Talk:Knanaya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Swiderski

I do not understand why this page relies so heavily on the expert opinion of an unknown author, when there are far better sources, such as Frykenberg etc. The sources from Swiderski come from bottom of the barrel journals, with impact factors of the range 0.2. Swiderski himself is not an academic of any repute. His latest publications refer to himself as "Consultant Richard M. Swiderski" Josslined (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We've been over this on the talk page. Regardless of your personal opinions of the author or the journals, Swiderski was an academic who worked specifically on the Knanaya, and his works are published by reliable academic publishers. He's one of the relatively few authors with works particularly on the Knanaya. Again, you can add new sources - Frykenberg is a great source but to my knowledge hasn't published much specifically on the Knanaya - but do not remove existing sources or material that's attributed to reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:

Hello, on the Origins and Traditions section, I feel that I have made a very valid point about Swiderskis observations. First off about the directional division being related to Hindus he references Leslie Brown. I found the Leslie Brown reference, Brown himself states the directional division in relation to Hindus is unsteady and it’s relationship to the Knanaya arriving from the Middle East is much more favorable. This would subsequently make the basis for Swiderskis argument null.

Secondly, the majority of these “numerous traditions” he records is from random laypeople such as “Knanaya laborer” and “Northist Woman”. Any scholar can tell you that this is not an appropriate historical analysis of a people’s history. Perhaps for a sociological take yes it is appropriate to gather tales regarding an event but it is not valid in a historical sense. For example, if Swiderski went around in America and asked people to recite history we would nonetheless see lay people (without historical training) saying a bunch of nonsense that is not in line with the true history. Would this be acceptable as a valid historical claim? No it would not. So it should not be acceptable in the Knanaya sense as well. This same argument can be used when recording “history” from untrained laypeople in any environment. Gathered and published opinions of laypeople should not be the basis for a historical examination. I work in the field of academics and have written many historical pieces, I must argue that in this historical regard Swiderskis work is not valid. Thomast48 (talk)

Re the divisions, we can add Brown too, but there's no reason to remove Swiderski. In fact, Swiderski does cite Brown's mention of the subject and implies his disagreement with it.

Re the traditions he records, that's not true. He also makes frequent references to written sources in this and other works. He's also not necessarily attempting to nail down the "true history" in these sections, he's recording the various legends that have grown up to explain it. The article text is already clear that that's the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:Nearly all of the traditions and legends surrounding the event, even those expressed by laypeople state the division is based on the arrival of Knay Thoma to India. Wouldn’t my revision of the article be correct than? It would not seem the division is “unclear” but instead solely based on Knay Thoma and traditions surrounding him.

I wrote the following:

“The division of the St. Thomas Christians into Southern and Northern groups can be traced back to the figure of Knay Thoma and traditions surrounding him. Northist and Southist use variants of these traditions to claim superiority for their group.[9] The earliest written evidence for the split dates to the 16th century.[10]”

Also to my knowledge not a single St. Thomas Christian scholar and even third party scholarship before Swiderski has paralleled the division to that of Hindus. The St. Thomas Christian scholarship should be given precedence over the work of third parties, it is in fact their history and tradition. All Knanaya scholars state the directional division is because the Knanaya lived on the Southside of the Chera Capitol of Cranganore and the St. Thomas Christians on the North. The scholar of medieval history Pius Malekandathil who is quoted in the article agrees with the same. Pius is a Northist priest and historian, he also states that the Southist living on the South of Cranganore and Northist on the North is the accepted tradition in Kerala history. Pius expands on this and states the Southist arrived to India and settled in the South and the indigenous St. Thomas Christians lived in the North. Leslie Brown and a plethora of scholarship agree with this. So it must stated that Swiderski is alone in regarding the division as “unclear” and based on Hindu parallels. Because of this Swiderski should not be given precedence in this matter but instead perhaps a notation stating “Swiderski beleives the tradition may be paralleled to Hindu directional divisions”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs)

In this edit you removed the statement that explained that this section is talking about the traditions. It simply says, "A number of traditions and stories have emerged to explain the division, and both Southists and Northists use variants of these traditions to claim superiority for their group." This is obviously true; there are several variants as the section covers. In this edit, you removed cited material and added wording that claimed the division goes back to Thomas of Cana. This isn't acceptable in that it leaves out the possibility suggested by Swiderski that the division arose in other ways. Swiderski discusses this fully and Coward also mentions it. According to Swiderski ("Northists and Southists", p. 86) Brown does discuss the fact that Hindu groups also had north-south divisions, even if he says the Thomas of Cana explanation is "attractive". Again, we cannot use this to excise well-cited material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:By stating the St. Thomas Christians took this directional division from Hindus, subverts their entire history in relation to Knay Thoma, that both Northist and Southist scholars agree on. By placing Swiderskis opinion over centuries of history of a people backed by numerous sources is rather Western centric. The fact that one Western scholars opinion is given precedence over the actual tradition of an entire people and the accepted tradition in Kerala history is wildy inappropriate. Hindu and St. Thomas Christian scholars of Kerala all agree that this division is based on Knay Thoma. Swiderskis “view” should in no way be given importance over the people’s actual history and tradition. For this reason Swiderski should only be given a notation in this section as I have mentioned earlier in this talk page (I.E. Swiderski notes that this division may be paralleled to Hindu directional divisions). If you cannot accept this I must say that I cannot agree with this Western centric view and I must dispute it on further levels on Wikipedia.

This entire article favors the opinions of Swiderski himself over the people’s history, which is rather alarming. It almost has a theme of Swiderski being the moderator over the “squabbling Indians”, when in reality he should only be allocated the role of notations as a third party scholar that is not apart of the tradition and history of this people. Furthermore you have changed Knay Thoma’s name back to Thomas of Cana. This is not in line with tradition of the people at all. No Knanaya folk songs sing of “Thomas of Cana” but instead Knay Thoma and the variants of his name. Use of his Western name that was clearly introduced by the British instead of his traditional name in Malayalam which is for a fact Knay Thoma, is again extremely Western centric. I’m not sure how you are not seeing the apparent bias here. Thomast48 (talk)

Wikipedia's goal is to replicate and summarize what the best available sources say. Swiderski isn't over-represented here so much as he's one of the relatively few scholars to have written extensively about the Knanaya specifically in English. As I said, the interpretation he gives is also mentioned by Coward and apparently Brown. It clearly isn't his "view" alone. It also doesn't necessarily contradict the Thomas of Cana story - Syrian settlers could have chosen settlement patterns that reflected those of the neighboring Hindu groups. To repeat, we can add Brown and tweak the wording, but we cannot remove this material simply because some editors don't agree with it or don't like it.

As for the spelling, "Thomas of Cana" is demonstrably the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources. It's far more common than "Knay Thoma" or "Knai Thoma". I've made a comment to that effect at Talk:Thomas of Cana. The article shouldn't be moved and the spelling shouldn't be changed unless a formal requested move discussion finds consensus for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Kollamparambil clearly states that the community and the people of Malabar as a whole call him Knay Thoma not Thomas of Cana, is that not enough credibility on what the people AGAIN whose tradition it actually is call him? Swiderski states on his chapter on names, that the community generally defines the name Knanaya as meaning “Those of Knay”, he doesn’t mention the part about the suffix which I added but that’s what “Those of” means in Malayalam. The suffix aya means those of. Also on the directional division being related to Hindus those are three scholars, I can send you more than 50 that state it is based on the two wives and Knay Thoma arriving to india, so no they are truly a minority on this topic and again should be a notation. Thomast48 (talk)

No, the practice for article naming is WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, "Thomas of Cana" is demonstrably the common name for this subject. We have tons of articles that use a conventional name over the native name because it's more recognizable for readers. That's why it's Genghis Khan not Chinggis Khaan, Catherine the Great not Yekaterina Velikaya, and Sitting Bull not Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake. At any rate, if you want to propose a change of the name, I've told you how to go about it through WP:RM. Re the "Those of Knay" thing, if you could provide the passage in question I'll add it back in, I could not find it in a search (and you've spelled "Knay" in several different ways). Re the North-South divide, I've said about all I can on the matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:I have made the edit, on page 55 in Blood Weddings Swiderski states that the community defines the term Knanaya as meaning "Those of Knayi". This is the Malayalam epithet of his name, not the English Cana. On 53, Swiderski states that Cana is a misnomer introduced by the British, which would subsequently agree with Kollamparambils findings. The epithet "Knay" has many variants because the folk songs of the Knanaya pronounce the name slightly differently, for example in the song Othu Thirichavar he is sung as "Thomman Kynan", in Munnam Malankara it's "Thomman Kinan". It's all slight variations of the same name.The Portuguese "Cananeo" is based off of Knayi, according to Swiderski. Since Swiderski himself agrees that Cana is a misnomer introduced by the British, and because you take Swiderski's word with precedence over Kollamparambil and all other Indian writers who are apart of the tradition itself, is it really necessary to mention the "Cana" form at all in the names section. Swiderski himself states that Knanaya is derived from and related to the terms Knayi and Cananeo (which is the Portuguese version of Knayi), so it doesn't serve much purpose in the names section. Perhaps the information on the Cana form should stay instead on Thomas of Cana's wiki article, since the Cana form has nothing to do with the name Knanaya.

Also you have been saying this entire time that Swiderski states the division is unclear, however the very first sentence of when he starts defining the division in the cited pages Swiderski states the following "The Northist/Southist legends all trace the division back to the arrival of the Syrian immigrants. A complex set of variants narrates the division as separation of two sides from a single point. " (Northist and Southist, Pg. 76). This is what I have been arguing this entire time and the reason for my edit. It should not be stated that the division is unclear but instead that the division is clearly defined by the arrival of Knay Thoma and the Syrian Immigrants, which Swiderski very obviously points out. After this point is established in the article we can add that Swiderski notes that there are numerous legends surrounding this event. We can follow this up with the fact that the division is also based on a very real geographical division that existed between the Southist and Northist, I.E the Knanaya lived on the Southside of Cranganore/Periyar River and the Northist on the North. After this we can add Swiderskis line about the parallel with Hindu directional divisions. This has been my point this entire time, which Swiderski's text supports.

This was my edit: "The division of the St. Thomas Christians into Southern and Northern groups can be traced back to the figure of Knay Thoma and traditions surrounding him. Northist and Southist use variants of these traditions to claim superiority for their group.[9] The earliest written evidence for the split dates to the 16th century.[10]"

Is this not completely inline with what Swiderski states is the basis for the division? More can be added to this such as stated above but one thing is for sure the origins of the division is traced back to Knay Thoma and the Syrian immigrants, which is word for word from Swiderski. Thomast48 (talk)

Please provide a transcription of the passages in question and we can work on including the material. I don't have good access to the book at the moment, and am concerned that some of the material included here hasn't represented it accurately.

Yes, we absolutely do need to include the phrase "Cana" in the "names" section. For one thing, as I've repeatedly said, it's the common name in English. Additionally, both Western and Indian interpretations have connected the name "Knay" to things such as Cana and Canaan. That's important even if it's unlikely to be accurate.

Re the legends: Swiderski is talking about legends. It's true that the legends of the division tie back to Thomas of Cana, and the text here already makes that very clear. However, we can't present the legends as fact if the sources don't do that. And again, the idea that the Thomas Christians may have taken the North-South trait from neighboring Hindu groups doesn't contradict the legends.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:

Hi, sorry the late reply this is the following quote:

"Most Knanaya (Those of Knayi), prefer to call themselves Knanaya and avoid the provocation of designating themselves outright as "Canaanites"." (Blood Wedddings, 55). This reference gives the Knanaya general definition of the term, this is the only place where Swiderski establishes a majority position on what the name means, whereas in all other sections he states individual preferences and beliefs. The suffix "Those of" in Malayalam translates to "aya". Knayi is clearly derived from the Malayalam form of the epithet and not the English Cana.

Swiderski also goes in depth on page 53 that Bishops Roz's use of Cananeo is also from the Malayalam form Knayi not the English Cana. "Roz's text dated to 1606 contains the earliest written equivalent of "Knayi Thommen" in a European language. A letter from the Jesuit Campori to the Jesuit general Acquaviva written in Italian in 1603 (quoted below) also contains this usage. The Portuguese had evidently "translated" the word "Knayi" according to their own manner of remaking Malayalam, that assuming that the adjectival form dropped the vowel from its noun, hence K(a)nayi=Cana-neo (Cananeo), a Portuguese adjective formed by filling in the "a" sound, adding a nasal element for sake of euphony and terminating the whole in the masculine adjectival "-o"

Also when analyzing information about the Thomas of Cana copper plates, Vellian gives the direct translation of the primary sources of the interaction the Portuguese had with the plates, primarily from Damiao De Goes in Symposium of the Knanites. Vellian also makes mention of the Karson Copy of 1615. The Karson Copy of 1615 is a translation and recording of the Kollam Copper Plates of the St. Thomas Christians. This recording of the plates makes a historical notation of Thomas of Cana and parties arrival to India and the privileges that his co-religioniost earned from his arrival. Besides the mentions of the Portuguese, is the fact that the Kollam Copper plates mention Thomas of Cana's arrival to India not primary evidence that this is not simply an oral history but indeed a factual historical event. This would mean that numerous Portuguese recorded having seen the Thomas of Cana plates themselves and the information from the plates was also noted on the later Kollam Copper Plates. The Thomas of Cana plates may be lost today but this is a plethora of evidence to state that this tradition is not simply a tradition but indeed historyThomast48 (talk)

Thanks Thomast48! I'll go ahead and restore your passage. I'll be doing some more work on it later, after I get a chance to read through it all. Thanks again!--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Knajewfood.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove Cochin Jews as a related ethnic group, verify images are relevant

Cochin Jews should be removed as a related ethnic group because they are simply not related. Besides a few songs that have some similarities they have nothing in common.

Additionally some of these images need to be verified such as the Torah scroll actually belonging to them. It looks Yemenite in origin and maybe only 300-400 years old.

YaLindaHadad (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: There are a lot of inconsistencies throughout this article. For example, if their liturgical language is Syriac why do they have a Hebrew scroll? Is this even theirs? It seems that the user Thomast48 propagating his agenda via self publishing. I had the unfortunate encounter with him on the Cochin Jewish page where he tried to claim that this Knanaya group is related to Cochin Jews. YaLindaHadad (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the Torah scroll image. There was no source indicating why it's significant to the article. Even if a Torah scroll were owned by a Knanaya family it by itself doesn't indicate that this is representative of the community, any more than a Knanaya family happening to own a copy of the Quran or Bhagavad Gita.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you YaLindaHadad (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: @YaLindaHadad: Actually, that Torah scroll is owned by my extended family. That scroll has been passed down for about 500 years and is seen as an heirloom. My extended family took it to Israel and got it verified as Yemenite in origin. Also you shouldn’t be calling out other users like this, I don’t have an agenda but am simply sharing sources and images. You have no right to judge my validity just because you don’t like the sources I share. Also I’m curious as to how this is not relevant, a plethora of sources from third-parties state the Knanaya are Jewish-Christians, even those as prominent as the Cambridge University Press state the same. Clearly because of this Jewish-Christian heritage this community owning a Torah scroll would not be the same as them simply owning a copy of the Quran. Owning a Hebrew scroll and speaking Syriac liturgically has no correlation and is not a valid argument. Culture of ethnic groups can be multifaceted and is no way linear. That’s like arguing Cochin Jews are Jewish so why do they speak Malayalam? Culture of ethnic groups evolves according to their environment as well as their social and economic circumstance.

I’m not trying to state Knanaya are Cochin Jews in any sense but it clear that the Jewish-Christian Knanaya and the Cochin Jews had some close relationship historically both living in Southern Cranganore. I don’t know if you’ve read P.M. Jussay but it’s not simply the fact that they share a few songs but the songs of both communities are identical in their formula. The Cochin Jewish songs about the erection of temples are written in the exact same patterns as the Knanaya songs about the erection churches. Besides this point the songs also share a plethora of terminology that is not found in the songs of other communities. For example the term “Bava” which is the Jewish term for father in the Indian Jewish context is found in plenty in Knanaya folk songs. Jussay also makes note of a plethora of other terms that are only found in the Indian Jewish context and are found regularly in Knanaya songs. All of these facts published by Jussay have been re-published by a plethora of Jewish scholars directly from the Hebrew University, an example being Dr. Ophira Gamliel.

Also on top of this, why in any sense would the Knanaya have songs that sing about Joseph Rabban, the Jewish leader of the 11th century if they have no relation to the Cochin Jews? Why would Cochin Jews in any sense sing about Knay Thoma, if they have no relation to the Knanaya? These two communities lived side by side in Southern Cranganore for centuries before the settlement was destroyed in 1524. On top of this, more than 80-96% of Cochin Jewish DNA is Indian Malayalee in origin as proven by the genetic study done by Dr. Gyaneshwer Chaubey and a plethora of other schoalrs involved in the study. The fact that you think they have no relation to other Indian ethnic groups is a joke and your persistence on this, frankly seems kind of discriminatory. Also I apologize if our little chat on the Cochin Jewish wiki spooked you, I thought I was being quite civil. Thomast48 (talk)

I'm sorry if anything I said offended you. As for the picture, unless there's a source indicating that this scroll is representative of or otherwise significant to the Knanaya, I don't see it as useful to the article. The section it was in mentions nothing about it, and fortunately, there are a lot of images already in other sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Hi Cuchullain, you’ve said nothing to offend me, I simply pinged you as well because you were apart of the conversation. Because you mention there is no sourcework regarding the scroll and it’s significance to the community, that is a valid reason for removing it. I was responding to the derogatory comments made by user @YaLindaHadad: who had the ”unfortunate” experience of conversing with me and questions the validity of my source work. For your information I have a bachelors in history-education and a masters in cross-cultural and global studies. I live and breath social science and it is my job to teach the topic. Perhaps YaLindaHadad’s agenda should be questioned who I must say seems quite bias on the fact that she purged the Cochin Jewish Wikipedia page of any connection to the Knanaya even tho a multitude of scholars (third-party) have noted the two ethnic groups share culture. It cannot be denied that the Cochin Jews, even tho Jewish, are also Indian. They’ve been in an Indian context and setting for more than a 1000 years and are mostly Indian genetically. To say that they have no ethnic relationship to other Indian ethnic groups is separatist rhetoric. Even though they are culturally similar to the Knanaya who claim a Middle Eastern heritage, it is probable to say that Cochin Jews are also likely even related to Hindu Nairs and Brahmins because of their historical high caste status. Hell the Cochin Jews even celebrate the Malayalee Hindu festival of Onam, they still celebrate it in Israel with their Indian friends as well.

You need to understand that culture is truly not linear in any sense but extremely multifaceted. Just because someone is apart of one ethnic group it does not mean in any sense that this group cannot be related to other ethnic groups or share culture with other ethnic groups. Ethnicity and culture also supersede the lines of religious identity. A perfect example of this is the Knanaya who claim a Middle Eastern origin (actually proven by genetics). Though Knanaya folk songs are full of Christian and Judaic rhetoric, at the same time they are also full of Hindu ideals. An example of this is the Knanaya folk song “Alappan Adiyil” or “Proclamation of God the Father” dated to 1456. The song sings about the re-building of Kaduthuruthy Church and intertwines religious themes of Christ and Mary, yet at the same time mentions the “14 world-realms”, which is without doubt a Hindu concept. Knanaya do not claim to be Hindu but have aspects of Hindu culture because of their environment and most probably because the Middle Eastern migrants intermixed with local Hindus (so too did the Cochin Jews, who have more than 80% Indian ancestry). In this same fashion, both the Knanaya and Cochin Jew’s lived in Southern Cranganore for centuries together. Sharing the same environment likely led to the two group sharing culture but because the Knanaya claim to be Jewish-Christian, the cultural similarity could also be ethnic. You need to understand that culture does not solely have to do with ones relgion but instead incorpates a multitude of aspects. This is especially prevalent in Kerala where Islam, Syriac Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism lived side by side and co-existed peacefully together for centuries.

Something rather interesting about the ownership of that Torah scroll is that the family that owns it, their house name is Chorath. I did not know this but Chorath is also a Jewish surname of the Mizrahi people, of Yemenite origin. That’s rather interesting when considering the Torah scroll is Yemenite in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You state that Knanaya have a shared custom with Cochin Jews but besides a few songs that have some parallels there is nothing similiar culturally. Can you clarify which rituals and traditions are similar? Do they follow Kashrut or Halakha? Do men wear Peyot and Kippot? Do they pray in Hebrew? Do they observe Shavuot, Rosh Hashana, or Yom Kippur? Do they know how to build a Sukkah? You stated previously that the Knanaya observe Passover however, several other Christian groups such as Adventists "observe" Passover as well. Additionally, the way the Knanaya seem to "observe" Passover in a way much different than Cochin Jews. Do they rid the house from chametz? How does their seder look like? Cochin Jews also spoke a seperate dialect of Malayalam known as Judeo-Malayalam. Did the Knanaya speak this as well? There are many Christian groups that claim to be Jewish which you can see here, Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites. Yet, their lineage is unproven and not recognized as Jewish. Dr. Weil said she would not want to go as far as to say that they are related and she said she was drawing comparison on the parallels. Knanaya people have much more in common with Assyrian Christians due to the shared Christian beliefs, Syriac language, and songs such as Bar Mariam (a song not realted to Cochin Jews whatsoever). There are also no mentions of Cochin Jews and Knanaya ever even interacting. YaLindaHadad (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @YaLindaHadad:, that’s actually not entirely true, I would reccomend you read “Syrian Manual” by T.O. Alias. The text mentions a plethora of interactions between Thekkumbhagar (Southist) Jews and Thekkumbhagar Christians (Knanaya). The book was also written I believe with the help of Jewish scholar Dr. Ophira Gamliel who was also present at the inauguration of the text. I think also at one of the Cochin Jewish synagogues, their pamphlets talk heavily about the Knanaya people and goes into detail about our wedding crowns. I would also recommend you read Dr. P.M. Jussay’s “The Jew’s of Kerala”, besides a comparative analysis of the songs he also mentions some interactions that occurred between the Southern Jews and Southern Christians. The book is actually very hard to find but I’d be happy to share my scanned copy with you. Also when talking about the songs you need to keep in mind that it’s not simply the fact that a few songs share lyrics it’s also the fact that many of the songs are formulaically identical and share diction not used in any other communities songs in Kerala. Also the songs that do share lyrics are solely about Joseph Rabban. The Cochin Jews also have one about Knay Thoma. If the two communities are singing about each other’s leaders, it clearly means that their was some sort of close relationship historically, enough so to honor each other’s leaders in song. You also have to consider the fact that it may not have been all the Cochin Jews but it seems that the sect known as the Thekkumbhagar Jews or Southern Jews, were close with the Knanaya. This may simply be due to proximity of both groups living in Southern Cranganore for centuries until it’s destruction in 1524.

In the early 1500s it was actually a Cochin Jewish scholar who studied and translated the context of the Thomas of Cana copper plate grant at the request of the Knanaya and local kings because the Portuguese wanted to know its context. It is actually solely because of that Cochin Jewish scholar that the Knanaya know anything about the plate today because the Portuguese later lose the physical plate in their custody (most probably stolen). Interestingly Portuguese sources also call the Knanaya “Sabbath Keeping Judaizers”. It is believed that the Knanaya were heavily persecuted by the Portuguese for such customs.

You state the Knanaya are much closer in culture to the Assyrians. I agree with you, the Knanaya do share culture with Assyrians because of their East Syriac liturgy but Assyrians are also generally called Jewish-Christians because of their descent from Semitic people’s. Genetically Middle Eastern Jews also tend to be very close to Assyrians and Anatolian Christians such as Armenians as well as other Syriacs. The Knanaya claim of being Jewish-Christians is actually accepted by major publishers, even those as prominent as Cambridge University. We have yet to see if the Knanaya genetically match to Cochin Jews but I know there is a study that is currently being undertaken that compares the two communities. Cochin Jewish autosomal DNA which has already been studied has found that the community is more than 80% Indian Malayalee in origin. Also Jews tend to trace their lineage through the mothers side, Cochin Jewish MtDNA (maternal dna) is more than 90% Indian and has nothing to do with the Middle East or Jewish halplogroups. When considering this fact it’s not impossible to think that the Cochin Jews may be ethnically related to other Indian ethnic groups, especially the Knanaya who also came from the Middle East. I understand you need more evidence, let’s see what the genetic comparison finds between to two communities before discussing further. Thomast48 (talk)

Being of partial Cochin Jewish descent myself I have never heard of Knanaya until recently and there is nothing mentioning Knanaya that I have found from our perspective. I could not locate either of the works you mentioned. I am not sure what synogogue or pamphlet you are talking about. I am not sure what song about "Knai Thomman" you are referring to because I have never heard it. While there are some songs that may be similiar, there are many songs that are not sung by us and vice versa. Addtionally you need providesoruces to back up your claim otherwise it is hard for me to believe you.

No, Assyrians are not Jewish Christians. Assyirans are a different nation and historically an enemy of the Jewish people. Why would they be Jewish-Christians? Just becuase they descend from Semetic people does not make them Jewish. Arabs and Maltese are also Semeitic. Judaism is traditionally maternal however, conversion is possible. Anyways, the Rabbanut is who decides who is or is not Jewish not genetic tests. YaLindaHadad (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@YaLindaHadad: You are partially of Cochin Jewish descent? How very cool! Yes sadly these texts I mentioned are very hard to find outside of India, I myself being in the United States it was a miracle that a library near me had Jussay’s text. Again if you’d like I can share my scanned copy of Jussay’s text with you, however I sadly don’t have versions of T.O. Alias text available with me. I think the sources which talk about Syriac communities descending from Jewish people’s simply meant that these ancient rites of Christianity maintain semblances of Jewish ritual practice through their liturgy (it’s important to note that Syriac Christianity is the oldest in the world so probably is closest to Jewish/Early Christian tradition).

What the exact relationship was between the Southern Christians and the Southern Jews is not completely unearthed just yet but more research is required. Jussay states that a few Cochin Jewish songs mention the three kings of Cranganore which he states are the Hindu Cheruman Perumal, Knay Thoma, and of course Joseph Rabban. One song mentions that these three kings fought and fell bravely defending Cranganore which Jussay states is an allusion to the Cochin Jews, Knanaya, and Hindus losing the battle for Cranganore in 1524. It seems however that it was only Southern Cranganore (where the port was) that was destroyed by the battle this being evidenced by the fact that the St. Thomas Christians in the North remained there for many decades after the battle.

I know you were curious about the Torah scroll as well. The family that owns it has the house name Chorath which is surprisingly a surname also found among Mizrahi Jews. The Chorath family had been keeping the scroll as an heirloom, the current owner told me that he got it from his grand father who didn’t know what it was but gave it special importance (the passing down of this scroll had become a tradition in their family from male heir to male heir). Later the current owner suspected that it was a Torah scroll and took the scroll to Israel where some academics among the Cochin Jews dated it and stated it was Yemenite in origin. It’s very interesting that this families surname is Chorath which is a surname generally found among Mizrahi Jews of Yemenite origin. The scroll being of a Yemenite style and it’s relation to this family is too much of a coincidence.

What the general rhetoric around the origins of the Knanaya Community is that they were Syriac speaking Jewish-Christians. If you’d like to read some extremely prominent third-party sources that label the Knanaya as such, it can be found in the following texts (however these sources generally call the Knanaya, Southist or Thekkumbhagar, in designation in relation to their traditional geographical distinction from the St. Thomas Christians):

Cambridge University Press: Neill, Stephen (2004). A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54885-3.

Oxford University Press: Frykenberg, Eric (1993). Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199575831.

Again the Jewish-Christian claims from the Knanaya Community is nothing new and is generally accepted as a factual tradition among major scholarly publishers. I also agree with you that today the Knanaya don’t practice many Jewish rituals, however it’s important to note that the Portuguese spoiled the ancient culture and traditions of the Knanaya and St. Thomas Christians by way of extreme Latinization and essentially ethnic cleansing through the Synod of Diamper. This may be why the Knanaya only maintain some semblances to Jewish culture today, of course such as their own unique Passover celebration and their songs of Joseph Rabban, etc. Thomast48 (talk)

Again, all of this is not verified. Yes, this is a Yemenite and Cochin Jewish surname however, many surnames are shared by the local population. Other Cochin Jewish family names such as Simon, Samuel, and Joseph are also used by many Malayali Christians. I am not sure what Cochin Jewish academics you are referring to. Syriac is a language of Assyrian people. Hebrew is the language of Jewish people. You stated that these claims have been accepted by major scholarly publishers however, none of these claims are accepted by the State of Israel, the Rabbanut, or the worldwide Jewry. YaLindaHadad (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@YaLindaHadad: The main point your missing is the fact that ethnic groups are multi-faceted and go above the lines of just religion. You have a misconception that Non-Jewish ethnic groups can’t be related ethnically to Jews. As someone with graduate background in Cultural-Studies (ethnic studies) I must say this is a completely wrong understanding of what ethnicity is. Yes it is true that Jews and their multiple subgroups are an ethnic group, however Non-Jewish peoples are indeed related to them. This is especially prevalent for people that are of a Semitic background and hail from the Levant. It is also true for Jewish communities in diaspora that become ethnically related to the major population source they joined, examples of course being the European Jewish communities such as the Ashkenazi.

You purged the Cochin Jewish page of non-Jewish groups simply because you don’t understand the complexity of ethnic relationships but instead you base it solely on religion, which is a terribly wrong assertion. However other Jewish Wikipedia pages have had Non-Jewish related ethnic groups for years now. The Yemenite Jewish Page lists Arabs as a related ethnic group, the Mizrahi Jewish page lists Arabs as well as Assyrians. Again this is because ethnic relations go beyond the lines just of religion but also encase regional culture and identities, that admix with each other for centuries creating these ethnic relationships.

Also Knanaya people are not saying in anyway that they are Jews today but instead that they are Jewish-Christians, the same claim they’ve been making for centuries now and again a heritage that is supported by a plethora of scholars. Though you state Jewish scholars themselves don’t believe the Knanaya to be Jewish, it would seem that Jewish scholars examine this relationship the most out of any third party scholarship. Examples of this being Dr. Ophira Gamliel, Dr. Nathan Katz, Dr. P.M. Jussay, and Dr. Shalva Weil. Though many scholars do accept the Knanaya are Jewish-Christians, you never know perhaps this relationship may simply be because the Knanaya and Cochin Jews both claim to be from Syria originally and for that reason maintained a close relationship in India. Joseph Rabbans Malayalam name is even Chirianandan or Joy of Syria and the first of Cochin Jews were said to be from there with of course later groups such as Yemenites joining the community in India. Thomast48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This still does not confirm anything. Dr. Weil does not state that Knanaya are Jews and it is not up to scholars to determine who is a Jew. Like I said before, these claims are not accepted by the State of Israel, the Rabbanut, or the worldwide Jewry. There are groups such as the Falash Mura of Ethiopia or the Bnei Menashe of north eastern India which have received recognition. On the other hand, there are many other Christian groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites who self identify as Jews. Yet, they are not recognized. YaLindaHadad (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)