The statement about Patrillineal succession is factually wrong. Nairs followed matrilineal succession.
I suggest you to seek advice from learned people when you are in doubt.

Also try to contact some reputed scholars and request them to write guest coloumn. That will be very helpful.

Could you please make it a habbit to include as many reference as possible, so that the interested reader can go further?

Very instructive, would like to read more and more on Nasranis.

John

I never thought that ,we were having an illustrious hertiage.

Keep it up. Continue the good job of updating our roots.

T.Jacob
Calgary,Canada.

Are there any other tombs of the preceding archdeacons nearby? Although the records of succession may not exist, the actual graves would be far more useful a tool in understanding our origins. Who was before Geevarghese Archdeacon — and if his name isn’t know, is his burial site known? Since Christians bury their dead, these graves must exist somewhere.

I dont know if it is known.From the time of arrival of Portuguese till the Syond of Diampor we have some kind of clarity on what was going around.

Before that its hard to say.History is interloven with traditions and traditions. Its difficult to prove the existance of Archdeacons in earlier centuries. It is also difficult to make a point when the Archdeacons started also.

Dear NSC

I was not aware of the Jewish tradition in the history of Maratha Mariam Church Kuravilanagdu. Only few churches in Kerala celebrates feast of Prophet Jonah and Kuravilanagdu is one among them.

Being a prominent centre of Nasranis, Kurvilanagdu played major role in history in fight against latinisation and other things. But sadly over the last decades many of the traditions and rituals has been diaspperead. It is good that atleast the Kappalottam is preserved.

I am talking about Vechuuttu, Pachor Nercha, Thamuku Nercha. This has been completely disappeared from the feast over the last decades.

In Mununoyambu only the prevailing tradition of Kappalottam is preserved. We have lost many ethos of the feast over time. We can also see Chuttu Vilaku Nercha and Enna Nercha continued in Kuravilanagdu.

Can we start a discussion about Vechuuttu, Pachor Nercha and Thamuku Nercha.?

It is given in this site that the Orthodox church at Puthupally celebrate the Vechuuttu. Are their any other church other than this. Is there any church where , Pachor Nercha and Thamuku Nercha are still celebrated ?

Dear Ethak:

One comment regarding the Prophet Jonah. If you are talking about the 3 day fast done in his honor, it is called the “Rogation of the Ninevites”. It is most certainly *not* a Jewish tradition! It is a Syrian tradition — since the Syrians believe themselves to be the descendants of the Ninevites. The fast is done in honor of the Ninevites who implored God’s mercy after the prophecy of Jonah.

Again: this is not proof of Jewish origin (in case anyone wants to use it) as the Syrians of Mesopotamia developed this fast to remember how their ancestors, the Ninevites, fasted to gain God’s mercy.

This Syrian tradition originated in Mesopotamia and was originally followed by both the Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox, including their descendants in Kerala. Through them, their Uniate schismatic factions (including the Syro-Malabar in Kerala which split form the Church of the East when the Portuguese came over) also adopted them.

It is also followed by our Orthodox cousins in Egypt, Ethiopia and Armenia to a lesser extent.

Dear John Mathew

I was not talking about Prophet Jonah as Jewish tradition, it is of Assyro – Chaldean, more of a sailors ritual. I was referring to the tradition of building churches at hilltop as Jewish. It is definitely Jewish custom to pray in hilltop. Sorry for the confusion.

Between John Mathew, you are very romantic. I have read some of your comments in other articles. I am pretty not much interested in this stupid original hair dialogue but i must say like NJ hinted you are extremely romantic. I am leaving the topic to some one interested to pick.

To be frank Syriac Orthodox in Kerala is a very late invention in Nasrani fold.

The Synod of Diamper which happened in June 20, 1599 was not for severing ties with Assyrian Church of the East. More than 50 years before the Syond of Diamper it was the Chaldean Patriach who was sending prelate to Malabar.

A schism occurred among Nasranis only after half a century as told in the Coonan Cross Oath in 1653. Note down the period Half a Century.The introduction of Syriac Orthodox started only after another two year, in 1655 after the arrival of Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel.

Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel was a good man and in fact he was against the Antiochisation happened later in the Jacobite fold.

As part of the Synod of Diampor latinisation did happen but the Syro Malabar and the new Jacobites kept the East Syrian liturgy. Only after another century large scale Antiochisation happened and in fact that’s what furthered the latinisation in Syro Malabar in later centuries.

Syro Malabar doesnot have any direct counter part and it doesnot come under your romantic Uniate definition. The only faction which is a close counter part is the Chaldeaon Church in india but that story is also not straight.

I just wish if our story was simple and straight forward.

Also even after all these things the Jacobite or Orthodox or the Syro Malabar has nothing in common with Orthodox churches. We are Oriental. The Non- Catholic churches are part of the Oriental rthodoxy and still have more things in common historically, traditionally with Assyro- Chaldean’s.

The Orthodox faction in Jacobite is just Orthodox in name sake. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are completely different.

Dear John Mathew

I am more interested in knowing more information about Vechuuttu, Pachor Nercha and Thamuku Nercha. This is a kind of open question I had for sometime which I did not get any satisfying answer.

Are you aware of churches in Oriental Orhtodx side where these rituals are still followed ? I think most of the Catholic parishes has stopped this practice.

These Nercha’s are painful, need lot of effort co- ordinated and doesn’t offer a source of income for the clergy and church. My understanding is priests are not finding any reason to continue this.

Also I couldn’t find any articles here on Syrian Chrsitian cousine. Can something be included ?

Dear Ethak,

1. The Rogation of the Ninevites is not a sailer’s ritual and it is not restricted to the Chaldeans. It’s a general Syriac thing. Your use of the term Assyro-Chaldean is restrictive. The Church of the East (the parent of the Chaldean schism) is not known by the “Chaldean” name (which was an innovation by Catholic missionaries in the east).

2. The Syriac Orthodox “thing” started after Mor Gregorios came in the 17th century. It’s about as “late” as the introduction of Catholicism in India (16th century). Your statement that Mor Gregorios was “against” Antiochization defies basic laws of cause an effect: how can a 17th century individual be against a process which commenced in the 19th century?

3. RE: your comment that the “antiochization furthered the latinization”. I find it hard to believe that the Latins would just follow the Jacobites — this makes no sense. Any proof or evidence? Antiochization was necessary for the Orthodox/Jacobites (same thing): since we went to the West Syriac faith, we needed to worship according to those norms. No big deal: the West Syrians were the parent church of the East Syrians anyways.

4. Do you know what Uniate means? The Syro-Malabar is definitely a Uniate church. The pattern is the same: the Roman missionaries come into an Eastern territory, gain converts form the local Eastern Church, and then — if they haven’t succumbed to latinization — they create a new archdiocese for the new “Eastern Catholic” group that is now in *union* with Rome (*union* —> *Uniate*).

5. Re: Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox
I don’t care about factions: there is only one Orthodox Church in Kerala and that is composed of the two Orthodox churches of the West Syrian traditions (which are split due to a stupid political fight).
I use the term Jacobite and Orthodox interchangebly because in Kerala they both refer to the West Syriac Church — no need to prefix Oriental, because there are no Eastern Orthodox churches in Kerala anyways, only Oriental Orthodox ones. And religiously, the Syriac Orthodox/Malankara Orthodox have more in common with our Oriental Orthodox brothers in Syria/Egypt/etc, than with the Assyrian Church of the East.

6. Finally, I don’t know why you think I’m a romantic. Perhaps it has to do with an absence of a dictionary on your part. I’ve never claimed that the Orthodox are the original faction. I’ve merely stated that the innuendos by some authors that the Syro-Malabar are the original Church is incorrect.

Dear John

RE. 1 I am quoting a passage from a paper written by The Assyrian Academic Society, which has answers to the questions you raised.

“The Chaldo-Assyrians of Iraq remain the world’s largest compact safekeepers of the
living Aramaic derived language, classical Syriac and its contemporary spoken and written forms. ChaldoAssyrians are also the heirs of church traditions that retain not only the Eastern understanding of Christian precepts, but also the archaic hymns and chants, fasts and feasts, as well as customs, that link pre-Christian Mesopotamian social and cultural history to medieval eastern Christianity.

For example, a very important fast within this tradition is the ancient Rogation (or Fast) of the Ninevites (a three day fast preceding Lent). For this Aramaic speaking Christian community, the Rogation of the Ninevites commemorates the Biblical repentance of the population of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh upon the behest of the prophet Jonah.

No other Christian group in the world relates to this pre-Christian occasion or sees the Fast as part of its heritage. “

My intention was to specify Kappalottam mentioned in this article as a sailors thing and Rogation of the Ninevites as an original Chaldo-Assyrians tradition. Syriac Christianity is inter linked and am not deducing what you mentioned. About the terminology of usage of Chaldo-Assyrians, please refer any of the Assyrian Academic Society papers or any other academic works. Its not a restrictive terminology, rather it is the widely used term.

RE .2 Your statement on introduction of Catholicism in India in 16th century is wrong.
There are letters written by Jordanus Catalani, the First Catholic bishop in India, Diocese of Quilon from Gogo in Gujarat (12 October 1321), the second from Tana (24 January 1323/4) exists which describes the progress of his mission.

From these letters we can learn that Roman attention had already been directed, not only to the Bombay region, but also to the extreme south of the Indian peninsula, especially to Columbum or Quilon in Travancore.

Jordanus’ words may imply that he had already started a mission there before October 1321. Jordanus, between 1324 and 1328 (if not earlier), probably visited Kollam and selected it as the best centre for his future work. He was appointed as a bishop in 1328 and nominated by Pope John XXII in his bull Venerabili Fratri Jordano to the see of Columbum or Kulam on 21 August 1329. This diocese was the first in the whole of the Indies, with juristriction over modern India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Sri Lanka.

His writing “Mirabilia” refers to the author’s residence in India Major and especially at Kollam, as well as to his travels in Armenia, north-west Persia, the Lake Van region, and Chaldaea.

Much before St. Francis Xavier arrived in India in 16th century ( 1542) there were Roman Catholic presence and mission in Malabar.

A continuation can be seen with John De Marignolli. He was another Catholic missionary through China apparently reached Quilon in Malabar in Easter week of 1348 ( 1347) . At this place he found a church of the Latin communion, probably founded by Jordanus Catalani, who had been appointed bishop of Kollam by Pope John XXII. Marignolli remained here for sixteen months.

You should also keep in mind that Quilon and Kodungaloor were the two major centers of Nasranis in those period.It is very much debated thing that whether the missions these Catholic missonaires conducted has some relation to Nasranis with varaying observations and differential findings.

I am not clear on your statement on Antiochization in 19th century. I said Mar Gregorios was against Antiochization when he reached Malabar in 1655 and during his tenure.

RE 3. About Antiochization furthering latinization, I can explain my observations later as it is time consuming. West Syrians parental church of East Syrians is a far fetched claim. In those consideration, I can not blame the Catholic Romans who claim as the parental church of all with at least some valid considerations.

RE 4. About Uniate term. The term itself is the invention of Rome, so I rather prefer to consider their own definition as worthy of consideration. It is used primarily to refer Eastern Catholic Churches who were previously primarily Eastern Orthodox ( EO). Gradually the usage was extended to all Eastern Catholic Churches by Latins and by Eastern Catholic till Second Vatican Council in purview of a unity among East and West. Syro Malabar doesnot come under the definition as there are no direct counter parts.

RE 5. At present there are no Eastern Orthodox ( EO) church in Kerala. God only knows what future has in store. Antiochization has made some similarities with global Oriental Orthodoxy just like Syro Malabar replicated latin but the Oriental Orthodox churches in Kerala has more to do with Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy than Eastern Orthodoxy.

I agree with you on the stupid political fight as the reason of split in Oriental Orthodoxy in Kerala. That’s not a situation just with Oriental Orthodoxy. There are stupid political fights in every churches. I just wish that atleast if the younger generation can abstain from these kind of fights .

I think you have a bit of confusion regarding terminology, Ethak.

Regarding 5. I think you are a little confused here. The Syriac Orthodox Church (i.e., the non-Chalcedonian Church of Antioch) is an Oriental Orthodox Church. There is also Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch which is Eastern Orthodox and *not* Oriental Orthodox. The latter Church has no connection with Kerala, so when I (or anyone else on this forum) says “Antiochene Church” we mean only one Church and that is the Miaphysite (Oriental orthodox) Syriac Orthodox Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church is the mother of the “Jacobites” in Kerala and their schismatic faction, the Malankara Orthodox. Both have **nothing** to do with the Assyrian Church of the East other than our people are genetic descendants of people who used to be of the Assyrian Church back before the time of Mar Gregorios. But the moment we *converted* to the West Syrian faith, we became Oriental Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox view the Assyrian Church of the East as heretics. (Not me personally; this is the official position). A major sticky point: The Assyrians are Dyophysites, whereas the Oriental orthodox (including the Syriac Orthodox) are Miaphysites. The Assyrians reject the term Mother of God, and instead say Mother of Christ–the orthodox reject this (and so do the Uniates)!

Again: you are mistaken in claiming the Oriental Orthodox includes the Assyrian Church of the East. Sorely mistaken. The Assyrian Church may be “oriental” in that it is in the east, but the term “Oriental Orthodox” has a very specific meaning which you are transgressing when you apply it to the Church of the East.

Re 4: The use of the word “primarily” is important to recognize there in your copy from Wikipedia! The *majority* of the Uniates were *primarily* from the Eastern Orthodox, yes. But there are Uniates (or Eastern Catholics if you want to use that longer term) from other Churches: the Uniates from the Church of the East (both in the Middle East — the Chaldeans — and in Kerala, the Syro-Malabar), and the Unitaes from the Jacobites (the Middle Eastern “Syrian Catholics” and the Kerala Syro-Malankara). And sure the Syro-Malabar have a *direct* counterpart: their brothers back in Assyria, the Chaldean schismatics! The only difference: the Syro-Malabar allowed themsleves to be Latinized, whereas the Chaldean Catholics retained their identity. And the syro-malabar only got the right to start using the original Qurbana in the 20th century — before that they had to use whatever their foreign masters told them to use.

Re 3: This is basic Christian history! You can trace all canonical Orthodox/Catholic Christian communities to the five original patriarchates–everyone *HAD* to get a valid episcopal ordination from one of the five. The Church of the East were originally under the Patriarch of Antioch and split during the Nestorian controversy; any historian knows this. This is not some far-fetched theory or opinion. Go and read the history of the Church of the East — their Catholicos asserted independence from the Patriarch of Antioch and become an independent Patriarch-Catholicos! I’m not talking about the Church in India being under the Patriarch of Antioch — I’m saying back up to the 4th century, the Church of the East was under the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Re 2: Fine, there were Catholic missions. But the Syro-Malabar started only after those missionaries started to target our community and kidnap our prelates. Before that, there was probably no big attempt at converting us to Roman Catholicism.

Re 1: From the looks of their site the The Assyrian Academic Society is an East Syrian Catholic group — note the term “Mother of God Church”! It is probably not a uniform Assyrian association at all! Otherwise they wouldn’t use the term “Chaldean” which is a hugely contentious term in the general Syriac community. If you want to read their position on history that would be akin to me reading a Mar Thomite history book for the history of the Nasrani community — it’s bound to have distortions.

The Church of the East most certainly does *NOT* refer to themselves as Chaldean. The term Chaldean was introduced by Roman Catholic missionaries to label their new schismatic fruit: the Chaldean catholic church. The Chaldean *patriarch* himself talks about this: he says “religiously” he is a Chaldean, but “ethnically” he is Assyrian and that the label Chaldean was introduced by missionaries. (You can search for this info yourself: the controversy in the Syriac community regarding labels is huge! Aramean vs Suryoye vs Assyrian vs Chaldean — these are loaded terms, Ethak.)

The Syriac tradition of the rogation of the Ninevites is a general Syriac thing: both the Assyrian Church of the East (including its Uniate counterpart, the Chaldeans) and the oriental orthodox Syriac Orthodox Church observe it. AND the other Oriental Orthodox Churches observe it too, to a lesser degree.

Dear John Mathew

I am not confused about the terminology. I said Oriental Orthodox churches in Kerala has more to do with Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy than Eastern Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodoxy is entirely different than Oriental Orthodoxy.

Oriental Orthodox churches in Kerala were earlier part of Church of East but later on accepted Oriental Orthodoxy. There are still many traditions of Church of East prevalent In both the factions of Oriental Orthodoxy in Kerala.

Assyrian Church of the East are Oriental but not part of Oriental Orthodoxy because of rejection of Council of Ephesus in 431. They were not in communion with any one earlier. Recently there have been agreements with Catholic Church. I didnot say they are part of Oriental Orthodoxy. They are Oriental.

I belong to Syro Malabar and know very well about people who get in to street on hearing the term Chaldean and a minority who supports the Chaldean. I don’t have a stand on this. It is the anti Chaldean’s who call shots in Syro Malabar.

Most of the differences in doctrine was never more than a misunderstanding of Christology . These differences in Christology are almost sorted out and their are christilogical agreements signed and discussions going on.

RE 1. I can not agree with your explanations. It is the Chaldeans ( 70%) who are majority in Iraq and Assyrians ( 15 %) do not count much and cant stand with out unity in the hostile situation in Iraq. I personally know Chaldean’s and Assyrians and it’s the Chaldeans calling shots based on their strength in Iraq.

The previous Chaldean Patriarch Mar Bedaweed I in the year 2000, declared him as being an Assyrian from an ethnic point of view and a Chaldean from the religious one.

Quoting Monsignor Jacques Isaac, General Secretary of the synod of the Chaldean bishops and Chancellor of the Papal University of Baghdad.

“”We do not accept who adorn himself with the title of representative of the “Chaldeans-Assyrians because this is an attempt by the Assyrians to englobe the Chaldeans, using it as a point of force.” ( Feb 2004)

(http://www.christiansofiraq.com/lugia.html)

The compound name ChaldoAssyrians has been used during the last two years to counter attempts to divide the Assyrians.

(http://www.christiansofiraq.com/yuash8305.html)

The Assyrian- Chaldean story is not straight forward like one group leaving and joining another. There have been to and fro moments through out the history. Historical distortions doesnot come much here as both are just factions and that too with a history of shifting allegiance for both.

I think only in Kerala we have this much of historical myths and differences. In most of the other Eastern Churches the history is presented much better than Kerala situation.

Off lately there have been joint efforts (http://www.zenit.org/article-2763?l=english) and these days they can even celebrate sacraments at any church.

RE. 2 Kidnapping prelates is a story. In Mar Ahatulla’s case the credentials were questionable from a neutral point of view. I agree that before the Syond of Diampoor there was no large scale attempts to introduce Roman Catholicism.

RE. 3 I cannot agree with you there. There are people who say Church of East or Babylon ( my understanding is this was the terminology used earlier ) is from Patriarch of Antioch.

That’s not completely true as Babylon patriarchs are from the see of St. Thomas and they call St. Thomas as the first Babylon patriarch.

The Patriarch line is — Saint Thomas, Mar Tulmai, Mar Addai, Mar Agai, Mar Mari,Mar Abris……..

Patriarch of Antioch is from the See of St. Peter and has a different line.

The Patriarch line is — St. Peter, Evodius, Ignatius, Heron, Cornelius, Eros …………………

RE 4. The Eastern Orthodox- Catholic split is generally dated from 1054 and after that there had been many councils on unity and unification. Many factions from Eastern Orthodox rejoined Rome. Till Second Vatican Council they were just treated as rites and uniates and after the Second Vatican council they have been started recognising as Sui iuris (autonomous ) churches.

Syro Malabar doesnot represent as a Uniate from Church of the East. Your definition stands only if there can be a new Uniate from another Uniate (Chaldean to Syro Malabar ) . What I understand is the term itself is outdated but still holds good concerning the Eastern Orthodox churches and their Catholic counterparts. I have even heard some Eastern Catholic Churches discussing which side to join.

Let me ask you what do you call the schematics from different Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Example -Your response in RE.5 – Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and Syriac Orthodox Church split over Council of Chalcedon AD- 451. The schematics here are Syriac Orthodox Church.

You call Syriac Orthodox Church Miaphysite. Weren’t they were also called Monophysite ? Personally i don’t have any issues in referring as Miaphysite as there have been gradual changes in every churches official position.Thats true with some terminologies also.

Dear Ethak,

1. This isn’t history by majority vote. Just because X is in the majority does not mean that X is the older community. For example:
a. In Kerala, the Syro-Malabar number in the millions, whereas the Church of the East in the thousands. Yet it is the latter that is older.
b. In the UK, the Protestants exceed the Catholics, yet all were originally Catholic.
c. The anti-Chaldean faction of the Syro-Malabar (i.e., those who don’t want to let go of their missionary-induced Latinized faith) and the Chaldeans are another example. The latter have a claim to antiquity since they at least want to go back to the forms of their original faith, whereas the latinizing faction wants the opposite. Whos the majority? The Latins. Who’s “older” or represents the older ideal? The Chaldeans.
d. My own Orthodox Church gives another example. The Jacobites are smaller than the Malankara Orthodox; however it is the Jacobites who represent the more legitimate view, since we follow the West Syrian rite and the Patriarch is the ancient head of the West Syrian Orthodox faith. (Note: I belong, by ancestry, to the Malankara faction, even though I reject its position.)

The Chaldeans split from the Church of the East, pure and simple. Any historian will acknowledge that. Just because the Chaldeans are more in number, proves only that the Romans were very adapt at converting people.

2. I’m not going to go into the origins of the Babylonian Church. The history of this is fairly straightforward, and you can go and read a real historian to get the truth. The Church of the East is not one of the Pentarchy — so they must have gotten their episcopal ordination from somewhere… who do you think that was (until the council of Ephesus)? Your statement “They were not in communion with any one earlier” is extremely erroneous! They were most certainly in communion with the original Church which was administered by the Pentarchy (and it was the Antiochene fifth that handled the eastern churches).

3. In Antioch the Greeks and the Syriacs split over the Mia/Monophysitism issue — however, it was a lateral split. The Greeks can not claim that Chalcedonian christology predates Non-Chalcedonian Christology. The split occurred horizontally, and so an impartial observer can not claim either is the “legitimate” or “original” faith. However, you, as a Catholic follower of the Chalcedonian faith may wish to impose your view and say that the Greeks were right and the Syriac were wrong. That is your opinion. I as a Mia/Monophysite reject that.

4. Your use of the term “rejoin Rome” is typical of Catholic writers. The view that the Romans represent the original, undivided Church is controversial and not accepted at all by any of the Orthodox Churches (Eastern or Oriental). Indeed, the Romans introduced several innovations which damages its claim to be the original Church (which is why the Oriental Orthodox split, and why the Eastern Orthodox also split later on — because Rome was modifying the faith). The Orthodox who left Orthodoxy and joined Catholicism are hence schismatics — they did not *re*join anything, since they were not Catholics to begin with. The only Eastern Catholic group who can enjoy the claim of not being a mere schism of the orthodox/assyrian church are the Maronites. But apart from them, anyone else using a non-Latin liturgy was original a member of either: a) the Eastern Orthodox, b) the Oriental Orthodox, or c) the Church of the East.

Now, there is no point to us arguing since most of these issues are not a matter of opinion but of fact, and can be resolved by appealing to a history book (preferably written by a historian and not an Orthodox/Catholic church writer).

But I do have a question for you Ethak you could help me with:

You mentioned that there are still many Church of the East attributes in the Malankara/Syriac (West Syrian) Orthodox Churches. I would like to know if you could tell me what they are, since I am very interested in this.

2007 Kappalottam Youtube Video

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/au4n5opsVxs" width="250" height="210" wmode="transparent" /]

Curtsey- Lijesh Kuravilangadu

I found this site via Google while searching for Munnu Noyambu Perunnal. All articles are interesting to me. I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. Thanks for the excellent content.

Wow….. I am very much impressed….. I have been trying to promote blogging… and its a great effort… wonderful..

RE: Tomb of East Syriac prelates

Does anyone have any information on where the various East Syriac (i.e., Church of the East, and later on, Chaldean) prelates were buried in Kerala?

I believe that Mar Gabriel, a “Nestorian” bishop who was influential in some Puthenkoor Churches in the 18th century, was buried in the Orthodox Cheriapally of Kottayam.

But what about Mar Simeon, Mar Abraham, Mar Denaha, etc., from the pre-Diamper era?