariam, and the multitude of saints of our Church intercede for us and guide us on a correct path. May the Holy Spirit guide this compiler to put forth in these columns only what is true and authentic. May God be glorified now and forever. Amen

 

( To continue: Chapter 1   Faith Sharing Series #4  )