The Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Periods:

Crisis and Revival

by

Khalid S. Dinno

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Khalid S. Dinno (2015)

 The Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Periods:
Crisis and Revival

Khalid S. Dinno
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
2015

ABSTRACT

Despite the protection afforded to the smaller minorities of the Ottoman Empire through the

millet system (Chapter One), Syrian Orthodoxy witnessed weakness and depletion throughout

the nineteenth century, caused by significant conversion to Western Christianity, particularly in

Syria and in Iraq.

In the meantime a separate Western Christian intrusion was unfolding among the

Syrian Orthodox communities in India. The resulting problems prompted a first journey by a

Syrian Orthodox patriarch to that part of the world. Patriarch Peter’s journey in 1874-1877 was

a landmark event that first entailed a journey to England and audience with Queen Victoria.

The hitherto little known involvement of the Anglican Church in this intrusion is uncovered in

Chapter Three.

The events following the 1895 violence in southeastern Anatolia became precursors to

the genocidal Safyo of 1915, which resulted in the annihilation of nearly half the Syrian

Orthodox in Anatolia and brought Syrian Orthodoxy to the verge of extinction (Chapter Four).

The apathy of the victors of World War I towards the beleaguered survivors at the Paris Peace

Conference of 1919-20 contrasted with the accommodation the exiled survivors found in the

Arab lands to the south, where historical affinity was rekindled (Chapter Five).

ii
 From the safety of this new environment, Syrian Orthodoxy, aided by the critical core of

enlightened individuals, rose again drawing on venerable Syriac cultural tradition and an

associated patriarchal standing that was characteristically free from social elitism and tribal

sectarianism. Utilizing the quest for learning that was the mantra in the new nation states, the

new leadership, despite meager resources, launched Syrian Orthodoxy on a course of revival

and renaissance not witnessed since the days of Bar Hebraeus in the late thirteenth century

(Chapter Six).

In addition to conventional primary and secondary sources, this thesis relies

substantially on hitherto untapped Syrian Orthodox archival material, which has shed new light

on many important events. In particular, the analysis of nearly 5700 letters from ordinary

people to the patriarch of the day (Chapter Two) has provided a subaltern view of society, as

opposed to the elitist view which conventional history often offers.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe profound thanks and gratitude to so many who have helped make this work possible.
First and foremost, I acknowledge with deep gratitude the help of His Holiness of beloved
memory Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, who, in addition to
giving me encouragement, generously granted me free access to the Syrian Orthodox Archives,
a deed that enabled the nineteenth and early twentieth century history of the Syrian Orthodox
Church to be written, taking into account the historicity that has been uniquely offered by these
hitherto largely un-accessed records.
My gratitude and prayers for wellbeing and release go to Archbishop Gregorios Yuhanna
Ibrahim, the Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Aleppo, who was kidnapped together with the
Greek Orthodox Archbishop Boulos Yazigi on April 22, 2013. I owe Metropolitan Ibrahim an
enormous debt of gratitude for his encouragement and active participation in the archival
search project that Dr. George Kiraz and I undertook in the summer of 2010 in Deir al Za‘faran
and in Mardin. With his help the joint trip also made it possible to reach the largely
undiscovered ruins of the 11th century Mar Barsoumo Monastery near Malatin. I owe
Metropolitan Ibrahim an additional debt of gratitude for providing me with a most valuable
collection of documents comprised of 476 folios about the Syrian Dioceses, penned by
Patriarch Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum.
My appreciation also goes to Metropolitan Saliba Ozman of Deir al-Za‘faran and
Chorepiscopus Gabriel Akyuz of the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Mardin for facilitating
access to the Deir al- Za‘faran and the Mardin archives, respectively.
I respectfully acknowledge the help of Metropolitan Malke Murad and of Raban Shemun Can
of St. Marks Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem in facilitating access to the St. Mark’s
archives in Jerusalem in 2013. My thanks and appreciation also go to Metropolitan
Theophelius George Saliba for the valuable information he provided during a recorded
interview I had with his Eminence in July 2013 concerning the re-settlement of the survivors of
the 1915 Sayfo in Syria and Lebanon.
I record with special appreciation the enormous help I received from Reverend Father
Ephrem Adde for his transcription of numerous archival letters from Garshuni into Arabic as
well as many translated from Syriac to Arabic. Thanks in this regard are also due to Raban

iv
Marutha Hanna for his kind participation in this effeort. Thanks are also due to Metrin
Bezikoglu and to Lale Javanshir for their help in translations from Ottoman Turkish to English
and to Aydin Akan for translations from modern Turkish to English.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Aziz Abdelnour for his generous help and
insightful suggestions based on his valuable knowledge of many aspects of this work, and for
having always been ready to help with access to archival material in London, particularly at the
Lambeth Palace Library and at the British Museum Library.
Thanks and full recognition are due to Dr. George Kiraz for his active participation in the
imaging of the archival material in Deir al-Za‘faran and in Mardin. This work became our joint
project as it reflected our mutual recognition of its value to much needed research into the
history of Syrian Orthodoxy in the nineteenth century.
Thanks are also due to Raban Dr. Roger Akhras of St Ephrem Seminary in Maarat
Sednayya in Syria and to Chorepiscopus Joseph Shabo of St Ephrem’s Church in Aleppo, for
their help in providing data and important, usually unavailable, secondary material.
I would like to thank the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the
University of Toronto for its support over the period of my studies and in particular, my
supervisor, Professor Amir Harrak for his immense encouragement and valued direction over
the years, as well as to all the members of the supervisory committee for their careful reading
of my dissertation and for providing important feedback to me.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family, first and foremost my wife Amira,
without whose love and understanding none of this would have been possible, in addition to
her help with the typing, as well as to my daughters May and Deena and my son Ziad for their
constant encouragement.

I dedicate this work to the memory of my father Sa‛id Dinno.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
i Purpose and General Scope
ii Christianity in the Middle East, Trends of Historicity
iii Sayfo and Related Studies
iv Regional and Inter - Faith Relations
v Studies on Syrian Orthodoxy through the Prism of Identity
vi Other Studies on the History of the Syrian Orthodox Church
vii Content
viii Archival Sources

CHAPTER ONE: 31
UNDER THE OTTOMAN UMBRELLA: The Millet System and its Evolutions
1.1 Historicity-General 32
1.2 The Millet System in Action- The Case of the Three Initial Millets 37
1.3 The Missions and the Millets 49
1.4 The Syriac Christians in the Millet System 57
1.5 From Millet to Nationalism 69
1.6 Revival and Nationalism in the Arab Lands 76
1.7 Concluding Remarks 88

CHAPTER TWO: 90
SYRIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
2.1 General 90
2.2 Sources for this Chapter 91
2.3 The Land, the People and their Recent History 92
2.4 Tur Abdin: the “Heartland of the Syriac Tradition” 98
2.5 Ottoman Population Statistics 106
2.6 Linguistic Profile 107
2.7 People Writing to their Patriarch 107
2.8 Church Diocese and Leadership 119
2.9 A Period of Intense Conversion to Catholicism 121
2.10 Church Property Issues - A Manifestation of Divisions 124
2.11 Conversion to Protestantism 127
2.12 Church Leadership 130

CHAPTER THREE: 135

ANTIOCH BETWEEN CANTERBURY AND INDIA
3.1 Introduction 135
3.2 Syriac Christianity in Southern India - Brief Background 136

vi
3.3 The Synod of Diampor (AD 1599): A new Start for the Church of India 138
3.4 Arrival of Mar Gregorius Abdul Jalil al- Mosulli 140
3.5 British Interest in the Syriac Christians of Southern India 141
3.6 Patriarch Peter’s Visit to England 143
3.7 Patriarch Abdul Masih and Canterbury 153
3.8 Patriarch Abdullah and Canterbury 154
3.9 The Apostolicae Curae- the Source of a Temporary Rapprochement 155
3.10 Patriarchal Visits to India 158
3.11 Subsequent Developments in India 159
3.12 Concluding Notes 160

CHAPTER FOUR: 164

SYRIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE PERIOD 1895-1914
EXTERNAL AGGRESSION AND INTERNAL DECLINE
4.1 Introduction 164
4.2 The Geo-Political Dimension 165
4.3 The Impact of Violence on Christian communities (Syrian Orthodox and Assyrians)
172
4.4. Patriarch Abdul Masih II (Abdul Masih) (1895-1904): Witness to Bloodshed and
Communal Destruction 173
4.5 At the Turn of the Twentieth Century – Attrition Under Multiple Threats 193
4.6 Patriarch Abdullah II Sattuf (1906-1915)–Oscillating Allegiance at Time of Turmoil
195
4.7 Beyond Church Leadership 221
4.8 Concluding Discussion 226

CHAPTER FIVE: 229

MASSACRES AND EXODUS – FROM SAYFO TO SAFETY
5.1 Introduction 229
5.2 Sayfo 230
5.3 A Devastated Community with a New Leader- Elias III Shakir (1917-1932) 237
5.4 International Forums and Treaties- The Paris Peace Conference 239
5.5 In the Upper Mesopotamian Homeland in the Aftermath of the War 246
5.6 Following the Exodus 252
5.7 Re-Building Church Institutions 260
5.8 Concluding Remarks 264

CHAPTER SIX: 266

SYRIAN ORTHODOXY AT THE THRESHOLD OF ITS SECOND RENAISSANCE
6.1 General 266
6.2 Motivations for Revival 268
6.3 Milestones of the Revival 279
6.4 The Reformers and their Contributions 283
6.5 Epilogue: In the Second Half of the Twentieth Century -
Achievements and New Challenges 309

vii
CONCLUSIONS 315

APPENDIX A 322

APPENDIX B 362

BIBLIOGRAPHY 465

List of Plates (archival documents)

The Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Archives

Note: all codes below correspond to those on the electronic copies deposited at the institutions
that keep the documents.

1. Damascus – Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate - Bab Tuma, Damascus

P1070660
P1070661
P1080718
P1090952
P1090957
P1090606
P1090656
P1090658-P1090660
P1090664
P1090669-P1090671
P1090689
P1090692
P1090694
P1090925
P1090943
P1100029-P1100037
P1100039
P1100043
P1100127
P1100296
P1100370
P1100421
P1100422
P1100467
P1100475
P1100476
P1100481
P1100482
P1100484
P1100485

viii
P1100486
P1100490
P1100508
P1100510
P1100532

2. Deir al-Za‘faran (Dayro d-Kurkmo) Monastery, near Mardin: K denotes the Syriac
name of the monastery)
K05-0035
K05-0046
K05-0049
K05-0325
K05-1300, 1301
K05 -1450, 1451
K07-B24-Part1-0106
K10- 01-36-0235
K10- B2-0262, 0263
K10-B02-0542
K10-B20-0749
K10-B20-0753
K10-B20-0813
K10-B45-0015
K10-B45-0022
K10-B45-0027
K10-B86-0808

3. Mardin - Church of the 40 Martyrs

40M-24/36-122
40M-24/38-181
40M-24/40-057.
40M-24/40-098
40M-24/40-172
40M-24/40-171
40M-24/41-196
40M-24/44-212
40M-24/45-052
40M-24/45-051
40M 24/45-406
40M-24/45-458
40M-24/45-391
40M 24/45-518
40M-24/45-094
40M-24/45-093
40M-24/46-322
40M-24/46-337
40M-24/46-452

ix
40M-24/47-249
40M-24/47-255
40M 24/48-003
40M 24/48-175
40M-24/48-141 and 127
40M-24/48-417

4. Jerusalem - St. Marks Syrian Orthodox Convent (Monastery)

J- DSC_0026.
J- DSC_0027.
J- 0348.
J- 0349
J- 0353
J- 0363
J- 0364

List of Figures

Figure 1: Letters to Patriarch Jacob II (1847-1871)

Figure 2: Letters to Patriarch Peter III/IV (1872-1894)
Figure 3: Letters to Patriarch Abdul Masih (1895- 1903)
Figure 4: No. of Letters received by Patriarch Abdul Masih

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A1: Maps 1 and 2 of Tur Abdin

APPENDIX A2: The letter from Patriarch Elias II (1838-1847), addressed to “Patriarch
Alexander Griswold.”

APPENDIX A 3.1: Encyclical from Gregorius ‘Adul Jalil al-Mosuli to the Churches
in Malabar, dated February 5, 1668.

APPENDIX A 3.2: The Account by Abdullah Sattuf (Saddadi) of Patriarch Peter’s

Concerns On the Eve of their Journey to England and India.

APPENDIX A 3.3:The Case of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Fairly Stated, London January,
1875, compiled from official documents and authentic papers

APPENDIX A 4.1: A Letter to Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Deir al-Za‘faran
and Mardin, from Khouri Hanna Shamoun, Azikh, dated December 30,
328 Rumi (December 30, 1912, Julian; January 13, 1912, Gregorian).

APPENDIX A 4.2: From the Letter by Syrian Catholic Patriarch Ephrem Rahmani
to the Deposed Abdul Masih dated June 16, 1914

x
APPENDIX A 4.3: A Letter to Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Deir al-Za‘faran and
Mardin, from Khouri Hanna Shamoun, Azikh, dated December 30, 328 Rumi
(December 30, 1912, Julian; January 13, 1912, Gregorian)

APPENDIX A 4.4: A letter from the Bishopric Board of Diyarbakir to Patriarch Abdullah,
dated May 10, 1913.

APPENDIX A 4.5: A letter from Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Mardin, and 12
Priests and Laymen of the Millet Board, dated March 6, 1913

APPENDIX A 4.6: A letter from an individual signing as: “the one who is sad about
the affairs of the Milla, Elias Shamoun,” dated August 1, 1913

APPENDIX A 4.7: A letter from Altoune Abdelnour, Mosul, dated December 12,
1913

APPENDIX A 5.1: MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO THE PARIS PEACE

CONFERENCE BY Archbishop Aphram Barsoum, Representing the Syrian
Orthodox Church

APPENDIX A 5.2: A letter from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a Visit
by Archbishop Aphram Barsoum

APPENDIX A 5.3: A Confidential Report on Archbishop Aphram Barsoum Requested by the

French Diplomatic Services

APPENDIX A 5.4: Telegram Announcing Archbishop Barsoum’s Arrival in France

APPENDIX A 5.5: Aphram Barsoum’s Nationalist Position at the Paris Peace Conference

APPENDIX A 6.1: Name as ‘Syrian Orthodox’ - A Historical Perspective

APPENDIX A 6.2: Philoxenus Yuhanna/Yuhanon Dolabani

APPENDIX A 6.3: An article by Patriarch Zakka I Iwas published in the

Patriarchal Journal in 1982 under the title “The Learned
Archdeacon Ni‘matallah Denno.”

APPENDIX A 6.4: Summary of Publications by Ignatius Jacob (Yacoub) III

APPENDIX A 6.5: A Summary of the Published Work of Patriarch Zakka I Iwas

APPENDIX B: Photographs of Documents from the Syrian Orthodox Archives Referenced in

this Thesis

xi
 INTRODUCTION

i. Purpose and General Scope

When in 1516/17 Selim I incorporated southeastern Anatolia and the Arab lands to the south in
the Ottoman Empire, the Syrian Orthodox Church1 was one of the smaller Oriental churches to
join the expanded empire.2 The Syrian Orthodox, in common with other Syriac Christians, who
had been weakened by over two centuries of insecure existence under Mongol and Turkic
dynastic rules, found relative peace and stability under the protection offered by the Ottoman
millet system. However, major sociopolitical developments occurred in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries that changed the tenets of stability offered by this system. Some of these
developments were initiated by external factors: wars and increased West European infiltration
through trade and missionary work. There were also associated major internal developments
that were manifested by the Tanzimat reforms of 1839 and 1856 and the subsequent fast-
moving sociopolitical developments. Political instability, fed by conflicting nationalistic
visions held by the different constituents of the empire, led to sectarian tensions and violence
that became the hallmark of a once peaceful empire. These events were the precursors of much
which was to unfold during and after the First World War.
Throughout this period, the Syrian Orthodox found themselves under pressure from two
major sources. The first related to the traditionally insecure social environment in southeastern
Anatolia, that was made more acute by the unfolding geopolitical unrest, and associated tribal
Kurdish hegemony, particularly during the second half of the nineteenth century. The second
related to the Western missionary agenda that aimed at converting the Oriental Christians to
the Western brands of Christianity (i.e., Catholic or Protestant).
Concurrently, the Syrian Orthodox communities in southern India, whose members far
exceed in number those under the Ottoman Empire, came under increasing pressure from
Anglican/Protestant missions to convert to that brand of Western Christianity. Its efforts to

1
There is a growing tendency to replace the traditional name “Syrian” with “Syriac” in the name of the Church in
order to avoid confusion with the country of the same name. I have generally used “Syrian” in deference to
historicity, except when referring to churches that use the Syriac liturgical tradition. Further, the term “Syrian
Orthodox Church” is generally intended to include followers, except where stated otherwise.
2
Under the Ottomans, the Syrian Orthodox lived mainly in southeastern Anatolia, northern Iraq, and in and
around major cities in Greater Syria, including Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs.

1
reform and revive internally, despite pronounced efforts by Patriarch Peter III3 (1872-1894),
were severely limited by the lack of resources, and by the reluctance of Western Christians to
provide help untied to conversion or political benefits.
The violence that was initiated against the Armenians in 1895, quickly engulfed other
Christians in southeastern Anatolia, including the Syrian Orthodox, and was a prelude to the
much worse violence which occurred during the First World War. At the same time Church
leadership, which had been weakened by the impact of the violence on its communities,
became increasingly unfit to face the rising challenges in that critical period. The Church faced
a leadership crisis for at least a decade before the onset of the War, which Church historians
have generally been reluctant to address in detail. Additionally, this war came with its own
calamity of massacres. In common with other Christians in Anatolia, the Syrian Orthodox were
victims of gross massacres that have been increasingly recognized as genocide. These
massacres wiped out nearly half of their population in their historical home base in Anatolia
and forced most of the survivors into exile in the neighbouring Arab lands to the south. Yet,
out of the abysmal prospects that prevailed at the beginning of the War, and the tragedies that
were added by this war, a new chapter emerged in the life of this beleaguered church that
heralded the onset of its much needed revival. From humble beginnings, this revival emerged
and flourished in the few decades that followed the War, despite meagre material resources. In
this revival, Syrian Orthodoxy sought to define itself by reference to its history of endurance
and excellence.
The purpose of this thesis is two-fold: to identify and to analyze the salient events that
characterized the near demise of this church, and to examine the phenomenon of its subsequent
revival.
This study was made possible by access to a remarkable trophy of Syrian Orthodox
Church archival documents from three main locations: one in Deir al-Za‘faran near Mardin,
one in a church in Mardin and a third in the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Bab Tuma,

3
The designation ‘Peter III’ was in use until the early twentieth century, as is evident from the archival
documents. The designation was changed to ‘ Peter IV’ upon review of the patriarchal lineage from the early
Church whereby with Peter the Apostle being Peter I, Peter ‘the Fuller’ (470-471) being Peter II, Peter of Raqqa
(571-591), traditionally known as ‘Petra’, came to be counted as ‘Peter III’, see Khalid Dinno, “The Syrian
Orthodox Church: Name as a Marker of Identity,” Parole de l’ Oriente 38 (2013): 193-211. In consequence,
Patriarch Peter (1872-1894) came to be re-identified as ‘Peter IV’. However, with this work relying heavily on
archival documents, it has been found more appropriate to adhere to the designation Peter III appearing in these
documents.

2
Damascus, as well as a secondary collection in St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem. Most of the
collections consist of several thousands of letters addressed to the patriarch of the day. Some
were from clergy, but, more importantly, a majority were from ordinary folk. This material has
helped provide a true perspective of the social and economic conditions of the society in
question. In particular, this material has shed light on some of the merits of the millet system
that are often overlooked; on the extent of the political influence France exerted in support of
the divisions within the Church; on the reluctance of the British to provide aid where such aid
did not have a useful political return for them; and on the extent of Kurdish tribal aggression
from 1895 until the end of World War I. In addition to this primary source material, the current
study has utilized a host of other primary sources, including missionary and consular reports,
as well relevant secondary sources. In addressing the post War revival, revivalist publications,
which were largely in Arabic, were consulted and evaluated, and the findings presented here.

ii. Christianity in the Middle East, Trends of Historicity

It was only around the turn of the eighteenth century that Western scholars became
increasingly interested in the study of Oriental Christianity. This was a time when a new era of
geopolitical developments, both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, was evolving. What
limited interest there was, prior to the eighteenth century, was largely confined to theology,
liturgical texts and early church leadership. Even during an earlier time of direct contact, such
as during the Crusades, Oriental Christianity was in fact no more than a minor interest for the
Crusaders, compared to the prime purpose of their campaigns.
Beginning in the early eighteenth century, this relatively recent interest was shown
mainly by Western church missionaries and a few travellers. However, the main purpose of the
missionaries in going to the Orient was not as impartial students of history, but as envoys
seeking to transform Oriental (Middle Eastern) Christianity according to Western norms,
beliefs and practices. These interests, which were intertwined with the political interests of
European countries in the Ottoman Empire, were initially promoted by France, but
subsequently also by Britain and later, toward the latter part of the nineteenth century, by
Russia and Germany.
Considering the broader state of scholarship relating to the history of the Oriental
Christians and their churches, reference is made here to two articles that, together, bring out the

3
salient criteria that governed historicity of the Christians of the Middle East, past and present.
The first, by Sebastian Brock, sheds light on the intra-Christian factors that explain why the
study of Syriac Christianity has, for so long, been relegated to a secondary status.4 The second,
by Laura Robson, considers Christianity in the modern Arab world, in a broader Christian
perspective that is linked more to contemporary and global outlooks.5
Brock draws attention to two main aspects: the many salient features of the Syriac
Christian traditions that reflect their Semitic roots, and their Christological traditions and the
associated richness inherent in the interpretation of their doctrines. He brings out some of the
main features that reflect the Semitic roots, namely the use of poetry as a vehicle of theology,
having a distinctive monastic tradition, and the therapeutic approach to penance that is so
characteristic of the liturgy. He further reminds the reader that “although all the books of the
New Testament were written in Greek, Christianity was born in an Aramaic-speaking milieu,
and that the language that Jesus used for his teaching was Aramaic; a fact that not too long ago
came to the attention of a very wide public audience watching Mel Gibson‘s film 'The Passion
of Christ.'”6
Brock cites three reasons for the historical neglect of Syriac Christianity by world
opinion. The first reason is the model for writing church history that Eusebius provided in the
early fourth century. In his Ecclesiastical History he deliberately confined himself to the
church within the Roman Empire and so neglected the growth of Christianity to the East, that
is in the Sassanid Empire, which constituted an area where an important part of the Syriac
Orient developed. With a few notable exceptions, almost all subsequent historians of the early
church of all intervening centuries basically followed Eusebius’ model.7
Although the majority of the Western world perhaps recognizes that the Orient was the
cradle of Christianity, yet the current widespread notion is that Christianity came to the
Western world through two main traditions, which are generally labeled as “the Latin West”
and “the Greek East.”8 This concept of Christian tradition is at variance with historical reality,
since it ignores the important Christian traditions and the religious contribution of the

4
Sebastian P Brock, “The Syriac Orient: a third ‘lung” for the Church?”, in OCP 71, 2005, pp. 5-20.
5
Laura Robson, “Recent Perspectives on Christianity in the Modern Arab World”, in History Compass 9/4 (2011)
pp. 312-325.
6
Sebastian Brock , “The Syriac Orient”, p.7.
7
Ibid, p.16.
8
Ibid, p. 6.

4
indigenous churches of the Middle East. This situation was the result of the theological divide
caused by the Christological controversies that culminated in the council of Chalcedon in 451
CE. Thus, the fifth century witnessed a split that is still with us today, with “Latin West” and
“Greek East” Christians adopting the proclamation of faith formulated at Chalcedon, and
Oriental Christians rejecting it. This alienated the Syriac Orient from European Christians who
regarded them at best as schismatic, and at worst as outright heretical.9 The latter, Brock notes,
“was certainly the view of the Latin West in the sixteenth and following centuries with the
creation of the Eastern Rite Catholic hierarchies of the Chaldean Church in the mid sixteenth
century and of the Syriac Catholic and other Eastern Rite Catholics, as offshoots of the
Oriental Orthodox Churches in the following centuries.”10
The third historical reason for the neglect of Oriental Christianity was the Arab invasion
of the area in the seventh century and the subsequent establishment of Arab rule, which
replaced that of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires in that region. These new political and
geographic boundaries effectively isolated the Christian Orient from the Greek East and the
Latin West. This situation was perpetuated for the next millennium and beyond with very little
contact existing between the Oriental Christians living under Islamic rule and Western
Christians. Even during the campaigns of the Crusades that lasted nearly 200 years, contact
was extremely limited, essentially confined to the Maronites in Lebanon. Such contact was
often negative as conveyed by the chronicles of the West Syriac contemporary historian
Michael the Syrian (d. 1191) and of the Anonymous Chronicler 1234.11
Robson argues that for most of the twentieth century, scholars of the subject of the
modern Arab world were disinclined from studying Middle Eastern Christians and
Christianity.12 Researchers of the Middle East, who tended to view Islam as pivotal to the
coherent definition of the region, were reluctant to research the role of Christianity in the
development of the region’s civilization or in its cultural revival. Additionally, the history of
the Christian communities in the area brings out a spectre of sectarianism and associated
communal politics, into which many scholars prefer not to wade. Thus, historians tended to
regard Christians as essentially marginal, appearing as victims of Muslim domination,

9
Ibid., p. 16-17
10
Ibid.
11
Also known as the Anonymous Edessan. The number 1234 denotes the date of the last entry in the chronicle.
12
Robson, “Recent Perspectives on Christianity,” pp. 313-315.

5
something that they inherited from the distant past. They were otherwise viewed as agents of
Western powers, with which they had religious and political connections, aspects that they had
inherited from the late Ottoman period, and somehow retained. Thus, historians of the Middle
East, viewing the often high-handed attitude of the West towards the Arab world, were not
inclined to study a religious structure and community associated primarily with the Crusades
and more recently with Western imperial expansionism.
The essential relationship that was forged between many Christians in the Middle East
with Western church institutions, and the ways in which some of the Western powers, such as
France, and later others, had claimed Eastern Christian communities as “Protectorates” during
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries further contributed to the inclination to regard
Middle Eastern Christians as an outpost of Western Imperial interest than as an authentically
Middle Eastern entity worthy of close study. In this regard, Bruce Masters, an Ottomanist,
states: "To place Christians at the center of any research agenda might aid and abet those who
would promote the politics of sectarianism in the region by providing unintended fodder for
their polemic. As such, even the acknowledgement of the existence of separate religious
communities in the Ottoman Arab past has been deftly sidestepped in the historical
literature."13 Masters cites another reason for not writing Ottoman history with religious
identities at its core: "Beyond the fear of the potential for contributing to the ongoing polemics,
there is the nagging doubt that an emphasis on religion as a social category in the historical
discourse might distort our understanding of the Ottoman past."14
Robson also attributes some of the difficulty in attracting historians to this field to basic
cultural differences between the average historian of the Middle East embarking on such study
and the churches under study. Most historians of the modern Arab world consider the
functioning of Eastern Churches that have dominated Arab Christianity as an arcane mystery.
Their theology, ecclesiastic structure and institutional history are unfamiliar to many scholars
trained in universities in Europe and the United States, where Eastern Christianity is not a
commonly taught subject, and where the structure of area studies throws up barriers between
the Middle East and Eastern Europe.15 Added to these obstacles is the fact that throughout the

13
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 4.
14
Ibib, p. 5.
15
Ronson, p. 314.

6
Middle East gaining access to patriarchal official church archives is always difficult and at
times impossible. More significantly, Robson notes, is that even in the context of global
Christian studies, dealing with Christianity in Africa, Latin America, and South East Asia,
Arab Christians have been largely ignored since the field focuses primarily on Christian
communities created by Western Protestant and Catholic efforts. Hence, despite the global
orientation of scholars in this field, their underlying assumption is that Christianity has only
Western roots. Consequently, the histories of those Christian communities, which did not
convert to Islam, do not fit easily within this paradigm.16
Recent interest in the Christians of the Arab world has, in part, been in response to the
rise of political Islam since the 1970s and the consequent Islamatization of Middle Eastern
politics in the public domain. The rise of the appeal of Islam as an institution was in response
to the failures of Middle Eastern secular nationalism, as was manifest in the abject loss the
Arabs incurred in the 1967 war.17 In response to this rise of Islam, Christians began to commit
increasingly to Christianity as an institutional and politically significant entity, especially in
Egypt and Lebanon.18 These and other considerations presented religion as a basis for all
identity in the Middle East, and spurred the consideration of religion as a bar code of identity.
As a consequence, the question of sectarianism emerged as a major issue in Middle Eastern
history, bringing into the discussion the experience of religious minorities. However, a
discourse emerged between this point of view and that of scholars refuting it, regarding
sectarianism as a historically specific process dictated by the particular conditions of modernity
rather than a permanent essential feature in the Islamic World.19 Thus, the question of
sectarianism emerged as a major parameter in Middle Eastern history, bringing into the
discourse the experience of religious minorities and, consequently, further interest in scholarly
literature of religious Christians was generated.
An important factor that must not be overlooked with regard to scholarship relating to
Middle Eastern Christianity has been the basic change in the climate of discourse between
Christian Churches themselves during the second half of the twentieth century. This was
16
Robson, p. 315.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid, apud S. Haddad, “A survey of Maronite Christian Sociopolitical Attitudes in Postwar Lebanon”, in Islam
and Christian-Muslim Relations, 12/4 (2001): 456-80.
19
Ussama Makdisi , E. Davis, J. Peteet, S. Joseph, in “How Useful has the Concept of Sectarianism been for
Understanding the History, Society and Politics of the Middle East?” in International Journal of Middle East
Studies, 40/4, 2008, pp.550-600.

7
brought about largely by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and by the ecumenical
movement that has flourished as a result during this period. Vatican II invoked a new spirit of
dialogue with others that replaced the traditional attitude that bore the stamp of animosity and
intolerance. The rising ecumenical spirit promoted a process of reconciliation and dialogue
between different branches of the Church, and thus encouraged scholarship in the field of
Middle Eastern Christianity. Some of the reconciliation and resulting scholarship was carried
out under the umbrellas of two organizations: Pro Oriente and the World Council of Churches.
Founded in 1964 to promote dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Middle
Eastern Oriental churches, Pro Oriente developed research studies and scholarly exchanges at
academic conferences “Pro Oriente Colloquia Syriaca” as well as regional study groups in the
Middle East, India and elsewhere. The proceedings of many of these conferences have been
published under the title “Syriac Dialogue.”20
The Middle East Council of Churches, which was founded in 1974 to promote dialogue
between the Middle Eastern and the Protestant Churches, has provided a forum to discuss and
publish their studies on the Middle Eastern Churches. The collaborative effort by scholars from
different churches has resulted in 42 papers that were published in Arabic in 2002, and
translated and published in English in 2005 under the title Christianity, A History in the Middle
East.21 A number of papers in this volume provide material that is closely relevant to this
current work.22
Before leaving this topic, it is appropriate to indicate that the discussion in Robson’s
article is largely premised on the assumption that the Middle Eastern Christians are Arabs.
While this assumption may hold as valid for the Christians of Egypt and of most parts of
traditional Greater Syria,23 essentially through cultural transformation, this is not the case in
many other regions of the Middle East. Even before the large scale emigration of Christians
20
Five volumes of “Syriac Dialogue” have been published in Vienna: in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2003.
21
Habib Badr, ed. Christianity: A History in the Middle East, Beirut: MECC, 2005.
22
Asterios Argyriou, “Christianity in the First Ottoman Era (1516-1650),” in Christianity, pp. 605-630;, Salim
Daccache , “Catholic Missions in the Middle East,” in Christianity, pp. 687-710; Bernard Heyberger, “The
Development of Catholicism in the Middle East (16th to 19th centuries),” in Christianity, pp. 631-654; Vincenzo
Poggi, “The Christians in the Second Ottoman Era (17th century),” in Christianity, pp. 655-674; Habib Badr,
“Evangelical Missions and Churches in the Middle East: Introduction, I - Lebanon, Syria and Turkey,” pp. 713-
726, “IV- Iraq and the Gulf”, pp. 747-755, in Christianity; Catherine Mayeur-Jaoun, “The Renaissance of
Churches at the end of the Ottoman Era (Excluding Egypt) -18th and 19th Centuries,” in Christianity, pp. 757-774.
23
Even in this situation, a strictly better choice of words would be “Arab Christians” rather than “Christian
Arabs.” As Kenneth Cragg notes in The Arab Christian: A History of the Middle East, WJKP1991, p.11, it is
theologically the more correct, with the ethnic meant to be adjectival to Christianity.

8
during World War I and afterward, the majority of the Christians in Northern Iraq and
Northern Syria would consider themselves Syriacs, whose mother tongue is Surath, a Neo-
Aramaic dialect. The Christians emigrating from eastern Anatolia who subsequently settled
temporarily or permanently in Northern Iraq, Syria and Palestine generally spoke one or more
of the following: Turoyo (another Neo-Aramaic dialect), Arabic, Armenian, Kurdish or
Turkish, in their homeland, and gradually started to acquire Arabic as the language of the
milieu in which they found themselves. In their recently adopted home country, they did not
think of themselves as Christian Arabs. The majority of the people whose history is discussed
in this thesis fall into this category, particularly in the time frame considered here.

Review of Literature
iii. Sayfo and related studies
Sayfo is the Syriac word for sword and is an abbreviation of Shato d’ Sayfo (the Year of the
Sword), which native Syriac Christians continue to use to refer to the large-scale massacres
committed against their communities in the Ottoman Empire during the First World War
period, but mainly, in 1915.24 These massacres have been increasingly acknowledged in recent
years as constituting genocide.
The tragic events that befell the Syriac Orthodox in the period between 1895 and the end
of the War drew the attention of several scholars in recent years. David Gaunt specifically
considered the period between 1914 and 1915 in his book Massacres, Resistance, Protectors:
Muslim-Christian relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I.25 Gaunt’s work describes
events on a local level “in order to reach a new level of accuracy about who was doing the
killing, and who were the victims and what were the circumstances.”26 In this sense his work
can serve as a complement to works with broader perspectives that focused on national politics
and questions of ultimate responsibility. The region examined in his book covers the Ottoman

24
Other terms used in this context are ‘Firman’, denoting the order to kill the Christian population and
‘Seferberlik’ denoting mass deportations. Books authored by eye witnesses: D’mo Zliho (The Shed Blood) by
Qarabashi and Armalto’s Al-Qusara fi Nakbat al-Nasara (The Calamities of the Christians) by Ishak Armala
(Armalto) do not use the term Sayfo. It thus appears to be a term that was subsequently adopted in published
literature to describe those events. From interviews with older descendants who lived through these events it
appears that the term Sayfo was in colloquial use in Tur Abdin since that time. For further elaboration see S. P.
Brock, “Sayfo” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 2011, p. 361.
25
David Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian relations in Eastern Anatolia during World
War I, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006.
26
Ibid., p.1.

9
provinces of Van (foremost Hakkari), Diyarbakir, and Bitlis in southeast Anatolia, in addition
to the Iranian province of Azerbaijan during its occupation by the Ottoman forces. Gaunt relies
on sources ranging from oral testimonies from 35 eyewitness survivors and their descendents,
to Turkish archival material, and published records by Western sources including missionary
organizations. Gaunt acknowledges that his work should not be considered as definitive on the
Syriac Sayfo citing two reasons. First, the scope is limited to 1914 and 1915, which was the
most intensive genocidal period, although killing continued throughout the war years and even
beyond into the era of the Turkish Republic. Secondly, he anticipated the likely appearance of
new source material, including better access to Turkish archives.
Gaunt argues that the genocides were the result of ethnic cleansing polices that were
developed by the Muslim Ottomans as a consequence of the sociopolitical developments in the
Ottoman society after the Tanzimat reform period. The initial reforms of Hatt-i Sherif of
Gulhane in 1839 and of Humayun in 1856 had promised the removal of discriminatory rules
that governed the dhimmi status and, thus increased the public visibility of non-Muslims. This
greatly displeased Muslim traditionalists, who saw this not only as contrary to the traditional
outlook of Islam, but also as the result of foreign hegemony. The subsequent rise of Pan-
Islamism, Ottomanism and then Pan-Turkism were fast growing tendencies towards ethnic and
sectarian cleansing that culminated in the previously referenced genocides.27 Gaunt also notes
that the massacres in the mid-1890s were clear precursors of worse events that were to come,
and indicated that conflicts between the Ottoman Muslims and Christians were becoming
serious, with a growing suspicion that local authorities were involved, while central
government remained passive.28
In his book The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans,29 Sebastian
de Courtois researched the events surrounding the genocides that befell the West Syriacs
Orthodox and Catholic, over the period from 1880 to 1918. He defines the goal of his book as
being: “to create in a lively manner a tragedy experienced by forgotten people”.
De Courtois’ review of primary sources was dual-pronged. The first was of Western
sources in the diplomatic archives of the Quai d’Orsay, as well as the archives of the
27
Ibid., pp. 47-51.
28
Ibid., p. 41.
29
Sebastian de Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans, Translated by Vincent
Aurora, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004.

10
Dominican fathers, which had been brought back to France from Mosul after the Gulf War of
1991. The second path was to eastern sources that included the writings of Isaac Armalet and
Jean Naayem, as well as complaints lodged by the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic Patriarchs at
the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and 1920. In addition, de Courtois carried out interviews
with the descendents of a number of survivors. However, at least in part, given his sources,
which were mainly Catholic, his writing is tainted by a recurring prejudicial attitude against the
Syrian Orthodox Church. He provides long quotes from Catholic missionaries who were
clearly antagonistic to the Syrian Orthodox Church. In one, he quotes a Capuchin father who,
in a long tract gloats over and pours scorn at the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch’s failure to
convince Istanbul in the matter of the dispute over church property.30
Based on this and similar quotes, de Courteous surmises that:

the ‘Aconite' Church was already out of the loop of power.

Defending itself clumsily, sometimes naively, the Church took a
battle lost before it ever began and blew it out of all proportions
into a question of political survival, which struck it a fatal blow.31

This and many other statements by de Courtois indicate that his assessment is based on
an essentialist view that the ordeal that those churches that did not spin into the Western
“loop,” did so at their own peril, which they somehow deserved. All the same, de Courtois’
work sheds light on the composition and characteristics of the Syriac communities in their
heartland in eastern Anatolia, where the massacres were perpetuated, and on the collusion
between Kurds and the Ottoman authorities over their execution. He relates these massacres to
the broader animosity that had been brewing in Ottoman society against Western intrusions
and hegemony; and the price that defenceless Syriac Christians had to pay as a result.
Among the many accounts on Sayfo by Syriacs, those by Ishak Armalah32and by‘Abd-
Mshiho Na’man Qarabashi33 are some of the most comprehensive. Additionally, Syriac
scholars in the diaspora were naturally drawn to this subject.34

30
Ibid., pp.26, 27.
31
Ibid., p. 27.
32
Ishak Armala, Al-quṣāra fī nakabāt al-Naṣāra (The Tragedy in the History of the Christians. Beirut: Deir al-
Shurfa, 1910.
33
‘Abed Mschiho Na’man, Qarabaschi, D’mo Zliho, Ausburg: ADO, 1997.
34
Gabriele Yonan, Ein vergessener Holocaust, Augsburg: ADO, 1989; Henno, Suleyman, Schicksalschiage der
syrischen Christen im Tur ‘Abdin 1915, Hengelo: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987.

11
iv. Regional and Inter - Faith Relations
The tragic events that the Syriacs encountered in Anatolia towards the end of the Ottoman era
drew the attention of several historians to the social relations in the region in the years that
preceded these events. The article by Ray Jabre Mouawad, published in Parole de L’Orient in
1992,35 is a summary of a larger study that the author carried out on Kurdish-Christian
relations.
The article by Mouawad specifically deals with Kurdish-Syrian Orthodox communities,
and maintains that the case the Syrian Orthodox is quite representative of relations of the
Kurds with other Christian communities living among them: the Armenians and the East
Syriacs. In discussing the Kurds’ common practice of plundering monasteries and churches,
the author quotes the case of the monastery of Mar Mattai near Mosul, mentioned by George
P. Badger: “the monastery was attacked by the Coordish [sic] Pasha of Rawandooz, whose
soldiers defaced or destroyed most of the inscriptions, expelled the resident monks, and all
plundered the church,”36 and notes that for fear of profanation of their churches, the churches
in Kurdish areas had very low entrances, so that nobody could get into the church on
horseback. Nevertheless, the author notes that these financial exactions were perpetrated only
occasionally, with no apparent serious intent by the Kurds to eliminate the Christians living
around them. This attitude, however, was at variance with the one that manifested itself during
the repression led by the Sultan Abdul-Hamid against the Armenians in 1895 to 1896, and the
measures taken by the Young Turks from 1915, which aimed at the elimination of the Christian
inhabitants of the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire. In these events, the Kurds, notes the
author, became the main executioners and beneficiaries of these plans.
Recently, this subject has also drawn interest from Turkish scholars. The work by
Ibrahim Ozcosar37 is particularly relevant as it is largely related to the Syrian Orthodox
Church. Reference will be made to this work where appropriate in the coming chapters. A
recent study on the social relations in southeastern Anatolia appears in the book: Social

35
Ray Jabre Mouawad, “The Kurds and their Christian neighbours: the Case of the Orthodox Syriacs,” in Parole
de l’Orient XVII (1992), pp. 127-141.
36
George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals vol.,I, London, 1852, (reprinted by Elibron Classics
2006), p.96.
37
Ibrahim Ozcosar, Merkesleşme Sürecinde Bir Taşra Kenti Mardin (1800-1900), Mardin: Mardin Artuklu
Universitesi Yayinlari, 2009; Bir Yuzyil Bir Sancak Bir Cemaat19. Yuzyilda Mardin Suryanileri, Beyan, 2008.
More recently the paper: “Separations and Conflicts: Syriac Jacobites and Syriac Catholics in Mardin in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,” in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol 38, No. 2(2014), 201-207.

12
Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915, authored by several writers and published in
2012.38 Two articles of interest in this book are one by Emrulla Akgunduz,39 and one by David
Gaunt.40 The first article provides valuable data on the Syriac and other Christian population in
the Diyarbakir vilayet (province): their numbers, professional affiliation, education and way of
life, based on Ottoman salnames (statistics) and the Mardin data collected from the Forty
Martyrs Church in Mardin. The paper notes the scarcity of economic data but remarks that the
urban dwellers in Diyarbakir were in a much better economic state than those in rural areas
who, on the other hand, were four times as numerous as the urban dwellers. The maarif
salnames indicate that the Syriac Christians had their own schools, but that these schools had
fewer students following the 1895 violence. The paper also notes the polarization between the
Catholics and the non-Catholics of the Syriac Christians and the growing disagreement
between the Syriac Christians and the Armenians over the millet status.
The paper by Gaunt discusses the background of the shifting tides in the relationship
between the Kurds and the Ottomans and argues that the rising power of the Kurdish emirates,
meant that the Syriacs became increasingly dependent on their short term alliances with the
Kurds and were becoming increasingly trapped between unreliable tribal chiefs, with no
peaceful strategic options. The alliance that emerged during World War I between the Ottoman
central government, with its genocide policy, and the majority of Kurdish tribes, who fostered
the ambition to settle on Christian property, spelled the end of the Oriental Christians in those
parts. Only a fraction of those tribes who had made the protection of Christians a matter of
honour could keep their promise.41
The impact of the Protestant missions in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries on
the Middle East has been a subject of greater attention over the past few years. Much of the
work has been documented in the proceedings of a conference held in Leiden in 2005 and

38
Joost Jongerden & Jelle Verheij (Eds.), Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915, Brill; Leiden.
Boston, 2012.
39
Emrulla Akgunduz, “Some Notes on the Syriac Christians of Diyarbekir in the late nineteenth century, a
Preliminary Investigation of some Primary Sources”, in Jongerden, Joost & Verheij, Jelle (Eds.), Social Relations
in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915, Brill; Leiden. Boston, 2012, pp. 217-240.
40
David Gaunt, “Relations between Kurds and Syriacs and Assyrians in late Ottoman Diyarbekir”, in Jongerden,
Joost & Verheij, Jelle (Eds.), Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915, Brill; Leiden. Boston, 2012, pp.
241-266.
41
Gaunt, “Relations,” p. 264.

13
published as New Faith in Ancient Lands. 42 The work of the conference underlined the impact
of the American missionary presence in the Ottoman Empire, particularly with respect to the
Syrian Orthodox Church through the work of Alphaeus Andrus43 from his station in Mardin. (It
is worth noting with some sadness that out of the 13 contributors only one came from the
Christian Orient.)
The relations between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Catholic churches became
adversarial after the arrival of the Catholic missions in the Ottoman Empire with their express
intention to bring Syrian Orthodoxy into Rome’s orbit. Recent scholarship on this by John
Flannery 44 and Anthony O’Mahony 45 sheds useful light on this relationship, perhaps through
hindsight reflections that may be summarized by O’Mahony’s statement: “In 1913, several
Syrian Orthodox bishops converted to Catholicism. However, indiscriminate suffering of all
the Syriac communities in the First World War would serve cruelly to underline the absurdity
of such inter-Christian proselytism.”46 More recently, an article by Ibrahim Ozcosar has
provided an account of the conflict between the Syrian Orthodox and the Syrian Catholic
Churches in Mardin over the past two centuries.47

v. Studies on Syrian Orthodoxy through the Prism of Identity

As a result of the growing emphasis placed on identity in general, identity has become a vogue
term whose use has drawn people to the study of even established ancient churches.
‘Narratives of identity’ now refer to the ways churches and people express different aspects of
their history and heritage.
Several studies have been carried out relating to the identity of the Syrian Orthodox
Church and people over the course of the twentieth century. The earliest were perhaps by
scholars from within the Syriac Orthodox Church. The first by Ni‘mat-Allah Denno/Dinno was
published in Arabic in Mosul in 1949, and the second by Aphram Barsoum, Patriarch of the

42
Heleen Murre-Van den Berg, ed. New Faith in Ancient Lands: Western Missions in the Middle East In the
Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2006.
43
Missionary Herald, Eastern Turkey Reports for 1879-1882.
44
John Flannery, “The Syrian Catholic Church: Martyrdom, Mission, Identity and Ecumenism in Modern
History,” in Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion, and Politics, edited by A. O’Mahony, 143-
165, London: Melisende, 2008.
45
Anthony O’Mahony, ed., “Between Rome and Antioch: Syrian Catholic Church in the Modern Middle East,” In
Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East, 120-137, London: Routledge, 2010.
46
Ibid., p.130.
47
Ibrahim Oscozar, “Separations and Conflicts.”

14
Syrian Orthodox Church (1933-1957), was published in 1952. The first paper aims at refuting
the appellation “Jacobite” as a name, even though the name had had a very wide historical use.
The paper relies on historical Syrian Orthodox sources as well as on official Turkish, Coptic,
Greek Orthodox, Catholic and other sources.48 The paper remarks that, historically, the Syrian
Orthodox Church identified itself by three attributes: as being Syrian, as being Orthodox and
its historical affiliation to the See of Antioch. The term “Syrian” reflected its Syriac liturgy and
tradition as well as its Semitic background as an Oriental church. It also reflected the core
ethnicity of its followers. The term “Orthodox” has been in reference to its Miaphysite
Christology.49 Finally, its identification with Antioch stresses its claim of an uninterrupted
lineage from the Apostolic See of Antioch, which was initiated by Peter the Apostle.
The second paper, penned by Barsoum in Arabic and Syriac with sections in English,
demonstrates the Aramean roots of the Syrian Orthodox by means of evidence that is partly
Biblical, but mainly extracted from historical sources over the two past millennia.50 Barsoum’s
paper was written to address the issue of identity that arose among the Syrian Orthodox
communities who had immigrated to the Americas from the early days of their diaspora, right
up to the mid-twentieth century.
The subject of the identity of the West Syrian Christians has recently been the focus of an
extensive research project in the University of Leiden.51 Said research was concerned with
investigating the evidence for the construction of a communal identity for the Syrian Orthodox
as such identity might be reflected in the literary and the art-historical tradition of this group in
the period from Chalcedon 451 to 1300 CE. Further reflections on the identity of these

48
Ni‘mmat Allah Dinno/Denno, Iqamat al daleel ‘la Istimrar al Isim al Aseel wa Istinkar al Na‘t al Dakheel
(Establishing the Proof on the Original Name and Negating the Alien Adjective), Mosul, 1949. An English
translation of the historical evidence derived from Syriac Orthodox sources only, was presented with commentary
by this author at the IXth Symposium Syriacum held in Malta in July 2012.
49
Miaphysite Christology defines that Christ has one nature out of two natures (‘one (mia) nature of the Word of
God Incarnate’). This term has been adopted in the ecumenical spirit of the second half of the twentieth century to
correct the misconception that arose at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It thus replaces the term ‘Monophsite’
that was coined against the participants of the Council who did not agree with Council’s interpretation concerning
the nature of Christ; the Syrian Orthodox, the Armenians and the Copts.
50
‫ ﻓﻲ اﺳﻢ اﻻﻣﺔ اﻟﺴﺮﯾﺎﻧﯿﺔ‬. An English translation under the title The Syrian Church of Antioch: Its Name and
History was published by the Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch in the United States and
Canada, Hackensack, NJ (undated). An introduction to the article was published in Syriac by Archbishop J. J.
Cicek in 1983.
51
Bas ter Haar Romeny etal., “The formation of a Communal Identity among West Syrian Christians: Results and
Conclusions of the Leiden Project”, in Bas ter Romeny (Ed.) Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian
Communities in the Middle East, in Church History and Religious Culture, (Special Issue), 89 (1-3), Leiden: Brill,
2009, pp. 1-52.

15
Christians were made by Herman Teule who considered the literary output of Dionysius bar
Salibi, Jacob Shakko and Gregory bar Hebraeus.52
The research in Leiden arrived at a number of interesting conclusions. One was that the
identity of the Syrian Orthodox evolved over the centuries from an essentially religious one,
immediately following Chalcedon, to a community-based one that gradually acquired a sense
of being an “ethnos.” It noted that before 451 CE the Syriac-speaking Miaphysites had no
proper name that expressed the identity of their community, and that even in the early sixth
century the Miaphysites still cherished the hope of being reunited with those who professed the
official religion of the Byzantine Empire. In this context Van Rompay notes that even
Baradaeus who reorganized the Church in the sixth century, at that time hoped that his move
would be a temporary one, until an accord with the Chalcedonians could be re-established,53
and that the feature of any ethnic community that may have been present was the sense of
connection and loyalty to a certain territory in the form of loyalty to that territory. The study
also noted that persecution and alienation by the Byzantines had an important role in creating
an independent identity. The study indicated that during the period 451 to 650 CE, the
Miaphysite movement was bilingual, with the exegetical sources showing predisposition
towards Greek sources. However, in the subsequent Islamic period (i.e., 650 to 1000 CE), one
would notice that the impact of the Arab invasion caused the Miaphysites to gradually distance
themselves from the Byzantine Empire and define their tradition as Syriac with the Syriac
language playing a significant role as a distinguishing feature. The Syriac culture thus emerged
as heir to at least three cultures: Aramaic or Mesopotamian, Greco-Roman and Jewish.54 The
Leiden study further noted that, while all features of an ethnic community were present, the
religious aspect remained central.55
The historiographical and exegetical works of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, often
described as “the Syrian Renaissance” pointed to further developments of identity and led a

52
Herman Teule, “Reflections on Identity: The Suryoye of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Bar Salibi, Bar
Shakko, and Barhebraeus”, in Bas ter Romeny (Ed.) Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities in
the Middle East, in Church History and Religious Culture, (Special Issue), 89 (1-3), Leiden: Brill, 2009Church
History and Religious Culture, Leiden: Brill, pp. 179-189.
53
Lucas van Rompay, "Society and Community in the Christian East." The Cambridge Companion to the Age of
Justinian. Ed. Michael Maas. Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 251.
54
Sebastian Brock, “Syriac Culture” in Averil Cameron and P. Garnsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History
13, The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425, Cambridge: 1998, pp. 708-719.
55
Bas ter Haar Romney, et al. “The Formation of a Communal Identity among West Syrian Christians”, p. 49.

16
complex interplay between the linguistic and the ethnopolitical factors with the Byzantines, the
Crusaders, the East and West Syrians, all existing in a milieu that had been governed by the
Muslim Arabs for several centuries but which was at that stage witnessing a strong emerging
Turkish influence. These factors helped to solidify the identity of the Syrian Orthodox as a
distinct religious and ethnic identity, and the interplay of these factors is evident in the works
of scholars such as Michael the Syrian, Bar Salibi, and Bar Hebraeus.
A different identity for the Syrian Orthodox that is at variance with that discussed above,
surfaced during the early years of the twentieth century. Animated by the turbulent
sociopolitical climate that was blowing across Anatolia and beyond, a few Syrian Orthodox
intellectuals began to promote an Assyrian identity, thus following in the footsteps of the East
Syriac Christians. The move towards promoting this identity was spearheaded by two
intellectuals: Na‘um Fa‘ik and Ashur Yusuf. They lived in the turbulent period leading up to
First World War, when cultural and political aspirations made inroads within several Christian
communities.
In considering the sociopolitical climate in the region inhabited by the West Syrians in
Anatolia in the period from 1908-1914, Benjamin Trigona-Harany pays particular attention to
the political and journalistic work of Na‘um Fa’ik and Ashur Yusuf.56 This work brought out a
number of interesting points. First, that these two nationalist activists did not aim to secularize
the Suryani Millet, but sought greater participation of its clergy at all levels in reforming the
community.57 It also noted that the nineteenth century had seen the emergence of conflicts
between the Armenians and the Suryani Churches over ownership of properties, a matter that
developed into a rising animosity between the two communities in many areas58 and provided
an added impetus towards adopting a powerful nationality to counterbalance the Armenians’
political and social greater strength. However, Trigona-Harany made the observation that at the
beginning, both activists saw Ottomanism as an acceptable solution that would safeguard their
people’s interests, whether with regards to the Armenians or the Kurds; but that they
subsequently renounced that support when, in 1912-1914, the Committee of Union and
Progress (CUP) adopted Turkism, with its racist and sectarian sociopolitical agenda.59 Trigona-

56
Benjamin Trigona-Harany, The Ottoman Süryânî from 1908 to 1914, Gorgias, 2009.
57
Ibid., p. 195.
58
Ibid., pp. 189-199.
59
Ibid., p. 208.

17
Harany argues that it was at that point that these two nationalists came to the conclusion that
Assyrianism was a better nationalistic mantle to carry. But the 1952 publication by Barsoum,
referenced earlier, refutes any historical claims to an Assyrian identity.
The quest for an identity and for an associated name that was initiated by Na‘um Fa’ik
and Ashur Yusuf in the early years of the twentieth century resonated mainly among the
Syriacs who immigrated during the 1950s to Western Europe: initially those in Germany,
Holland and Sweden, but subsequently in other parts of the diaspora. Among the Syriacs in all
these countries, the identity question created deep polarization around two names, the Syrian
“Suryoye” and Assyrians “Suroye”. Nawras Atto recently published her extensive study,60
which was carried out as part of the Leiden project referenced earlier.
In the 1970s the new immigrants generally disliked being considered as part of other
national groups of the Middle East living in the West (Turks and Arabs). Their search for a
name was a consequence to what they considered to be an undesirable position. However, the
resulting name debate became subject to competing political debates and ideas. Atto brings out
the essential elements that initiated the name and identity debate, which were essentially
related to unfulfilled expectations in the diaspora.
In the homeland, the community in question had a religious status around which its
collective identity found expression, but it had been actively denied the status of an ethno-
national group. This was consistent with the organization of the Christians along religious lines
in the millet system. Thus, among the ordinary Syrians/Assyrians, Christianity was the main
nodal point around which their collective identity found expression. Europe, however, offered
the opportunity to embrace an ethno- national status, which fuelled a name debate. In this open
environment, hitherto unknown to the newcomers, social and political forces entered into the
discourse as important parameters, however, often at the expense of historical realities. Thus
the traditional debates of “Jacobites” versus “Syrian Orthodox” and “Monophysites” versus
“Miaphysites” became largely superseded by a name debate of Syrian versus Assyrian
(henceforth referring to this community as Syrian/Assyrian).
Atto notes that in the new environment the Syrian/Assyrian people came to realize that
they had forfeited the concept of homeland and that their new habitat became the symbol of

60
Naures Atto, Hostages in the Homeland, Orphans in the Diaspora, Identity Discourses among the
Assyrian/Syriac Elites in the European Diaspora, Leiden: University Press, 2011.

18
their eternal rupture from the historical athro (homeland). This devastating break has created
the sense of having become yatame (orphans), despite the fact that they had been living as
yasire (hostages) in their homeland.
In their efforts to promote national unity, the Assyrian activists introduced new national
symbols and reinterpreted old ones. But they always maintained attention to language
(classical Syriac plus spoken Suryoyo), secular music and folklore literature, thus building on
the original ideas of umthonoyutho , “nationhood” promoted by such umthonoye “nationals” as
Na‘um Fa’ik and Ashur Yusuf, but revived in the late 1950s, as a reaction to Pan Arabism,
which swept the Arab countries at that time. Atto concludes her in-depth treatment of the
subject by aptly stating:
The Assyrian/Syriac diaspora can exist only through the social
imaginary of a homeland; without a homeland, there cannot be a
diaspora or an existence outside the homeland. Unless there is a
homeland, it is impossible to speak of a diaspora and the dispersion
of a people. Consequently, to speak of the dispersion of one’s
people is communicating where home is. This mechanism re-roots
all ‘imagined members’ of the community in a homeland in order
to continue to exist as a collective – creating the myth of a united
people, although they continue to live dispersed in the diaspora.
This can be seen as an attempt to turn this myth into a social
imaginary through the strength of a shared collective of ideas in
order to assure survival.61

Recent research relating to the Syrian Orthodox Church, as seen through the prism of
identity, has been carried out by William Taylor.62 Taylor focused on the Syrian Orthodox
Church during the particularly turbulent period of 1895-1914. This period was marked by
massacres of the Armenians and the Syriacs in Diyarbakir and elsewhere in 1895-1896, the
abdication of Patriarch Abdul Masih, and the political upheaval that engulfed the Ottoman
Empire on the eve of the War.
One of the main themes of Taylor’s work was the relationship between the Syrian
Orthodox Church and the Church of England. This relationship had commenced with the visit
by Patriarch Peter III to London in 1874 to 1875, which resulted in some educational aid and

61
Ibid, p.509.
62
William Taylor, Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England 1895-1914,
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013.

19
the supply of two printing presses to the Syrian Orthodox Church.63 This relationship was,
according to Taylor, further cemented by the visit of Patriarch Abdullah to London in 1908.
Taylor discusses the challenges to the identity of the Syrian Orthodox Church at that time from
within, as brought about by conversions, and from outside the Church, as a result of the rise of
the Turkism promoted by the Committee of the Union and Progress, as well as by the Kurdish
incursions on the Christian population in Eastern Anatolia. The greater interest from the
Church of England’s perspective was after the issuance of the Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo
XIII in 1896. For the Church of England between 1895 and 1914, an attempt was made by the
Oxford Movement to demonstrate its Tractarianism. That is, the church order of the Church of
England and its ecclesiology was somehow in an unbroken continuity with the Patristic period,
a feature designed to appeal to the Orthodox Churches.
The theological dialogue that developed during this period contributed to the change of
self-perception that each of the two churches had undergone throughout this period and,
consequently, to a mutual recognition between them. Taylor considers the Church of England’s
interest and this dialogue as being part of seeking ecclesiastical recognition from Orthodox
Churches as a “sister” church to them.
For the Syrian Orthodox Church, its collective memory was imbued in its liturgical social
and linguistic tradition for its internal definition of itself, particularly its patriarchal nature.
These characteristics that arose from within, contrasted with its external identity as being a
church serving a minority that, at best, was tolerated, but often persecuted throughout its
history under the Byzantine, Arab and Ottoman rules. This naturally contrasts with the position
of the Church of England’s overriding characteristic of being the “Established” Church of
England, with congruity between monarch and church leadership.
Not withstanding the analogy Taylor employs in building up the notion of emerging
identities between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, the reality was that
the dialogue between the two churches subsided as the political interests of the British
Government changed. Taylor states: “the years leading up to First World War thus saw a
drawing apart of the Church of England and the Syrian Orthodox Church through the
incompatible and contradictory aims of the British Foreign policy interests and the Ottoman

63
An extensive account of the relations between Antioch and Canterbury is provided by William Taylor’s earlier
book, Antioch and Canterbury, The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England 1874-1928, Gorgias
Press, 2005.

20
minority aspirations.”64 Paradoxically, this underlines the true independence of the Syrian
Orthodox Church from external political power, despite its overall weakness in relation to that
of the Church of England in so many other aspects. My review of the Syrian Orthodox archival
material for that period has indicated that the theological discussion that Patriarch Abdullah
had in London in 1908 was brief and inconclusive (see Chapter Five). All the same, Taylor’s
work fills an important information gap in the affairs of the Syrian Orthodox Church and
provides useful commentary on many aspects of relevant events in that period.

vi. Other Studies on the History of the Syrian Orthodox Church

The history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the nineteenth century has come down to us
largely through studies and field observations made by people from other lands: travellers,
church missionaries, diplomatic mission personnel. Due to difficult travel conditions, often
marred with issues of safety, in-depth studies of communities would have presented
considerable difficulties. This was particularly the case in many rural regions of the Diarbakir
vilayet, especially in Tur Abdin.
Two seminal works appeared in this category: the first was by Horatio Southgate, a
minister in the American Episcopalian Church, and the other by Oswald Parry of Magdalen
College Oxford, on behalf of the Church of England. Southgate spent several months in 1841
visiting various communities and monasteries.65 Almost 50 years later Parry carried out a
similar task, but on a more extensive scale that entailed extensive travels throughout Tur
Abdin, as well as in important cities such as Mardin and Mosul and their environs. Both
travellers made insightful observations on church and social conditions.66 For Southgate, this
was his second visit; his first visit, in 1838, involved a wider geographic coverage and interest
that included the Armenian regions of Anatolia and northwestern Iran.67
Given the cultural decline within the Syrian Orthodox Church in that period, very little
has come to us from accounts of the Church and community in question, with the singular
important exception of the unique work by Ayoub Barsoum ( later Patriarch Aphram I

64
William Taylor, Narratives of Identity, p. 31.
65
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian (Jacobite) Church of Mesopotamia. New York: Dana and
Company, 1856. Facsimile Reprint by Gorgias Press, 2003.
66
Oswald Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery. London: Horace Cox, 1895. Reprint by Gorgias Press, 2001.
67
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia, and Mesopotamia. 2 vols. New
York: Appleton, 1840.

21
Barsoum) from 1905 to 1913, when he was a young monk in Deir al- Za‘faran.68 Monk
Barsoum toured the villages and monasteries of Tur Abdin, documented the manuscripts in its
churches, sat down with its elders and listened to their recollection of ancestral and Church
history. The wealth of information he gathered was published by the late Patriarch Zakka
Iwas.69
Among the modern histories of the Syriac Orthodox Christians and their relationship with
other communities was the work by John Joseph, published in 1983. In his monograph Muslim-
Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the Jacobites
in the Age of Transition,70 he considers the historical background to the work of the
missionaries, the confessional conversions and the subsequent events leading up to the rise of
movements that steered Christian- Muslim relations at the threshold of the twentieth century.
Joseph refers to the scarcity of primary sources and, consequently, to the dearth of
reliable secondary sources, noting that most of the available manuscripts he encountered were
of religious nature or, “histories”, which generally revolved around the lives of saints and
martyrs.71 Most of the historical records had, over the centuries, perished by fire or pillage.
Nevertheless, Joseph provides a broad-based treatment of the issues relating to missions,
conversions, and relations with Muslims, particularly with Kurds. In fact his book became an
important secondary source material for many subsequent studies. Joseph concludes by relating
the interaction between the Middle Eastern Christians with the proponents of nationalism in the
newly established nation states that were formed following World War I, and their contribution
to the emerging movements that shifted the relations away from the traditional framework to a
non-sectarian nationalist one.
Joseph is perhaps better known for his work on the Church of the East in his two
monographs: The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbors: A Study of Western Influence on
their Relations,72 and its updated version, Modern Assyrians.73 It may be noted that Joseph

68
Barsoum toured the villages of Tur Abdin and surrounding regions where he interviewed the elders of the
community to document past events, largely from oral transmission. The results of his most valuable work have
appeared in the Patriarchal Magazines of the years 1933- 1944 , and since 1981.
69
See Bibliography.
70
John Joseph, Muslim Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the
Jacobites in an Age of Transition, Albany: State University of New York, 1983.
71
This point may be disputed on account of the extensive inscriptions investigated and published by Harrak.
72
John Joseph, The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours: A study of Western Influence on their Relations,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
73
John Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000.

22
referred to the same people as Nestorians in 1961 and Modern Assyrians in 2000. This reflects
an increasing trend, which has significant ethnic and political connotations, a subject that is
outside the scope of the current study.
From within the Syriac Orthodox Church, several publications of historical nature have
appeared, particularly since the mid twentieth century.
Two books were published in the 1980s by two Syrian Orthodox bishops. The first, Tāriḵ
abrašiyyat al-Mawṣil al-suryāniyya (History of the Syrian Diocese of Mosul) by Sham‘un
Saliba provides a historical overview of the history of this ancient diocese.74 The second,
Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church) by the late Ishak Saka, provides a broad perspective
of church history through the ages with a brief description given of all patriarchs, starting from
Peter the Apostle to the late Patriarch Zakka I Iwas (122nd) patriarch.75 It also lists and briefly
describes the line of Maphrians of the East and the patriarchs of Tur Abdin who had seceded
from the main jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch at Deir al-Za’faran from 1364 until 1839.
This book gives a brief outline of the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India. Both of
these authors wrote in the spirit of twentieth century ecumenism, thereby avoiding, apart from
cursory references delving into the tense aspects of inter-church relations that affected the
Syrian Orthodox Church from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries.
Two earlier books, one specifically on the history of Tur Abdin and the other on the
history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India, merit a special mention. The first, by Aphram
Barsoum stands out as a unique document describing that historically important region in
Oriental Christianity. Since the eighteenth century, Tur Abdin has attracted the attention and
curiosity of several European travellers, archaeologists and writers. One of the earliest is
Gertrude Bell who devoted a chapter to Tur Abdin in her book Amurath to Amurath, first
published in 1911,76 and the more recent by Hans Hollenweger, entitled Tur Abdin :
Lebendiges Kulturebe, which was written in German, English and Turkish.77 The description
by Bell provides a snapshot of the region taken a few years before World War I, as part of a
general survey of a much larger area that includes parts of Anatolia, Iraq and Syria. Hans

74
Gregorios Saliba Shamoun, Tarikh Abrashiat al-Mosul ( The History of the Diocese of Mosul), Aleppo, 1984.
75
Ishak Saka, Kanisety al Suryania (My Syrian Church), Aleppo, 2006. The late Patriarch Zakka I Iwas died on
March 21, 2014.
76
Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath, (Gorgias Press, 2003); The Churches and Monasteries of Tur Abdin,
Pindar Press, 1982).
77
Hollenweger, Hans, Tur ‘Abdin, Linz: Freunde des Tur ‘Abdin, 1999.

23
Hollenweger’s book includes an exquisite pictorial present-day account of the region, its still
existing meagre Syrian Orthodox population, its churches and monasteries. However,
Barsoum’s main concern throughout his book was to record Tur Abdin’s detailed history from
the pre-Christian era, being under the Persians, the Byzantines, the Muslim Arabs, the Turks
and the Mongols and finally the Kurds and the Ottomans, down to the early years of the
twentieth century. Considering the major demographic changes that have occurred in that
region since the First World War, including even village names, Barsoum’s work stands
perhaps as a unique reference to the Aramaic culture and the Christian past of this region.
Barsoum wrote his account in Syriac, which was translated into Arabic by the late
Metropolitan Boulus Behnam in 196378 and by Matti Moosa into English in 2008.79
On the Syriac Church’s history in India the book by Severus Yacoub Tuma, later
Patriarch Jacob III (1957-1980), stands as an authoritative source. Tuma spent 13 years as
priestmonk in Malankra, in southern India, where he compiled his book and published it in
1951.80 The book provides an historical account of the Syriac presence in that remote part of
the East, liturgically and temporally, since the early centuries of the Christian era. It traces the
historical developments that caused these relations to wane, particularly during the time of the
Portuguese occupation. It discusses the efforts the church mobilized since the seventeenth
century, when it delegated Gregorius Abdul-Jalil al-Mosulli in the mid-seventeenth century to
restore its links with that region of its stewardship, and the difficulties caused by local
divisions that have continued ever since. In 1964, during the patriarchate of the author, that
region was granted the status as the Maphiranate of the East,81 as a mark of its importance to
the Syrian Orthodox Church.
A number of interesting historical accounts of the Church’s ecclesiastical data and some
community statistics covering specific periods from the sixteenth century have recently been
published by Iskendar Bcheiry. In an article that appeared in Parole de L’Orient 29 (2004)
Bcheiry provides a list of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs between the sixteenth and the

78
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, Tarikh Tur ‘Abdin,, translated by M. G. B. Behnam, Jounieh, 1963.
79
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, The History of Tur ‘Abdin, Translated by M. Moosa, Picataway: Gorgias Press,
2008.
80
Severus Yacoub Tuma,Ttāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-hindiyya (History of the Syriac Church in India),
Beirut, 1951 (History of the Syriac Church in India), Beirut, 1951.
81
This is the designation used by the Church of Antioch to denote the regions that were within the Sassanid
Empire. The first ecclesiast to carry this title was Mar Marutha of Tikrit in 628.

24
eighteenth centuries, based on a manuscript that was found as a supplement to the Chronicle of
Michael the Syrian in Saddad, an ancient town located to the southeast of Homs in Syria. The
list in the subject supplement provides significant information relating to the state of the church
in that period.82
Bcheiry also published a monograph comprising a list of the Syrian Orthodox ecclesiastic
ordinations from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries based on the Syriac manuscript of
Hunt (SYR 68 in the Bodleian Library).83 In addition to its own informational value as an
ordination list, this document provides significant topographic and demographic perspectives
into the state of the church in that obscure period. Falling into this pattern of publication,
Bcheiry published in 2009 a monograph The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Register of Dues of
1870.84 In that year, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Jacob II (1847-1872) sent the monk
Abdullah (later Patriarch, 1906-1915) to collect the patriarchal dues from the communities of
the provinces of Diyarbakir and Bitlis. This document was among those that had been collated
by Dolabani at the Forty Maryrs Church in Mardin. A sequel to this, appearing in a separate
monograph,85 was published by the same author in 2010. The value of these publications to the
work of this thesis lies in providing supplementary or corollary data, which is a matter of
particular significance in this work.
Among the most significant historical accounts pertaining to the history of the Syrian
Orthodox Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have been those researched and
published by Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum in instalments in al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al
Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Magazine) that was issued in Jerusalem over the period
1933 to 1941. This material has recently been collated, translated into English by Matti Moosa
and published in a monograph under the title History of the Syriac Dioceses.86 The noted
journal continued its mission as a vital source of articles on Church history and literature under
the name “Al-Majalla al Batriarkiyya” from 1962 onward. On the question of the history of

82
Iskandar Bcheiry “A List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs Between 16th and 17th century-A historical supplement
to Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle in a MS. Of Sadad,” in Parole de l’Orient 29 (2004), pp.211-261.
83
Iskandar Bcheiry, A List of Syriac Orthodox Ecclesiastic Ordination from the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
centuries, the Syriac Manuscript of Hunt 444 (Syr 68) in Bodleian Library, Oxford), Gorgias, 2010.
84
Iskandar Bcheiry, The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Register of Dues of 1870, Gorgias Press, 2009.
85
Iskandar Bcheiry, Collection of Historical Documents in Relation with the Syriac Orthodox Community in the
Late Period of the Ottoman Empire –The Register of Mardin MS1006, Gorgias, 2010.
86
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, History of the Syriac Dioceses, trans. Matti Moosa, Vols. 1 and 2, Gorgias Press,
2009

25
Syriac culture, the book Al-Lu’lu’ al Manthur by Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum stands out as the
most outstanding and comprehensive source on this vast subject. Written in Arabic, it was
translated into Syriac by Yohannon Dolabani and into English by Matti Moosa.87

vii. Content
Having gone through many archival documents, and given the fact that current research is
inadequate to reconstruct the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in a most difficult period,
I decided to undertake the writing of this thesis to shed light on the that period in the following
chapters.
Chapter One examines the millet system, its functioning throughout the Ottoman Empire,
and its specific application to the Syrian Orthodox Church. It also discusses the evolution of
the millet system in light of rising nationalism among some of its ethnic strands and the
eventual dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
Chapter Two discusses the conditions and the challenges the Syrian Orthodox Church
faced throughout the nineteenth century in the Middle East.
Chapter Three covers the impact of the Portuguese treatment of the Syriac Christians in
India, the subsequent British rule, and the resulting incursions of the Anglican Church through
its missionary branch on the Syriac Christians in that country. Light is shed on many aspects of
the Anglican attitude that have hitherto been largely obscure. This chapter also highlights some
of the positive aspects of the relationship that materialized between the two churches in the late
nineteenth century.
Chapter Four examines the state of the Church and its leadership during the critical
period leading to the First World War in which decline from internal and external conditions
brought the church to the edge of an abyss. Based on some of the archival material, certain
critical facts are uncovered considering the delinquency of Church leadership in that critical
period.
Chapter Five, following a brief reference to the massacres and to the exodus during and
after the First World War, addresses the initial period of re-settlement in the new environment.
It also alludes to Church efforts to assure a modicum of safe existence of its folk who were still

87
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, Al -Lu’Lu’ al-Manthur,(The Scattered Pearls)published originally in Arabic in
1943, was translated by Matti Mousa. New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2003.

26
living in Turkey, while appealing to the international forum of the day, the Paris Peace
Conference, for a redress of historical and other rights.
Chapter Six examines the critical factors in the revival and renaissance of the Church
after the re-settlement of the majority of its people from Anatolia and its leadership in the Arab
lands. Some of these factors can be attributed to the personal qualities of the prominent
ecclesiastic and lay scholars who arose in that period, yet others to the cultural environment of
the new habitat. The different manifestations of revival are addressed, along with new
challenges as Syrian Orthodoxy establishes a sizeable presence in the diaspora.
The results of this study are summarized in the Conclusions.

viii. Archival Sources

The following archival material has been utilized, as appropriate, in the course of performing
this study.
1. The archives at the Monastery of Deir al Za΄faran (Dayro d-Kurkmo) and the Church of
the Forty Martyrs in Mardin.
Having been the seat of the Patriarchs of the Syrian Orthodox Church from the thirteenth to the
early twentieth centuries, Deir al-Za’faran was a depository of documents for that church for a
long time. However, due to repeated Kurdish incursions and looting over several centuries, it
lost most of its library and archives.88
For the purposes of this research, I was granted specific permission to access and
photograph these archives by the late Patriarch, of blessed memory, Zakka Iwas, a permission
that was unprecedented in scope and is respectfully and duly acknowledged. The surviving
archives at Deir al Za΄faran were stored uncatalogued in batches two to four inches thick,
whereas those in Mardin were bound in volumes, likely by or under the direction of Bishop
Yohannon Dolabani (d. 1967).
Most of the imaging work at these two locations was carried out in July 2010 by a team
that included George Kiraz and me. Earlier imaging work of some of the material at Deir al-

88
In his book Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian (Jacobite) Church of Mesopotamia, p. 225, Horatio Southgate
reports that when he wished to visit the monastery’s historic library, the bishop who accompanied him apologized
for the library’s depleted contents, as “the Kurds had used most of the ancient codices as wadding for their guns
during their last occupation of the establishment.”

27
Za‘faran had been carried out in 2005 and 2007 by a team that was headed by George Kiraz.
The imaging work involved taking nearly 19,000 images.

2. Aphram Barsoum’s personal archives at the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Bab Tuma,
Damascus.
Again, access to this material was made possible with the kind permission of the late Patriarch
Iwas. It is believed that granting this permission was unprecedented.
When photographed in May and June, 2009, this collection had been moved from a
previous location in the building during a recent renovation. This collection had been housed in
the Patriarchate in Emesa (Homs), the seat of the patriarchate when Barsoum was patriarch
(1933-1957). Through these moves the collection lost the classification system it would have
likely had under Barsoum. The scope of the imaging work, though considerable, did not
include the entire collection, which contained a vast quantity of literary material whose study
falls outside the scope of the current work.

3. St. Mark's Convent Archives in Jerusalem (Dayro d-Mor Marqos)

This is a Syrian Orthodox monastery that still retains its old name as “convent”, although it is
inhabited by monks and headed by a bishop. According to the Syrian Orthodox tradition, this
monastery is where Jesus celebrated the Last Supper and where the Disciples met at the
Pentecost. Because of its venerable historical status, this monastery has generally been called
“Deir al-Kursi” (the Monastery of the Seat), referring to being the seat of James, the first
bishop of Jerusalem.
My interest in searching for archival material here stems from the monastery’s historical
importance, particularly in the late Ottoman period when it was used as the temporary seat of
visiting patriarchs, such as Patriarchs Abdullah and Elias III. Access to the archival material
was again made possible by permission of his Holiness Patriarch Zakka Iwas and was
facilitated during my visit to the Monastery in July 2013, by Bishop Mor Severios Malke
Murad, the Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem and Jordan, and by Raban Shamoun Jan. I found that
many of the archival contents had been largely incorporated into the Bab-Tuma archives. The
material that was possible to locate and digitize consisted of 685 documents that pertained
mainly to the period from 1920 to 1940.

28
4. Aphram Barsoum’s Manuscript on the Syriac Dioceses and Kitab al Ahadeeth (Book of Oral
Accounts)
This is a 467 folio manuscript collection, a codex that was penned by Aphram Barsoum based
on information he collected from his research and travels throughout Turkey, Iraq and Syria.
while he was a monk at Deir al Za΄faran, before World War I, as well as in the course of his
subsequent extensive research over the years. The location of the original manuscript is
unknown, but Metropolitan Youhanna Ibrahim of Aleppo had a photocopy of the manuscript,
which he was kind enough to permit a photocopy of it to be made for the purpose of my work
in July 2010. The manuscript provides information about the dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox
Church from the early centuries and Christian era, down to recent times. This vast wealth of
information Barsoum painstakingly collected and collated from a variety of sources, that are,
however, often not specified. Barsoum published some of his findings that covered most of the
seventeenth and eighteenth century period in the Patriarchal Journal from 1939 to 1941(see
other sources). Zakka Iwas published more in the same journal from 1981 to 1983. However,
there is still considerable material, particularly relating to the Syriac dioceses over the earlier
centuries, that remains unpublished. This material has been utilized here to form a historical
skeleton of the Syriac dioceses over the centuries.
Kitab al Ahadeeth is a historical document that was penned by Barsoum in which he
documented the results of his fact-finding tours throughout the dioceses of Anatolia in the
period 1909 to 1913, when he was a monk at Deir al-Za΄faran. He visited towns, villages,
churches and monasteries, where he examined liturgical books, made notes and copied
colophons and, together, texts that helped him unearth the history of these dioceses and the
names and identities of the ecclesiastical fathers. In addition, he interviewed the elderly for
historical accounts of events that occurred in their lifetime or orally transmitted to them from
previous generations. Considering that the communities Barsoum visited were soon after
subjected to massacres and the survivors to expulsion from their homeland, Barsoum’s work
stands to have a unique value.
These accounts were compiled, and extracts from them were published in Barsoum’s name
by Zakka Iwas in the Patriarchal Journal from 1981 to 1983, under the title “From the Book
of Oral Accounts”. My access to this work is through the said journal.

29
5. Lambeth Palace Library Archives
I visited the library at Lambeth Palace in London in July 2011 and located source material
pertaining to the visit by Patriarch Peter III to London, his meeting with the Archbishop Tait of
Canterbury in 1874/5, and his visit to Queen Victoria. As a result of this visit a relationship
developed between the Church of England and the Syrian Orthodox Church, which resulted in
the provision of educational assistance and a printing press, and follow-up visits by both sides.
The archives also relate to the visit by Patriarch Abdullah II in 1908 and include a large
volume of written exchanges between the two churches over the period 1872 to 1909.
Following standard procedures I engaged a specialist firm to digitize the 373 folios covering
the selected documents.

6. The National Archives at Kew, London

I was interested in the consular reports from southeastern Turkey over the second half of the
nineteenth century and the immediate pre-World War I period. I visited these archives in July
2013 and photographed 423 documents of interest.

30
 CHAPTER ONE

UNDER THE OTTOMAN UMBRELLA

The Millet System and its Evolutions

This chapter situates Syrian Orthodoxy within the sociopolitical macrocosm of the Ottoman
Empire. As part of a historical background, it considers first the millet system as a method of
administering relations between the Ottoman State and its non-Muslim communities, its
historicity and operation in the case of the three original millets (i.e., Greek Orthodox,
Armenian and Jewish). It then considers the developments in the millet system89 in the course
of the nineteenth century, particularly in respect of Ottoman’s developing relations with
Western Europe and the associated entry of Western Christian missions to apostatize the
Empire’s Christian populations. The rapid internal sociopolitical developments in the second
half of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman-Russian wars, the Balkan wars of independence,
the resultant population movements, all left their indelible fingerprints on the security
environments in which the small Syrian Orthodox communities lived in Anatolia. These
communities, which had for the longest time been living under the protective umbrella of the
millet at a remote, often forgotten, but generally peaceful edge of the Empire, were engulfed in
violence, not of their making, that was initiated in 1895. However, by the second year of the
First World War, it escalated to cause their almost total demise. In the meantime, the Syrian
Orthodox communities that had been living in the Arab lands shared in the cultural revival and
the nationalist aspirations in these lands, which subsequently became the new home for the
survivors of the Anatolian genocide.90

89
Defining the millet here as ‘system’ is based on Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System.,”
in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 1982, 69-88
(London: Holmes and Meier, 1982), p. 69. At the same time it is recognized that the designation ‘system’ to
define the millet is subject to some controversy with a no clear alternative.
90
The term ‘Armenian Genocide’ in particular has been increasingly adopted in the international arena to denote
the massive massacres and the ethnic cleansing to which the Armenians were subjected in Turkey in 1915 and in
its aftermath, see Bruce Masters, “Armenian Massacres ‘Armenian Genocide’” in Gabor Agoston and Bruce
Masters, Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Facts On File, 2009, pp. 54, 55.

31
1.1 Historicity - General
The Ottoman millet system was a means for the Ottoman government to administer its non-
Muslim population in a form of autonomy using religious authorities as intermediaries between
the state and people. Three millets were originally created by the Ottomans: Greek Orthodox,
Armenian and Jewish, with Catholic and Protestant, and other communities only later being
recognized as distinct millets.
The historical legal framework of the Ottoman millet system was the Muslim concept
which recognized the non-Muslim monotheistic believers as the “People of the Book,” and
accorded them protection as dhimmis (protected people). The very term millet had the meaning
of ‘nation’ but without a political connotation. At its core it bore the notion of inferiority and
subservience of non-Muslims to Islam and, thus, to Muslims. Islam could not support divisions
that could threaten the political supremacy and the unity of the Muslim community, umma
(Arabic) or ummet (Turkish).
Karpat points out that the pronouncement “and we have made you into people and tribes”
(Quran 49:13) can be interpreted as a tacit recognition of the existence of ethnic, linguistic and
tribal diversities within the community of believers.91 The paradox of the situation, as Karpat
notes, lay in the fact that the millet system brought the non-Muslims into the Muslim principle
of social organization while recognizing their religious and cultural autonomy.
“Organizationally, the Christians were ‘Islamized’ much the same way in which the Ottoman
state was ‘westernized,’ (or as some Muslims contend, converted to the Christian way) after it
began adopting the nineteenth century reforms inspired by the West.”92
Davison argues that three closely related, but distinguishable, meanings have been
associated with the term millet. The first, and most common, is a community of people who get
their identity from a common religious affiliation. In this manner millet has also been used for
umma, the people of Islam or the millet-Islamiye, usually equated in the popular mind to millet-
hakime, the ruling millet. However, throughout the following text the term millet will refer to
one or more of the non-Islamic millets, the millel-i-mahkume, the ruled millets. The second
meaning of the term millet has at times been used as an adjective to denote primarily the body

91
Kemal H Karpat, “Millets and Nationality: The Roots of Incongruity of Nation & State in the Post-Ottoman
Era,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society eds. Benjamin Braude
and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1. 141-169, (London: Holmes and Meier, 1982), p. 149.
92
Ibid.

32
of doctrine and practice common to one of the millet confessions: millet worship, millet ritual
etc. The third use of the term millet, was with reference to the formal organization of the
community: its ecclesiastical hierarchy, its constitution, and its administrative structure.93 In
Arab milieus, the term millah has also generally been used to refer to a group or groups of
people connected by ethnic, tribal or religious ties, Muslim or otherwise. In mundane usage, it
refers a minority group that has deviated from the way of the majority.
Considering the historical manifestations of the birth and early developments of the millet
system under the Ottoman rule, the following rather contrasting views by Benjamin Braude,
Harry Luke and Halil Inalcik offer a reasonably wide spectrum for the purpose of an informed
discussion.
Benjamin Braude maintains that the millet system originated through a continuation of
myth in the sense of “fiction” or “illusion” and myth in the sense of “sacred tradition”.
Accordingly,

the Greeks, the Jews, and the Armenians all believed that Mehmed II
“the Conqueror” had a close personal relationship with their respective
leaders. The Greeks claimed that Mehmed himself knew Greek.
Mehmed in turn honored Gennadios94 with many gifts and tokens of
esteem. The Jews claim that Mehmed studied Hebrew to read the
prophecies of the Book of Daniel which had foretold his imperial
success. Mehmed enjoyed the company not only of Moses Capsali, the
so-called chief rabbi, but also sought out other Jews who provided him
with regular shipments of kosher food. The sultan particularly enjoyed
the Passover seder. The Armenians claim that Mehmed bestowed a
personal promise of protection upon their leader, Yovakim, who
responded by blessing the sultan’s sword”.95

On the other hand, as Braude points out, the major Turkish chronicler
Ashikpashazade (c. 1400-1480) ignores all patriarchs, rabbis, and millets.96 In reality,
according to Braude, the new head of the Greek Orthodox Church was a layman who
was elevated by Mehmed to the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in one day. For the
93
Roderic H Davison, Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History 1774-1923 (London: Saqi Books, 1990), p. 320.
94
Gennadios was a lay philosopher, theologian but an anti-union figure who was first imprisoned by the Ottomans
upon the fall of Constantinople in 1453-4. However, Mehmed II promoted him to the rank of Ecumenical
Patriarch. The fact that Gennadios was an anti-union figure was likely intended to ensure no rapprochement with
the Catholic enemies of the Ottomans.
95
Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System.,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. p.
75
96
Ibid.

33
Jewish community, which historically has rarely been hierarchical, the norm has been
congregational organizations that were jealously opposed to any superstructure of
authority. The terms, “chief Rabbi” and “hakham baši” have little administrative
significance in Jewish history. As for the Armenians, with the approval of the clergy of
neither Sis nor Ejmiacin, Mehmed is supposed to have created an entirely new
patriarchate appointing a man who was his friend. According to Bardakjian97, the
reason for the creation of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople may be found in
the political and military situation in eastern Anatolia. Unlike the Jews and the Greeks,
the Armenians had a spiritual capital and demographic centre, which was in adjacent
hostile territory, outside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Wanting to encourage an
Ottoman dependent but ostensibly autonomous see, Mehmed created the Armenian
Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1461 as a focus of loyalty for Armenians within the
Empire. Over the centuries this post became a de facto patriarchate; however, its
ecclesiastical legitimacy was only grudgingly recognized, if at all. To the Armenians
the chief patriarch (Catholicos) resided in Ejmiacin, and the Patriarch of
Constantinople was little more than a local bishop.
Harry Luke presents an interesting view concerning the root of the millet system. By
reviewing the historical practices of Byzantium, Luke traces the Ottoman millet system to
Byzantium’s practice of granting, for political reasons, autonomy to groups of foreigners
within its borders. He notes that “the Turks not only did the same but were induced by apathy,
by administrative convenience, as well as by a skilful application of the principle 'divide and
rule,' to make similar grants to groups of their own subjects. Membership of this group was
determined - it is important to note - not by the geographical provenance or even by the
language of those who composed them, but by what had become the dominant classification of
men in the Near East, their religious allegiance. And thus there arose what was perhaps the
most characteristic administrative feature of the Ottoman Empire, the millet system.”98
It may be noted that granting some form of autonomy to groups of foreigners or those
practicing a religion that is different from the religion of the state, before Islam, was not

97
Kevork B. Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Christians and Jews in
the Ottoman Empire. Eds. Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 1982, 89-100 (London: Holmes and
Meier, 1982, pp.93-94.
98
Harry Charles Luke, Old Turkey and the New: From Byzantium to Ankara (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), p. 7.

34
confined to Byzantium. The neighbouring Sassanid Empire adopted a similar practice creating
a form of millet, whereby, the state recognized the Christians as a form of millet to worship in
its own way and to be controlled in internal matters by its own patriarch or catholicos.99
The millet-based separation between various sections of the Ottoman society required all
the subjects of the sultan to belong to one or other of these organizations, existing separately
from one another, as it were, in watertight compartments. An apt, often quoted comment on the
resulting situation was made by the reviewer of the first edition of Luke’s book: “In the days of
the Sultans, Turkey was less like a country than like a block of flats inhabited by a number of
families which met only on the stairs.”100
The adoption of the millet system for the Empire’s non-Muslim subjects had also
another result, namely that:

…the Turk, especially the Turk of the governing class, began to

lose something of his racial identity. He had already become in a
measure Byzantinized; and, now that he formed only a part, and not
the whole, of the millet of Islam, he began to assume characteristics
that were Islamic rather than Turkish. His terse, clear and concise
speech came to be overlaid with euphuisms [sic] and foreign words
to which the inflated language of the Byzantine Court and the rich
vocabularies of Persian and Arabic alike contributed; he tended, if a
Stambuli, to discard, then despise as something unrefined and
boorish, the essentially Turkish traits and habits of his forefathers
as preserved by the Anatolian peasantry.101

Besides the millet feature, there is another aspect in which the Ottoman Empire may be
regarded as a continuation of Byzantium, as well as the Sassanids, namely in the personage of
the emperor. “The Emperor Basileus of Constantinople, as heir to the authority and traditions
of the Roman Caesars, had been in his temporal capacity the supreme and unquestioned master
of his Empire.”102 In addition to being the ultimate law-giver and supreme military commander
of his nation, “he retained also the divine attributes of the Caesars.”103 This he demanded and
duly received in total obedience of his subjects who viewed him with adoration as their

99
W. A. Wigram, The Assyrians and Their Neighbours, Bell and Sons, London, 1929 re-published by Gorgias
Press, 2002, p.53.
100
Luke, p.8.
101
Ibid., p. 94.
102
Ibid, p.12.
103
Ibid.

35
unchallenged master. “The Byzantine Emperor and that of the Ottoman Sultan-Caliph had this
much in common; that the sacred character of both potentates was ever before the eyes of their
subjects, who owed obedience to them as a religious as well as a political duty.”104 As a
consequence, upon his capture of Constantinople the Turkish Sultan assumed a measure of his
Christian predecessor’s jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs over his new Christian subjects.
There is, naturally an undisputed continuity between the previous Islamic rules and the
Ottoman Empire by virtue of the latter being a natural heir of the Islamic Caliphates. However,
it was the continuity with Byzantium, which the Ottomans inherited, that helped in the
acceptance of the new reign by the vast Christian population in the central lands, especially in
the early years of the Empire. Both aspects, though in differing degrees, influenced the sultan’s
relations with the heads of the non-Muslim millets.
Inalcik105 views the history of the so-called millet system106 under the Ottoman rule in
four principal stages. These stages may be distinguished by the conditions under which the
non-Muslim communities and their institutions survived in the Ottoman Empire and are best
recognized when considering the Ottoman handling of their relations with the Orthodox of
Europe as they carried their conquest deep into their lands. During the first period of their
expansion, the Ottomans followed a policy of istimalet, of endearment, to win the support of
the inhabitants of the conquered lands, by preserving existing social and administrative
systems. Following the conquest of Istanbul by Mehmed II in 1453, a more assertive policy
was adopted based on Sultanic codes of law and Istanbul, the capital became the seat of the
heads of the three non-Muslim communities that he recognized: Orthodox Greeks, Armenians
and the Jews. This period extended until the seventeenth century, which ushered in the third
period when the first signs of decentralization appeared. Decentralization also gave rise to
internal church re-organization and the rise of the new bourgeois class, which tried to dominate
both the Armenian and the Greek Churches and led to the development of civil organizations
with a certain degree of autonomy. This was followed by the fourth period in the nineteenth
century, which ushered in the Tanzimat reforms of 1839 and 1856, to which further reference
will be made later.

104
Ibid., p.14.
105
Halil Inalcik, “The Status of the Greek orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans,” in Turcica, 21-23, 1991, 407-
436.
106
Ibid, p.410.

36
 The concept of the millets appears to have changed over time. While many historians
have accepted the nineteenth century model as being the one inherited from the fifteenth
century, recent scholarship has not supported this concept and has shown that it was a
relatively recent “Ottoman political innovation, even if its workings were always cloaked in the
rhetoric of an ageless tradition.”107
Irrespective of the way the millet "organization"108 was originally conceived, it did not
stay constant but underwent significant changes, particularly over the nineteenth century.
The millets were agents of change, often a source of importation of Western culture and
methodology.109 The main millets were also conservative in their “mere continued existence as
separately defined communities.”110

1.2 The Millet System in Action- The Case of the Three Initial Millets
1.2.1 The Rum (Greek) Millet
The ethnic diversity of the Ottoman Empire was reflected in miniature in the composition of
the Greek millet. Serbs, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Orthodox Albanians, and Arabs were
all members of it as well as Greeks. The latter had gained prominence because of their
influence over the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Synod, and their representation at the
top of the Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy. Yet even the “Greeks” were not always alike.
Many of them did not speak Greek at all but only Turkish, which they wrote, using Greek
characters. Social differences were therefore also very present in this millet.111
Because of the Ottoman millet system the Orthodox Church wielded even greater
jurisdiction in civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs than it had had during the time of the
Byzantine Empire.112 Provincial metropolitans and bishops as well as participants of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Synod were almost always Greeks who showed little

107
Bruce Masters, “millet,” in Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Facts On
File, 2009, p. 384.
108
Roderic H. Davidson, “The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire,” in
Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Eds. Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 1982, 89-100
(London: Holmes and Meier, 1982, p. 329.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid, p. 333.See Davidson for further elaboration of this topic.
111
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire eds.
Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 1982, 185-208 (London: Holmes and Meier, 1982), pp. 185-186.
112
Apostolos Vacalopoulos, The Greek Nation, 1453-1669, trans Ian and Phania Moles, Rutgers University Press,
1976, p. 125.

37
sensitivity to the cultural and linguistic differences of their non-Greek members. This was the
case until late in the nineteenth century. Many of the Syrian Christians, who were under Greek
Orthodox jurisdiction, were discontented by the fact that the Patriarchate of Antioch was
exclusively occupied by Greek clergy from 1720 until 1898. In the 1760s, the Ecumenical
Patriarch preferred a Greek candidate over a Syrian one for the see of Antioch to prevent “least
some of the Arabs come in ...and extinguish the bright flame of Orthodoxy.”113 Similar
situations arose with the appointment of bishops in Eastern Europe.114 The Greeks were tacitly
recognized as predominant not only in the millet itself but also in the fact that this millet seems
to have been recognized for its precedence over other millets.115
However, with time the patriarchate position was often plagued by endemic corruption.
In the seventeenth centur,y the office of Ecumenical Patriarch changed hands 58 times, the
average tenure in office being some 20 months. It was a position that the bishops were always
buying from the Grand Vizier over one another’s heads.116 As a consequence the average
tenure was less than two years. In the seventeenth century, there were 58 reigns. The Greeks
joined their fellow Orthodox Christians in experiencing oppression at the hands of the clerical
aristocracy. All of this contributed towards the anti-clerical sentiment felt by both the ordinary
people as well as by the new group of intellectuals in the period before Greece obtained its
independence.117
The first intimation of revolt within the Millet-i Rum came from the Greeks who were
most open to the nationalism, which was being expressed in Western Europe. This was
partially because of the cultural and commercial ties that the Greeks had with Western Europe,
but also because of their pre-eminence in the Rum.118. The emerging nationalists focused
primarily on the leaders of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and of the Orthodox millet, who were
perceived as having bought into the Ottoman lifestyle. The higher members of the clergy were
bitterly attacked not only for their apparent corruption and extravagance of living but even
more so for their voluntary support for a continued Ottoman Empire and their justification of

113
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” pp. 185-186.
114
Douglas Dakin, The Unification of Greece, 1770-1923, London, Ernest Benn Limited, 1972, p. 121.
115
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” pp. 185-186.
116
Ibid.
117
Ibid, p. 188.
118
Ibid, p. 192.

38
this as being divinely ordained.119 Thus, the first major threat to the integrity of the Millet-i
Rum came from outside the millet, from the intelligentsia of the Greek and other Balkan
diaspora in Europe, and especially in Russia, “who envisaged the history and the future of their
own ethnic group, its church and culture in a secular-national frame of reference.”120 In the
years leading up to the Greek War of Independence this fostered an atmosphere of intense
intellectual activity. At the same time the dominance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was
increasingly being threatened by patriarchates of Arab lands. 121
The millet reform that followed the Hatt-i Humayun of 1856, increased the influence of
the lay in the administration of the millet. However, despite this the reforms undertaken by the
millet administration were limited, and did not, as had been hoped, promote the concept of
belonging to Ottoman Empire, that is Ottomanism. In fact, diminishing ecclesiastic control
made way to a wider social and political emancipation of the Greeks of the Ottoman
Empire.”122 The reforms also encouraged the migration of Greeks from the independent
kingdom of Greece to the Ottoman Empire. The primary motive of this emigration was
economic, and it affected all levels of Greek society. As a result of this migration from the
islands of the Aegean, the Greek presence in western Anatolia increased substantially during
the nineteenth century. In the rural areas of Anatolia and European Turkey, the Greek
populations were involved primarily either in farming or in commercial enterprises on a small
scale. However, those in the urban centres of the empire were well represented in banking
commerce and free enterprise professions, with special emphasis on education. Cultural
movements that emphasized Hellenism became active through the latter quarter of the
nineteenth century. These movements aimed to instill a sense of Greek consciousness in those
members of the Millet-i Rum who even in the latter part of the nineteenth century thought of
themselves as Christians rather than Greeks.123 A common practice in the nineteenth century
was that of teachers trained in the virtues of Hellenic civilization at the University of Athens,
who sought to impart, with varying degrees of success, their “nationalistic fervor to their
Ottoman Greek brethren.”124

119
Ibid., p.193
120
Kemal H Karpat,, “Millets and Nationality,” p.159.
121
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” pp. 192, 193.
122
Ibid; Kemal H Karpat,, “Millets and Nationality,” pp.163-164.
123
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” p.197.
124
Ibid., p.197,198.

39
 Ottoman apprehension of this Hellenistic fervour was also somewhat shared by the
Orthodox hierarchy. “One traveller was told by a Greek Isparta, called Serefidinglu, that the
Orthodox bishop of Antalya was opposed to the establishment of Greek schools among his
Turcophone flock for fear of corrupting their Orthodoxy.”125
At the time of the Committee of Unity and Progress (CUP), the millet system was greatly
affected by new, fast moving developments. The announcement by Cretans on October 6, 1908
that they intended to unite with Greece greatly heightened Turkish suspicions regarding the
loyalty to the Empire felt by Greek Ottomans.126 The likelihood of any equal relationship
decreased as the nationalistic message of the CUP was spread and the inclination of the
Ottoman Greeks to lean towards Greece grew. “Such faint hopes as did exist were finally
shattered when in October 1912 Greece joined Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro in the
scramble for power over European Turkey.”127
In March 1919, the Greeks were on the brink of occupying the west coast of Asia Minor.
This prompted the Ecumenical Patriarchate to formally relieve Ottoman Greeks of their civic
responsibilities as Ottoman citizens, thus dissolving the Millet-i Rum. It had, surprisingly,
remained in existence for almost a century since the Greek War of Independence. 128

1.2.2 The Armenian Millet

According to Armenian tradition Sultan Mehmed II “made Bishop Yovakim the prelate of
Bursa, naming him “p’at’rik”, that is to say patriarch, and gave him wide authority over the
Armenians of Greece and Anatolia. The Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople has
continued to exist ever since.”129 Without authentic documents, over time the above uncritical
statement came to be considered as authoritative to which some uncorroborated additions were
included. Consequently it was commonly accepted that, from the year of its inception, the

125
Ibid. p.198.
126
Ibid, p. 199.
127
Ibid, p. 200. See also William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927 (Cambridge
University Press, 1927) pp. 498-501.
128
Richard Clogg, “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire,” p.200.
129
Kevork Bardakjian, , “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Braude and Lewis, p. 89.
Bardakjian quotes from what he terms as the “remarkable” History of Armenia by Mik´ayel Čamč´ean
published in 1784-1786. It is appropriate to add that there has always been a corresponding religious authority a
“Catholicos” in Armenia.

40
Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople was a universal patriarchate for all Armenians of the
ever-expanding Ottoman Empire.130
According to Bardakijian, the transformation of the seat of Constantinople from a
vicariate into a universal patriarchate was not due to an explicit or conscious Ottoman policy.
According to this view point, this transformation may be seen in the context of an evolutionary
historical process that goes back to those medieval empires that allowed subject communities
to retain their own laws and to apply them amongst themselves under the general jurisdiction
of some recognized authority that was responsible to the ruling power.131 Braude, on the other
hand, raises an important factor that points to a more politically conscious decision. Braude
points out that “unlike the Jews and the Greeks, the Armenians had a spiritual capital
demographic centre which was outside the borders of the Ottoman Empire, in an adjacent
hostile territory.”132
After the conquest of eastern Anatolia and the defeat of the Persians at Chaldiran, north
of Lake Urmia, in 1514 by Sultan Selim I, a larger section of eastern Armenia and a portion of
Mesopotamia fell to the Ottomans. In 1516, Greater Syria and Egypt fell under the aegis of the
Ottomans when the latter defeated the Mamluks on the plain of Marj Dabiq, north of
Aleppo.133
It was not always clear as to what areas or territories fell under the control or jurisdiction
of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. Daranachi, a bishop in the early seventeenth
century wrote that there were four communities that were not under the jurisdiction of the
Patriarch in Constantinople. These were: the Mother See of Ejmiacin, the Catholicosate of Sis,
the Catholicosate of Alt’amar, and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Prior to 1726, the
Catholicosate of Ejmiacin, which controlled Eastern and Western Armenia proper, dealt
directly with the Ottoman authorities. The Catholicosate of Sis exercized its authority in Cilicia
and a little beyond: Sis (Kozan), Adana, Zeytun (Suleymanli), Yozgat, Gurun, Darende,
Malatya, Marash, Aintap, Kilis, Aleppo, Antakya and Iskenderun. The Catholicosate of
Alt’amar supervised a few towns (e.g., Hizan) and numerous villages in the southern part of
Lake Van. Subordinate to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem were Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Ramallah,

130
Ibid, pp. 89-90.
131
Ibid., p. 97.
132
Benjamin Braude, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System,” p. 82.
133
Avedis Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Domination. Cambridge (Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1965), p. 31.

41
Jaffa, Beirut, Cyprus, Latakia, Damascus and, until the middle of the nineteenth century,
Egypt.134 Starting in the seventeenth century the patriarchate of Jerusalem exercized increased
authority.
The patriarch in Constantinople, whose position according to tradition was sanctioned by
Mehmed II, came in the course of time to be regarded “as primus inter pares, a status which
certainly contributed to his future reign over the entire Armenian population of the Empire.”135
Relations with the See at Ejmiacin were regulated in 1844; those with the Catholicosates of Sis
and of Alt’amar and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem were subsequently adjusted to enable these
Sees to retain their local jurisdictions and autonomy, while official business with the Porte was
conducted through the See of Constantinople.136
Even before the Tanzimat era Armenian laity had had a voice in the millet. In
Constantinople a group of powerful individuals who were called amiras became prominent.
The word amira is derived from the Arabic amir, meaning prince or commander. The
Armenians used this word for wealthy community elders who received various favours from
the Ottoman government. The amiras as a group possessed special powers and enjoyed special
privileges.137
The amiras were most influential in the economic arena, in the educational sphere, that of
government and official finance and in the business of money lending as sarrafs. Most
frequently the individuals who were named as sarrafs were Armenian, although occasionally
Jew and Greeks were so favoured. The sarrafs who were bankers were involved in
administering the iltizam tax. Others were also active as goldsmiths and jewelers. The sarrafs
played a pivotal role in reviving Armenian culture.138
The amiras were important in the education sphere, founding schools next to every
Armenian church in Constantinople, as well as fostering the publication and reading of
literature and periodicals. Because of these many factors and activities, the amiras were
regarded as the leaders of this millet and as the protectors of both the millet itself and the
patriarchate, both of which were under attack from Protestant missionaries and Catholic priests

134
Bardakjian, p. 93.
135
Ibid, p. 94.
136
Ibid., p96.
137
Hagop Barsoumian, “The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class within the Ottoman Government and the
Armenian Millet (1750-1850), in Braude and Lewis, p. 178.
138
Ibid, pp. 172, 173.

42
who, beginning in the eighteenth century, had embarked on an active program of conversion.139
The Catholic priests who practiced this were supported by the French and to some extent by
the Austrians, while British representatives advocated Protestantism. No such foreign potentate
was on the side of the Armenian Church. Formal Ottoman policy was to support the
patriarchate in order to stabilize the millet. The amiras were in the forefront of this policy,
which answered to their sense of values. However, the amiras could not, by themselves, stand
against Catholic proselytization. Consequently, in response to great pressure from the French,
Armenian Catholics were allowed by Mahmud II to form their own millet. 140 Subsequently a
Protestant millet was formed in response to Protestant conversion attempts among other
Oriental Christians as well as among the Armenians. This eventually caused an inevitable
fragmentation of the collective will of the millet.
Meanwhile, two new developments threatened the leadership of the amiras. Another
powerful group had formed in the late eighteenth century, namely the esnaf or guilds, or
artisans. They challenged the primacy of the amiras by helping the Patriarch, intervening
between the Porte and the millet and building schools. When the Gulhane Hatt-I Humayun of
1839 abolished tax farming, the sarrafs were rendered superfluous and the balance of power
was shifted to the esnaf. However, this only lasted for two years after which the amiras
resumed their prominent role in the millet, albeit with reduced influence.141
Another challenge beside that presented by the esnaf came from young Armenians who
were coming home after graduating from European universities. Although these young people
came from different backgrounds they were greatly susceptible to current French sociopolitical
thinking, which advocated the separation of church and state. This group played an important
role in the move to legislate the sharing of power, something which was totally in line with the
goals of the Hatt-i-Humayun, the Islahat Fermani of 1856, which had clamoured for reform of
the millets.142
The constitutional movement gradually gained strength calling for democratic
representation in the millet organizations. In response, the amiras consolidated to present a
united front. However, they could not oppose the two imperial edicts, especially the Hatt-i-

139
Ibid, pp. 178, 179.
140
Ibid, p. 180.
141
Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under, pp. 38, 39.
142
Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development of Armenian Political Parties
through the Nineteenth Century ( Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963), p. 46.

43
Humayun of 1856, as more progressive and powerful groups gave the edicts their support. The
amiras reluctantly accepted the constitution. They did this not because they genuinely accepted
its provisions but rather because they wanted to retain power in the new system and exclude
less desirable and more radical opponents.143
In the capital all these elements (amiras, the esnaf and the returning intellectuals) were
struggling for control. However, the ordinary Armenians who lived in the six eastern provinces
of Anatolia felt abandoned without a voice and became increasingly agitated. They found
encouragement by example in the success of their counterparts in the Balkans. They also found
partners among the Russian Armenians, who resembled them in so many ways – historically,
geographically and ethnoreligiously. The Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) and the
international agreements that followed it (i.e., the Treaty of San Stefano, the Cyprus
Convention, and the Treaty of Berlin) helped bring the “Armenian Question” into a sharper
focus.
It was not considered feasible by the Western European powers to wage a war on behalf
of the Armenians in hopes for enacting social reform. The subsequent pressure exerted on
Sultan Abdul Hamid had the direct effect of his taking revenge on the Armenians.144 In light of
all this, the Armenians determined that their desperate situation could only be changed by
means of an armed struggle and insurrection. They reasoned that, if Bulgaria had been freed
with the help of the Russians, then perhaps similarly Armenia might achieve its aims with
British help.145
Early in the 1880s all efforts by the British were abandoned as they recognized how
difficult it would be to persuade the Turks as well as other European countries that there was
an urgent need for reform. This intensified interest in the “Armenian Question” found
reverberations among the Armenians in Russia and led to a rapid growth of revolutionary
organizations, which concentrated their efforts on the political affairs of Armenians in
Turkey.146 Moreover, the successful revolutions that had taken place in Greece and Bulgaria
helped to convince Russian Armenian revolutionaries that Armenians could also be liberated

143
Barsoumian, p. 180.
144
Sanjian, p. 276
145
Ibid, p. 277.
146
Nalbandian, p. 148.

44
from the Ottoman Empire.147 They saw in the Balkans the beneficial results of revolution and
urged in their writings that the Armenians use the same methods to achieve immediate
independence.148
It was in this context that two nationalist organizations emerged to become the two most
influential Armenian political parties of the late Ottoman period, and beyond. These were the
Hnchakian and Dashnaktsutiun. Both parties were formed outside the geographical area of
historical Armenia: the Hnchakian in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887, and the Dashnaktsutiun in
Tiflis (Russian Trans-Caucasia) in 1890.149 Their leaders were Russian Armenians, many of
whom had no connection with Turkey.
Adopting varying degrees of socialism and nationalism, particularly in dealing with CUP
and with the concept of Ottomanism, the two parties were unable in subsequent years to adopt
unified policies towards achieving their political goals. The Patriarchate, with support from the
amiras, also opposed CUP and its agenda, which it feared would agitate for a greater reduction
of control by the millet over the community.
Abdul Hamid and the Porte were deeply apprehensive of the intentions and activities of
the revolutionaries. The Ottomans felt that their empire was being threatened by the
Armenians, whom they suspected of being in league with the Young Turks, Greeks,
Macedonians and others. In order to deal with potential uprisings, Abdul Hamid formed the
Hamidie regiments, which were composed mainly of Kurdish cavalry troops. These regiments
attacked and plundered Armenian villages with absolute impunity. In July 1894, the first large-
scale attack on Armenians took place at Sasun in the province of Bitlis. Twenty-five villages
were destroyed and some 20,000 people were slaughtered. The massacre of about 10,000
Armenians in Constantinople in September 1895 was the impetus for indiscriminate slaughter
that followed throughout the Empire but especially so in eastern Anatolia, with great loss of
life.150
During the violent massacres of 1895 to 1896 in Asia Minor, a similar fate had escaped
the Armenians of the Ottoman territories in Syria and much of Cilicia, which lay in the
province of Adana, in Asia Minor. However, in 1909 there were violent attacks on the

147
Ibid, p.149.
148
Ibid.
149
Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, p.182.
150
Avedis Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Domination, Cambridge (Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1965), p. 278.

45
Armenians of Cilicia and the regions south of it. These attacks were much more ferocious than
those that had occurred in Anatolia. The violence was not confined to the province of Adana
but spread to communities in the Amanus, the valley of the Orontes, Jabal Musa, and Jabal
Aqra, as well as Aleppo.151
In the winter of 1914-15, the Turks suffered a crushing defeat at Sarikamish, on the
Caucasian front. Enver Pasha, the Turkish commander and minister of war, accused the
Armenians of complicity with the Russian forces. After the Allies failed to occupy the
Dardanelles in March 1915, the Young Turk government decided to settle, finally, the
troublesome problem of the Armenians in Turkey. A decision was made to exterminate the
Armenians on the grounds of the threat that they supposedly posed to the vital interests of the
empire because of their sympathy with Russia, Britain and other Allied Powers. This policy
was carried out systematically and with brutality.152
In April 1915, the ecclesiastical, secular and intellectual leaders of the Armenian millet
were liquidated; more than 500 Armenian villages were pillaged and some 25,000 of their
inhabitants were slaughtered in a prelude to what has come to be increasingly considered on
the international arena as genocide in World War I.

1.2.3 The Jewish Millet

The smallest of the original three millets had a long and varied history. According to the
Roman Jewish historian Josephus who wrote in the first century CE, there had been a Jewish
community in Asia Minor since the fourth century BCE.153 Many of these Jews were so-called
Romaniotes, who were Greek Jews, distinct from both Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Jews have
lived in Greece possibly since the Babylonian exile.
More Jews came to Asia Minor at the time of the Crusades, mainly to escape the
persecution by Crusaders as they passed through modern-day France and Germany. However,
the major influx into Ottoman lands occurred in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when
Jews, escaping the Inquisition in both Spain and Portugal, sought refuge to the east. Word had
spread of the tolerant and very welcoming attitude of the Ottoman sultans by means of this

151
Ibid.,pp.280-81.
152
Sanjian, p. 283.
153
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, or Antiquity of the Jews, in Complete Works (Project Gutenberg e-Text,
William Whiston trans., (2006), p. 926. This is a new edition of the text Whiston wrote in 1737.

46
alleged statement: “I proclaim to you that Turkey is a land wherein nothing is lacking, and
where, if you will, all shall yet be well with you. The way to the Holy Land lies open to you
through Turkey. Is it not better for you to live under Muslims than under Christians? Here
every man dwell [sic] at peace under his own Dine and fig tree.” This is an extract from a letter
attributed to Rabbi Isaac Zarfati, supposedly in the mid 1450s and cited by Bernard Lewis.154
Eliyahu Capsali, who was Chief Rabbi of Constantinople for the Romaniote Jews at that time
wrote in 1523 that “Sultan Beyzahid….made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and
put it also in writing, that none of the governors of his cities was permitted to reject or expel
the Jews, but they must welcome them.”155
Jews from other areas including Eastern Europe were increasingly drawn to Asia Minor
as early as the eighteenth century and certainly in the second half of the nineteenth century.
The tolerance enjoyed by the Jewish populace may be directly attributed to the autonomy
provided by the Ottoman millet system in dealing with non-Muslim minorities in the general
population.
Since each millet was to rule itself with the religious leader acting also as secular head,
this created problems for the Jews who did not have the same religious hierarchy as did the
Orthodox, Greek and Armenian churches.156 It was only in the 1830s that one of the elders
would be confirmed by the Ottoman authorities as hakham bashi (chief rabbi), a title that exists
to this day. This honorific comes from the Hebrew word hakham meaning a ‘sage’ or ‘wise
man,’ and the Turkish word bash meaning ‘head’ or ‘chief.’ However, this personage, who
also held secular power such as tax collector, did not inspire the automatic following of all the
Jewish congregations in the empire, many of whom had their own religious leaders who might
also be called hakham bashi.157 Congregations elsewhere in Turkey and the extended Ottoman
Empire, wanting to maintain their regional independence, tended to obey their local rabbis
rather than some nominal head in Istanbul; and even in that metropolis adherence to the
hakham bashi was not automatic. The important point here is that this signified a “turning
point in policy by the Ottoman authorities who hitherto had not interfered in the internal affairs

154
Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, (Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 145-146.
155
Bernard Lewis, Cultures in Conflict, Christians, Muslims and Jews, in the Age of Discovery (New York,
Oxford University Press, 1995), p 39.
156
Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: a brief history of the last 2,000 years, p 187
157
Ibid, p. 246.

47
of the Jewish community and for centuries past had given no official status to its
representatives.”158
In 1865, a set of laws, known as the Hahambasi Nizamnamesi, was enacted to rebalance
powers within the millet and to ensure that lay leaders took responsibility for implementing
state authority. Such moves had been successfully implemented in the Greek and Armenian
communities, but met with less success among the Jewish community at large for the reasons
mentioned above. The disharmony in the Jewish community was most clearly demonstrated in
the area of education.159 All educational institutions under the aegis of the Alliance were linked
to a central committee in Paris to which they were required to regularly submit extremely
detailed reports about administrative and financial matters as well as comments about the
social and financial status of the local community.160 By examining such reports found in the
archives of the Alliance, especially those relating to the Jewish communities of Istanbul, Bursa
and Izmir, Paul Dumont was able to give an excellent overview of Jewish communal life under
the millet during the second half of the nineteenth century.
Many Jewish communities in Turkey in the late nineteenth century evidenced “the extent
of extreme destitution of its inhabitants,”161 being cramped, crowded and dirty. Notable
exceptions were certain areas of Istanbul that were inhabited by the more advantaged- bankers,
traders, and members of learned professions. Poverty was primarily caused by overpopulation,
a natural consequence of the practice of early marriage common among Oriental Jews. Another
possible explanation for this sudden spurt in population size in the Jewish population in the last
decades of the nineteenth century may be the influx from Russia and the Balkans, many of
whom arrived in Turkey virtually destitute. However, many of these Jews proved to be
essentially in transit, passing through Turkey on their way to the United States, Canada,
Palestine and even South America and certain African countries. Alliance reports also mention
a conscious effort in the Jewish communities to limit births, especially by discouraging early
marriages. Additionally, population size was naturally decreased by major health epidemics.162

158
Ibid.
159
Paul Dumont, “Jewish Communities in Turkey during the last Decades of the Nineteenth Century in Light of
the Archives of the Alliance Israelite,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Eds. Benjamin Braude and
Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 1982, 209-242 (London: Holmes and Meier, 1982), p. 209.
160
Ibid. p. 210
161
Ibid.
162
Ibid, p. 212-213.

48
 Although living in apparent harmony, Jews and Christians would often clash.163 Relations
between Jews and Muslims were, on the whole, much more satisfactory. On the whole Jews
appreciated their situation under the Ottomans. In April, 1892, on the 400th anniversary of the
expulsion from Spain, “it was with expressions of sincere gratitude that the regional committee
of the Alliance thanked Abdul Hamid for the protection that Jews enjoyed in Turkish
territory.”164 However, matters were different in eastern Anatolia where Kurds attacked and
persecuted Jews on a continual basis. For example, in Mardin the Jewish population, which
numbered about 500 at the end of the nineteenth century, had completely vanished by 1906.
They went to more receptive places such as Mosul and Urfa.165

1.3 The Missions and the Millets

1.3.1 Preliminary
The millet system, with its inherent autonomy, provided protection to the Christian
communities from the pressures of total assimilation in the wider community, which would
have changed the ethnic and linguistic character of these communities, particularly the smaller
ones. In addition, it provided these communities with protection against coercion to convert to
Islam. Until the Greek War of Independence in 1821, the Porte resisted the Catholic incursions
into the Oriental Churches. However, dismayed by that war, the prestige of the Greek millet at
the Porte significantly reduced and, faced with European Catholic powers, particularly France
and Austria, the Porte recognized the Catholics as a separate millet in 1830, and became
largely indifferent to Catholic missionary campaigns to proselytize Oriental Christians.166 This
indifference later extended to England and later still United States of America as it permitted
religious missions from these countries to preach their brand of Christianity among the
followers of the Oriental churches throughout the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans agreed to
this on the condition that the missionaries did not attempt to apostatize the Muslims. As a
consequence of this apathy by the Ottomans shown toward their Christian communities, the
foreign missions succeeded in initiating religious sectarian divisions within the indigenous

163
Ibid, p. 222.
164
Ibid, p.225, (citing Bulletin de l´ A.I.U., no. 17 (1892), p. 47).
165
Ibid, p.225.
166
Bruce Masters, “millet,” in Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Facts On
File, 2009, pp. 383, 384..

49
Christian churches. This resulted in weakening these churches, in fermenting turmoil in their
communities, and in encouraging the practice of offering foreign protection to the converted.
Prior to the arrival of the Western missions, there were six Oriental Christian
communities in the Ottoman Middle East: those belonging to the Armenian Church, the
Melkite (Rum) Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Maronite Church, the Church of the
East and the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Armenians lived mainly in Anatolia and upper
Syria; the Orthodox Melkite almost exclusively in Greater Syria (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and
Jordan); the Copts almost exclusively in Egypt; the Maronites mainly in Lebanon; and the
followers of the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox predominantly in Mesopotamia
(eastern Syria, south-eastern Turkey and Iraq).167 Except for the Maronite Church, which had
been linked to the Church of Rome from 1182, all the other churches were fully independent.
All these Christians were living within the parameters of the millet system, which utilized the
religious authorities as intermediaries between the state and people. Intercommunity relations
were in a state of equilibrium that had been inherited from prior generations.
The Western missions had their undeniable positive effects on the Middle East in terms
of sowing the seeds of cultural awakening, religious renaissance, and political awareness, but
in the span of nearly one hundred years they succeeded in more than doubling the number of
Middle Eastern churches, thereby creating sectarian divisions, and in destroying the tolerance
and the mutual accommodation which, on the eve of missionary penetration, had characterized
their relations.

1.3.2 Catholic Missions

In the latter half of the sixteenth century, and essentially as part of Rome’s counter-
Reformation drive, Rome directed its attention towards the Middle East. The immediate
objective in Syria was to initiate a full scale missionary assault against the non-Uniate
Churches: the Melkite, East Syrians, Syrian Orthodox, and Armenian.168
Catholic missionary work in the Levant and beyond was carried out by missionaries
coming from Spain and France on a limited scale long before the seventeenth century. In 1622,
however, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith, a

167
Sebastian Brock and Witold Witakowski, Hidden Pearls Vol III: At the Turm of the Third
Millenium, The Syrian Orthodox Witness, Tras World Film, Italia, 2001, p. 25.
168
Robert M. Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, an interpretation, 1970, p. 17.

50
centralized body in the Vatican with the responsibility of spreading the faith through
missionary work.169 This replaced the prior missionary work which had been carried out by
Portugal, Spain and France. Under the new policy of centralized missions, Rome put France in
charge of promoting Catholic missionary work in the Ottoman Empire, motivated by France’s
friendly relations with the Ottomans.
By 1626, Capuchin fathers sailed to Constantinople and Aleppo, followed a few years
later by Jesuits, Carmelites and Dominicans who spread out through Syria, Iraq and Anatolia.
They directed their efforts at the Armenians, the Greek Orthodox, and the Syrian Orthodox.170
The work resulted in the establishment of Uniate Churches – Eastern Churches united with
Rome. The French Consul in Aleppo, Francois Picquet was instrumental in linking the rewards
of conversion to Catholicism with commercial benefits, as well as in securing the Porte’s
approval of all changes in status.171 This change would have been unlikely had it not been for
that critical shift in the balance of power between the Ottoman Empire and Europe over the
period from roughly 1650 to 1750.172
The movement and work of the missionaries within the Ottoman Empire was aided by a
system of capitulations that had been in place for nearly a century earlier. The capitulations or
Ahdname were generally bilateral acts that were granted by the Sultan to confer rights and
privileges in favour of subjects and residents in the Ottoman domains. The capitulations placed
the French Ambassador to the Porte in a favourable position as protector of the Catholics
similar capitulations were subsequently granted to England, Netherlands and Venice.173 By the
end of the eighteenth century every European nation held the capitulatory treaty.174
The arrival of Catholic missions in Aleppo during the first half of the seventeenth century
marked the start of a process that with time created splits and divisions within each of the
existing major Christian communities. This ended in the formation of separate Uniate
churches. In the nineteenth century the activity of the Protestant missions caused further
fragmentation of the Oriental churches.

169
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 35.
170
Ibid, p. 36.
171
Ibid, p. 40.
172
Ibid, pp. 19, 20.
173
Charles Frazee, Catholics and Sultans,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 68.
174
Bruce Masters, “capitulations,” in Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters
(eds), ,(USA Facts on File, 2009), pp. 118-119.

51
 The effectiveness of the missionary endeavors proved to be highly linked to economic
considerations. For as the seventeenth century drew to a close, the Melkite traders commerce
had become acutely aware of the advantages of consular protection and of the intimate
connection between consular protection and membership of the Unia. By the start of the
eighteenth century the Uniate Melkite traders in Sidon and elsewhere along the coast, as well
as in the inland entry ports of Aleppo and Damascus, exclusively enabled and promoted by
French consuls, in return for “unquestionable submission to Rome,” came to be in effective
control of a substantial portion of the trade between Syria and Egypt.175
The early resistance to the Western Catholic missions that was promoted by the Rum and
the Armenian millets, found sympathy among the Sultans who did at some point defend the
traditional churches in the empire in the face of excessive Catholic missionary pressures. This
coincided with the early post-French Revolution period when, based on the principles of
separation between church and state of this revolution, missionary activities abroad, which had
been carried out with active government backing, were significantly reduced.176 However, the
attitude of the sultan saw a sharp change after the start of the Greek War of Independence in
1821. The standing of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul suffered a sharp decline, and the
special relationship that had existed between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Porte ended.
In consequence of this and of renewed pressure from the European Catholic powers, France
and Austria in particular, the Ottomans recognized the Catholics for the first time, as millet in
1830.177 This led to the fragmentation of the old Oriental churches and the creation of new
churches from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. It also led to a sharp increase in the
number of millets recognized by the Porte. Several firmans or edicts were issued by the Porte
recognizing successively: the Armenian Catholics (1830); and the Armenian Protestants
(1850); the Greek Catholics (1848); the Chaldeans (1844, confirmed in 1861), and the Syrian
Catholic (1843, confirmed in 1866).178

175
Ibid, pp. 40-42.
176
Frazee, p. 164.
177
Bruce Masters, “millet,” in Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters (eds),
,(USA Facts on File, 2009)p. 384.
178
Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen, “The Rise of Churches at the End of the Ottoman Era (Excluding Egypt) in the 18th
and 19th Centuries,” in Christianity: A History in the Middle East, Habib Badr, Chief Edit, Middle East Council of
Churches 2005, p. 760.

52
 The missions did not work independently from their parent countries. Their work soon
became an instrument of European enterprise and expansionist policies, first by penetrating the
Ottoman Empire economically and then seeing to its dismantlement. The economic and
political interests of the French, as an example, were served in Syria by the converts of
Catholic missions, who in turn were protected and rewarded economically by France by
making them its clientele in commercial enterprises. These activities did not only weaken the
indigenous Christian churches, but also created bitter divisions within each affected
community. These activities often brought to life local prejudices, which had previously been
suppressed and turned them to full sectarian divisions. The French Consul in Aleppo, François
Picquet, for instance “could secure the designation of Andrew Akhijan, a disciple of the
Catholic missionary priests, as Syrian [Orthodox] Archbishop of Aleppo, by promising to
absorb some of the debts of [the Syrian Orthodox] Patriarch Ignatius Sham‘un.”179

1.3.3 Protestant Missions

In the opening decades of the nineteenth century, various missionary societies in Great Britain
and the United states issued annual reports of their work. What happened in one country was
thus publicized in the other. “English missionary thought was then dominated by two
objectives: the evangelization of all those ‘devoid of gospel truth,’ and the conversion of
Jews.”180 The Church Missionary Society (henceforth the CMS) and the London Society for
promoting Christianity amongst the Jews were formed with a view to achieving these
objectives. Both had their echoes across the Atlantic.181 Missionary work spread in the
Ottoman Empire through two means: mission stations and missionary schools.
The first American missionary effort in the Middle East was started by the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM, or the American Board), which was
formed in 1810, of clerical and lay members representing Massachusetts and Connecticut.182
The Board’s stated aims "to propagate the gospel in heathen lands", or, as elaborated in the
regulations, "to propagate the gospel among un-evangelized nations and communities". The
wording could be interpreted to include not only the "heathen", but also, according to later

179
Bernard Heyberger, “The Development of Catholicism in the Middle east” in Christianity: A History in the
Middle East,eds: Habib Badr, Chief Editor, Middle East Council of Churches, 2006, p. 642.
180
A. L. Tibawi, American Interests in Syria 1800-1901, Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 9.
181
Ibid.
182
Ibid, p. 5.

53
interpretation, non-Christians like Jews and Muslims and "nominal Christians in the Near
East".183
The philosophy of ABCFM may best be gauged from the book written in 1872 by Rufus
Anderson, the Foreign Secretary of the Board. The following is an excerpt from its
introduction:184
We may not hope for the conversion of the Mohammedans, unless true
Christianity be exemplified before them by the Oriental Churches. To
them the native Christians represent the Christian religion, and they see
that these are no better than themselves. They think them worse; and
therefore the Muslim believes the Koran to be more excellent than the
Bible.

Hence a wise plan for the conversion of the Mohammedans of Western

Asia necessarily involved, first, a mission to the Oriental Churches. It was
needful that the lights of the Gospel should once more burn on those
candlesticks, that everywhere there should be living examples of the
religion of Jesus Christ, that Christianity should no longer be associated in
the Muslim mind with all that is sordid and base.

It is surprising that Anderson, writing his book nearly 60 years after the zealous start of
the American missions still maintained the Board’s views about converting the Muslims.
Both British and American efforts were born of faith and zeal, and in neither was there
room for alternative views. But while the English missions may sometimes be viewed as an
aspect of the expansion of Great Britain’s image and prestige in the world, the American
missions, at least at the initial stage, cannot be so viewed. Religious zeal was their sole brand
from the start. “Its inspiration, common to all missions, was of course the gospel, ‘go ye
therefore’, Jesus commanded the disciples, ‘and teach all the nations’.”185 The roots of
American religious zeal may be traced to New England Puritanism.186
Following their total failure in converting Muslims, the aims of the Protestant missions
were formulated to be: the creation of a native Protestant community; the development of an
educational system ranging from the village school to seminary and college; and the
dissemination of a vast religious literature and a considerable number of textbooks.

183
Ibid, p. 6.
184
Anderson, Rufus. History of Missions of the American Board of Commissioners For Foreign Missions to the
Oriental Churches. Boston, Congressional Publishing Society, 1872, p. 1.
185
Tibawi, p. 10, with quotation from Matt., xxviii. 19.
186
Ibid.

54
 The changes that were promoted by the Protestant missions were far reaching both from
the purely religious perspective, as well as from sociocultural perspective. The excesses of the
American missions drew comments from Oswald Parry of Magdalen College in Oxford who,
writing after his travel in Anatolia and Mesopotamia in 1892, describes the American
missionary attitude as follows. (Note that Parry’s use of ‘Syrian’ was in reference to the Syrian
Orthodox and not to Syria).
The Americans came with a Gospel true in itself, in fact containing
the very essence of that soul-winning message, but so rudely shorn
of the garb in which the Eastern Christian had been wont from time
immemorial to see it clothed, that his sensibilities were shocked
and his national instinct aroused by what seemed sacrilege. It was
natural that men who talk of the native Syrians as “so-called
Christians “ and place them in thought on a par with or below their
Muslim brethren, should be asked for the credentials of doctrines
that never saw the light until their own Church was sixteen
hundred years old; It was natural that the Syrian should ask who it
was that helped to build the first Christian Church, witnessed the
very writing of the Gospel itself, and sent missionaries with that
Gospel to the shores of the distant West. It was a poor gratitude to
come and charge these men’s children with ignorance and want of
life that centuries of oppression had conferred as their accustomed
lot. This is what many a fair-minded Syrian does say, though quite
acknowledging the personal worth and piety of the missionaries,
and the valuable work done by their schools; but fair-minded
Muslims equally admit this. What the Syrian does complain of is
the ignorance most of the missionaries display of their Church’s
history, and the small allowance made for a conquered
people….187

Tibawi notes that by 1882 Protestant missionaries had made clear their position towards
the legitimate government and territorial integrity of a state in which they resided and operated:
Not only did they publicly declare their intention of subverting its
established religion, not only did they openly pray for the extinction
of the state and the absorption of its territories by their own
Governments, but pending the achievement of these ambitions they
claimed special privileges and exemptions, and with these very
claims they accused the Ottoman authorities of intolerance,
fanaticism and bigotry.188

187
Oswald Parry, Six months in a Syrian Monastery ( London: Horace Cox, 1895. Reprint by Gorgias Press,
2001), pp. 306, 307.
188
Tibawi pp. 256, 257

55
Artillery of Heaven
An interesting assessment of the American missions to the Levant has been presented by
Ussama Makdisi in his book Artillery of Heaven, in which he demonstrates the failure of the
missionary efforts at religious conversion of the people of the Middle East.189
Considering the influence of the Protestant missions to the Levant, Makdisi remarks:
It was to this conservative world that the American missionaries
announced themselves in the third decade of the nineteenth
century. They came not as crude military crusaders but as the
redeemed ‘artillery of heaven’, men who were determined to
reclaim biblical lands from the god of this world who had long
since enslaved the ancient Eastern Christian churches.190

Makdisi further notes that the idea of American missionaries as pioneers:

depended -and still depends-on orientalizing the Arab World...It

relies furthermore, on a notion of modernity that is described as if
it were an American gift to be given to the people “sitting in
darkness” people whose only choice is to reject or to adapt to
forms alien to their history and culture.191

Makdisi further notes the Syrian Protestant College (later the American University of
Beirut), the product of the American mission’s most enduring and famous institution in the
Middle East, “was not so much an act of cultured imposition as it was a final recognition of the
futility of direct evangelism in deeply multi-religious lands, and also an accommodation to a
local demand for secular education.”192
Considering the overall influence of the missionary activities in the Ottoman empire,
Deringil expresses the central nature of this influence in no uncertain terms, as follows:

189
Ussama Makdisi, Artillery of Heaven: American Missionaries and the Failed Conversion of the Middle East
(Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2008).
190
Ibid, p. 84. In elaborating on the expression “Artillery of Heaven” Makdisi refers to Kamal Salibi and Yusuf K.
Khoury (Khuri),eds “The Missionary Herald”: Reports from Ottoman Syria, 1819-1870 (hereafter MHROS), 5
vols. (Amman, Royal institute for Interfaith Studies, 1995),1:368. The original reference to the ”artillery of
heaven” in the Missionary Herald from July 1826 was to the Ancient Eastern Christian churches which Satan had
seized and turned to the defence of his Kingdom. The missionaries were thus the latest weapons of God, a new
kind of heavenly artillery.
191
Ibid, p. 215, citing in the foot note a phrase from Mark Twain’s criticism of missionaries and imperialism in
North American Review in 1901and is reproduced in Mark Twain, Following the Equator and Anti-Imperialist
Essays(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
192
Ibid, p. 217.

56
 None of the challenges to the legitimacy of the Ottoman state, and all that
it stood for, was more dangerous in the long term than that posed by
missionary activity. The threat posed by the soldier, the diplomat, the
merchant, all had to do with the here and now; the missionaries, through
their schools, constituted a danger for the future...Throughout the world
the missionary appeared as the representative of a superior culture, ‘the
white man’s burden’ personified.193

The Ottoman authorities permitted the missionary activities despite the sectarian disputes
that these activities generated among their Christian subjects.194 The missionary activities were
from the start permitted throughout the empire apostatizing indigenous Christians as long as
they did not engage in apostatizing Muslims. This apathy toward the indigenous non-Muslims
of the Empire effectively undermined the millet system under which its non-Muslim subjects
had peacefully existed.

1.4 The Syriac Christians in the Millet System

1.4.1 Historical and General Perspectives
The Semitic expression of Christianity and the Aramaic language stand as the essential
historical ingredients of Christianity in Mesopotamia and Greater Syria. After the advent of
Christianity, the Aramaic language moulded differing ethnic and social ingredients into a
homogeneous and integrated culture, as the Arabic language did later, upon the advent of
Islam, when it mingled the various ethnic ingredients, creating Arabs, without regard to their
geographical origins. Thus Christianity and a common language amalgamated the people of
this region, with the early church serving as a melting pot, just as Islam did six centuries later.
Writing in the third century, Bardesan, the Edessan author who wrote the Book of the
Laws of Countries in the second century, did not consider himself to be the leader of a sect but
rather to belong unquestionably to the “Universal” Church. “What shall we say about
ourselves, ‘New race’ of Christians whom Christ has caused to be raised in all countries as a
consequence of his coming? We are all Christians by the one name of Christ wherever we may

193
Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains-Ideology and Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire
1876-1909, Tauris, 2011, p. 112.
194
Tibawi, p. 26.

57
be found.”195 In fact, there were no ethnic or national distinctions to be traced from early
Christianity; indeed, Oriental Christians refused to refer to their heathen ancestors so that we
have no texts on their forefathers before the advent of Christianity.
However, over time the Christian community could not long maintain itself as a single
new nation. Various factors - geographical, political, linguistic, religious and philosophical -
gave rise to religious groupings. In the case of the Church of the East (so-called Nestorian), the
hostility between the Roman and Persian Empires made it necessary for the Christians of
Persia to build up not only their own independent ecclesiastical organization, but their own
Christological doctrine, and to foster as little contact as possible with their brethren in the
enemy camp.196 Eventually the church in Persia became a national church over which the
Bishop of Seleusia-Ctesiphon wielded authority independently of the Patriarch of Antioch.
Under somewhat differing circumstances, involving mainly Christological but in time also
cultural factors, the sixth century saw the birth of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (so-
called Jacobite). Hence, in time, the Christian communities of the Middle East became almost
nations: groups of individuals owing allegiance to one another and to their patriarch by ties of
religion; the “millet concept” was in fact taking root. This concept became consolidated under
Islam.
In discussing the impact of ethnicity and culture on the millet concept, Joseph notes the
following, which, although stated in direct reference to the “Nestorians”, also applies to other
Oriental Christians, including the West Syriacs:

It may be stated with certainty that the Nestorians have

preserved their ethnic state clearly as it existed at the time of the
Arab conquest, since intermarriage of Christians with Muslims
implied conversion to Islam. Strictly speaking, the East and the
West Syriacs are each members of a cultural rather than ethnic
group, moulded together into a nationality by ties of a common
language and, until the nineteenth century, a common church
membership which, until the birth of the modern nation-states in
the Middle East, was the strongest tie among men. The lineal

195
John Joseph, The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours: A study of Western Influence on their Relations,
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p.19, apud Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp
Lake (London, 1926-1932), I, iv, 2.
196
Ibid., p. 20, with reference to Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, ed. and trans. Jean-Baptiste Abbeloos
and T. j. Lamy (Louvain, 1877), Vol. III, cols. 66068.

58
 origin of the sect, like that of most Middle Eastern nationalities,
is hidden in the mists of history. They are a mixture of races and
it is possible that they have Assyrian blood in their veins,
especially certain sections of the community, just as other sects
have Persian, Kurdish and Aramean blood. Indeed, the majority
of their forefathers’ descendants are today Muslim Arabs,
Kurds, and Persians.197

1.4.2 Under the Ottoman Rule

The Syrian Orthodox and the East Syriacs came under the Ottoman rule upon Selim I’s
advances through southeastern Anatolia, northern Iraq and Syria in 1516. From that point these
Syriacs joined the Ottoman Empire as its smallest Christian communities. In common with the
Copts, they were considered as part of the Armenian millet.
The Syrian Orthodox had had close affinity with the Armenians throughout their
Christian history on both theological and social levels. On the theological level, the two
churches were on the same side of the Christological divide, most importantly at Ephesus in
433 CE and at Chalcedon in 451 CE. On the social level, many of the Syrian Orthodox
communities in southeastern Anatolia, (such as in Diyarbakir, Urfa, Kharpout and Siirt and
their environs) lived in close proximity with the Armenians, with whom they had mixed
marriages and in many cases shared church buildings and church services. On the other hand
the historical relationship between the East Syriacs and the Armenians was extremely limited,
if at all existent. This was a matter that rendered the East Syriacs less receptive to accepting the
Armenians as their liaison with the higher authorities at the Porte. Atiya adds a further
interesting perspective in the broad social spectrum involving the Armenians, the Syrian
Orthodox and the Church of the East. He notes:
the Jacobites differed from their Armenian and Nestorian co-
religionists. While steadfastly retaining their faith and loyalty to
their church the Jacobite people were never averse to social
integration within the greater order of all citizens irrespective of
religious differences. The normal behaviour, combined with
religious tenacity, accounts for their survival in their traditional
homeland, unlike the Armenians and the Nestorians, who were
either exterminated or dispersed.198

197
Ibid., p. 21.
198
Aziz Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1968, reprinted-
Kraus Reprint, 1991), p. 211.

59
 Adrian Fortescue, quoting twelfth century Muslim scholar, Shahrastani, gives his view on
the “Jacobites”. Accordingly, Fortescue surmises that “on the whole they were a tolerant and
kindly folk, who got on with their neighbours of other religions better than most people in the
Middle Ages.”199
There are two significant factors that affected the differing responses of the Syrian
Orthodox and the Church of the East towards their millet status. The first was the question of
patriarchal succession. In the Church of the East it had become hereditary since the fifteenth
century, where the patriarchate was inherited by a nephew or a brother of the deceased
patriarch, essentially eliminating the need to seek ratification of the Porte for new patriarchal
succession. Conversely, elevation to the position of patriarch in the Syrian Orthodox Church
has always been by nomination and synod election. The second point relates to the fact that the
Church of the East’s communities of Hakkari and those of northern Iraq lived in the secluded
mountain region located at the periphery of the empire, where central authority was weakest, as
well as in neighbouring Persia. As a result of these factors the Church of the East was little
concerned, if at all, with seeking an independent millet status. It may be noted at this point that
the Chaldeans (the Uniate section of the Church of the East) obtained an independent millet
status in 1840, although Joseph cites 1843.200

1.4.3 The Syrian Orthodox and the Millet System

Not a great deal is known about the relationship between the Syrian Orthodox and the
Armenians at the millet level over the Ottoman period. However, notes Ozcosar,201 all the
official sources show that the Syrian Orthodox were represented by the Armenians through
whom their contact with the Porte were conducted. Historical accounts also indicate that the
two churches operated independently from each other in all matters concerning liturgical
practices, ecclesiastical appointments and pastoral matters. Further, during the de-
centralization era, the Ottoman state was even less inclined to pursue a rigid application of the
millet system and the fine details of its operation particularly with regard to such small sub-
199
Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches, (London: Catholic Trust society, 1913 - re-published Gorgias
press, 2001), p.331.
200
John Joseph The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours’ p. 52.
201
Ibrahim Ozcozar, “Separation and Conflict: Syriac Jacobites and Syriac Catholics in Mardin in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 38 No. 2 (2014) 201-217, p. 203; Ibrahim
Ozcosar, Bir Yuzyil Bir Sancak Bir Cemaat: (Yuzyilda Mardin Suryanileri. Ankara: Beyan, 2008), pp. 52-62.

60
millets. Diyarbakir, the provincial capital of the vilayet, was the point of official reference for
the Suryani, then the Suryani Qadim (versus the new Catholic Suryane) Patriarchate until the
early 1800s.202
However, one incident, which occurred in 1781 to 1782, brought the sultanic authority
to bear on the investiture of a new patriarch. This was in consequence of an attempt by Mikhail
Jarwah, the Syrian Orthodox bishop of Aleppo from 1766, who had converted to Roman
Catholicism, to take over the patriarchate when it became vacant on the death of Patriarch Jirjis
IV on July 21, 1781. Details of the unfortunate feud between Jarwah and the opposing
candidate, Matta, an adherent of Syrian Orthodoxy, are outside the scope of the current
discussion. However, it is relevant to state here that the matter, which had been tossed around
between Diyarbakir, Mardin, Mosul and Baghdad, was eventually settled when the Syrian
Orthodox party obtained a berat from Sultan Abdul Hamid I for the investiture of Cyril Matta
as patriarch.203
The next recorded event of seeking sultanic approval of a patriarchal appointment was
that of Patriarch Elias II (1838-1847).204 Upon his election by the Syrian Orthodox Synod, he
headed to Istanbul where he stayed for 14 months as the guest of the Armenian Patriarch,
whose help he secured for the Sultanic beret of his appointment. Thus, from before 1800,
seeking authority from the highest office in the land became a standard practice.
When Patriarch Peter III was elected and ordained patriarch in 1872, he travelled to
Istanbul to seek not only a berat for his appointment, but also independence from the
Armenian millet. He secured the first, but not the second.205
Over the last two decades several authors206 have quoted John Joseph207 reporting that the
Syrian Orthodox Church obtained the millet status in 1882. Joseph states: “It took ten years

202
Ibrahim Ozcosar, “Osmanli Devlet``Millet Sistemi ve Suryani Kadimler,” in Suryaniler ve Suryanilik, vol.2,
edited by Canan Seyfeli, Eyyup Tanriverdi and Ahmet Tasgin, (Ankara: Orient Yayinlari, 2005), pp.226-227.
203
Aphram Barsoum, “From the History of the Syrian Dioceses,” in al-Majala al Batriarkia al-Suryania, No. 4,
1940, pp. 191-197.
204
Ibrahim Ozcosar, Bir Yuzyil Bir Sancak Bir Cemaat: Yuzyilda Mardin Suryanileri, Ankara:Beyan, 2008), p.
226.; Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian Church of Mesopotamia, ( New York: Appleton, 1844),
p. 202.
205
Ibrahim Ozcosar, Bir Yuzyil Bir Sancak Bir Cemaat, p. 227.
206
See Sebastian de Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans, Translated by
Vincent Aurora, (Picataway: Gorgias Press, 2004), p. 130; William Taylor, Narratives of Identity: The Syrian
Orthodox Church and the Church of England 1895-1914, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013), p. 87; Benjamin
Trigona-Harany, The Ottoman Suryani from 1908 to 1914 ( Piscatawa: Gorgias Press, 2009), p.100.

61
before the Jacobite millet, with the strenuous exertions of its Patriarchs and help from Great
Britain was finally recognized (1882) as a separate and distinct community.”208 Joseph also
quotes from Oswald Parry: “When O.H. Parry visited the Jacobites on a special mission in
1882, the patriarch had a bishop at Istanbul ‘with the right of audience of the Sultan.’”209
A closer look at Parry’s referenced book places the above note in a more accurate
perspective. Parry states “The present Patriarch has obtained, by strenuous exertions, the right
to be directly presented at Constantinople, instead of the mere right to appeal through the
Gregorian-Armenian Patriarch. He has now a Bishop at Constantinople, with the right of
audience to the Sultan.”210
From Parry’s account one may reasonably deduce that “by strenuous exertions,” which
may have been with the help of Great Britain, Patriarch Peter III, obtained the right of audience
with the Sultan and by implication the prospect of direct access to the Porte. The fact that
Patriarch Peter and the succeeding Patriarchs, Abdul Masih, Abdullah and Elias III were all
endowed with nishans from the sultans support Parry’s statement. However, Parry’s statement
does not spell out formal independence from the Armenians in the form of being granted an
independent millet status.
The source in Joseph’s referenced book specifying the 1882 date is the book by
Silbernagl.211 Silbernagl states (my translation): “The Jacobites were not recognized by the
Porte and were represented there by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. They have to
be grateful for it was thanks to the English influence that, beginning in 1882, they were
acknowledged as independent millet with their own Patriarch being recognized as their
spiritual and secular leader.”212
Silbernagl gives Eduard Sachau’s book213 as his source of information. The following is
my translation of the relevant sections in Sachau’s book from which it will be seen that the
Syrian Orthodox who were seeking independent recognition from the Porte, lacked a critical
support from a European power:
207
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the
Jacobites in an Age of Transition, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), p. 29.
208
Ibid.
209
Parry, pp. 314-15
210
Ibid.
211
Isidor Silbernagl, Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Regensburg: 1904).
212
Ibid, p. 308.
213
Eduard Sachau, Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, (Leipzig, 1883).

62
 ...the Jacobites are not recognized as a religious entity by the Porte
and so have no religious representation there. They can only deal
with the Administration through the intervention of the Armenian
patriarch. However the Armenians have troubles enough of their
own. Even if they had a measure of power, I doubt very much
whether they would be inclined to exert themselves in any great
measure for the Jacobites, with whom they have nothing in
common…

Their Patriarch Pedros (sic, Peter III) was living in Istanbul

as I came through it on my journey home. He was making every
effort to obtain official recognition from the government for his
own people. He could do this with the support of one of the
European legations. He had been appealing to them for a long time
in vain; yet this matter also had a political angle. Pedros and his
people have only to accept the union with Rome which is offered
to them on a daily basis – the Papacy would immediately gain a
hundred thousand more adherents, and the Syrians would receive
the protection of France…Since that time however there has been a
change in favour of the Jacobites. They have the English to thank
for the fact that, starting in 1882, they were recognized as an
independent millet by the Porte with their Patriarch
[acknowledged] as a religious and civil leader.214

In this, aside to the question of date, Sachau provides a clear indication of the
predicament in which Syrian Orthodoxy found itself towards the end of the Ottoman rule:
seeking survival as an independent historical Oriental church in the face of pressures by Rome,
backed by French influence.
From the above it is seen that the widely referenced claim of the attainment of the millet
status in 1882 is not based on any evidence that can be traced to a historical document. In fact
the evidence which is available indicates that by 1891 the Syrian Orthodox still did not have an
independent millet status. This evidence can be inferred from a letter penned in Arabic by
Patriarch Peter and addressed to Archbishop Benson, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The letter
dated June 11, 1891, complains of the bad treatment imposed by the Armenians on the Syrian
Orthodox under the excuse of millet affiliation, particularly with regard to property rights. The
following is a translation of the letter that has been preserved in the Lambeth Archives. The
translation appears to have been made by someone at Lambeth Palace or commissioned by it. I
have checked the said translation for accuracy against the Arabic text and, where necessary,

214
Ibid.

63
out the necessary modification. The main issue in this letter was the Armenian attempt at
expropriating Syrian Orthodox properties in Jerusalem.
We have already forwarded to your Grace, information as to the
oppression and tyranny of the Armenians and their depriving us of
the sacred places which belong to us in the Holy City, Jerusalem.
Up to the present we have not obtained any restraint of their
extensive lawlessness and oppression which it is impossible for us
to endure...they are forcing us to become their subjects in order
that they may seize what remains to us of churches, convents and
their endowments... But the case, as you are aware, is that we and
they are both subjects of the Ottoman Government, and according
to the firmans and documents from ancient times which we have in
our hands, we are independent like the other churches and the
chronicles also testify to this.

The letter ends with a request to use England’s good offices with the
Porte to ensure the requested protection. The letter bore the ending:

Ignatius-Peter III- Syrian Patriarch of Antioch

From Mosul, on June 11, 1891.215

Apart from the millet issue raised, the letter clearly expresses deep bitterness towards the
Armenians who, under the millet system, were supposed to be representatives and defenders of
the Syrian Orthodox, but were instead engaged in the attempt to appropriate to themselves
properties historically owned by the Syrian Orthodox in Jerusalem. It may be noted that
Patriarch Peter sent his letter from Mosul where he was on a mission to resolve another
property issue; the ownership of one of two major churches which the Syrian Orthodox owned
in Mosul, but which were claimed by the Syrian Catholics, with backing from France.
The sense of bitterness towards the Armenians is also expressed in a letter Patriarch Peter
addressed to the Porte dated October 11, 1891,216 which appeared to be in response to a
complaint levelled against the Syrian Orthodox (Suriani Qadim) by the Armenian Patriarchate.
In his response Patriarch Peter rejects any mandate the Armenians continued to claim, as well
as their accusation that Patriarch Peter’s journey to England in 1874/1875 was in order to unite
his church with that of the English, pointing out at the same time to the multiple divisions

215
Lambeth Palace Library Archive, Benson 103.f.58.
216
Archival Document K10-B86-0808

64
within the Armenian Church and community. Patriarch Peter makes a specific reference to
property disputes his church continued to have with the Armenians at various cities but
specifically in Jerusalem.

1.4.4 Relations with the Porte

The reality of the dealings between the Syrian Orthodox and the Porte throughout the
nineteenth century clearly indicates that the Syrian Orthodox had direct access to the Porte in
all matters, starting from the notification of the election of a new patriarch to granting the
patriarch honours nishans, as well as the patriarch’s approval for travel outside the Ottoman
Empire, as in the case of the travel of Patriarchs Peter and later Abdullah to England and to
India. All other matters that required interaction with the Ottoman authorities at the vilayet
level and lower were conducted by direct communication between the respective church
authority and the local Ottoman administration.
For example, the audience between Patriarch Abdullah and Sultan Abdul Hamid in 1908
was requested directly by representative of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Istanbul, and the
approval for the audience was communicated directly to the said representative (see Chapter
Four). Thus, the Syrian Orthodox Church (Suryani Qadim) had a de facto recognition as a
separate millet, even if formal recognition as such was, according to current evidence, not
obtained.
It may also be noted at this point that towards the end of the nineteenth century the
political developments within the Ottoman Empire beginning with the Tanzimat period (see
later) rendered the millet system far more flexible than what it was at the beginning of that
century. One of the features of this flexibility was the direct communication that became
possible between the patriarch’s representative in Istanbul and the various offices of the Porte.
One prominent case in this regard was in obtaining the approval of the Porte for the deposition
of Patriarch Abdul Masih in 1903-04, where direct communication between the office of the
patriarchal representative in Istanbul, conveying the decision of the church synod, and the
Porte was evident from the archival documents (see Chapter Four). A further witness to the
direct relationship between the Syrian Orthodox (Suryani Qadim) and the Porte was the
audience that Patriarch Abdullah had with Sultan Abdul Hamid during Abdullah’s visit to
Istanbul on his way to England and India (see Chapter Four).

65
1.4.5 The Orthodox Suryani Qadim Patriarchal General Regulation (Ortodoks Suryani
Kadim Patrklgi Nizamnamey – i Umumiyesi)
The main progress in the application of the millet regulations in the Syrian Orthodox Church
was the development of a regulation for the internal governance of the church and its
community. A twelve member joint council, consisting of six clergy and six lay members was
formed by a patriarchal order in late 1913. The joint council proposed a draft of sixty four
articles that addressed matters that ranged from the election of the patriarch and bishops to
joint councils at diocese level and a host of other regulations.217 The joint council completed
the draft regulation, which was submitted to the Porte by Patriarch Abdullah in June 1914.218
No confirmation of final Porte approval has been identified.

1.4.6 Sultans and Patriarchs - Certain Parallels Worthy of Note

Despite the vast difference in scope of temporal jurisdiction and responsibility, between an
Ottoman sultan and a patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, there were distinct parallels in
the roots of their power and in the manner each was viewed by his subjects.

The Sultan - An Exemplary Status

The character of the Ottoman state may be viewed on the one level as an Islamic Sultanate but
on a more communal level as a patrimonial monarchy, that is a state conceived on the model of
a vastly extended household.219
The ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity and heterogeneity constituted the most
significant characteristics of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans imposed their rule on the
diverse populations of their vast Empire by their emphasis on religion as the primary form of
identity, thereby excluding the more complex ethnic and linguistic differences. This was
particularly the case prior to the era of reform when the Ottoman state was a culturally
conservative system of government in which authority and tradition went hand in hand.
At the top of the power pyramid stood the sultan, an absolute divine-right monarch.
Since in theory the sultan enjoyed ultimate God-given authority to rule, his subjects considered

217
Battraqkhana Nizamnana ‘Mumi 1330-=, scribed by Bishop Yuhannon Dolabani.
218
Al Hikmat, No. 22, June 20-July 3, 1914, p. 336. This is discussed further in Chapter Four.
219
Carter Vaughn Findley, Ottoman Civil Officialdom, a Social History, Princeton, 1989, p 7.

66
him the sole source of legitimate power; he could therefore demand absolute obedience from
them, including complete control over their lives and positions. He owned all the state lands
and could dispose of them as he saw fit. Despite his absolute power, the sultan could not
violate Islamic Law or custom.220 The opinion of the Muslim community, expressed through
the ulema could strongly influence his decisions and actions. God had entrusted his people to
him and the sultan was responsible for their care and protection.221

The Patriarch Among His People - an Enduring Legacy

The patriarch is more than the head of the church. He is the symbol of the faith, the figurehead
of the community and the father of the flock. Thus, he is traditionally perceived as the
personification of the entire church.
The full title of the Patriarch in the Syrian Orthodox Church - “Ignatius Patriarch of the
Apostolic Seat of Antioch and All the East”- is imbued with historical symbolism on multiple
planes. Being a patriarch symbolizes an ancestral association with the venerable Old Testament
Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Being of the Apostolic Seat of Antioch carries
association with the Antioch, which was the historical capital of Roman Syria. This title also
defines the geographic provenance of its jurisdiction. But more importantly, the association
with Antioch is a source of pride to his church as this position endows the patriarch with the
honour of being heir to and descendant of Peter the Apostle, who preached in that city in CA.
34 CE,222 and who is considered to be its first Patriarch. Moreover, Antioch was where the
nascent believers in the new faith were first called Christians. The patriarch is also the father of
a church whose roots are Semitic and whose liturgical language Aramaic, thus uniquely
reflecting the cultural roots of Jesus himself and his disciples.
As a further layer of venerable historical association, beginning with Bar Wahib (1292),
all patriarchs adopted, upon inauguration, the title Ignatius. This tradition has been in deference
to the venerable memory of Ignatius the Illuminator, the third bishop of Antioch (from 98 to
117 CE),223 who was martyred in Rome.

220
Mehrdad Kia,Daily Life in The Ottoman Empire, Greenwood, 2011, p. 36
221
Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650-The structure of Power, 2003, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 320.
222
Acts of the Apostles (11:25-27).
223
Eusebius, Church History II, 3.22

67
 In the golden age of Syrian Orthodoxy, namely during the Abbasid Caliphate, the
patriarch exercized his authority over the numerous dioceses that spread over Greater Syria,
Anatolia, Mesopotamia and as far east as India and Afghanistan.224 He did not do this with the
support of any temporal ruler or political power, nor through tribal allegiances and treaties, but
by virtue of a venerable historical image, that endured in the face of adversity, coupled with an
established tradition of independence. This accumulated historical precedence formed the basis
for a lasting tradition. Thus, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, even though church
membership had fallen greatly, in the eyes of his people, the patriarch still held the authority
bestowed on him by a long tradition of survival under prolonged adverse environments.
The patriarch has thus been traditionally viewed by his people as the guardian and the
protector of the Apostolic seat of Antioch, the descendant of Peter the Apostle, and the trustee
of this position of honour. In the eyes of the state, he carries the responsibility of being the
leader of his people, and in the eyes of his people he is viewed as father and shepherd. He
stands as the symbol and defender of the identity of his church and, through that, his
community.
Clearly, however, there are the obvious lifestyle differences between the sultan and the
patriarch; the pomp that characterizes the palace life of the sultan compared to the austerity of
monastery life that characterizes the life of a patriarch. This simplicity of lifestyle reinforced
the symbol of fatherhood: of a father devoted to the well being of his children. Ordinary folk
wrote to him about all manners of issues they faced. However this ease of accessibility did not
detract from the reverence they had for him. The patriarchal archives are rich with examples
that show the reverence people had for their patriarch (see Chapter Two).
The historical experience in the Middle East has also contributed significantly to
maintaining patriarchal authority. The Arab conquest in the seventh century deprived the
Christians of direct political power and relegated them to a dhimmi status. At the same time,
however, it provided the patriarchs many aspects of civil authority that they did not have
before. Thus, in contrast to the situation in Europe, where the functions of a chief cleric were
essentially confined to the religious domain, the patriarch’s overall authority was enhanced by

224
Aphram Barsoum, Manarat Antakia al-Suryania, pub. Gregorius Yuhanna Ibrahim, Dar al Ruha, Aleppo,
1992, pp. 85-88; As an indication of the spread of the dioceses in the ninith century, Patriarch Dionysius of Tel
Mahre ordained one hundred bishops during his patriarchate, see Michael Rabo (the Great), The Syriac Chronicle,
trans. Matti Moosa, Beth Antioch Press, NJ, 2014, pp. 742-743.

68
a significant civil authority. The adoption of the millet system by the Ottomans further
consolidated this authority. Interestingly enough, drawing on this long standing custom, a good
measure of this authority has persisted in the Arab Middle East to the present day.

1.5 From Millet to Nationalism

1.5.1 General Developments
In his excellent analysis of this subject, Karpat225 alludes to the basic difference in the concept
of nationality in the late Ottoman period between nations in western Europe and those in
southeastern Europe. He remarks:
In the West, the nation emerged by stressing its linguistic and
cultural peculiarities in order to assert the king’s rights against the
authority of the Church. In southeastern Europe, the Christians
claimed national statehood and independence by asserting their
religious differences and regard to the role of the Muslim sultans.
Thus religion became the foundation of their nationhood and,
despite a variety of other cultural, ethnic and historical factors
which helped to define the national identity of the Balkan states,
religion continued to color, consciously or subconsciously, their
view of the Ottoman state, of the Turks in general and their own
identity in particular.226

It may be appropriate to argue that the prominent role given to religion in Europe’s
southeastern regions is inherited from the millet system, which placed the Christian inhabitants
of these regions in the position of millel-i-mahkume, the ruled millets. Thus, emancipation from
this inferior status would certainly generate a genuine rallying issue towards nationhood,
besides all other contributing factors.

1.5.2 Social Transformation of the Millets

Ottoman society as a whole underwent major changes in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries under the impact of a series of internal and external economic, political and military
factors. These changes altered the land tenure system, the army, the socio-economic structure
of the community and ultimately the leadership of the millets.227

225
Karpat, “Millets and Nationality”, pp. 141-169
226
Ibid. p. 144.
227
Ibid, p. 152.

69
 The structural changes which affected the millet system were reflected in the rise of the
rural notables to power, the birth of new entrepreneurial – commercial elite in towns, and in the
emergence of a secular intelligentsia. These were groups whose economic and political
interests were in conflict with those of their own church and millet and with the conventional
Ottoman concepts of authority.228 The power of the notables, both Muslims (the ayan and
eshraf), and the non-Muslim leaders, was enhanced further after the mid-eighteenth century by
the disintegration of the central government’s authority over most of its territories229.
Until the middle of the eighteenth century the patriarchs of the larger millets emphasized
the universality of the faith and not their respective ethnic origin or language since they could
maintain their position in their socially and ethnically diversified millets only by upholding the
universal elements of the faith. On the other hand, lesser clergy belonged mostly to the ethnic
and linguistic communities they served. The survival of the ethnic groups in the millet was
assured and reinforced indirectly by a system of local administration based on the rural
(village) or town quarter (mahalle) communities they served.
The changes in the social strata within the millets encouraged the rise of lay leaders who
spearheaded the movement of national revival and independence. However, in many other
instances these changes promoted undeserving lay leaders to positions of authority. As a
consequence, many lay leaders owed their position and power mainly to their association with
the Ottoman government rather than entirely to their influence in the community; these leaders
were derided by the intelligentsia as "tools of the Turks."230 Thus, “the rural segments of the
Christian millets in mid-century presented a paradoxical picture: their ethnic-religious
consciousness and folk culture had developed alongside some of the leaders’ interest in
maintaining the Ottoman political status quo.”231

1.5.3 The Tanzimat and Subsequent Eras

When the Tanzimat was introduced, the goals, enacted by the decree of Gulhane Hatti-i
Humayun in 1839, were to pledge life, honor, and property to all the Sultan’s subjects and their

228
Ibid, p.152.
229
Ibid, p. 153.
230
Ibid.,pp.157-158.
231
Ibid, p. 158.

70
equality under the law. It also entailed the establishment of a military system of conscription,
as well as reforming the tax system from tax farming to state controlled, direct taxation.232
Barkey argues that centralization was essential for the success of these reforms, citing
two main reasons: the international condition, marked by the military threat from Russia and
the weakness of its economic and financial position. In contrast to the Ottomans’ limited
resources, the Russians had large manpower resources, and by 1750, Russia, with one fifth of
the revenues of the French Monarchy, had the world’s largest standing army.233 The
humiliating defeats in the series of wars with Russia from 1768 to 1774 were examples of the
military challenges that faced the Ottoman Empire, and demanded a centralized control of the
state.
At the time of Tanzimat, there was a view that preferred federalism. This “was
presented, and backed by the National liberals and by the Greek and Armenian merchants in
Anatolia who preferred a multiethnic, federalist state.”234 The proponents of this view saw this
in terms of equality among all subjects, and implied ethnic and territorial autonomy. However,
Barkey cites that Keyder is doubtful of the prospect of success of this decentralization. Barkey
cites a similar view by Roderic Davison, based on the likely danger on a system involving “an
intense mosaic of millets.”235
Another feature of the Ottoman imperial rule was the flexibility in the management of
religious diversity and the ability of the imperial authority to accommodate such diversity, to
incorporate but not to alter its cultural and social inheritance. Generally sultans and their
administrators succeeded in maintaining certain restraint and tolerance over their subjects,
preventing abuse by officials or promoters of religions and ethnic hatred. Thus, despite the
potential for explosion, the inter-ethnic relations were largely peaceful.236

232
Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, 2008, p. 268.
233
Ibid, pp. 268, 269, citing Virgina Asken, “Ottoman Military Recruitment Strategies in the Late Eighteenth
Century,” in Arming the State: Military Conscription in the Middle East and Central Asia, 1775-1925, ed. Erik J.
Zucher (London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 1999), 24.
234
Ibid citing Caglar Keyder, “The Ottoman Empire,” in After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building,
The Soviet Union and Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires, ed. Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), 30-45.
235
Ibid citing Roderic Davidson, “Nationalism as an Ottoman Problem and an Ottoman Response,” in
Nationalism in a Non-National State: The Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, ed. William W. Haddad and
William Ochsenwald (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1977), 25-56.
236
Ibid, p. 277.

71
 Yet, this particular Empire, with its important heritage of religious
tolerance, ended with a violent transition from empire to nation-
state. The empire on the road to nonempire [sic] committed
atrocities against its Greek and Armenian populations and, by
1915-1916, had enacted measures that ended in the large-scale
destruction of a whole community, imprinting an entirely different
legacy on the empire.237

The emergence of ethnic and religious antagonism of non-Muslims goes back at least to
the eighteenth century. It was motivated by the increased role of non-Muslims in European
trade, and the backlash this created on religious and ethnic rivalries. In response, the Muslims
felt disfranchized and “became aware of their newly acquired disadvantage and united in their
Muslim identities in resentment. This was a recipe for inter-communal disaster.”238
To explain their economic disadvantages, the Muslims blamed the lack of Shari‘a law
on the workings of commercial relations. In one case in 1764, a complaint by a well-
established Syrian merchant about the disadvantage of sultanic law (kanun), which was often
based on capitulatory treaty provisions, that allowed favour to a Christian with the status of a
dragonman for the British Consul, ended with the Porte responding with a relatively relaxed
attitude that the Shari‘a was to be followed when appropriate.239
The economic disparity in the eighteenth century was compounded by the reforms of
the mid-nineteenth century. Again in Syria more serious conflicts took place involving
Christians in Aleppo in 1850 and in Damascus in 1860, principally resulting from the declining
position of the Muslim traders. A central element in the 1839 Tanzimat reforms “brought
regularization of the state-society relations: no more individual community compacts but rather
one state-society arrangement for all.”240 This implied state courts that ruled independently of
ulema, and a conscription system that signalled the end of traditional expectations, for both the
Muslim communities and non-Muslim communities. Further, the reforms, which guaranteed
personal rights (i.e., security of life, property and honour) regardless of religion, changed the
tenure of personal status. “Accordingly the empire could not claim the superiority of Islamic

237
Ibid, p. 277-278.
238
Ibid, 279.
239
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 125.
240
Barkey, p. 286.

72
population over non-Muslims. In return, the state demanded that all citizens be loyal to the
Sultan and to the Ottoman administration.”241
The external weakness of the empire, exemplified by its defeat in the Russian-Ottoman
war of 1877-1878, the realization of European influence and repercussions on the internal front
created a crisis in confidence and legitimacy that led to the rise of three different identity
options, which emerged throughout the three periods of Ottoman transition: the Tanzimat,
Abdul Hamid II, and the Young Turks.242
The official boundaries between religion and ethnicity became less clear during the
Tanzimat era.243 While religion was still recognized as a central pivot of the millets, the
reforms advanced by the state tended to undermine this status.244 The state came to stand for
Ottomanism, an inherent secular ideology.”245 Thus, “Ottomanism emerged as a discourse
based on the multinational, imperial model of the empire, maintaining the integrity of the
empire with equality among its citizens.”246
The notion of liberation that was promoted by the Tanzimat reformers was seriously
challenged by internal and external factors, particularly the difficulties encountered in
achieving internal cohesion. In context of the consequences of this, but more particularly
following the 1876 – 1878 war with Russia, the reign of Abdul Hamid (1876-1909) must be
considered.
In March 1877, the first Ottoman Parliament was convened, but was prorogued by
Abdul Hamid and the First Constitution suspended in 1878.247 The Second Constitutional
period started in 1908, and parliament acquired a meaningful legislative power as late as
1909.248 In the intervening period Abdul Hamid based his rule on Islam being the connecting
ideology of the state. He formulated a state policy that was based on religious solidarity and
imperial continuity between his Muslim subjects of the empire. Wars of independence and
resulting demographic changes with the resulting loss of European provinces, and the
displacement of the Muslim population as refugees to Anatolia, provided fertile ground for

241
Ibid.
242
Ibid, p. 290.
243
M. Sukru Hanioglu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 75.
244
Ibid, p. 76.
245
Ibid.
246
Barkey, p. 290.
247
M. Sukru Hanioglu, p. 120.
248
Ibid.

73
building his policy on unity, survival and on Islamic legitimation. Hence, associated with
Ottomanism, an Islamist or pan-Islamist perspective emerged, both as an opposition to the
conservative outlook of the ulema, and as a political ideology of a consolidated Islamic empire,
which Abdul Hamid embraced.249 The Islamic faith that followed was based on “the correction
of beliefs” of the heretics and the spread of the official version of faith among Muslims of the
Empire.250
The Islamization proceeded at all levels, educating and reasserting core Sunni beliefs in
regions with Shi‘a convictions. However, this was carried out largely by raising levels of
mistrust and suspension among Muslims, and, as a result, “turned out to be disastrous for inter-
religious relations in the empire.”251
In reaction to Abdul Hamid’s Islamist policies, the Young Turks came to power
through their 1908 coup d’etat on a secular platform. Although they started by officially
embracing Ottomanism, they soon also turned toward nationalism, embracing Turkish
identity.252
The Young Turks’ initial liberal focus was soon to change to an increasingly authoritative
attitude that was less embracing of the mosaic of Ottoman society. The catalysts to this were
the secessionist movements and uprisings in Albania and Yemen, the Italian invasion of Tripoli
in 1911 and the Balkan war of 1912-1913.253 With the empire being increasingly stripped of its
ethnic and religious diversity, the Young Turks used Islamic symbolism as a core brand of
their rule. Turkish nationalism and Islam became the exclusive elements of the reduced empire.
“The Young Turks had strategized to mobilize their remaining identity fragments at the cost of
the destruction of the Armenian Community.”254 The fate of the Armenians was shared by all
the other Christians in Anatolia, who had no nationalistic ambitions.
Looking with a broad view at the Ottoman state at the end of the nineteenth century, a
report prepared by Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, one of the most prominent statesmen of the
nineteenth century,255 provides a summary of the essential premise upon which the empire

249
Barkey, p. 290.
250
Barkey, p. 292; Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domain, p. 49.
251
Barkey, p. 292.
252
Ibid, p. 293; Hanioglu, pp. 144-149.
253
Barkey, p. 293.
254
Ibid, p. 294.
255
Ahmed Cevdet Pasha (1822-1895) was a historian, statesman, sociologist and legist. He was close to Abdul
Hamid. From 1877-1882, was minister in several portfolios that included Justice and Interior.

74
stood. Selim Deringil notes that as such, this document represents a “valuable repository of
tacit knowledge of a leading Ottoman:”256 Cevdet states:
Since the time of Yavus Sultan Selim (Selim I) the Sublime
state has held the caliphate and it is thus a great state founded on
religion. However, because those who founded the state before
that were Turks, in reality it is a Turkish state (bir devlet-i
Turkiyedir). And since it was the House of Osman that
constituted the state this means that the Sublime State rests on
four principles. That is to say, the ruler is Ottoman, the
government is Turkish, the religion is Islam, and the capital is
Istanbul. If any of these four principles were to be weakened,
this would mean a weakening of one of the four pillars of the
state structure.257

It is thus remarkable that one of the most competent and oft-quoted of Ottoman statesmen
should explicitly say that the Ottoman state was, in the first instance, Turkish, a reality that was
soon to unfold. Although other Muslims have their place, the Turks must always come first.
It is perhaps apt to conclude by quoting Barkey’s summary of the last two centuries of
Ottoman history as follows:
Although the Ottoman Empire had been tolerant, its forbearance
was built on the notion of order, which assumed the superiority of
Muslims over non Muslims. Both conditions of trade and western
Intervention had played havoc with this notion of Pax Ottomanica
and Islamic superiority...Western support and advantages in trade,
separate education, and the spread of a world system incorporating
the idea of nationalism were all compounded by serious
demographic instabilities.258

The state response to the conditions of increasing Christian privilege and

political ambitions, on the one hand, and decreasing Muslim status, on the other
“was to dispense with diversity as an asset of empire. Once diversity was recast as
weakness, another essential component of the empire was stripped away.”259

256
Selim Deringil, Well Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire,
1876-1909, (London: I.B. Tauris, 1998), p. 169.
257
Ibid.
258
Barkey, p. 289.
259
Ibid.

75
1.6 Revival and Nationalism in the Arab Lands
1.6.1 In Greater Syria
In 1517, Sultan Selim’s conquest of Syria and Egypt expanded the territory of the Ottoman
Empire to include the heartland of Islam which was also the home of the ancient Christian
churches of the East: Melkite Orthodox, East and West Syriacs (i.e., Syrian Orthodox and
Maronites) and Copts, as well as Jews. Muslim-Christian relations in Greater Syria were at a
low ebb when the Ottomans arrived. “The Mamluk sultans had embarked on an ideological, as
well as a military, campaign against the Christians in the aftermath of the crusades.”260 Their
armies destroyed churches and monasteries, and the state imposed severe restrictions on their
Christian subjects. The invasion by Tamerlane at the beginning of the fifteenth century
wreaked mayhem and destruction on the whole region, but with particular predisposition for
devastation of any Christian communities that lay in his path. Egypt, which was spared this
latest devastation, had had its Coptic communities and churches under the cruel treatment of
the Mamluks since the time of the Mongols. The almost continual persecution of the Copts
from early Islam reduced a majority to an isolated minority.261
In Syria, the majority of Christians were the Antiochean Greek Orthodox (the Melkites).
The Syrian Orthodox occupied a distant second position in terms of population and influence.
Earlier, the Church of the East had gained adherents in Mesopotamia, in Persia and in the lands
of its eastern neighbors. Like the Syrian Orthodox, the followers of the Church of the East (the
East Syrians) had their greatest success under Islam, during the early centuries of its rule. They
also attained influence in the service of the Mongol invaders. After the Mongol dynasties in the
Middle East were converted to Islam, the East and West Syrian communities suffered
persecution and decline. They attracted little attention under Ottoman rule and then only as the
object of European missionary advances.262
In Lebanon, the Maronites established contact with Rome during the crusades, although
union with Rome was not finally confirmed until the early sixteenth century.263 The Maronites
maintained continuous and direct links with the West, with France in particular, which enabled

260
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), p. 41.
261
Ibid, pp. 41, 42.
262
Benjamin Braude, “Introduction” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural
Society, eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. II, The Arab Speaking Lands, 1982, p. 3.
263
Benjamin Braude, “Introduction” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Vol. II, p. 3.

76
them to act as a channel in commercial, political, and spiritual matters. Another distinctive
feature of the Maronites was their settlement in Mount Lebanon, largely secluded from the rest
of the turbulent land of the rest of the Levant. This contributed to their sense of individuality as
a community and their attachment to the land.
The Maronite union with Rome was a precursor of a development which affected every
Christian church in the region. In the first phase of the Counter-Reformation, the Roman
Catholic Church embarked upon a persistent programme to bring all the surviving Oriental
churches under its domain. As a consequence, the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries witnessed deep sectarian conflict within each church as those forces loyal to the
established hierarchies and dogmas fought with groups won over to Rome. The missions begun
by the Latin missionaries in Syria in the seventeenth century, coupled with commercial
incentives, were soon to produce the desired outcome. By about 1750, the overwhelming
majority of Aleppo’s Christians and many of those in Damascus and the coastal cities of
greater Syria had embraced one form or another of the Catholic faith.264 Somewhat later, a
similar process started when Protestant missionaries made inroads on these same churches.265
During the nineteenth century the dissident groups, with the support of Western powers, gained
recognition from the Ottoman authorities as autonomous millets.
Among those who rejected alignment with the Western Churches, the Arabic-speaking
Orthodox (Melkites) were among the first to call for revival. This revival took the form of a
call for the awakening of the Arab language, culture and nation. “Unlike their fellow
Christians, they bore a twofold psychic burden. While the other Christians in the Arab
provinces were considered inferior in status to the Muslims, they were at least masters in their
own churches.”266 For the Melkites, on the other hand, there was an added yoke: the Greek
dominance of the Antiochean patriarchate. Their sense of alienation grew in the aftermath of
the Greek War of Independence, with the gradual triumph of Hellenic ethnicity in matters of
ecclesiastical hierarchy. “As strangers in both church and state, they, of all the communities in
the Ottoman Empire, were the most in need of the new identity, which nationalism offered. Not

264
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), p. 95.
265
Kamal S. Salibi, “The Two Worlds of Assaad Y. Kayat,” in Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds.,
Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. II The Arab –Speaking
Lands, pp. 135-158. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc (1982).
266
Benjamin Braude, “Introduction” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Vol. II, p. 4.

77
surprisingly, they were the earliest and most radical spokesmen for what became Arab
nationalism.”267
The contrast between the non-Muslims of Anatolia and the Balkans on the one hand, and
those of the Arabic-speaking lands on the other is worth noting. Christians in the former areas
were both numerous, if not a majority, and restive; they retained their own languages and were
more open to the Western ideas of the Enlightenment and later nationalism. Christians in Arab
lands, on the other hand, were minorities that had shared the language and social culture of
their Muslim neighbors and, following their tragic experience from the time of the Crusades,
were generally mindful of the risks of following the West without adequate consideration of
the effects. Jews adopted a generally a more somber attitude toward the Ottoman authorities
and regional contrasts among them were less marked but still perceptible: Salonican Jewry was
clearly more advanced than that of Aleppo, for example.268
The glaring comparison between Christians from different parts of the empire in the late
Ottoman period can be seen most clearly as is aptly expressed by Braude as follows:269 “the
Balkan Christians created their own nation-states. The Armenians in Anatolia tried and failed.
Christians in the Arab countries sought new roles as confessional minorities in Arab national
states.” It may also be noted that in the Balkans and Anatolia, sectarian animosities between
Muslims and Christians gave rise to nationalist ones as religious identities were cast in political
modes of expression that borrowed from the West. In the Arab provinces, on the other hand,
nationalism emerged as a common denominator that helped overcome the historical rift
between sectarian communities, as their elites worked through the religious and ethnic
ambiguities in the succession nation states and evolved a new political identity as Arabs.
Viewing these evolutions as regional millet developments, the Christian elites in the
Arabic speaking lands had become cosmopolitan in their economic and cultural interests. This
made them more susceptible to adopting a newly articulated identity as Ottomans. In their
tentative embrace of Ottomanism, however, the non-Muslims had stepped outside the more
narrowly defined boundaries of their communities as millets. Ottomanism was the ideological
means of a transition from an identity configured solely by religion to nationalism, as
advocated by the intellectual elites among Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians.

267
Ibid.
268
Ibid, p.5.
269
Ibid.

78
 Keeping within the broader picture of these developments, Robert Haddad’s work270 on
the Muslim-Christian and intra-Christian interactions in effecting the necessary transitions,
merits careful consideration. Haddad argues that the Christians in the Arab lands twice played
a role of accelerating the transmission of secular learning from the West to the Islamic world.
On the first occasion, this was through their interaction with Greek learning, when many of the
intellectual trends from the Hellenic and Greek civilizations, were to lead to the creation and
rise of the salient institutions of Islamic civilization. On the second occasion, a millennium
later, this was by promoting, through the impetus of their collective aspirations, access to the
fledging Western civilization. During the first age of transmission, covered by the period from
750 CE to around 950 CE, this transmission was largely achieved through scholarship among
the Syrian Orthodox and the East Syrians. These Christians, however, were not those who were
engaged in the second age of transmission, for they had become marginalized over time by the
persecution of invading Mongols and Turks, as well as by the rise of Islamic civilization,
which, paradoxically, they had help establish. Hence by the time Selim established Ottoman
rule in Syria, the “Christian Standard” had passed from the Syrian Orthodox and the Eastern
Syrians to the Maronites and the Orthodox Melkites.271
As noted before, the Catholic missionary work in Syria resulted in the creation of a
sizeable Uniate body from the Melkite Orthodox, the Armenians and the Syrian Orthodox. As
a result, until well into the twentieth century the Uniate Melkites were the most “Westernized”
Arabic speaking community in Syria (and Egypt) and the most alienated from indigenous
traditions and values. The paradox of the Uniate Melkite role in this awakening lies in the fact
that the Syrian Arab ethnic awareness they helped initially to foster was to receive its fullest
development, at least among Christians, in the Orthodox Melkite community. This was aided
by two main factors: the Protestant missions, and, to a much smaller extent by the interest of
the Russians, both in the nineteenth century.
The nineteenth century also saw the arrival and early development of the Protestant
missions, mainly American, in Lebanon. Unlike the Latins who, in formal religious terms,
demanded little beyond submission to Rome, the Protestants struck at the heart of the

270
Robert M. Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, an interpretation, 1970, and Robert M. Haddad,“ On
the Melkite passage to the Unia: The Case of Patriarch Cyril al-Za`im (1672-1720)” in Benjamin Braude and
Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. II The
Arab –Speaking Lands, pp. 67-90, (New York, 1982).
271
Ibid, p. 13.

79
ecclesiastical organization and at the traditional devotional life of the Eastern Christian (see
Section 1.3).
The Russians also entered the fray by encouraging the ethnic and linguistic awareness of
the Orthodox Melkites. They did this by means of setting up primary and secondary schools
that emphasized the study of Arabic, as most of their Latin counterparts never had. However,
Russian influence and Russian schools came too late and vanished too quickly to leave the
lasting influence left by the Latin and Protestant missions.272
The nineteenth century saw forces at play among the Orthodox Melkites which were to
transform the community from a passive victim to active promoter. More than any other
numerically significant Christian community in Syria, the Orthodox Melkites were evolving as
a community, responsive to Western influences but firmly rooted in the context of geographic
Syria, sharing little of the Maronites’ commitment to Lebanese particularism, and especially
the Uniate Melkites’ cultural alienation. The attitude of the Orthodox Melkites towards the
West, was always conditioned by an awareness of having been victims, as well as
beneficiaries, of Western penetration.
Considering the events at the more general level of the Ottoman Empire, the Tanzimat
reform edicts of 1839 and 1856, which ushered in the policy of “Ottomanization”, served as an
ideological transition from an identity configured solely by religious faith, the millet, to
nationalism, advanced by the intellectual elites among Arabic-speaking Muslims and
Christians. The changing demographic configuration of the Ottoman state during the last
quarter of the nineteenth century rendered the reduced empire to consist almost exclusively of
the heavily Muslim Turkish and Arabic-speaking territories of the Near East. The ensuing
atmosphere for radical modification offered the Syrian Christians the opportunity for decisive
influence which had not been available for a millennium. This was the opportunity to be the
vehicle to transmit modern European learning to the Muslim society, which they seemed
capable of reviving it. The Christian’s ability to influence society and to contribute to its
development was derived from his now complete linguistic Arabization, his longer exposure
and easier access to the West, and his own immense stake in developing social and political
institutions in which he could fully participate. Thus, argues Haddad with merit, that the seeds
of the second age of transmission and the new institutional arrangements it materially helped to

272
Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, pp. 84, 85.

80
foster, are to be found in the general adoption of Arabic: first as the vernacular tongue, and
then as the only literary means of expression by the Syrian Christians in Greater Syria.273
The events of the nineteenth century and the intellectual impact of the second age of
transmission also affected the Muslim elite, who were greatly inspired by the proliferation after
1860 of Arabic periodicals and newspapers, published and written for the most part by Syrian
Christians (Jurji Zeidan and others) in their homeland (particularly Beirut) and after 1882 in
the more relaxed atmosphere of British controlled Egypt.274 These unprecedented publishing
experiences brought their readers, in addition to news and analysis of Western thought, much
creative new usage of Arabic in prose and poetry.275 This was particularly apparent in the
writings of a former student at the Syrian Protestant College, the Orthodox Melkite Jurji
Zeidan (d.1914).276
The initial response of the Arab Muslim to the Western impact had been protective of the
ideological defences of Islam. However, as certain Arab Muslims, notably the Aleppine al-
Kawakibi (d.1903) saw it, one major weakness of the Muslim world was the dominance of the
Turks, which had already been responsible for Muslim decline.277
The pioneering efforts of the Christian intellectuals from the eighteenth century towards
al- Nahda and Arabism had a parallel counter-part that was pioneered by Muhamad ،Abdah in
Egypt and Rashid Rida in Syria. Their salafiyya existed as an intellectual movement that was
independent from, and largely “oblivious to, al- Nahda of the Christians.”278 However, both
helped to accomplish the same goal, namely the emergence of an Arab cultural awareness
among Arab-speaking intellectuals, whether Christian or Muslim.279
Thus, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Syrian Christians,
particularly the Orthodox Melkites, were in the vanguard to create an ideology and community
sufficiently broad to encompass them as full and equal partners, with their Muslim co-citizens,
and thus to break the yoke of their marginality. “However, the Maronites with their Lebanese
particularism would deem themselves ill-served by the triumph of a pan-Arab nationalism

273
Ibid, pp. 14. It may be noted that the ninth and tenth centuries had already witnessed a rapid decline in the use
of Syriac among the Christians in Syria, a situation that became more consolidated in the succeeding centuries.
274
Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, p. 87.
275
Ibid, p. 88; Albert Hurani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939, Cambridge University Press, p. 97.
276
Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, p. 88.
277
Ibid, p. 89
278
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World, p. 175.
279
Ibid.

81
which could not discard the tacit assumption that to be perfectly the Arab is to be also a
Muslim.”280 So too, would the Uniate Melkites, their Western affinities no longer fruitful, thus
“drifting physically to Lebanon and politically towards the Maronite position.”281

1.6.3 In Iraq
In the late Ottoman period Iraq had its unique set of geopolitical problems: recurrent Kurdish
revolts in the mountainous north, Shi´i-Sunni divide in the south, and acute tribalism that also
extended across the geographic borders to the Gulf and Najd. These problems were
accentuated by two major factors: the traditional animosity between the Ottomans and the
Safavid Iranians, with their intrinsic division across the Sunni- Shi´i divide; and the fact that
Iraq was geographically in the hinterland of both the Arab world and the Ottoman Empire.
Iraq was isolated from the western Europeans who were establishing contact with the
eastern Mediterranean cities from the early seventeenth century onward; that is with the
exception of the limited trade made by the British through their East India Company, which ran
boats up and down the Tigris and the Euphrates as far south to Shatt-al Arab and the Gulf. This
geographical factor relegated Iraq in the eyes of the European commercial interests,
particularly the French, and confined interest to the British. The remoteness of the Porte from
Iraq enhanced the power of the local notables and tribal leaders, particularly in the all-
important domain of land ownership and tenure.282
In the late Ottoman period, the most notable dissimilarity in comparison with Syria, from
the Ottoman perspective, was the lack of a strong preoccupation with the perceived dangers of
“Arab separatism”, due to the presence of a large Shi´i population. For the Ottomans, the fear
of Shi´i disloyalty was focused not on the “Arab” issue, but rather on the “Iranian” issue.283
Abdul Hamid, sensitive to the potential problem with the Shi´is and their traditional allegiance
to Iran, sought to find a careful application of Pan-Islamism, which he attempted in Mosul, the
vilayet and city, with a sizeable Sunni-Kurdish population. Thus, religion was deliberately

280
Haddad, Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, p. 95.
281
Ibid.
282
Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, (Princeton: Princeton
University Press 1978).; Dina Rizk Khoury, State and provincial society in the Ottoman Empire; Mosul, 1540-
1834, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
283
Gokhan Cetinsaya, Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1890-1908, p. 151.

82
stressed as a social base with an emphasis on Islam in the field of public education, coupled
with an appreciation of the important sociopolitical role played by the religious notables.
The non-Muslim minorities consisted of the Christians, the largest of the minorities,
followed by the Jews, the Yazidis and the Mandaeans. The Christian population, proportionally
smaller than that in Syria, lived mainly in Mosul, its environs, and in the mountainous areas to
the north and northeast of Mosul. The Jews lived primarily in the cities: in Baghdad, where
they had a large presence,284and a much smaller presence in Mosul and Basrah. The Yazidis
lived in a few villages in the Mosul vilayet while the Sabeans lived in a few southern cities,
principally Amarah and Basrah and Nasiriya, as well as in villages.
The relatively small number of population constituents in Baghdad, except the Sunni
Muslims and the Jews, is most remarkable, particularly with regard to the Shi´is. Their
migration to Baghdad during the monarchy and subsequent regimes has been the subject of
several interesting studies.285 The very minor presence of Christians in Baghdad is in
conformity with a historical trend that had been ongoing from the heyday of the early Abassid
era. Concerns for safety during subsequent rules pushed the Christian populations northward to
the relative security of the mountainous region. A further noteworthy point is the tiny number
of Europeans. This reflects the isolation of Iraq relative to other parts of the Arab Lands, even
at that late point of Ottoman presence. Due to its wide ethnic and religious diversity, Mosul
and its environs are considered next in somewhat of a more detail.
Mosul, traditionally home to many Christians, was also home to multiple ethnic groups: a
majority of Muslim Arabs and many minorities comprising Muslim Kurds, Muslim Turks,
Christians, Jews and a small minority of Sabeans. Parry estimated the population of the city in
1892 to be about 70,000.286 Young puts the total population in 1908 to be not far short of

284
An interesting article by Fredrick and Margaret Simpich, “Where Adam and Eve Lived”, appeared in the
National Geographic Magazine, December 1914, p. 563. The article provides the following population statistics
for Baghdad at that time: Sunni Muslims: 120,000; Shi´i Muslims:15,000; Jews: 40,000; Chaldeans: 1,600;
Syrians: 1,200, Greeks,:150; Hindus: 75; Europeans: 40.
285
Fuad Baali, “Social Factors in Iraqi Rural-Urban Migration,” in American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 4, (Oct., 1966), pp. 359-364; Doreen Warriner, Land Reform and Development in the
Middle East: A Study of Egypt, Syria and Iraq, (1962); Robin Theobold, Robin and Sa‘ad Jawad, “Problems of
Rural Development in an Oil-Rich Economy: Iraq 1958-1957,” in Iraq: The Contemporary State, Ed. Tim
Niblock (1982
286
Parry, Oswald. Six months in a Syrian Monastery. London: Horace Cox, 1895. Reprint by Gorgias Press, 2001,
p. 239.

83
100,000, of whom, nine-tenths were Muslims and the remainder Christians and Jews.287 Parry
estimates the Chaldean population to be 1,500 houses, the Syrian Orthodox to be 1,000 houses,
the Syrian Catholic 400 houses and the American Protestants 30 houses.288
Until the middle of the seventeenth century the Christians of Mosul belonged either to
the Church of the East or to the Syrian Orthodox Church. As a result of the Catholic
conversions the vast majority of the Church of the East community in Mosul joined Rome
under the new name “Chaldeans.” During the latter part of the eighteenth and the first half of
the nineteenth centuries a considerable proportion of the Syrian Orthodox joined Rome
becoming known as Syrian Catholic. The Protestants, not desiring to be out-manoeuvred by the
Church of Rome, carried out their own missionary work that led to further conversions from
the indigenous churches. Gertrude Bell, clearly bemused by this fragmentation of the Mosul
Christians, who, to start with, were a minority, writes:

To this pious confusion [of churches] Protestant missionaries,

English and American, have contributed their share. There are
Syrian Protestants and Nestorian Protestants, if the terms be
admissible-though whether the varying shades of belief held by the
instructors are reflected in the instructed; I do not know and I
refrained from an inquiry which might have resulted in the
revelation of Presbyterian Nestorians, Church of England Jacobites,
or even Methodist Chaldeans.289

The Christians generally lived in the relative isolation and protection offered by the millet
system, and had a guarded interaction with the Muslim majority neighbours. They were not
engaged in any form of separatist thinking; nor did they harbour any political aspirations that
were separate from the rest of the population. Their peaceful, submissive nature, their integrity
and their honesty generally earned them the sympathy of the more enlightened Muslims and

287
Wilkie Young, “Mosul in 1909”, Notes on the City of Mosul enclosed with Dispatch, No.4, Mosul 28, 1909,
British Foreign Office 1951, 230-8, p. 231. Young notes that the only language spoken in the city (outside a
Kurdish colony, numbering perhaps 3,000), was Arabic.
288
Oswald Parry, Six months in a Syrian Monastery, p. 240.
289
Bell, Gertrude. Amurath to Amurath. London: Macmillan and Co., 1924, (Facsimile Reprint by Gorgias Press,
2004), pp. 254-257. Bell also adds: “I had also the advantage of conversing with several bishops. Now there are so
many bishops in these parts that it is impossible to retain more than a composite impression of them. They
correspond in number to the Christian sects, which are as the sands of the sea-shore, but as I was about to journey
through districts inhabited by their congregations, I made an attempt to grasp at least the names by which their
creeds are distinguished from one another. As for more fundamental distinctions, they depend upon the wording
of a metaphysical proposition which I will not offer to define, lest I should fall, like most of my predecessors, into
grievous heresy. …”

84
afforded them a degree of reprieve from the prejudices of the unenlightened who were the
majority. However, other less enlightened yet still powerful families also held sway among the
lower sectors of the Muslim population. Thus, Christians in Mosul lived under a precarious
balance between these social forces, often under the threat of persecution.
Young, in a consular report from Mosul, states:

The attitude of the Muslims [sic] towards the Christians and Jews,
to whom as stated above, they are in a majority of ten to one, is
that of a master towards slaves whom he treats with a certain lordly
tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension
to equality is promptly repressed. 290

Bell, whose visit to Mosul was in the turbulent years leading to the Young Turk
revolution, provides an even more caustic observation:

Universal liberty is not a gift prized by tyrants, and equality stinks

in the nostrils of men who are accustomed to see their Christian
fellow citizens cower into the nearest doorway when they ride
through the streets. They had no difficulty in causing their
dissatisfaction to be felt. The organization of discord is carried to a
high pitch of perfection in Mosul. The town is full of bravos who
live by outrage, and live well. Whenever the unruly magnates wish
to create a disturbance, they pass a word and a gratuity to these
ruffians; the riot takes place, and who is to be blamed for it? The
begs were all in their villages and could have had no hand in the
matter; it was Abu’l Kasim, the noted bandit, it was Ibn this or Ibn
that…291.

The position of the Christians in Mosul improved vastly after the declaration of a partial
national independence, a statehood, in 1921, under British Mandate, and the formation of a
strong central government in Baghdad. However, prejudices die hard and often persist under
the surface ready to re-appear when circumstances once again permit, as has been the case
since the American invasion of the country in 2003.

290
Wilkie Young. “Mosul in 1909.” In Notes on the City of Mosul Enclosed with Dispatch, No.4, Mosul 28,
1909, British Foreign Office 1951 2308.
Mosul in 1909.
291
Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath, pp. 248-249.

85
The Arduous Journey for Revival
As an indicator of the lag in revival in Iraq in the nineteenth century relative to, say,
Lebanon one may look at the first appearance and growth of newspapers. The first non-
government newspaper in Beirut (Hadiqat al- Akhbar) appeared in 1858, while in Iraq, the first
non-government newspaper in Baghdad (Baghdad) appeared in 1908, a full 50 years later, over
which time 40 other newspapers appeared in Beirut. In Mosul, the first government paper (Al-
Mosul) appeared in 1885 and the first non-government paper was (Nineva), which appeared in
1909.292
During the early eighteenth century, education was confined to the few who attended
mosque-run schools, which taught rudimentary basics in language and Quran recital. The
Ottomans considered education a private matter that the state would not offer. When the Jalilis
ruled over the city (1726-1834), they paid particular attention to schooling, which was mainly
private. The rising intelligentsia of the day, led by the Umari family, opened few private
schools that taught the Arabic language and religion.293
It was in 1861 that the first public (government) school or “Maktab” was opened in
Mosul. This was a combined primary and intermediate school. The school was upgraded to a
secondary school in 1895 at which time it had 34 students. By 1907, there were only 10
government schools in the city of Mosul, with a total student population of 636, all male. At
that time there were only 11 government schools in the surrounding villages, with a total
student population of 118 students, again all male.
The Christians had their own schools which taught Arabic, Turkish and Syriac and the
Jewish schools taught Hebrew instead of Syriac. Three church schools, one belonging to the
Chaldeans, one to the Syrian Catholics and one to the Syrian Orthodox, were operating by the
turn of the twentieth century. However most of the credit in non-government education goes to
the Christian missions starting from 1750. The schools they opened accepted children of all
religious denominations. The Dominican mission established a primary school for boys in
1854. In 1875, the school had 122 students and four teachers.294 They are also credited with

292
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Publication and Journalism in Mosul.” in The Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol.4,
University of Mosul Press (1993): 363-377, in Arabic.
293
Suleiman Saigh, History of Mosul,Vol.1, (Cairo: The Salafi Press, 1923, in Arabic), p. 321-324.
294
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “The Educational Movement,” in The Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol.4,
(University of Mosul Press (1993), in Arabic), pp.333-343.

86
opening the first school for girls in 1873. This school was run by nuns who had a vital role in
introducing education to girls, something that was unknown up to that time. The school was
attended by both Muslim and Christian girls.295
However, important as the effort by the Dominicans was, it was limited in scope in
comparison with the missionary programmes that were unfolding in Greater Syria, particularly
in Beirut, where the Protestant missions spearheaded a drive toward broadly-based liberal
curricula at secondary school and university levels.
The political visions and aspirations that were gathering momentum in the Arab world
towards the end of the nineteenth century also found echoes in Mosul, particularly after the
wider introduction of education, the move towards cultural revival and the introduction of
newspapers. In one form or another, these visions revolved around the dissemination of
modern knowledge.296 There were three distinct trends: an Islamic religious trend that mirrored
the thought of Mohammad Abduh in Egypt; a social progressive one that called for social
equality, for the emancipation of women and a system of government based on democratic
process; and an Arab nationalistic one that was greatly influenced by similar movements that
had already been gathering momentum in Syria. The Arab nationalist movement appealed to a
significant number of middle and upper class intellectuals at the turn of the twentieth century.
Its proponents utilized the press, a novel medium at that time, for promoting their ideas. In the
forefront of these who were engaged in this endeavour were Thabit Abdulnour (d.1958), Abdul
Majid al-Bakri (d.1968), Mohamed al-Jalili (d.1963), and Daoud al-Chalabi (d.1962). After the
First World War, this group found itself in confrontation with a new foreign rule: the British
Mandate.297
In Iraq the term "Arab Christians" has generally been confined to traditional city
dwellers. The majority of Christians, whose ancestral habitat has been in the mountains of
Northern Iraq, have generally defined their identity as ethnic Assyrians, for those of the Church
of the East, or Chaldean (among the Catholics).

295
Ibid, p.339.
296
Ahmad, Ibrahim Khalil. “Mosul and the Arab Nationalist Movement at the Turn of the Twentieth Century”. In
Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol.4, 129-144, in Arabic. p. 131; Al-Jamil, Sayar Kawkabi Ali. “The Cultural
and Scientific life in Mosul”, In The Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul, p. 318.
297
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Mosul and the Arab Nationalist Movement at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” in
Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol.4, (University of Mosul Press (1993), in Arabic), pp.129-141.

87
 Throughout the revival period and beyond, the Christians distinguished themselves in
several aspects of learning. They emerged as active participants, as citizens in a country to
which they historically belonged. They were usually in the forefront in most professional
fields: medicine, education, engineering, industrial development, finance and foreign trade.
The succeeding regimes, irrespective of their political directions and policies, found them to be
honest, interactive and essential ingredients of a fast developing society. In less than half a
century they and their Muslim colleagues succeeded in propelling Iraq to the forefront of the
Arab world in practically all fields of knowledge.

1.7 Concluding Remarks

The millet system, which assigned the internal affairs of non-Muslim communities to their
respective churches, strengthened the bond between the community and the church. As a
consequence, this closeness between church and its people preserved the overall integrity of
the smaller Christian churches such as the Syrian Orthodox as church and community from
potential absorption within other larger religious entities. Thus, in the context of the Ottoman
Empire and its Islamic mandate, the millet system, despite certain important shortcomings,
preserved and protected the smaller, and one may dare say, even the larger Christian churches
and their communities, at both central and local levels, from coercion to apostatize and from
the pressures of being under the direct authority of a potentially intrusive system and often
corrupt officialdom. However, the arrival of the Western missionaries with their intention to
apostatize indigenous Christians changed the basis tenets of security that were central to the
millet system.
The missionaries were from the start permitted to apostatize indigenous Christians as
long as they did not engage in apostatizing Muslims. This apathy toward the indigenous non-
Muslims of the Empire effectively undermined the millet system under which its non-Muslim
subjects had peacefully existed. It removed the shield that had protected the millets. This
resulted in divisions within the indigenous churches, which undermined the very foundations
of the millet system. To their dismay, the indigenous millets found that the millet system under
which they historically lived was no longer a protective shield, but a mere umbrella.
On a more general level, the complex interaction between Western intervention, the
Tanzimat reforms, the rise of nationalism and the polarization around Islamism and

88
Turkification, in conjunction with major external factors, precipitated the final demise of the
six hundred-year empire. The rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire is aptly represented by
Barkey as the rise and fall of a solar system:
The Empire prospered as a solar system, with the planets circling
the central sun, pulled in and held by the centre’s gravitational
force. No other forces pulled at the periphery, nor did the orbits of
the planets interacted with one another, focused only on the centre.
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a change of vast
proportions for the Ottomans. The holdings on the periphery
gained strength and grew freer of the gravity of the centre…. The
rotations of the holdings on the periphery became less connected to
the centre, increasingly pulled by the gravity of other centres in the
international system, pulled outwards by war and commercial ties.
The centre closed in on itself losing its flexibility in an attempt to
reform. Religious identity emerged in the centre, weakening ties of
legitimation to a diverse periphery…In the end, the Ottoman solar
system was sufficiently weakened, and then flew apart, leaving a
diminished sun.298

298
Barkey, p. 294.

89
 CHAPTER TWO

SYRIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

2.1 General
Syrian Orthodoxy in the nineteenth century was a mere shadow of its former self during the
days of Bar Hebraeus (thirteenth century). This was the outcome of nearly two centuries of a
stifled existence under the oppressive rules of the post-Mongol dynasties- the Qara Qoyunlu
(the Black Sheep Turkumans) and Aq Qoyunlu (the White Sheep Turkumans) - and nearly
three centuries of an existence at one of the remote margins of the Ottoman Empire. But the
nineteenth century was a period of mounting losses and major challenges in the life of the
Syrian Orthodox Church and its communities. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a
general review of the state of Syrian Orthodoxy during this period, as background to the more
specific topics and conditions discussed in the succeeding chapters.
The conversion to Catholicism at the hands of the Catholic missionaries that had
commenced in the previous century in major centers such as Aleppo, Damascus, Emisa
(Homs) and Mosul and their environs, grew more intense through most of the century; and the
arrival of the Protestant missions mainly in the second half of the century added to the external
challenges to Syrian Orthodoxy in the Middle East. Beyond the region, in southern India, the
home of a large Syrian Orthodox Indian community, a troubling issue appeared on the horizon
in the 1830s. Letters between the Patriarch and the clergy in India early in that period had led
to the consecration of one of the Indian students who had come to Deir al-Za‘faran for study as
a bishop, based on credentials brought with him from India. However, it was subsequently
discovered that the credentials were false, that the person concerned, Matthews, had been
encouraged to take this course of action by the Church Missionary Society, the missionary
wing of the Anglican Church in India, as part of their scheme to convert the Syrian Orthodox
in that country to their brand of Protestantism. This soon developed into a major issue for the
Syrian Orthodox Church and engaged subsequent Patriarchs, namely Jacob II, but particularly
Peter III who travelled to India in 1875 to resolve the issue (see Chapter Three). This was the
first journey ever made by a Syrian Orthodox Patriarch outside of the Middle East.

90
 Looking beyond intra-Christian issues, the insecure environment in southeastern
Anatolia, where most of the Syrian Orthodox lived, caused their towns and villages to be
constantly at the mercy of the often abusive Kurdish tribes, which surrounded them. Deir al-
Za‘faran, the Patriarchal seat since the thirteenth century, was invaded and occupied by the
Kurds (see report by Horatio Southgate). The rebellion by Badr Khan in the 1840s against the
central government wrought mayhem among the members of the Church of the East in Hakkari
and also among some of the neighbouring Syrian Orthodox communities. However, some of
the worst atrocities were committed during the Kurdish violence that started in 1895 (see
Chapter Four).
On the internal front the accumulated decline of the previous centuries continued largely
unchecked for the best part of the century in question. However, the efforts by Patriarch Peter
III to resolve the Indian crisis afforded an opportunity of a positive interaction with the
Anglican Church in seeking educational aid, based on the understanding of non-interference in
the internal religious beliefs of the Syrian Orthodox. But because British policy was strictly
based on mutual benefits, this aid was extremely limited since the Syrian Orthodox were
unable to offer the British anything of significance in return for their favour (see Chapter
Three).
The aim of this chapter is to present a broad picture of events as background to the
material discussed in the following chapters.

2.2 Sources for this Chapter

In addition to utilizing published sources, particularly those by contemporary travellers, this
chapter will for the first time analyse and utilise thousands of hitherto unexplored archival
documents from the Patriarchal Archives in Deir al-Za‘faran, Mardin, Jerusalem and Bab
Tuma (Damascus). The majority of these were letters sent from the community, both by groups
and individuals, to their patriarch on all manner of subjects and issues that affected their lives.
Nearly 5,700 of these letters have been analysed and the results are presented and discussed in
this chapter.

91
2.3 The Land, the People and their Recent History
2.3.1 General
During the Ottoman rule, the Syrian Orthodox lived in two disparate regions of Asia: in the
Middle East and on the southeastern coast of India (see Chapter Three). In the Middle East,
they lived mainly in the southeastern provinces of Anatolia, in certain districts in Syria and in
northern Iraq. In the nineteenth century the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire were
impoverished regions; having attracted little or no attention in the course of the previous
centuries, when the empire’s main concerns were in the Balkans and in the territories further
west. Prior to the Ottoman rule in these regions, which commenced in the early sixteenth
century with the rule of Selim I, these regions had been under local feudal rules that followed
the Mongol reign of the region from mid-thirteenth century.
The majority of the Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic and Chaldean populations in
Anatolia lived in the Vilayet of Diyarbakir, whereas the majority of the followers of the Church
of the East lived in the Hakkari mountainous region, which was part of the Vilayet of Van. The
rest of the Syriac Christians lived in the main population centers of Urfa to the south, Kharput
to the northwest, and Siirt and Bitlis to the east of the Tigris. These populations, like the other
numerous Christian communities in other provinces (Armenians, Greeks, Chaldeans, or
followers of the Church of the East), did not form a majority. In the eastern vilayets the Kurds
were the majority. The Muslim presence was reinforced with Circassians, Chechens, Azeries
and Crimean Tartars,299 who had arrived in these vilayets as disfranchized settlers from lands
that had seen wars of independence. The arrival of the newcomers added to the instability and
volatility of the region.
The 1876-1878 war with Russia wrought further devastation to the roads of the eastern
vilayets of Anatolia, which stretched east from Erzrum to Lake Van. To the south, battles
against the Kurdish insurgents in the Nisibin (Nisibis) and Hakkari regions rendered the entire
territory most insecure. Somewhat further south, the unruly nomadic Arab tribes living in an
area that bordered the Syrian and the Mardin plains between Jazirah (Cizre) and Jabal Sinjar,
added to the insecurity of the region. As one of the six eastern vilayets of Anatolia, Diyarbakir

299
Standard J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War on National Liberation,1918-1923,(Ankara:
Turk Tarih Kurumu 2000), Vol. I, 261

92
was bordered to the north by the vilayets of Mumurt-al-Aziz and Erzurum; on the south by the
vilayets of Aleppo and Mosul; and to the east by the vilayets of Bitlis and Van.300
The city of Diyarbakir, known as Amida in ancient Greek and Amid in Syriac, had been
part of Aramean, the Neo-Assyrian, Median, and later Persian, Roman and Byzantine
territories. Situated on the banks of the Tigris, it was the administrative capital of the
Diyarbakir vilayat. In contrast with the neglect that it had endured over recent centuries, Amida
had previously enjoyed a celebrated history. As an early Christian center, it was enlarged and
its defences strengthened by new walls around the city under the Roman Emperor Constantius
II. The region in which it was situated was often a battlefield between the warring Byzantine
and Persian Empires. It fell into the hands of the Persians in 359 and nearly three centuries
later, in 639, to the Arab Bakir tribe, from which it derives its name.301 During the later
Abbasid period (i.e., the eleventh century) and until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1515-
1517, Diyarbakir, like all the surrounding regions of Anatolia and beyond into northern Iraq
and Syria, witnessed the ravages of successive invasions that plunged these regions into
complete devastation.302
The city of Mardin was built on steeply sloped land that features a rock of the citadel
after which it is named (Mardin) Marde in Syriac for impregnable fortress. The topography of
the area is such that it provides a commanding view south, toward the Syrian Plain. To the
south of Mardin, rises Mount Izla (also known as the Mountain of Nisibis) as a low mountain
that extends along the border with Syria. Though called a mountain it is essentially a 77-
kilometre ridge that runs east - west with a plateau (Tur Abdin) located to the north and the

300
The Diyarbakir vilayet was divided into three sanjak (districts): Diyarbakir, Mardin and Arghana, each headed
by a mutassarif, who resided in the main city of the sanjak. The sanjaks were administratively divided into kazas,
each headed by a qaimmaqam. The Sanjak of Mardin, where most of the Syrian Orthodox lived, consisted of four
kazas: Avineh, with administrative center at Savour, Nisibin, Jazirah and Midyat. All administrative posts in these
vilayets were held by Turks, or at times by Kurdish notables. The vali, who resided in the capital of the vilayet,
was a dignitary appointed by the Sultan and who thus wielded an authority that was crucial to the stability of the
vilayet.
301
International Dictionary of Historical places, vol 3 Southern Europe: New York, Routledge, p. 190.
302
The entry of the Seljuks into Anatolia following the defeat of the Byzantine Emperor RomanusV Diogenes in
the battle of Manzikert in 1071, marked the influx of the Seljuk Turks into this region. The control of the city and
the surrounding region changed hands during various Turkic dynasties, becoming part of the Sultanate of Rum
between 1241 and 1259, and the capital of the beylik of the Artuklu Dynasty. It was also ruled by the Turkic
dynasties of the Qara Qoyunlu (The Black Sheep) in the period 1375-1468 and of Aq Qoyunlu (The White sheep)
in the period 1378 – 1501. Their rules extended down to Mosul and Aleppo. The region in question came under
occupation by Shah Ismail of Persia in 1507, an occupation that lasted only a few years before the noted Ottoman
conquest.

93
Syrian Plain to the south. Dara is located at the eastern end of this ridge and Serwan at the
other end.303
In Syria, apart from the main cities of Aleppo and Damascus, the Syrian Orthodox lived
mainly in Homs (Emesa) and in a number of small towns situated between Homs and
Damascus: Saddad, al-Qariatain and al-Nabak. Homs, a large city located on the Orontes River
100 kilometres to the north of Damascus, was historically an important link between the
interior cities and the Mediterranean coast. The famous monastery of Mar Musa al Habashi
(Moses the Abyssinian) is located close to Sadad, approximately 60 kilometres to the south
east of Homs. The other famous monastery in this area is that of Mar Elian, which is located
approximately 40 kilometres to the north of Damascus.
During the nineteenth century the Syrian Orthodox of Iraq lived mainly in Mosul, the
Iraqi region’s second largest city, and in its environs to the east of the Tigris in what is known
as the Nineveh Plain. One of the important towns in this plain is Bakhdida (Qaraqosh) located
30 kilometres to the southeast of Mosul, and close to the renowned sixth century monastery of
Deir Mar Behnam.304 Other towns include Bartella, located 20 kilometres to the east of Mosul;
Baashika and nearby Bahzani both located close to Deir Mar Matta. This fifth century
monastery, uniquely situated near the top of the Alfaf Mountain located 20 kilometres to the
northeast of Mosul, is counted as one of the oldest monasteries in the world. At a distance of
120 kilometres to the northeast of Mosul, lies Sinjar an important town that is perched on a
mountain by the same name. This town which lay on the trade route to Mardin gained
particular importance following the World War I massacres where many of the exiled found
refuge.

2.3.2 Travellers’ Accounts

Foreign travellers often provide valuable insights that are necessary to our understanding of
many areas, particularly those that are neglected by history. Quite often their accounts may be
the only ones on which one can rely. The regions of the Ottoman Empire where Oriental
Christians lived from the eighteenth to the twentieth century are examples of such situations.
Some of the accounts are of general nature, not specifically aimed at a particular church or

303
Hans Hollerweger, Tur ‘Abdin, p. 314.
304
In the course of the Catholic conversion campaign in the nineteenth century Deir Mar Behnam was taken over
by the Syrian Catholics as of 1839.

94
community; others are aimed at the study of the conditions of specific churches and their
communities. Examples of the first type are offered by the accounts by William Ainsworth,305
Mark Sykes306 and Gertrude Bell.307 Examples of the second type include those by Horatio
Southgate308 and Oswald Parry,309 which addressed the Syrian Orthodox. This second category
also includes the more numerous accounts written describing the regions inhabited by the
followers of the Church of the East in the Hakkari region of Ottoman Turkey, Urmia in Persia
and the northern region of Iraq. The traveller observations summarized here are presented in a
chronological order.
Interests in this region by archaeologists, missionary and other travellers commenced
during the first half of the nineteenth century. One of the first nineteen century travellers in the
region that included Tur Abdin was William Ainsworth, an archaeologist. Reporting on his
“Euphrates Expedition”310 Ainsworth described Tur Abdin as a “remarkably lonely and barren
region of hard lime stones tilted up by igneous rocks extends from the Tigris at Jezirah ibn
Omar to the site of Dara, and is prolonged to Mardin, whilst on the plain at its south-western
extremity is the renowned city of Nisibis. This region, which it took us two days to traverse, is
known by the name of Jebel Tur, an old Aramean name for a mountain, which has entered into
the composition of many significant names, as Taurus, we may even find a relic of the same
name in Mam Tor in our own country…”311 He found this district to be infertile and abounding
in wolves and was happy to leave it: “It was a pleasant change when on Sunday, March 26, we
left this region (not a very safe one to travel in), and entered upon the plain of Nisibis…”312
His visit included a number of monasteries including Deir al-Za’faran, Deir Mor Yakub, and
towns such as Mardin, Kalaat-Marah, located half-way between Mardin and Deir al-Za‘faran,
and Bnebil, located to the northeast of Mardin.
Mark Sykes,313 the future formulator of the Sykes-Picot accord after World War I period,
navigated the Tigris from its upper sources, passing through Hasankeif, with its famous cliff

305
William Francis Ainsworth, A Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition.
306
Mark Sykes, Through Five Turkish Provinces: London, Bickers & Son, 1900.
307
Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath.
308
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia.
309
Oswald Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery. London: Horace Cox, 1895. Reprint by Gorgias Press, 2001.
310
Ainsworth, A Personal Narrative,
311
Ibid., p333.
312
Ibid., p334
313
Mark Sykes, Through Five Turkish Provinces.

95
formation down to Mosul. His account, published in 1900, makes passing references to the
lands of the Syrians. His main interest was in the Hakkari Mountains, home of the
“Nestorians” in Anatolia.
Gertrude Bell, the well-known explorer, archaeologist, and subsequently British emissary
to mandated Iraq, travelled in many parts of the Near East starting from 1892. In the course of
her two journeys in 1909 and 1911, she surveyed and photographed most of the historic
churches in Tur Abdin. Bell described her “Journey Along the Banks of the Euphrates” which
she undertook in 1909 in Amurath to Amurath.314 Her findings from these two journeys
included unpublished accounts, which were elaborated on by Marilia Mundell Manga.315
One of the most enlightening early accounts by a traveller in the region, except Tur
Abdin, was that by Horatio Southgate, a minister in the American Episcopal Church.316
Southgate stated that the purpose of his visit was to explore the state of the Oriental Churches
in the Ottoman Empire and Persia. He visited a number of countries in the region twice over
the period from 1837 to 1841. His first journey was in parts of Persia, Kurdistan, Armenia and
Mesopotamia and his second, which commenced in Constantinople on May 7, 1841, was
focused on the Syrian [Jacobite] Church.317
Southgate commenced his first trip from Constantinople in the summer of 1837,
travelling east through northern Anatolia into Sivas and Erzerum, and through the historically
mixed Armenian-Kurdish territory to Bitlis and Lake Van, crossing over to Persian territory
Salmas in Urmia. His travel in the rest of Persia took him to Tibriz, Tehran, Hamadan and
Karmanshah, before crossing west into "Chaldea" and heading to Baghdad. In Iraq, he
travelled from Baghdad to Kirkuk, then to Mosul. On the last leg of his journey in March 1838
Southgate headed for Mardin and Diyarbakir on his way back to Constantinople. During his
second trip, he visited the Syrian Orthodox territories of Kharput down through Mardin, Deir
al-Zaafaran down along the territory to the west of the Tigris: Jazirah and Mosul. He then
travelled back through Mardin and Diyarbakir ending his second journey in August of 1841.
In the course of his first journey, Southgate made insightful observations about the state
of the places that are of interest here: Baghdad, Mosul and Mardin. In Baghdad, he remarked

314
Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath.
315
Marila Mundell Manga, The Churches and Monasteries of Tur Abdin,
316
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia, pp. 281-283.
317
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Vis.

96
that “the traces of ancient glory of this renowned seat of the caliphs are still indeed visible but
are the traces of a glory that is past.”318 He found that many of the fifty or so mosques to be in
so ruinous a condition that prayer was no longer offered in them. He notes that “in no respect
has Baghdad more remarkably declined from its ancient condition than in the state of its
Medresseh.”319 This ruinous state had been compounded by the plague that occurred in the fall
of 1831, which, according to the estimates of the British residents had wiped out two thirds of
the population. The city’s fortunes were further reduced by a devastating flood the following
spring, and scarcity of provisions threatened the whole population with famine. Consequently,
“madressehs were left without professors, mosques without their imams, and the altars of
Christianity without ministers. The famous splendor of the court was swept away and the
whole city became a melancholic abode of a diminished and bereaved population.”320 The
population which had previously been between 100,000 and 120,000 was at that point no more
then 40,000. Among these were 1,200 to 1,300 Christians and 15,000 Jews. The Christian
population comprised 125 Armenian families, 25 families of Armenian Catholics 100 of
Chaldeans and Syrian Catholics. The Armenians had a church but no bishop, the Armenian
Catholics worshiped by themselves in a house, the Chaldeans and Syrian Catholics with ten or
twelve Roman Catholics (European families in the city) worshiped in one church but at
different times according to their different usages.321
In Mosul, Southgate was struck by the extent of the city, but also by the extent of the
ruins. This last feature was attributed to the ravages of famine, then by plague that had
occurred in previous years and left the city desert-like. He estimated the population to be of a
similar size to that of Baghdad, namely 40,000. Amongst them were 1,500 Syrian Orthodox, a
similar number of Syrian Catholics, and more than 3000 Chaldeans. The Jews numbered
around 1,000. The adminstration of the city had seen recent changes from the late Jalili period,
which was very chaotic, to a more orderly state of affairs when Istanbul took a more direct
charge of the city by sending its own man to govern. There were eight Chaldean churches in
the city, four of which were in the same enclosure, and under the same roof, “-of those four
three were deserted and grass was growing to their very door-stones...” . “All the churches

318
Southgate, Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia, p. 166.
319
Ibid, p. 167.
320
Ibid, p. 180
321
Ibid, pp. 183-184.

97
were poor and neglected and the furniture of the sanctuary was time-worn and mean. The
interior was dark, and destitute of the least appearance of ornament or beauty of any kind. In
all these respects they were inferior to the churches of the Syrians.”322 This must be the Church
of Mar Esha‘ia, which is a cluster of churches, the oldest having been built before Mosul
existed.
Southgate’s return journey to Mardin took him past Sinjar Mountain, a plateau region
located well to the west of the Tigris, but he avoided Tur Abdin, heading instead to Mardin. He
described the population of Mardin as having 3000 families: 500 Armenian Catholic, 400
“Jacobites,” 50 Syrian Catholic, 100 Chaldeans and 10 Jewish and the rest Muslims.323

2.4 Tur Abdin: the “Heartland of the Syriac Tradition”

2.4.1 History and People
The Syrian Orthodox in the Diyarbakir vilayet were mainly concentrated in the Tur Abdin, a
region where the people had managed to preserve their traditional territory, thanks to its
mountainous nature. Historically, Christianity in Mesopotamia is believed to have been
introduced initially to the urban centres and then to the rural areas. In the fourth century, St.
Jacob, bishop of nearby Nisibis (d. 338) and his famous deacon St. Ephrem (d. 373), who was
renowned for his poetry, would have frequented this region. It was in this region too, that in the
course of the fifth and sixth centuries many famous monasteries came into being, such as the
Monastery of Mor Awgen, who, according to tradition, was the founder of monasticism in
Mesopotamia, and Mor Abraham, which was established by the East Syriac monastic reformer,
Mor Abraham of Kashkar.324
It was, according to Brock, “thanks to the blossoming of monasteries all over the plateau
in the ensuing centuries that Tur Abdin has sometimes been accorded the title of ‘the Mount
Athos of the East’ by European writers.”325 Brock adds: “Accordingly today, for many people
Tur Abdin is renowned primarily for its numerous ancient churches and monasteries, some of
which still function, despite the vicissitudes and ravages of time (not least in the present [i.e.,
20th] century). For the Syrian Orthodox Church, however, it is much more than this, for Tur

322
Ibid, pp. 253-254.
323
Ibid, p. 277.
324
Sebastian Brock, “Tur ‘Abdin-a Homeland of Ancient Syro-Aramaean Culture,” in Hans Hollerweger, Tur
‘Abdin, Linz: Freunde des Turabdin, 1999, p. 22.
325
Ibid.

98
Abdin is above all a heartland of Syriac Tradition which reaches back to the early centuries of
the Christian Church.”326 Brock then reminds us of the little- known feature of the cultural role
which Tur Abdin played in the transmission of texts by its monastic scribes, through whom
many of the works on the spiritual life by some of the great East Syriac monastic writers, such
as Isaac of Nineveh and John the Elder (Yuhanon Sobo), came to be shared in the Syrian
Orthodox circles also. This might have occurred when some of the monasteries on Izlo, which
had originally been East Syriac, eventually passed into Syrian Orthodox hands. Brock
concludes his commentary by lamenting and at the same time reminding us:
Though sadly depleted by large scale emigration, Tur Abdin
nevertheless remains very much a spiritual focal-point, not only for
the Syrian Orthodox Tradition, but also for the whole Christian
tradition, not least since it is here, in the Monastery of Mor
Gabriel, that a liturgical language, very close to the dialect of
Aramaic that Christ will have spoken, is most lovingly and
successfully nurtured- definitely not as a museum piece, but as
very much part of a venerable and living Tradition which has
enriched, and continues to enrich, the entire Christian tradition.327

As we will see, this linguistic uniqueness characterises the Plain of Nineveh in northern
Iraq.
Barsaum, provides an extensive historical perspective of this region, which until the
ravages of World War I, was the heartland of Syriac Christianity.328 In addition to providing a
modern perspective on the geography of the region, Barsoum refers the reader to Arab
geographers in their historical description of this region. These include ninth century
geographers Abu al-Qasim ibn Khurudadhbih and Abu al-Qasim ibn Hawqal of Baghdad, and
the famed Yaqut al-Hamawi (d.1222).329
The people of Tur Abdin were subjected to repeated attacks by the Assyrian King
Shalmaneser I between 1276 and 1256 B.C., and, according to Assyrian cuniform inscriptions
found in the ruins of the region, by the Assyrian King Adad-nivari II who reigned from 911-
889 B.C. In 879 B.C. Ashurnasirpal II proudly proclaimed “I have subdued Matiate (Midyat)

326
Ibid.
327
Ibid, 23
328
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin, trans. Matti Moosa, N.Y: Gorgias Press & Beth Antioch,
2008.
329
Ibid, pp. 2, 3.

99
and its villages; I took much spoil from there, and laid upon them tribute and heavy taxes.”330
This region was also very close to Amida (Diyarbakir), Marde (Mardin), Dara and Nisibis
(Nisibin) where the main battles between the Roman and the Persian Empires had raged.331
For nearly 1,000 years, between its conquest by Alexander the Great and the arrival of
the Arabs, northern Mesopotamia was part of an unsettled frontier between the oft warring
Greco-Romans and the Persians. It was inhabited by Syriac speakers, Arabs, Kurds and, later
on by the Turks under different dynasties including the Ottomans who governed the area for
nearly 400 years starting from around 1515.
The repeated wars between the Byzantines and the Persians, which spanned the sixth and
seventh centuries, had significant repercussions on the Christians living on either side of the
shifting borders. The East Syrians and the West Syrians found themselves under authorities
with different persuasions and loyalties, a state of affairs that placed the region under repeated
hardships. The Arab conquest in the seventh century removed the frontier beside which Tur
Abdin had lain for nearly 1,000 years. However, the general fortunes of Mesopotamian
Christians continued to fluctuate according to the policies of the individual Islamic rulers
throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. From then until the start of the Ottoman rule,
the Christians in the entire region of northern Mesopotamia found themselves in a chaotic
situation under under feudal rulers, who were at war constantly amongst themselves, wars in
which the defenceless Christians were at the mercy of ruthless attackers, and their villages and
churches the subject of repeated plunder.
The Syriac Chronicles of Michael the Syrian (d. 1199), of Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), and of
the Anonymous Edessan 1234 (d. believed shortly after 1234), provide extensive accounts
relating to the history of Tur Abdin and surrounding territory.332 However, the Continuation of
Bar Hebraeus’s civil Chronicle by Priest Addai of Basabrina (in Tur Abdin) carries the
description of part of the region’s history forward well into the early 1500s.333
The continual depletion of the Christian population in these regions by conversion to
Islam is underscored by examples of the conversion of the Muhallamiyya, a vast region lying

330
Brock, “Tur ‘Abdin-a Homeland of Ancient Syro-Aramaean Culture,” p. 22.
331
Bell, p. 301.
332
Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin, pp. 63-68.
333
Priest Addai describes events occurring in 1401, 1405, 1413, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1425, 1426, 1431, 1433, 1438,
1441, 1448, 1449, 1451, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1457, 1460, 1462, 1464, 1477, 1492 and 1492, see Barsoum, History
of Tur Abdin, pp. 68-75.

100
to the south of Tur Abdin. The oppression of the Christians in around 1583 to 1609 by Kurdish
aghas and governors intensified to the extent that many, estimated at between 6,000 to 8,000,
converted to Islam to escape persecution.334

Two maps are provided in Appendix A, one by courtesy of Hans Hollerweger from his
book on Tur Abdin,335 and the other reproduced from the book by Oswald Parry,336 which
itself had been taken from a publication by A. Andrus of the American Mission in Mardin.
Most of the towns and monasteries that were still standing at the start of the twentieth century
appear on one or the other of these maps.

2.4.2 Oswald Parry in Tur Abdin

Oswald Parry of Magdalene College, Oxford visited the “East” in 1892 for a period of six
months on behalf of the Syrian Patriarchate Education Society, in order to inspect elementary
schools already established by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch with help from England, and
consequently to promote further educational assistance. The society had been set up to
administer educational aid to the “Old Syrian church” following the visit by Peter III to
London in 1874. Parry’s visit, coming almost 50 years after Southgate’s second visit, provides
an update on the conditions of the country of the Syrians in a century that had witnessed so
much change here, as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire. As a result of his visit, Parry
authored a book in which he provided insightful information about the region and its people 337
Parry landed in Alexandretta, the port of Aleppo. From Aleppo he travelled to Urfa,
Diyarbakir, Mardin, and Deir al-Za‘faran. He then headed to Mosul through the Tel-Harran,
Dara, Nisibin and Aznaur, and travelled back to Mardin through Simel, Feishkhabur, and
Tchelgha. This was followed by his tour throughout a considerable portion of Tur Abdin to an
extent not attempted hitherto by other travellers.
Parry’s tour throughout Tur Abdin took him first to Ma‘sarta, then to Midyat for which
he had the following interesting description: “ There is plenty of color everywhere in the East,
but more here than usual thanks to the rich maroon, with which the women dye their clothes,
and the picturesque dresses of boys and men; long white tunics with gaily striped scarves

334
Ibid, p.119.
335
Hans Hollerweger, Tur ‘Abdin.
336
Parry, p. 168.
337
Oswald H. Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery.

101
around the waist, and gorgeous red and yellow headdresses, of which the ends of the kerchief
are stuck up like wings upon a Norseman’s helmet. A very handsome set of men they are too,
these mountain Syrians, something very different from the courteous townsmen of Mardin, but
no less hospitable; wilder and far more impetuous, but with the spirit that seems capable of
better things than the majority of their more polished countrymen.”338
From Midyat Parry headed north to Hassan-el-kief, a large village on the Tigris. He
describes Hassan-el-kief, a mountainside town on the Tigris that crossed the Tigris to the
northern bank towards the western pass through the mountains that divide it from the Plain of
Bisheri, leading to the Monastery of Mar Quriaqos. On his way back to Midyat, Parry visited
Deir al-Salib, a monastery not far from Hassan-el-Kief, where he wished to see a manuscript
that was known to have existed in that church. His encounter at that church indicated a
growing appreciation of the value of old church books and liturgical manuscripts and is worth
recording:
All my entreaties, however, could not persuade the people to bring
out the book; they stoutly denied that there were any books in the
place, although it was only the absence of the priest that made
them do so. As a rule by never allowing it to be suspected that I
wished to buy any property belonging to the churches, I was
enabled to see more than would have otherwise been possible; for,
thanks to the ravages of a museum agent and others, the people are
exceedingly cautious in displaying anything of value that they
possess. In addition to this the solemn curse of the Patriarch has
been put against anyone who shall sell or give away any property
of the Syrian Church.339

2.4.3 Aphram Barsoum in Tur Abdin

During his travels in Tur Abdin in the early twentieth century Barsoum counted nearly 118
towns and villages that were still inhabited, which included 23 large and 10 small churches.
Among the larger churches he cited: The Great Church (Cathedral) of Hah, dedicated to martyr
Mor Sobo; the Church of Mor Addai in the village of Ishtarko; the Church of Mor Sobo and
the Great Church of Mor Jirjis (Georgius) in the village of Arbio; and the church of Mor
Stephanos in the village of Kafyat (Kafar Be), to name a few.340

338
Ibid, p. 178.
339
Ibid, p.200.
340
Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin. For a complete list of churches, see Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin, pp. 17 and
18.

102
 Barsoum identifies 25 monasteries in this region of which he described eight as major.
These are: the Monastery of Mor Gabriel; the Monastery of the Cross in Beth El, the Great
Monastery of the Mother of God in Hah; the Monastery of Mor Jacob the Hermit in the village
of Salah; the Monastery of Mor Abrohom (Ibrahim) of Kashkar in Beth Gugel; the Monastery
of Mor Awgen; the Monastery of Mor Melke of Qulzum; and the Monastery of Mor Abrohom
near Midyat.341
The Monastery of Mor Gabriel, historically known as the monastery of Qartmin and also
as Deir el-‘Umr (shortened version of Dayro-d-Umro d-Mor Shemun Qartmoyo (the monastery
of the abode of Mor Shamoun of Qartmin), is located to the southeast of Midyat and to the east
of the ruins of the historical town of Basabrina. This monastery has an illustrious but also
tragic history that goes back to 397 CE and to its founders Shmouyel (Samuel) of Eshtin and
his disciple Shem‘un (Simeon) of Qartmin and subsequently, when its status as monastery was
enhanced because of the care it received at the hands of Mor Gabriel, when the number of
monks in it reached 300, and the support he received from Emperor Anastasius (491-518).342

2.4.4 Under the Mercy of the Kurdish Rulers

The illustrious history of the region was marred, repeatedly, by the calamities that befell the
entire territory, whether by disease, generally plague, or by aggression of the Kurdish Bakhti
rulers from 1300 to 1855, starting with Amir Abd al-Aziz, who ruled around 1300, and ending
with al-Din Scher IV and Musawwar Beg II, sons of Sayf al-Din Beg II, who were captured
and taken as prisoners to Constantinople in 1855. Most of these rulers left nothing but
destruction and oppression in Tur Abdin. The worst among these were Sharif II (1505-1513)
and Shamdin or Shams-al-Din (1711-1714), and more recently by Badr Khan, the notorious
Kurdish feudal chief (1833-1846), and by Izz-al-Din Scher and his brother Masud (1854-
1855).343

341
Ibid, for a complete list of monasteries, see Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin,pp. 19 and 20.
342
See also Andrew Palmer “The 1600-Year History of the Monastery of Qartmin (Mor Gabriyel),” in Hans
Hollerweger, Tur ‘Abdin, Linz:Freunde des Turabdin, p. 38.
343
Barsoum refers to Arabic translation (1951) of the Sharifnamah by the Kurdish Emir Sharif al-Din Badlisi,
pp.156-160. Barsoum also refers to the Egyptian writers: al-Qalqashandi, Subh al-Asha, from whom he copied
three names: Saif al-Din I, Izz al-Din Ahmad, and Isa, who ruled from 1330 to the end of October 1362.

103
 While the Assyrians were the main target of Badr Khan’s aggressions,344 the unarmed
Syrian Orthodox were also easy for him and other Kurdish warlords whose power extended
throughout the mountainous region of northern Mesopotamia. In the course of his return
journey from Mardin to Istanbul, Southgate passed through Kabbi Keui, a large Syrian village
on the Tigris, where Muphrian Abdul Ahad of Tur Abdin was in refuge from Bedr Khan. The
Muphrian had been two years absent from Mar Gabriel, the seat of his Diocese. That
monastery had been fired on by Bedr Khan and was deserted. The Muphrian had been driven
from his diocese by Bedr Khan, who wished to kill him for some complaint which he had
preferred against the Bey before the Pasha of Diyarbakir. In a footnote Southgate records his
grief at the later news of the death of the Muphrian:

He since returned, and I am grieved to add, has recently been put

to death, by order of this Kurdish chief. He had been sent for by
the Bey, and on the road was met by ten armed Kurds, (one of
them a near relation to Bedr Khan Bey), who immediately shot him
down, ripped him open, and took out his heart, which they carried
away, probably as a token to the Bey of his death. This infamous
man, to conceal his agency of the crime, immediately charged it
upon the Syrians themselves, and fined the Syrian village nearest
to the place of murder, 15,000 piastres, (about $600), for having
murdered their Bishop!345

Syriac Manuscripts as Wadding of Guns…

Southgate recites his experience in visiting the once famous library at Deir al- Za‘faran:
I had heard much of its value and expected to find it a rich
repository of Syriac literature. What was my surprise, to find it
consisted of no more than fifty volumes piled together on a shelf in
a low, dark room, and covered thick with dust. Most of them were
works in Arabic written in the Syriac character and the greater part
were injured by time, neglect, and rats….The Bishop who
accompanied me, told me that the rest were destroyed by Kurds
during their occupation of the Monastery. They used them, he said,
for wadding to their guns, and for culinary and other purposes.346

344
Frederick A. Aprim, Assyrians: From Bedr Khan to Saddam Hussein, Driving into Extinction the Last Aramaic
Speakers, Xlibris, 2006. See also Amir Harrak, Catalogue of Syriac and Garshuni Manuscripts,pp.
345
Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobite] Church, p. 246.
346
Ibid, p. 225.

104
 Southgate, reciting recent history of oppression under Kurdish local feudal neighbours,
notes that Deir al- Za‘faran “has been twice occupied by the Kurds, who held it at one time for
forty years, and at another ten. It was only about five years ago that it was rescued the second
time. While it was in their hands it went rapidly into decay, and when it was restored, it was
little better than a ruin.”347

2.4.5 Tur Abdin, a Separate Patriarchate

In 1364, when Isma´il was Patriarch, Tur Abdin seceded from the Apostolic See of Antioch at
Deir al-Za´faran. This break came as a result of a personal misunderstanding between Isma‘il
and Basilius Saba, Bishop of Salah that was caused by an ill-meaning third party. The
historical accounts indicate that Isma‘il’s arrogance and mismanagement of the matter enraged
other bishops in Tur Abdin and led them to declare Tur Abdin a separate patriarchate. They
enthroned Basilius as its first patriarch with his seat at Deir Mor Jacob in Salah. Saba held this
position until his death in 1389. At that point, the bishops of Tur Abdin elected a successor,
who, as in the case of the Patriarch at Deir al-Za‘faran, assumed the honorific title of Ignatius.
The schism lasted 475 years, a period during which spurious ecclesiastical titles, including the
maphrianate,348 were conferred on people, some of whom were undeserving. During this
period five attempts at reconciliation with Deir al-Za‘faran failed but Patriarch Elias II of the
latter monastery was finally successful at ending the schism in 1839. Irrespective of the initial
reasons of the schism, the fact that it lasted so long provides a clear indication the state of
decline in the Church during this period.349

2.5 Ottoman Population Statistics

Recently, Emirullah Akgündüz provided an in-depth study of the Syriac Christians of
Diyarbakir in the late nineteenth century.350 Largely based on his Ottoman statistical sources

347
Ibid, p. 197.
348
Maphirian is an ecclesiastic rank that closely corresponds to Catholicos and is used to designate the prelate
who holds the second rank after the Patriarch in the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Syriac word maphryano
literally means one who bears fruit. The oldest maphrianate was that of Tagrit, also known as the Maphryanate of
the East. The Maphrianate of Tur Abdin note above was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Tur Abdin.
The twentieth century saw the establishment of the Maphrianate of India. For further details see G. A. Kiraz,
“Maphrian” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, p. 264.
349
Barsom, History of Tur Abdin, pp. 95-99; Andrew Palmer, “1600 – Year History,” p. 45.
350
Akgündüz, Emrullah, “Some Notes on the Syriac Christians of Diyarbakir in the Late 19th Century” in Social
relations in Ottoman Diyarbakir, 1870-1819, 2012, pp. 217-240.

105
(salnames),351 Akgündüz provides a rather rare and significant survey and discussion of the
social, cultural, economic and political conditions of the Syriac communities in Diyarbakir in
that period, when the city embraced all four of the Syriac religious communities within its
borders (i.e., Orthodox, Catholic, Church of the East and Chaldean).
The Diyarbakir city salname of 1870 to 71 indicated that there were 1,434 Syrian
Christian Orthodox, 976 Chaldeans, and 174 Syrian Catholics resident in the city of Diyarbakir
at that time. Among the non-Muslims, the Armenian Orthodox (Apostolic Armenian) were in
the majority, followed closely by the Catholics (i.e., Armenian Catholics, Syriac Catholics,
Chaldeans and Greek Catholics). However, if every Catholic community is considered
separately, then the Syriac Orthodox was the second largest non-Muslim community in the
city. There was also a small number of Protestants and Jews.352
The last population count in Diyarbakir salmanes was for the year 1901 to 1902.
Although these statistics differentiate between different religious groups, it does not distinguish
between the different sanjacks of Diyarbakir. Of a total population of 398,785, the non-
Muslims were approximately 20%. In the district of Diyarbakir, with a total population of
161,237 the percentage of the non-Muslims was 25%, and included 26,784 Armenian
Orthodox. The number of the Armenian Orthodox in the province (vilayet) was 46,237.
It may be seen from these figures that between the years 1870 and 1901, the Syriac Orthodox
was the largest Syriac community and the second largest Christian community after the
Armenians. However, as Akgündüz points out, “the trustworthiness of all population figures,
including those of the Ottoman salnames, is questionable and, indeed, still debated.”353

Christian Schools
Based on the maarif Salnames, tthe education yearbooks published by the province, for the
years 1898, 1899 and 1901, there were five Christian schools in the city of Diyarbakir: a
Capuchin school run by the Capuchin missionaries, Ermeni Mektebi run by the Armenians; the
Suryani Mektebi run by the Syrian Orthodox; the Rushdiya Mektebi run by the Chaldeans, and
351
Salnames are official Ottoman yearbooks published by both central and local authorities. Published by both
central and local Ottoman authorities, they included annual economic, statistical, historical data. The first salname
was published in 1847 by Grand Vizier Koca Rashid Pasha. Military salnames listed military personnel; state
salnames listed civil servants; and provincial salnames listed provincial administrators, as well as population
figures of the province along with its economical data.
352
Akgündüz , p.222.
353
Ibid, p. 225.

106
the Protestant Mektebi run by the Protestants.354 The drop in the number of students over the
years reported in maarif salnames may well be due to the social impact of the violence of the
Kurds in and around the city starting from late 1895 and lasting through the first half of 1896.

2.6 Linguistic Profile

If we briefly consider the languages spoken by the Syriac Orthodox communities in Anatolia in
the nineteenth century, we would find that residents of Mardin, Bnebile, Qal´at Mara, Ma´serti,
Qillith, Isfis and Azikh spoke Arabic, while those of Diyarbakir and Kharput, partly Arabic
and/or Turkish and/or Armenian, and those further north spoke mainly Turkish and/or
Armenian. The community in Urfa (Edessa) generally spoke Turkish and often Armenian. The
majority of the people of the Tur Abdin region, with Midyat as its main city, spoke Turoyo,
which is a Neo-Aramaic vernacular. Towns speaking this vernacular, in addition to Midyat,
included Hah, Ainward, Kafro, Kafirzi, Anhil, Morbobo, Habsoos, Mlahto, Booty, Anhil and
Mhaiziz. In the eastern part of Tur Abdin, such as Korboran, or further to the east of the Tigris,
such as Bisharie, and around Deir Mar Quriaqos, Kurdish was mainly spoken, often in addition
to one of the other languages noted above.355 In Syria, Arabic was the spoken language, as it
was also in most Syrian Orthodox communities in Iraq, with the exception of Bartilla and
Bakhdeeda where a local Neo-Aramaic vernacular, (Surath) was spoken, often alongside
Arabic. For the language used in correspondence, as opposed to that spoken, see the next
section.

2.7 People Writing to their Patriarch

2.7.1 Introduction
It can be seen from the preceding discussion that the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church in
the nineteenth century has come down to us largely through studies and field observations
made by people from other lands: travellers, church missionaries and diplomatic mission
personnel. Due to difficult travel conditions, often marred with issues of safety, in-depth
studies of communities presented considerable obstacles. This was particularly the case in

354
Ibid, pp. 228- 229, apud Şimşek, 2003, pp. 180-181.
355
I am indebted to several individuals with background knowledge of local dialects for their help in mapping out
an approximate linguistic layout of the Syrian Orthodox communities in Anatolia. I am particularly indebted to
Dr. Assad Sauma for his help in this during a conversation on July 19, 2012.

107
many rural regions of the Diyarbakir vilayet, especially in Tur Abdin. A further factor was that
many of the reports by missionaries were often biased in support of the aims of their missions.
Despite these shortcomings, one should acknowledge with a sense of appreciation the efforts of
those individuals by whose work an important gap in the history of the region has been filled.
With the state of cultural decline that was so prevalent among the Syrian Orthodox clergies in
their communities, very little has come to us from accounts of the church itself and its clergy
The singular important exception, though, is the unique work by Ayoub Barsoum (later
Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum) from 1905 to 1913, when he was a young monk in Deir al-
Za‘faran (see Chapters Five and Six.)
The recent access to the patriarchal archives of the Syrian Orthodox Church, principally
in Deir al- Za‘faran and in the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Mardin, has changed the
historicity profile of the subject and enhanced the potential for a more informed study. This
access has paved the way for a unique look into the life of the Syrian Orthodox communities,
particularly those that lived in Ottoman Turkey, during the second half of the nineteenth and
the first few years of the twentieth century. Since most of the Syrian Orthodox population, as
with other Christian populations in Turkey, was forced to abandon the land of its ancestors, the
referenced archival records stand to represent a uniquely valuable conduit to past history of
these communities. The tragic circumstances of the forced separation of these communities
from their historical homeland would have likely led to an amnesia. Couple this with a desire
to forget the painful past, a situation that further underlines the exceptional importance of the
noted archival material, as it stands to constitute one of the very few sources on the state of the
Church and the community during that period. The majority of this archival material consists
of letters that were written during the second half of the nineteenth century to the patriarch of
the day from a variety of sources from within the Church and community, as well as from
external sources.356
The archival documents also included letters and encyclicals issued by patriarchs. The
oldest of these are probably those by Patriarch Elias II (1838-1847). One of these was a letter
dated in 1841 in Arabic addressed to a foreign elessiatic dignitary357 (See Section 2.10) and

356
Khalid Dinno, “Accessing the Archival Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church,” Journal of the Canadian
Society for Syriac Studies, 13, (2013) 88-94.
357
Jerusalem Archives, documenr J-DSC_0026.

108
two are encyclicals, one in Syriac dated May 15, 1845358 and the other inGarshuni Arabic
dated October 1846.359

2.7.2 Analysis of Letters to the Patriarch

i) Parameters
Given the wide range of topics covered by these letters, a comprehensive analysis of this
enormous collection can only be a long-term project involving several teams. For the current
study, the purpose of the analysis has been set to gain a general representative perspective of
the state of the Syrian Orthodox Church and community in the nineteenth century. This
includes the state of its dioceses, the Church’s relations with other churches and with the
Sublime Porte, the socioeconomic condition of its communities, and inter-community
relations.
To serve the intended study, a large proportion of the archival material, consisting of
approximately 5,700 letters addressed to the patriarch of the day has been analyzed. The
analyzed material constituted the majority of the Deir al-Za΄faran and the Mardin collections.
The analysis was based on the following parameters: period; source (sender) identity;
geographic provenance; subject matter, or issue; language of correspondence.
A form, the Archival Data Analysis Form, was designed to meet the first four
objectives.360 This form was developed through an iterative process that started with a limited
number (i.e., half dozen) of parameters for the subject of the correspondence, and increasing
this number to nearly two dozen entries based on the wide range of issues that were found to
have been raised in these documents as work proceeded.
ii) Period
The period in the Archival Data Analysis Form has not been defined by specific date or dates
but rather in terms of the reign of patriarchs. This was done for two reasons. First, the date is

358
Bab Tuma Archives, document P1090957.
359
Bab Tuma Archives, document P1090952.
360
The issues examined in The Archival Data Analysis Form were analyzed under several sub-headings: reports
from clergy/warden; on the need for clergy, issues among clergy; complaints about clergy; educational and
cultural needs; administrative and pastoral issues; intra-community and personal disputes; matrimonial matters,
financial hardships, on patriarchal dues and patriarchal properties, issues with neighboring communities and
general security; issues concerning Catholics, issues concerning Protestants; issues concerning Armenians; issues
with local government; expressing curtsey or repentance, and seeking help; issues regarding general conversion;
issues addressing general Church status and decline; and issues relating to property rights.

109
often either not stated or not stated clearly, while the name of the patriarch is almost always
stated. Second, given the vast number of documents, grouping them into smaller time intervals,
say years, would in effect involve cataloguing, a mammoth task that is outside the scope of this
work, in addition to being unjustified in relation to the intended purpose. The reign of the
following patriarchs was taken to define the period entry in the form:
Elias II (1838 - 1847); Jacob II (1847 - 1871); Peter III (1872-1894); Abdul Masih II (1895-
1903); and Abdullah II (1906-1915).
iii) Document Dating
Two dating systems were in use until 1840: the Julian for general internal correspondence, and
Hijri for correspondence with government. Following 1840, the Rumi calendar was introduced
in the Ottoman Empire in civic matters, as part of the 1839 Tanzimat reforms.361 There was no
strict adherence to the Rumi calendar and the Julian continued to be used, often along side the
Rumi calendar.
vi) Source (Sender) Identity
Letters to the patriarch of the day came from a variety of sources. These included ecclesiastics
(i.e., bishops, priests and monks); church wardens and community dignitaries, ordinary folk
(i.e., individuals and groups of individuals); other Christians and Christian churches; Muslim
neighbors; municipal and regional authorities; foreign diplomatic sources; and last, but by no
means least, the Sublime Porte.

v) Geographic Provenance
It was difficult to determine the precise geographic source of many of the letters since in many
cases the geographic location of the sender was either not clearly stated or not stated at all,
presumably on the assumption that the sender was known to the patriarch. In many other cases
the senders’ locations were minor villages whose names were subsequently erased or changed
by the Turkish authorities, as part of the Turkification campaign that was waged by the Turkish
government following the First World War. In most cases, however, it was still possible to

361
This calendar came into effect from March 1840 until the formation of the Republic of Turkey in 1926. The
Rumi calendar was essentially a Julian calendar in length but with a starting point being the Hijri year
corresponding to 1840, namely 1256. Thus, the difference of 584 years between the two calendars remains
constant. Accordingly, a document dated August 14, 1305 would correspond to August 14, 1889 in Julian
calendar and August 26, 1889 according to the Gregorian calendar. The 12-day difference between the Julian and
the Gregorian calendars increased to 13 days in 1900.

110
identify locations from content or from recurrence of sender names, particularly in the case of
clergy and community dignitaries.

vi) Language of Correspondence

The majority of the letters were written either in Garshuni, which is Arabic using Syriac script,
or in Arabic.362 Fewer letters were written in Turkish and fewer still in Syriac. Most of the
Turkish letters were written in Ottoman Turkish, although a few were written in Syriac script.
A few letters, generally from India or from European countries, were in English, and even
fewer still were in Armenian. Generally, correspondence with India was in Syriac.
Correspondence with the Ottoman authorities was, naturally, in Ottoman Turkish. The majority
of the correspondence from the Syrian Orthodox communities was in Arabic, or Ottoman
Turkish, depending on the source location. The majority of the correspondence from the Syrian
Orthodox communities, particularly from Syria and Iraq was in Arabic, written in Arabic script
or in Garshuni. Letters from Anatolia were more varied with respect to language. This
variation reflects the variety of languages spoken by the Syrian Orthodox communities in that
region. This variety included Turoyo, Arabic, Turkish and even Kurdish. Letters from India
were generally in Syriac, but a few were in English.
With nearly 50% of all correspondence being in Arabic Garshuni, it is reasonable to
inquire why this is so, that is why in Arabic and why in a Syriac script. Is it to do with the
addressee or the addresser? The addressees, any of the patriarchs in that period, would have
been knowledgeable of not only in Syriac and Arabic, but very likely Turkish as well. On the
other hand a very large proportion of these Garshuni letters came from Tur Abdin, where a
Neo-Aramaic dialect, Turoyo, was spoken. It would appear that the choice of Arabic was
perhaps linked to the elevated position that Arabic held as a language of culture and
jurisprudence within Ottoman officialdom, as well as throughout the Asiatic regions of the
empire, where the Muslims were the majority. It also appears, from the author’s conversation
with old people in Turkey and in North America whose impressions were based on those from
ancestors, that even in Tur Abdin, despite its strong Aramaic roots, the ability to communicate
in Arabic was somehow considered to be an elitist attribute.

362
Khalid Dinno, “The Deir al-Za‘faran and Mardin Garshuni Archives,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol.
17.2, (2014), 195-213.

111
 The use of Syriac script is somewhat easier to explain. Syriac was considered a holy
language in addition to being a marker of the collective identity of the Syriac Churches. Thus
the Syriac script carried within it an aura of these attributes. One more factor may be cited,
namely that writing in Syriac provided a degree of privacy from unwanted intrusions and
surveillance. This point was demonstrated in some of the letters from the clergy, where the
writer suddenly switches from Garshuni to Syriac, when discussing a rather sensitive matter,
then back to Garshuni.

vii) Issues Raised in Letters

As one might expect, the letters dealt with a variety of topics: some of an administrative nature,
from local bishops and other clergy; some from individuals or groups of individuals, generally
relating to complaints about church or community conditions, or the appointment of clergy;
others were petitions from individuals and groups requesting action, or requests for pleadings
with government authorities, provincial or central, with respect to grievances against local
officials or relating to aggression by neighbouring Muslim communities. Some dealt with
reports on economic matters, collection of church dues, economic hardships or relating to
property disputes with other Christians, all as set out in the noted Archival Data Analysis form.
The results have been presented here in Figures 1 to 3 for Patriarchs Jacob II, Peter III, and
Abdul Masih, to whom the majority of the letters were addressed.
The archival analysis has shown that matters of greatest concern to the community, as
expressed by letters from individuals or groups of individuals, largely depended on the region
from which the letters came. In Anatolia the major concerns were: aggression of and repeated
incursions by neighbouring Kurds and the resulting loss of human life and property; the decline
of economic conditions to the extent of driving people to convert to Catholicism or
Protestantism because of the incentives offered; grievances against ill-qualified and non-
responsive clergy; grievances against Ottoman local officials particularly relating to matters of
security; social problems occurring within the community, involving matrimonial matters,
family disputes and similar issues; and disputes with Armenians in certain mixed communities,
particularly relating to ownership of churches that were used by the two communities.
Letters from Iraq were almost exclusively related to disputes with the Syrian Catholics
over church property and the constantly expressed feeling of helplessness in confronting the

112
French-backed, more powerful Catholic side. Letters from Syria were largely related to church
property dispute with the Syrian Catholics, particularly those relating to the ancient
monasteries of Deir Mar Mousa and Deir Mar Elian at Nabak, and the animosity that had been
created between the two parties as a result.
A remarkable feature of the letters is the large percentage of letters that were addressed to
the patriarch from individuals363 and groups of individuals364 on all manner of topics: social,
financial, church administration and others. This demonstrated that the patriarchate was readily
accessible to ordinary individuals. Yet at the same time, the reverential manner in which the
letters were written reflects the esteem with which the patriarch was held by his people, not
only as their highest ecclesiastical leader, but also as their protector and father.365 This position
of the patriarch, which was most evident in the case of Patriarch Peter, had been historically
promoted through the ages, and in part as a result of the social system in the Ottoman Empire
in which non-Muslims were organized as semi-autonomous millets. It is a testament of the trust
these people had in the patriarch and of the confidence they had in his ability to resolve the
issues they faced.
A large proportion of the letters describes relations with neighbouring Muslim
communities, with other Christians and with the Porte. Hence, these letters provide valuable
insight into contemporary social and political conditions. With these accounts not intended by
their authors to be part of a written history, they are characteristically free from ex post facto
bias, and, because of their large number, should provide particularly valuable testimony on the
state of affairs they describe. Last, but not least, since a high proportion of the letters,
particularly those from Anatolia, are from ordinary people, their content can be considered to
represent the state of society as viewed from below, a subaltern view, as opposed to the elitist
view which conventional social history often embodies. This in itself offers a much desired
opening into a deeper view of history.

363
See archival document K05-0035.
364
See archival document K05-0049.
365
Letter K05-0035 shows a typical form of address: “In the name of the Lord, your guardian and Promoter of
your patriarchal rank, our venerated Father, our lord Mor Inatius, the Apostolic Patriarch of Antioch Peter III.” In
addition to the address, the beginning of the letter would typically have a reverential format in the form given in
K05-0046, where it runs thus: “after kissing your honourable hands and begging for your good wishes and
blessings.”

113
viii) Declining Number of Letters After 1895
The strong tradition of the ordinary people, particularly from Anatolia, writing to the patriarch,
which was so evident during Patriarch Peter’s reign, as noted above, continued during the
initial period of Patriarch Abdul Masih’s reign, from roughly June 1895 to 1897. However, this
trend saw a dramatic change, a drop, during the subsequent years: from 660 letters in 1897 to
231 letters in 1898, to 159 letters in 1899, to 86 letters in 1901 to mere 32 in 1904 when
Patriarch Abdul Masih was deposed (see Figure 4). It is evident from the letters that did arrive
in that period that their writers sought redress from the dire condition that they were facing.
Contrary to general claims that these incursions were confined to the last few months of 1895,
the letters from individuals and groups of individuals, as well as from local clergy, confirmed
that the Kurdish incursions that started in 1895 continued throughout 1896 and part of 1897
(see also in Chapter Four). With the apparent inability of the patriarch to secure effective
measures from the officials to ameliorate people’s grievances, the people of the affected areas
lost confidence in the patriarch’s ability to help and saw no useful purpose in pleading their
cases before him.
The meagre total number of letters addressed to Patriarch Abdullah (1906-1915) was due to
a large measure to his prolonged period of absence outside Anatolia, and Deir al-Za‘faran, in
his prolonged travels to England, India and Egypt, and his residence afterwards in Jerusalem
(see Chapter Four.) In fact, as will be elaborated upon in Chapter Four, the latter part of the
reign of Patriarch Abdul Masih and all of that of Abdullah marked the lowest ebb in Syrian
Orthodox history.
The following charts give a bird’s-eye view of the archival material divided into patriarchal
reigns, source, geographic provenance and subject matter.

114
115
116
117
118
2.8 State of Society and Leadership
The nineteenth century that had just been preceded by turmoil at the leadership level ended in
the midst of another patriarchal strife. The subject of the first turmoil was Catholic conversion
at the hierarchy of the Church and that of the second was the communal violence against
Christians, and its negative effect on the patriarch of the day. These two events may fairly be
considered to have bracketed the environment under which Syrian Orthodoxy existed in the
nineteenth century. The intervening period saw Syrian Orthodox communities in Anatolia
struggling to survive in the midst of aggressive social environment that was often created by
Kurdish neighbours, divisions created by conversion to Western Christianity, poor economic
conditions, and cultural isolation. Outside help without strings attached to religious conversion
was scarce if not virtually impossible. Added to these impediments, Church leadership, except
for Patriarch Peter, lacked the personal qualities and resourcefulness that were necessary to
effect change.
There has been very limited material from Syrian Orthodox sources, whether primary-
archival or secondary, relating to the patriarchates up to and including Elias II.366 Much more
has come down to us from a contemporary source, namely the accounts by Horatio Southgate
who made his two visits to the region in the period from 1838 to 1841.

i) People without Schools must inevitably Decline.

During his visit to Deir al-Za‘faran in the course of his second journey, Southgate noted that of
the 25 monks belonging to the monastery only five of them were resident, the rest being
scattered in villages performing duties of priests in vacant parishes. The five remaining ones
were all employed in teaching. Each of the five had a class of five boys who had been gathered
from different, often distant places. They were taught and maintained at the expense of the
monastery. The origin of the school was in this manner:

When the Patriarch was in Constantinople in 1838, the Armenian

Patriarch expostulated with him on the state of the nation, and
among other things said to him that a people without schools must

366
See Yuhanon Dolabani, Phatriarkho d-Antiokhya (Patriarchs of Antioch), in Syriac. Holland: Bar-Hebraeus
Verlag,1990; Ishak Saka Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church).

119
 inevitably decline. The remark sank deep in the mind of the
Patriarch, and was never forgotten. On his journey home, he
visited most of the places where Syrians are to be found, and in
every place established a school. They are of course on a very
humble scale.367

Southgate noted that in the monastery, which was intended to be at a higher level than the
others, instructions in ancient Syriac and Arabic, penmanship, with the first was very
imperfectly taught for want of good teachers and text books, and the whole was not sufficient
to supply the first rudiments of knowledge.368

ii) The Latin Priests and the French Consul

Among the many incidents that highlight the sectarian divisions that Southgate witnessed the
following demonstrates the poisoned atmosphere that came with the claimed “enlightenment”
and some of the unethical attitudes of the French Consul in Baghdad in exploiting a tragic
humanitarian situation as an instrument in aid of conversion. Southgate reports on an encounter
between the Kurds and the new authority of the district of Jazirah, which resulted in many of
the residents in these areas being imprisoned. At this point Southgate adds: “the next day a
letter from Azikh came from which I learned the “Chaldean Bishop of the district had offered,
through the aid of the French Consul in Baghdad, to rescue from bondage the friends and all
the Syrians who acknowledge the Pope.” The Syrian priest of Azikh who had a daughter in
captivity had himself been to Baghdad to intervene for her release. “When he applied to the
French Consul for the purpose, he was told that if he accepted the terms, he should have his
daughter. The priest expostulated and implored, but in vain. The Consul must have his “pound
of flesh”. After two months of unsuccessful entreaty on his behalf and unsuccessful endeavours
to convert him on the other, he replied, “though my daughter was not only in captivity, but
condemned to death, I would not consent to such terms for her release,” and returned sad and
brokenhearted to his native place. While these things were going on, the Syrian Patriarch was
obtaining a firman for the release of all Christians from unjust taxation, and with liberality
worthy of the man, interceded for them without distinction. He was successful, and the Syrians,
the Syrian Papists, Chaldeans, and Armenian Papists alike enjoyed the beneficial effect of its

367
Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit, p. 202.
368
Ibid.

120
operation. It may be said that France does not protect any other than her co-religionists in the
East.”369
iii) Parry Visits a School: Telling Reflections
This is a brief exposition of the political views of mostly Syrian youth and their tendency to
trust the Russians, and their disappointment with England. The views of youth, collected by
Parry, likely reflected those of their elders and, hence, of the society they represented at large.
Interestingly, most of the views expressed were largely vindicated in the course of the
succeeding years:

The college370 led my Syrian friends to express their views on

politics. Discontent with the present state of affairs, and the
continually increasing strain of petty oppression could suggest no
remedy but the interference of Russia. The experience gained of
the Russians during the war371 impressed the natives of Armenia
favourably and it is to them, failing the English that the Christians
of Turkey look. France has never gained much prestige in this part
of the East, in spite of her diplomacy…England has given too little
proof of her willingness to aid or protect; while her Philo-Turk
policy in the war has made many look with suspicion upon her; of
Russia alone are they sure. . It is a sad but certain truth that the
natives, both Christian and Muslim, of interior Turkey, seem
unable to trust England. They would like to trust her…but they can
find no binding surety of her real sympathy, either with the Turks
as an imperial power, or the Christians as co-religionists to be
protected.372

2.9 A Period of Intense Conversion373 to Catholicism

Matta of Mardin (1782-1817) became patriarch after the death of the previous Patriarch
Jerjis IV in 1781, when he foiled an attempt by Bishop Michael Jarwah, the Catholicized
Bishop of Aleppo to take over the patriarchal seat on January 25, 1782. When it unfolded, the
event involved the taking over by Michael Jarwah and his group the Syrian Orthodox
Patriarchate of Antioch, with its seat in Deir al-Za‘faran, and in doing so, subjecting the

369
Ibid, p. 237.
370
Parry is referring to a Government school to which Christian and Muslim students are enrolled, p. 48.
371
With his visit being in 1892, Parry is likely to be referring to the 1877-1878 Russo-Ottoman war.
372
Ibid, pp. 48-49.
373
“Conversion” is the term used in the literature to express the change over to Catholicism: see Charles Freeze in
Catholics and Sultans- The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.
313; and Bernard Heyberger, “The Development of Catholicism in the Middle East (16th to 19th centuries),” p.
642.

121
historical independent authority of the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox of Antioch to the
authority of the Pope of Rome. The ugly encounters that unfolded between Jarwah and Matta,
the Syrian Orthodox counter contender, and their respective supporters, included imprisonment
and banishment by Ottoman officialdom. A firman issued by Sultan Selim III naming Matta as
patriarch foiled Jarwah’s attempt and restored the status quo.374 Details of the sad events are
given by Tarazi375 from the Syrian Catholic perspective and in Al-Majallah al Batriarchiah376
from the Syrian Orthodox perspective. This, in fact, was a second attempt at a take-over at the
top. The first failed attempt was by Andrew Akhijan in 1676. As Heyberger notes: “The
stratagem of converting ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatic’ from the top, that is by first winning over
bishops or the patriarch remained the favourite approach of both the Latin missionaries and the
leaders of the Catholic Church.”377 Under this influence the second and the third decades of the
nineteenth century saw the conversion of four Syrian Orthodox bishops: Issa Mahfouth,
Antoun Simhairi, Yacoub Helani, and Matta al-Naqqar. Issa Mahfoudh, born in Mosul in 1800,
was the Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem when he announced his conversion to
Catholicism in 1827.378 Antoun Simhairi, born in Mosul in 1801, was the Syrian Orthodox
Bishop of Mardin and Amid when he announced his conversion to Catholicism in 1827.379
Yacoub Helani, born in Syria in 1894, was the Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Damascus when he
announced his conversion to Catholicism in 1829.380 Matta al-Naqqar, born in Mosul in 1795,
was the Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Mosul when he announced his conversion to Catholicism
in 1832.381
The loss of four promising young bishops in a small church over such a short period of
time was a major blow to the Syrian Orthodox Church for several reasons. Firstly, it was
because of the followers they attracted to their cause within the already beleaguered small
church. And most damagingly, it was followed by the mutual antagonism that lasted many
decades. The following narrative by Tarazi, an elite Syrian Catholic, demonstrates this

374
It may be noted that the Porte resisted Catholic encroachment on Oriental Christians prior to the Greek War of
Independence in 1821 but became largely indeffirent towards this issue after that event, see Chapter One.
375
Tarazi, pp. 213-222.
376
Al-Majallah al Batriarchiahal Suryaniya, 194, pp. 191-200.
377
Bernard Heyberger, “The Development of Catholicism in the Middle East (16th to 19th centuries),” in
Christianity: a History in the Middle East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 631-54. Beirut: MECC, 2005, p. 647.
378
Tarazi, pp. 142-144.
379
Ibid, p.47.
380
Ibid, pp. 283-285.
381
Ibid, pp. 334-335.

122
antagonism. Subsequent to the announcement by the two most renowned Jacobite Bishops, Issa
Mahfoudh and Antun Simhairi of their conversion to their conversion to the Catholic faith,
“they, utilizing the brutal authority of the rulers (local Ottoman officials) took over Mardin’s
great church, known as the church of the Arbain (Forty Martyrs).”382 To recover the
confiscated church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch sent Matta al-Naqqar, who at that time was
the Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Mosul, to lodge a complaint with the Vali of Baghdad, under
whose jurisdiction Mardin was at that time. Matta al-Naqqar succeeded in his assignment and
the two churches were returned to the Syrian Orthodox Church.383 Yet, when Matta al-Naqqar
converted to Catholicism,384 he adopted the same tactic as his colleagues when he took over the
Syrian Orthodox Church at al-Nabak and more importantly, the famous seventh century
monastery of Deir Mar Musa al Habashi.385 The animosity toward the old church by the
converted clergy is evidence of the aggressive atmosphere that the Latin missionaries created
in order to motivate the conversion and to achieve the targets set by Rome.386
One of the divisive issues that arose in the mid-nineteenth century was the selection of
Mardin in 1854 as site for the seat of the Syrian Catholic Patriarchate. The selected location
was no further than eight kilometres from Deir al-Za‘faran, the thirteenth century seat of the
Syrian Orthodox Church.387 Did Rome have an input in this choice? The answer may be found
in this quote from Frazee: “When Ignatius Antun died on 16 June 1864, Rome appointed

382
Ibid, p. 335.
383
Ibid.
384
The story of Matta al-Naqqar’s conversion, as recited by Tarazi, (pp. 336-337) merits some mention as it
delineates the influence of the Latin missionaries on the conversion issue. According to the Tarazi narrative,
Matta al-Naqqar was on his way to lodge a complaint to the wali of Aleppo against Yacoub Helani, the ex –Syrian
Orthodox Bishop who, upon conversion to Catholicism confiscated the Syrian Orthodox Church in Damascus.
According to Tarazi, al-Naqqar’s trip included Aleppo where he was to lodge a similar campaign to recover
churches confiscated in that city many years earlier. He lodged for the night at al-Bindiqa, a rest house, which
unknown to him had been recently transformed into the Monastery for the Lazarite mission. He was well received
by Father Nocolas Ghodz the head of the mission. In the evening Father Nicolas said to Matta: “I asked the Holy
Grace that led you by chance to our Apostolic net not to let you leave without (acquiring) the fruit for your eternal
salvation.” The abbot engaged in explaining to Matta the errors of the Jacobite beliefs by quoting evidence of the
work of St. Ephrem the Syrian. This made a great impression on Matta’s heart, who, as a result, could not help but
declare his denouncement of the One Nature errors and his decision to follow the Catholic Faith. The fact that the
Roman Catholic Church bestowed on Ephrem the Syrian, the most prolific fourth century Syriac hymnographer
and theologian, the title “Doctor of The Church” in 1920 by Pope Benedict XV sheds light on some of the Latin
missionaries’ methods to achieve their pre-assigned targets, apparently at any cost.
385
Abboud Haddad, Deir Mar Mussa al Habashy-Nebek-Syria,Edit, by Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim: Aleppo,
1999, p. 77.
386
Heyberger, p. 642.
387
Ozcozar, p. 212.

123
Bishop Jirjis Shelhot of Aleppo to administer the church until the hierarchy could form an
electoral synod, which infact did not meet until May 1866, with the Latin apostolic pro-
delegate presiding. When the Syrian bishops were told that Rome expected the new patriarch
to live in Mardin, three of the candidates asked not to be considered….”388 The withdrawal of
some of the bishops would indicate a depth of discomfort towards this position by Rome. The
enmity that the patriarchal seat location generated eventually forced the Catholic Patriarch,
Ephrem II Rahmani, to move the seat of his patriarchate to Deir al-Sharfa in Lebanon in
1898.389

2.10 The Church property Issues – A manifestation of the Divisions

Throughout most of the nineteenth century, patriarchs, bishops and other ecclesiasts of the
Syrian Orthodox Church were busy running between their cities and Istanbul, at great expense,
which they could hardly afford, in an attempt to recover churches and monasteries that had
been taken over by the Catholics. This has been confirmed by the large number of archival
letters covering most of the nineteenth century from Syria and from Mosul that addressed this
matter. Patriarchs and bishops were for years travelling from their ecclesiastic seats to Istanbul,
staying there for months at a time, to plead their case with the Ottoman officialdom in battles
that were essentially doomed to fail considering French diplomatic influence and the financial
resources needed to deal with Ottoman officials. What is particularly significant to note is that
this action by the converted to take over buildings and facilities from the old Church had no
known precedence in the case of the Armenians and the Greek Churches. With the prospects of
fair outcome through direct representation proving dim, some of the patriarchs sought foreign
government help. The ability of the Syrian Catholics to retain the church properties (i.e.,
churches, monasteries and cemeteries) despite desperate efforts by the Syrian Orthodox to
recover them, enhanced the feeling of defeat that the Syrian Orthodox felt. This might well
have been the tactic that the Catholics decided to adopt to demoralize the Syrian Orthodox, and
consequently to induce further conversion to a winning side that had a European backing.
An elaboration on this subject is outside the scope of this thesis. However, as a
background to the issues discussed in later chapters, it may be instructive to examine the broad

388
Frazee, p. 294.
389
Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity, p. 37

124
contents of a letter found among the archives, which is perhaps the earliest in this category.
This is a letter from Patriarch Elias II (1838-1847), written in Arabic and addressed to
“Patriarch Alexander Griswold.”390 An accompanying note penned by Horatio Southgate391
defines the addressee to be Rt. Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, D.D. Presiding Bishop of the P.
E. Church, U.S.A. My translation of the main text of the letter appears in Appendix A 2.
The letter addresses the history of the church property issue through the reign of
Sultan Mahmud who had issued six firmans ordering the return of the church property
and the demolition of the partition walls that the Catholics had been built within them.
The letter then traces the subsequent attempts by the Catholic side to re-take the
churches:
After that, their bishop left for Islambul. When I heard of his trip I
too sent a bishop. When he (they) reached the Blessed (Islambul)
they found that Sultan Mahmud had passed away and had been
succeeded by his son Sultan Abdul Majid.392 The bishop belonging
to the Pope secretly went to the French Ambassador, pleaded with
him and succeeded in having a firman issued again for dividing the
churches. Thus our churches were once again divided by walls they
erected in them, and up to this date they are under the control of
those belonging to the Pope. In Aleppo and Damascus, too, they
have confiscated our churches entirely such that our people are
without churches or monasteries.

Subsequently, according to the letter, following a plea by the Syrian Orthodox, the
Sultan ordered the two sides to adjudicate before the Patriarch of the Rum, likely with the
Greek Orthodox as a neutral third party. This resulted in an order for the return of the
church property under issue to the Syrian Orthodox, but the delay in implementation had
caused the Orthodox side to lose confidence in the outcome. Thus, based on the twists
and turns this issue had seen, and given its importance to the old Church, the author
decided to seek the help of the addressee. Based on this, the letter concludes:

in spite of how these matters would end, we request that you may
place our request before the State of the English, may God protect
it and keep it blessed, so that it would advise its ambassador in
Islambul to speak with Sultan Abdul Majid, to ensure that after

390
The Jerusalem Archive of St. Marks Monastery, No. J- DSC_0026.
391
The Jerusalem Archive of St. Marks Monastery, No. J- DSC_0027.
392
This would be Sultan Abdul Majid I (1839-1861)

125
 issuing of the firman, a bishop under the Pope would not issue a
subsequent firman for again dividing our churches and (to impress)
that the Syrian taifa is under England’s protection just as the
Papists are defended by the King of France…

The property issue with the Syrian Catholic and the sense of grievence it created
persisted throughout the nineteenth century and during the French Mandate in Syria. This is
demonstrated in the content of an interview recorded by Aphram Barsoum, when he was a
monk in Deir al-Z‘faran from 1913 to 1915, with Patriarch Abdullah in which the latter recalls
a visit Patriarch Peter had made to Sheikh al-Islam in Istanbul.393 Patriarch Abdullah states:
One day Patriarch Peter visited Sheikh al-Islam in Istanbul and
expressed his complaint concerning the confiscation with the aid of
foreign politicians of our church buildings, to the extent that his
eyes glistened with tears. Sheikh al-Islam was deeply moved and
told the Patriarch “we are aware of your rights and of your
allegiance to to us from early times. But do you wear a biretta?”
The answer was “no”. He [Sheikh al-Islam] said “those who wear
birettas force us to abide by their wishes and if they ask us of
anything, they do so with a threat. Thus we are unable to
antagonize them. I morn to see the tears of a venerable elder like
you, but what is it that can be done.”

Addressing the state of division within the Syrian Christians on his first journey,
Southgate elaborates on the conditions in Mosul, particularly noting the condition in churches:
These two are divided between the two parties, Syrians and Syrian
Papists. The walls, which were built by royal order in 1837, were
thrown down by royal order in 1838, and by royal order built again
a few months after. They now stand in the middle of each Church,
a dividing wall between the two parties, who worshiped as enemies
under the same roof where their fathers assembled in peace and
love. Then no foreign intruders had entered their peaceful fold.
Now they are divided, torn, weakened, preying upon and
devouring each other. When they worship it is no longer before
one altar, but with a wall between them, as if jealous of each
other’s sacrifice. Their two Bishops grew up together as brothers,
read together, talked together, prayed together. Now they are
leaders of hostile bands.394

393
Barsoum, Aphram-published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. No. 10,
1981, pp. 407-413.
394
Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobite] Church, p. 137.

126
 Southgate alludes to motives and hopes of the converted in general, including their
aspiration of gaining the security of being protected by the French:

The Syrian Papists feel that they are superior to those from whom
they have seceded, and act with confidence. The Jacobites, on the
contrary, are filled with vague apprehension of contending against a
Frank influence, and are depressed and timid.395

Like Southgate before him, Parry on his visit 50 years later commented on the division
between the “Old Syrians” and the “papal Syrians” in Mosul. Referring to the Syrian Catholic
Churches, which were likely built with Latin help,396 Parry noted that the churches were built
on a magnificent scale, and were decorated in a manner that combined the peculiarities of
Syrian and Roman traditions. “Often the Syrians of a town or village say to the American
missionaries: "Build us church finer than that of the Latins, and we will all become Protestants.
Such is the value of display."397

2.11 Conversion to Protestantism

Conversion to Protestantism occurred on a much smaller scale than that to Catholicism, yet its
undertones bore the hallmark of a condescending attitude of regarding Oriental Christians as
merely “nominal Christians” with little regard to their rich heritage.
The first half of the nineteenth century saw the arrival of a variety of Protestant missions
to the Middle East. The early missionaries landed in Anatolia and Syria and worked their way
inland to eastern Anatolia and to Iraq. One of the earliest missions to the land of the Syrian
Orthodox was that of the Episcopal Church of the U.S., which appointed Horatio Southgate in
1835 to visit the Near East and to study the missionary potential in this region. Southgate
recommended the founding of a mission to the Syrian Orthodox Church, which he said was
free from “corruption” and was like his own church episcopalian in its organization.398

395
Southgate, Narrative of a Tour, Vol II, p. 285.
396
Syrian Catholic Patriarch, Antun Simhiri was on a two-year tour of France, Belgium and the Netherlands
starting 1854 that brought him” abundant funds, see Anthony O’Mahony, “Between Rome and Antioch: The
Syrian Catholic Church in the Modern Middle East,” in Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East, eds.
Antony O’Mahony and Emma Looslel, Routledge, 2010, p. 126; and Charles Frazee, Catholics and Sultan, The
church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923, Cambridge University Press, p. 294.
397
Parry, p. 303.
398
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 56.

127
 Southgate arrived at the conclusion that “[i]n the Mesopotamian Churches the utmost
jealousy has been shown of the simple and highly spiritual character of the ancient worship.”399
Southgate’s efforts, however, tended towards the Armenians in Anatolia. The Congregational
Church of New England was next to explore work among the “Jacobites.” The mission, with
Dr. Grant as representative, moved to Mosul. However, competition arose with the Church of
England, under Badger. Writing in 1842, Grant complained to the American Board of
Commissions of his church that “Mr. Badger is here and has commenced operations by
assailing us.”400 The church, which at one time contained 20 members, had till the previous
week dwindled to 10 nominally Christian men and women.401 Due to a growing competition in
Mosul, both parties abandoned Mosul, which finally fell into the hands of the Presbyterian
Church of the U.S.
In Anatolia the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (BCFM), started
operating among the Syrian Orthodox from the late 1840s. By the late 1850s, the Missionary
Herald, the journal of BCFM wrote “the steady quiet light of Protestantism has shaken the
Jacobite Church to its foundations.”402 To its principal missionary Rev. Marsh, “it was
apparent that before many years the Protestants and the Papists would be the sole claimants of
the Christian name in this part of the Turkish Empire.”403
By 1860, the various stations that served the Armenian and Syrian Orthodox centres such
as Sivas, Betlis, Mardin and Diyarbekir and Van were organized into the “Mission in Eastern
Turkey.” Although the main focus of the Mission was the more numerous Armenians,
enthusiasm towards the “Jacobites” increased as the American Board hoped to have a “footing
in Jabel Toor” now that England had just guaranteed Turkey against any invasion of the
Asiatic provinces.”404 In the 1880s Midyat became a substation from which nearby towns were
served with schools. An important high school was established in Mardin to which students
attended from as far afield as Mosul.405

399
Horatio Southgate, Narratives of a Visit to the Syrian,, P. 223.
400
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 67, apud Thomas Laurie, Dr. Grand and the Mountain
Nestorians, Boston 1874, p. 279.
401
The Missionary Herald, April 1871, 64, 4.
402
The Missionary Herald, 1859,55,6.
403
The Missionary Herald, 54 (1858): 255.
404
Ibid.
405
I am in possession of a copy of a graduation certificate for a student from Mosul that was issued from the
Evangelical High School in Mardin, on June 18, 1890, bearing the signature of several teachers as well as of

128
 The overall success of the Protestants among the Syrian Orthodox in Anatolia was at the
end quite limited. The Protestant philosophy of attempting to alienate the people they
apostatize from their religious cultural tradition, found little positive response among
communities that were proud of that tradition. A report issued in September1895, by Alpheus
Andrus, the BCFM station leader in Mardin for several decades, clearly refers to the challenges
his mission had faced and the limited prospects for the future:
The very important question with us here and now is, how to
maintain this pressure and if possible, increase it with diminishing
resources. The strain of entrenchment upon the evangelical
movement for the last five years has been tremendous in the face
of the trinity of movements we have mentioned.406

The “trinity” referred to here is cited earlier in the same report as being: Islam, the growing
activity of the “papacy,” especially in those parts, and the disorganization of the Syrian
Orthodox community among which they have been working, presumably meaning the lack of
their response to the introduced indoctrination.
Yet this success by the Protestant missions, limited as it was, created considerable divisions
among the communities in which it was operating. Below is a sample of letters from a few of
these communities, addressed to the patriarch concerning this issue.
a) Poverty in many areas fuelled attraction towards Protestantism – where the rewards
included financial aid. A letter from nine individuals from Siirt to the Patriarch Peter
expresses the frustration and the dilemma of the community which is stricken with
poverty, particularly with the prospect of a poor harvest season. “Those who join the
Protestants receive aid from the British, as do Armenians to the exclusion of others.”
They request that the Patriarch to ask the British to include them in this aid.407
b) A letter from a Church warden in Midyat reports on the divisions and animosities that
the Protestant campaigns in Tur Abdin, and in Midyat - Tur Abdin’s largest town - in
particular, has generated within these communities.408
c) A letter signed by 28 individuals from Tur Abdin to Patriarch Peter, dated February 15,
1894 describe the state of abject poverty of many of the communities and the
exploitation of the Protestants of this condition to stir divisions and to attract
conversion of the needy people.409

Alpheus Andrus, the head of the Mission. I could recognize one of the teacher signatories, Hanna Sirri, of the Sirri
family a Syrian Orthodox family of many intellectuals in Mardin, who issued the first Hikmat journal in 1914.
406
The Missionary Herald, Jan 1895; 91,1; American periodicals.
407
The archival document: K05-1300, 1301 dated April 29, 1880.
408
The archival document: K05 -1450, 1451 dated March 27, 1882.
409
The archival document: K10- B2-0262, 0263, dated February 15, 1894.

129
 d) A letter from a group of two villages complaining of the harassment the Protestants
were staging, using the local authorities against 37 families who decided to return to
their old church.410
e) Two letters from Kharput, sent by Bishop Abdulnour al-Rahawi, describe the
indoctrination school children get in Protestant schools that is contrary to Church
beliefs, including objections to prayers to the Virgin Mary.411
f) The extent of division that was created by the Protestants in Mosul may be
demonstrated by a dispute that arose from the interference by the Protestant Church in a
basic family-related private case of a burial. A man who had joined the Protestants died
in 1893. His wife, mother and brother decided to have him buried in the family tomb in
the Syrian Orthodox cemetery. The Protestants objected, insisting that with the
deceased becoming a Protestant, he should be buried in a Protestant cemetery. The
Protestant Church, preventing the burial procedure, took the matter to the Wali, who
formed a committee to provide a recommendation. The committee recommended that
he should be buried at the Syrian Orthodox Cemetery, which the Wali ratified. After the
delayed burial the Protestants raised a formal objection in a letter to the Syrian
Orthodox Patriarch, Peter.412 The family responded with a letter that explained its point
of view.413 It is not clear what directions the Patriarch provided. However, this incident
further demonstrates the havoc many of the missions created within families and close-
knit communities, in the course of administering their mandated missions.

2.12 Church Leadership

2.12.1 Dioceses
There are no accurate records of the dioceses at the start of the nineteenth century. Many
dioceses that existed at the beginning of the century were eliminated or combined as a result of
conversion to Catholicism, particularly in Syria, or of population movements, particularly in
Anatolia. Saka provides a list of 25 metropolitan and bishop seats for various dioceses and
monasteries, but does not accurately define the period.414 An archival document penned by
Aphram Barsoum in 1929, provides a partial list of 17 metropolitan and bishop seats in
1863.415 However, for the reason noted above, Syria ended up with being a single diocese,
having lost its communities in Aleppo, Damascus and in many towns and monasteries to the
Catholic Church. Parry provides a list of “Old Syrian Bishops and their Sees” consisting of the
following Sees (Dioceses): Jerusalem, Damascus (Homs), Edessa (Urfa), Amida (Diarbakir),
Nisibin, Miaferkin (Farkin), Mosul, Ma‘dan, Aleppo, Jazireh, and Tur Abdin. Parry’s list also

410
The archival document: K10- 01-36-0235, 0236, dated April 21, 1882.
411
The archival documents; 40M-24/45- 0093, 0094 dated, December 2, 1898
412
The archival Document: K05-0325, dated January 2, 1893.
413
The archival document: K10-B20-0749, dated January 23, 1893.
414
Saka, Kanisati, p. 305.
415
Archival Document Bab Toma-P1080718.

130
includes bishops residing in the following monasteries: Deir al-‘Umr, Deir Mar Mattai near
Mosul, Deir al-Salib in Tur Abdin, Deir Mar Jacob at Salah, Deir Mar Abraham at Midyat.416
It may be noted that some of the monasteries, such as Mar Mattai, were diocesan centres.

2.12.2 Patriarchs
The patriarchs of the nineteenth century were:

Matta of Mardin (1782-1817)

Yunan of Mosul (1817-1818)
Jirjis V of Aleppo (1819-1836)
Elias II (1838-1847)
Jacob II (1847-1871)
Peter III/IV417 (1872-1894)
Abdul Masih II (1895-1904)

Matta of Mardin became patriarch after the death of the previous Patriarch Jerjis IV in 1781,
when he foiled an attempt by Bishop Michael Jarwah, the Catholicized Bishop of Aleppo to
take over the patriarchal seat on January 25, 1782. When it unfolded, the event involved the
taking over by Michael Jarwah and his group the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch,
with its seat in Deir al-Za‘faran, and in doing so, subjecting the historical independent
authority of the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox of Antioch to the authority of the Pope of
Rome. The ugly encounters that unfolded between Jarwah and Matta, the Syrian Orthodox
counter contender, and their respective supporters, included imprisonment and banishment by
Ottoman officialdom. A firman issued by Sultan Selim III naming Matta as patriarch foiled
Jarwah’s attempt and restored the status quo. This, in fact, was a second attempt at a take-over
at the top; the first failed attempt was by Andrew Akhijan in 1676. As Heyberger notes: “[t]he
Stratagem of converting “heretics” and “schismatics” from the top, that is by first winning over
bishops or the patriarch remained the favourite approach of both the Latin missionaries and the
leaders of the Catholic Church.”418

416
Parry, pp. 321, 322.
417
Peter III is used here as per contemporary terminology evidenced by the archival documents. He is Peter IV
according to the terminology adopted by the Syrian Orthodox sources since the 1920’s. See Introduction.
418
Bernard Heyberger, “The Development of Catholicism in the Middle East (16th to 19th centuries),” in
Christianity: a History in the Middle East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 631-54. Beirut: MECC, 2005, p. 647.

131
 It is not the intention here to address the term of each of the patriarchs of nineteenth
century; such information is available in many of the Syrian Orthodox Church sources.419
Besides the general social and security environment issues, which have been addressed earlier
in this chapter, the most outstanding other issues were related to conversion to Catholicism and
Protestantism due to their enormous impact on the Church and community, as has been evident
from the analysis of the archival material. These two matters are briefly addressed here below.
2.12.3 A Patriarch with Resolve - Peter III (1872-1894)
When Patriarch Jacob died in 1872, the Synod met in Deir al-Za’faran to elect a successor.
Their choice fell on Julius Boutros (Peter), Mutran (Bishop) of Syria who was in Istanbul at the
time attending to the ongoing property disputes with the Syrian Catholic Church over the
ownership of churches and monasteries in Syria. He was ordained patriarch on June 4, 1872.420
His elevation to that position promised better days for the declining Church.
His first task as Patriarch was to order the much needed renovations of Deir al-
Za‘faran, which had been neglected by his predecessor who had chosen to reside in Diyarbakir.
Once he had this under way he headed to Istanbul to obtain the Sultan’s firman of his election
as Patriarch. In Istanbul Patriarch Peter III (Patriarch Peter) worked on obtaining the firman
through direct dealings with the Porte, without recourse to the Armenian Patriarchate. His
efforts were hindered by the Armenians, but finally bore fruit when direct recognition of him
by the Porte was secured. He might have also attempted to seek a separate millet status for the
Old Syrians (Suriyani Qadim), but he did not succeed in that. During his one year stay in
Istanbul, news from India indicated a worsening situation with regard to the action of Bishop
Matthew who had usurped the ecclesiastical leadership of the Syria Orthodox Church in the
Malabar. This matter had been brewing for nearly 30 years with increasingly negative results
for the community in Malabar, in addition to constituting another challenge to the Syrian
Orthodox in the Middle East. Despite being in his seventies, Patriarch Peter decided to travel to
India to personally confront the situation. This was a remarkable decision showed not only
depth of vision but courage to embark on a journey that entailed the approval of the Sultan as
well as the English authorities. It was also the first time a Syrian Orthodox patriarch travelled
outside the Ottoman Empire. Approval of the English authority was necessary and that was by

419
Ishak Saka, Kaneesati al-Surianiya, 2006; Youhanon Dolabani Phatriarkho d-Antiokhya in Syriac(Patriarchs
of Antioch), Holland: Bar-Hebraeus Verlag,1990.
420
Al-Hikmat, Vol. II- 1927, pp. 290-291.

132
no means an easy task for the core reason for the problem in India was the missionary work by
the English among the Syrian Orthodox Indians and their involvement in creating the division
(see Chapter Three). Patriarch Peter’s imposing personality and courage were essential factors
that enabled him to exact an approval through the British ambassador in Istanbul to visit
London. Understandably, the Archbishop of Canterbury was not pleased with Patriarch Peter’s
visit to London and India. But despite this negative attitude, Patriarch Peter was able to secure
an audience with Queen Victoria who, upon meeting with him, remarked that “he reminded her
of our Father Abraham.” She asked him to pray at the grave of her late husband Prince Albert.
This the Patriarch did at a service, which the Queen and her eldest daughter attended.421
Further, with the Queen’s blessings, Patriarch Peter was able to secure an educational aid for
his people and the supply of two printing presses (see Chapter Three).
Patriarch Peter’s term witnessed fast moving political events involving the Ottoman
Empire and in particular his home base in eastern Anatolia. These included continued pressure
by Western missions on the Oriental Churches including his Church. He responded to all these
events by encouraging education by all means available, limited as they were, on the one hand,
and by resolving some of the outstanding property problems with the Catholics, on the other.
At the same time he recognized that he was fighting a losing battle against the French
influence, which was draining his Church’s resources and deflecting its attention from other
pressing issues. Having travelled widely, to England, India and Egypt, he had a more
ecumenical outlook that might have been expected at that time. His strong personality earned
him respect from all around him including potential adversaries. His compassionate attitude
towards ordinary people earned him deep respect and trust. The patriarchal archives, which
includes thousands of letters addressed to him from ordinary people, provide clear testimony of
this. His courage and authority wonderfully blended with pastoral love for people.
Parry describes one of his last audiences with Patriarch Peter at the patriarchal diwan
(chamber) in the “Arbain”, or Forty Saints Church in Mardin. Parry states:

It was a true Eastern picture…A more imposing sight it would be hard

to imagine than this head of a persecuted church, the descendants of
Ignatius “Moran Mor Ignatius Peter III, exalted Patriarch of the
Apostolic see of Antioch and of all the Jacobite churches of Syria and
in the East…”
421
Ibid, p. 293

133
 He sat there hearing every word that passed, seeing to read as
clearly as men fifty years younger. Only his brow betrayed many a
trouble gone through; something too of the impatience as well as
the dignity and the power of the lion showed there. But a
particularly soft smile overcame the slight sign of pain as he rose
to his full height of 6 feet and more, and, stroking his long beard,
spoke in courtly Arabic his words of welcome, leaning on his
monk’s shoulder as he paid the delicate compliment of shaking
hands...His Holiness knows how great a line he represents and is
proud of it. Nor is it an empty one: for besides two hundred
thousand subjects of the Porte that acknowledge him their head, he
counts under his rule three hundred thousand or more of the
Queen’s subjects on the Malabar coast, and in Ceylon.422

Patriarch Peter died on October 7, 1894 and was followed by Abdul Masih II, (see
Chapter Four), whose term was inaugurated with the 1895 Kurdish violence against the
Christians. This violence, which continued beyond that year, marked the start of two decades
during which the Church was in continual crisis, and which terminated with the 1915
massacres and exile (see Chapter Five). Thus ended a century that witnessed the vulnerability
of a church and its communities, that were ill equipped on their own to deal with the dynamic
changes of modernity that were unfolding around them. Their refusal to align themselves with
foreign influences that would detract from their historical sense of being, made them prey to
their designs, and left them weakened and depleted.

422
Parry, pp. 61-62.

134
 CHAPTER THREE
ANTIOCH, CANTERBURY AND INDIA

3.1 Introduction
The challenge to Oriental Christianity by the Western Christian orders (i.e., Catholic and
Reformed/Protestant) has conventionally been considered to have occurred first in the Middle
East, the birthplace of Christianity. However, a closer examination shows that the initial
challenges were first encountered in southern India, which, in addition to the Middle East, had
been home to Syriac Christianity from the first century of the Christian era. Roman
Catholicism was introduced to southern India by the Portuguese who invaded that country in
1503. This date is considerably earlier than the missionary campaign that Rome mounted in the
Middle East following the establishment of the Congregation for the Propaganda of Faith by
Pope Gregory XV in 1622.
With the decline of Portuguese power, other colonial powers, namely the Dutch and the
British, accompanied by their missions, gained influence. The Dutch followed the Portuguese
in colonizing India. By 1663, they had taken over Cochin on the Malabar Coast, thus ending
160 years of Portuguese presence. Dutch occupation, which lasted until 1795 when their power
gave way to that of England, witnessed no serious interference with ecclesiastic affairs of the
Syrian Christians.
The missions that influenced the Syriac Christians of India after the Portuguese, were
those sent by the British, who arrived during the early days of the British colonization of India
in 1795. This date too was still a few years earlier than that of the arrival of the first American
Protestant mission in the Middle East, which was pioneered by the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions in late 1819.423
The relationship between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church began
and grew during the nineteenth century largely as a result of the two churches’ competing
interest in the Syrian Christians of southern India. The Syrian Orthodox Church had between
100,000 and 300,000 followers in southern India.424 The Anglican Church was interested in

423
A. L. Tibawi, American Interests in Syria 1800-1901, Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 6.
424
The 100,000 figure is based on the Lambeth Palace document, Tait 214. ff. 19-28.. The 300,000 (strictly
295,770) is reportedly based on local Indian government sources cited by Ignatius Jacob III in Al-‘sara al-
Naqiyah fe Tarikh al-Kaniesa al-Suryaniyah al-Hindiyah, 1973, p. 85.

135
any Christians in India for religious and political reasons. The religious interest was promoted
through the missionary work of the Church Missionary Society (CMS), which operated as the
Anglican Church’s missionary wing in that country, and elsewhere. CMS had as its express
aim to bring the Oriental Christians, if not into unity with the Anglican Church, at least under
the wings of its doctrinal hegemony. The evidence uncovered in the course of the current
research clearly shows that the Anglican Church, through CMS, was an active promoter of the
schism that began in the early 1830s within the Syrian Orthodox Church in India. There was an
over-riding political aspect to the Anglican interest in these Oriental Christians. Here, as
Taylor aptly notes: “A body of Christians with allegiances to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
who is a senior Peer of the British House of Lords and spiritual head of the Established
Church, would be far easier to control than a body of Christians that poses its allegiance to a
patriarch within the Ottoman Empire.”425
For the Syrian Orthodox Church, the challenges in providing ecclesiastic and pastoral
oversight to the Christians in India were compounded by distance, by lack of resources and not
least by competition with a country as resourceful and as powerful as England. The attitude of
the Anglican Church was essentially colonialist in nature, often combined with a large dose of
Orientalism. This attitude varied somewhat with changing political interests and, as we will
see, to a limited extent by the personal attitude of the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day.
Notwithstanding the conflict of interests between the two sides, the relationship, which
was formally inaugurated by Patriarch Peter’s visit to England in 1874, grew and was
maintained at various levels of interest at least until the onset of the First World War.
Following that war, the disappointment felt by the Syrian Orthodox in the attitude of the West
at the Paris Peace Conference, rendered this relationship largely formal and limited.

3.2 Syriac Christianity in Southern India - Brief Background

According to Syriac tradition, Christianity was introduced to India by St. Thomas the Apostle
who, according to tradition, landed in the port of Muziris on the Malabar Coast of Kerala in 52
CE to preach the Gospel among the native settlements of Kerala.426 The existence of a
flourishing colony of Jews in that port town might have attracted St. Thomas to it. It is likely

425
William Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, Gorgias, 2005, p. 3.
426
Ewa Balicka-Witakowski, Sebastian P. Brock, David G. B. Taylor and Witold Witakowski, The Hidden Pearl
Vol. II, The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage, Trans World Film Italia, Rome, 2001, pp. 192-193.

136
that St. Thomas landed on the island of Malankara, in the bay of Muziris; hence the name of
the Malankara Church.427 During the early centuries, several missions came from Edessa as
well as from other parts of Mesopotamia following in St. Thomas’s footsteps to evangelize
more of the region of Kerala. Marco Polo, who visited the region in 1292, reported that there
were Christians on the Malabar Coast.428
The Syriac language was the liturgical language in the evangelized territories
throughout the history of the region. There is, however, some debate as to the affiliation of the
Church in India over the period preceding the invasion of that country by the Portuguese in the
early sixteenth century. At various periods, one or other of the Churches of Antioch, of
Seleucia and of Persia was involved in sending metropolitans and bishops to the Malabar Coast
and in consecrating local ecclesiastics to promote and to administer the faith in those lands.
The involvement of the East and West Syriac Churches with the Christians of Southern
India was not confined to ecclesiastical matters; immigration and settlement from
Mesopotamia to the Malabar Coast took place at various times. In 345 CE, a large colony of
400 people headed by Bishop Thomas, the Cana‘anite, emigrated from Edessa, landing in
Cochin. This group survived and has flourished as an ethnic community until the present day.
In recognition of their status, Patriarch Abdullah established a special bishopric for them in
1912. Tuma429 reports on another communal immigration this time in 825 CE from lower
Mesopotamia.
In the twelfth century Bar Salibi was still able to affirm that “the faith of the Indian
Church is exactly ours, we the Syrians.”430 Over time fourteen metropolitans and bishops were
assigned to Herat. According to Bar Hebraeus, the first of these was Ibrahim, who was the
fifty-fourth bishop to be appointed by Patriarch Dionysius Tell Mahre (818-845,), and the last
was Yuhanna, the twenty-first bishop of the Patriarch Dionysius Yahya (1034-1044).431
Subsequent connections between Kerala and the Church are not clear. This is due to the
Portuguese invasion, which “led to the wanton destruction of whole church archives and
libraries, which is the reason why so little is known of the history of the pre-Portuguese Indian

427
Daniel Thomas, The Orthodox Church of India-History, New Delhi, 1972, pp.3, 4.
428
Severius Yacoub Tuma (Ignatius Yacoub III), History of the Syrian Church of India, Tans: Matti Moosa, ,
Gorgias, 2010, p. 10.
429
Ibid, p. 26.
430
Ibid., p.18.
431
Ibid, citing Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, 2: 125-127.

137
Church.”432 However, after the sixteenth century, a full-fledged Syrian Orthodox presence in
that part of India is evidence through Christian leadership appointed by Syrian Orthodox
patriarchs, large communities using Syriac in the liturgy, church buildings, schools, and
seminaries. But as we will see, the European blatant interference in Church affairs in the Near
East was also the case in Kerala.
Under the tolerant rule of the native Maharajahs, the Syriac Church in India flourished
and was generally at peace. It was ruled by one metropolitan assisted by an archdeacon,
traditionally from the Palaomatta family.433

3.3 The Synod of Diampor (AD 1599): A new Start for the Church of India
When the Portuguese fleet under Vasco de Gama landed at Cochin at the coast of Malabar in
1503, the Portuguese noted that there were 200,000 Christians in the region having around
1,500 churches.434 The Portuguese were surprised to find more than 100 churches just on the
coast of Malabar. Claudius Buchanon, one of the early Anglican missionaries in India,
travelled throughout the Malabar region and recorded the following observation. “But when
they [the Portuguese] became acquainted with the purity and simplicity of their worship, they
were offended. ‘These churches,’ said the Portuguese, ‘belong to the Pope.’ ‘Who is the Pope?’
said the natives, ‘we never heard of him.’ The European priests were yet more alarmed, when
they found that the Hindoo [sic] Christians maintained the order and discipline of a regular
church under Episcopal Jurisdiction: and that, for 1,300 years past, they had enjoyed a
succession of Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch. ‘We,’ said they, ‘are the true
faith, whatever you from the West may be; for we come from the place where the followers of
Christ were first called Christians.’”435
The conquering Portuguese attempted to forcibly unite the Malabar Christians with
Rome, importing from Europe such techniques as the Inquisition, imprisonment and death.
Syriac liturgical books were burned as part of the attempt to separate the Malabar Christians

432
Ewa Balicka-Witakowski, Sebastian P. Brock, David G. B. Taylor and Witold Witakowski, The Hidden Pearl
Vol. II, The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage, p. 193.
433
Fortescue, p.363 reports that the Christian Indians had a legend that St Thomas had chosen an archdeacon
from that family. When the Metropolitan died, the archdeacon would petition the relevant Catholicos or Patriarch
for a successor.
434
Ibid.
435
Claudius Buchanon, Christian Researches in Asia: with notes on the Translation of the Scriptures into Oriental
Languages, 1812, p. 56.

138
from 1,300 years of their Syriac Christianity and heritage in order to bring them under Rome’s
hegemony. Their campaign among the Indian Christians included the burning of their church
records, which explains the reason for the lack of clarity about their Church history and its
association with different Middle Eastern ecclesiastic orders.
These measures were reinforced by a synod that the Portuguese held in Diampor in
June 1599. During this synod, they forced the formation of a line of Uniate metropolitans
dependent on the Portuguese Latin Hierarchy.436 According to the Synod’s declaration,
“Officially and theoretically are all Malabar Christians were Uniates.”437
Buchanon, albeit reflecting the Protestant side of the Anglican perspective, conveyed to his
readers the sheer intolerance of the Portuguese missionaries of the method of Christian worship
that indigenous Indians practiced. They had no appreciation of the fact that the ancestors of the
people they persecuted knew Christianity before them. They terrorized those who did not
accede to their demands and burned their liturgical Syriac books and, finding the people still
resolute, subjected them to the horrors of the Inquisition.
The Portugease convened a Synod at a Syrian Church in Diampar, near Cochin in which a
“Romish” Archbishop Menzes presided, where the 150 Syrian clergy who attended were
accused of “having married wives; that they owned but two Sacraments, Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper; that they neither invoked Saints nor worshipped Images, nor believed in
Purgatory...”438 Buchanon noted that the churches on the sea coast “were compelled to
acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope.” These churches were allowed to keep their
traditional language of liturgy after Menzes “purged” their liturgy of its errors.
The churches in the interior, notes Buchanon, would not yield to Rome, hid their books and
fled to the mountains where they sought the protection of princes. The resentment felt by the
indigenous Christians over the actions of the Portuguese led them to seek help from their
fellow Christians in the Middle East. In 1653, a number of clergy and lay leaders met in the
church of Alnaghat, and in secret, for fear of the Portuguese, swore to call for a non-Uniate
metropolitan as in previous times. They chose Thomas Palakomatta, of the appointed family of
archdeacons, to seek a bishop.439 According to Fortescue, letters went out to Syrian,

436
Fortescue p 363.
437
Fortescue p 364.
438
Buchanon, p. 56.
439
Fortescue p. 364.

139
“Nestorian” and Coptic patriarchs. However, the letter addressed to the Patriarch of Antioch,
brought forth an immediate response for help.440

3.4 Arrival of Mar Gregorius Abdul Jalil al- Mosulli

In response to this plea for help, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch sent Mar Gregorius
Abdul Jalil al Mosulli, the Metropolitan of Jerusalem, to Malankara. Mar Gregorius arrived in
Malabar in 1665 by which date the Portuguese had left. However, the division they had created
in the Syrian churches in India persisted, as Buchanon has noted, for many of the Syrian
Christians remained associated with Rome ecclesiastically and liturgically. Equally
importantly, there were certain practices that the Portuguese had imposed on the churches,
such as the cancellation of certain feasts, and demanding that priests be celibate, which were
practices contrary to the traditions of the Syriac Christians. Gregorius travelled throughout
Malabar to address these and other concerns. Gregorius re-established the historical
ecclesiastic connection between the Christians of southern India and the Oriental Syriac
Church, this time of Antioch.
Mar Gregorius also worked hard to re-affirm the doctrinal and liturgical bonds
by preaching in churches across the land. On February 5, 1668, he issued an
encyclical that incorporated teachings that would facilitate the return to the faith of
the Church of Antioch. In the Bab Tuma archives there is a copy of an Arabic
translation of Gregorius’ encyclical penned by the hand of Aphram Barsoum (later
Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum) and dated in 1929.441 The encyclical, penned in Syriac,
was incorporated in a letter which Mar Gregorius wrote at the Church of Kottayam
and addressed to the churches of Parur, Mulanthuruthi and Kandanad. My translation
of Barsoum’s translation of Mar Gregorius ‘Abd al-Jalil’s encyclical appears in
Appendix A 3.1.
The main thrust of Mar Gregorius’ letter was to denounce the Diampor Synod calling it
“an illegal Synod in which they manipulated the Orthodox Faith...They have fallen into heresy
and are attempting to draw others also to fall in it.”...“I ask you, therefore, to jealously guard
the Canons of the Syrian Church...”

440
Ibid.
441
Document P1070660, 661.

140
 Mar Gregorius reminded his audience that: “[t]he men of the Roman Church had no
authority over this diocese for 1,600 years...Do you think that the entire huge crowd was
judged to perish in hell? No only a blasphemer with the devil in him would say that.”
Despite the division the Portuguese created and the departure of many to the
Church of Rome, the direct authority of the Patriarch of Antioch that Mar Gregorius
re-established has been continuously maintained in southern India, until the present,
albeit with internal division and incursions by Western missionary interests, as will be
discussed shortly.

3.5 British Interest in the Syriac Christians of Southern India

After the Portuguese, it was the turn of the Anglican Church to have an interest in the Syriac
Christians in India, as a result of increased British power in that country. This interest goes
back to at least 1811, when Claudius Buchanan published his Christian Researches in Asia,442
which was generally regarded as the first work in English in the nineteenth century on the
Syrian Orthodox Church in India. Buchanan was inclined to a British hegemony formulated
initially as a closer cooperation of the Syrian Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Such
cooperation was, in Buchanan’s opinion, based in part on the fact that they were both
Episcopal, but non-Papal churches, and on the shared practices of the Syrian Orthodox and
Anglican churches, especially when they differed from the Latin tradition. Buchanan, in fact,
advocated a full and formal union between the two churches in India, even though he
acknowledged to the metropolitan that he did not himself have the authority to speak for the
Church of England.443
After Buchanan’s return to England, the Syrian Orthodox Church in India was given wide
publicity, and it was brought to the attention of individuals and societies who had probably
heard nothing of it before. Amongst the societies who were brought into contact with the
Syrian Orthodox in India was the Church Missionary Society.444
Initially the Syrian Orthodox in India accepted the educational help offered by the CMS
missionaries and did not regard their presence as a threat. The years 1816 to 1836 thus

442
Claudius Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia: with notes on the Translation of the Scriptures into Oriental
Languages, New York: Richard Scott, 1812.
443
Taylor, p. 5.
444
Taylor, pp. 4,5.

141
witnessed the first attempt at collaboration between an Anglican CMS and the Syrian Orthodox
Church. Despite its initial cooperative nature the venture carried within it hidden dangers
concerning the essential independence and integrity of the weaker church.
Because of the Evangelical nature of its members, CMS as an Anglican society
represented the Protestant “wing” of the Church of England. Thus, it was inevitable that after
an early offer of assistance its true attitude would surface, which would be to criticize many of
the practices and beliefs of the Syrians as “superstition.” Consequently, it did not take long for
its members to actively campaign to “reform” the Syrian church with which they were
working.
A crisis of authority soon developed from the fact that the missionaries were theoretically
working under the direction of the Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan appointed by Antioch, but in
fact they were there at the instigation of the Resident who, possibly for political reasons,
pushed for “reform”. The tension between “reform” and conservative factions became more
and more obvious and explicit. In 1836, following the Synod of Mavelikkara, the relationship
between the CMS and the Syrian Orthodox deteriorated further and was finally severed.445
Following this split, those Syrians who had been influenced by their contact with the
Anglican missionaries, led by Abraham Malpan, who was in the forefront of those who
advocated “reform”, decided to take steps to work for the conversion of the entire Syrian
community. In order to promote his brand of “reforms” Abraham Malpan orchestrated for
Joseph Mathew, his nephew, to travel to Mardin under false credentials in order to be
consecrated metropolitan by the patriarch himself.446 Mathew went in 1841, and returned to
India in 1843, as Mar Athanasius. This brought him into direct conflict with the already
established metropolitan, Mar Dionysius IV (d. 1855) and with his successor Dionysius V,
who was consecrated by Patriarch Jacob II in Deir al-Za‘faran in 1865. The dispute also gave
way to divisions and litigation concerning Church property. The litigation and acrimony
continued. By 1870, the situation had existed for over three decades and had become
increasingly dire so that patriarchal intervention was requested to end it. Mar Dionysius thus
invited Patriarch Peter to India for this purpose. En route to India, the Patriarch was to visit
London to secure the necessary permission. The CMS “reformers” had thus, inevitably,

445
Taylor, pp.6,7.
446
Tuma (later Patriarch Ignatius Yacob III), History of the Church of India, tras. Matti Moosa,, pp. 175-186.

142
generated a protracted dispute which was to be the catalyst for a close interaction between the
Syrian Orthodox and Anglican churches over the following few decades.

3.6 Patriarch Peter’s Visit to England

3.6.1 Purpose and Initial Steps
Patriarch Peter’s visit to India first required the permission of both the Sultan and of Great
Britain to visit England and then that of Great Britain to visit its crown jewel colony, India.
The purpose of the visit from the viewpoint of the Syrian Orthodox is clearly expressed by
Bishop Gregorius Abdullah Satoof (Sadaddi), who was at that time Archbishop of Jerusalem,
and later became Patriarch (1906-1915). Patriarch Peter instructed Bishop Abdullah to
accompany him on his visit and in a telegram, told him to join him in Istanbul, where he had
been staying for over a year. Abdullah wrote an account of the entire trip, starting from
Istanbul, which lasted from 1874 to 1879. In this account he states: “on April 11, 1874, a
Thursday, a telegram arrived at sunset from our lord Patriarch Peter reading: ‘attend here
quickly as we have urgent business.’”447
Abdullah reports that he left Jerusalem on April 18, 1874, travelled overland from
Jerusalem to Jaffa, then by sea to Haifa, Beirut, Cyprus, Rhodes and Izmir, landing in Istanbul
on May 1, 1874. He then describes Patriarch Peter’s mood upon meeting him in Istanbul.
In this account Abdullah summarizes the many worries and the multiple concerns and
frustrations that Patriarch Peter had been encountering since his installation as Patriarch in
1871. My translation of the full text of Abdullah’s description is given in Appendix A 3.2.
The range of problems enumerated by Abdullah clearly underlines the psychological
pressures under which the Syrian Orthodox communities had been labouring in the course of
preserving their historical identity and status. Abdullah cites several factors that had been
weighing heavily on the mind of Patriarch Peter: his inability to rid his church of the yoke
imposed on it by being counted as part of the Armenian millet; the property disputes with the
Armenians at a number of locations particularly in Jerusalem; the long ongoing conflict with
the Catholics concerning church properties; as well as the main problem caused by the
Protestant missionary incursions within the Syrian Orthodox communities in India, which was
the primary cause of his journey to London.

447
Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah, No. 42, February 1985, p. 75.

143
 Abdullah then cites how the idea of the journey to London came about:
Thus at that point he [the Patriarch] approached Priest Curtis, who
served at the Church of Ghaltta in Istanbul, and informed him of the
stress he been under. Consequently, the said priest communicated
immediately with the Anglican Church in London. After a while, a
response arrived stating that if the Syrian Patriarch were to come (to
London), his presence here should yield positive outcome.448

Although the main and official reason for Patriarch Peter’s journey to England
was to seek official permission to travel to India and to reclaim full ecclesiastical
authority over his church in that country, clearly other matters listed in Abdullah’s
account were very much on Patriarch Peter’s mind. In addition, although not stated in
that account, educational aid figured repeatedly and strongly in the discussions he had
and the requests he made in London.
The Reverend George Curtis - referred to as “Priest Curtis” in Bishop Abdullah’s quoted
statement - wrote on July 16, 1874 to the Archbishop of Canterbury stating that the object of
the Patriarchal visit was twofold:
1. To obtain from her Majesty’s Government official recognition
of his authority over certain British Subjects in Southern India
similar (as far as possible) to the recognition which he has already
procured from the Sultan’s Government of his jurisdiction over
certain Turkish subjects in the Ottoman Empire
2. To gain help, material and moral in his work of advancing the
cause of education and religion among the thousands committed to
his charge.449

Upon his arrival in London, Patriarch Peter wrote several letters to Archbishop Tait, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, about the central theme of his visit; namely the division in the
Syrian Church in India caused by the illegitimate status of Athanasius, whom the British
authorities had been supporting. In one of these letters, dated September 7, 1874 (Julian) -
corresponding to September 19, 1874 (Gregorian) - in which he makes clear the position of the
Syrian Orthodox Church in regard to those of its clergy and followers who do not follow its
laws:

448
Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah, No. 42, February 1985, pp. 75-78.
449
Letter of Rev. George Curtis to Archbishop Tait, July 16, 1874 (Tait vol. 202. f. 210).

144
 A few people have written to you expressing their desire that the
Syrians in India become independent, with the ability to ordain
their own bishops, one from the other. This would be contrary to
the very premise of our Syrian Church and its laws, where only the
patriarch may ordain bishops, and would lead to a division within
our Church. We trust that you do not encourage such division. I
understand that you have received letters from India that promote
Athanasius as leader of the Syrian Church in India. Athanasius has
been and still is a renegade. He has been such since the times of
my predecessors Elias II and after him Jacob II. Also, he has
deviated from Church teachings. If he is a member of the Syrian
Church, he should follow the laws of this Church with obedience.
Otherwise, he should leave the Church and follow whoever he
desires. It is not permissible that he stays Syrian by name only,
while he is contrary to that in his heart…450

On October 16, Badger451 summarized the aims of the Patriarch’s visit to India452 in an
article he published in The Times in which he supported the Patriarch’s request for educational
help. What is particularly significant about this letter is that it denied the Armenian’s claim that
his visit to England was for the purpose of a union with the Anglican Church.
Doubtless there are a number of other points which it would be
indispensable to enquire into, were the Patriarch's object to seek
intercommunion with our Church. He has no such quixotic object
in view, his simple errand being, as far as I know, to enlist the
sympathy of the clergy and laity of the Church of England to
enable him to introduce education among his depressed people,
who are sadly in want of enlightenment and have no foreign aid to
rely upon, as have the Syrian Catholics and other Uniate
communities in the East. Moreover, he seeks the co-operation of
Englishmen because a very large portion of his people, called the
Christians of St Thomas, is located in India within Native States,
under the protection of the British Government.453

3.6.2 Encountering Closed Doors

Taylor454 cites a letter from Archbishop Tait to Prime Minister Disraeli, of September 1874,
which summarizes the Anglican position.

450
Letter of Patriarch Peter to Archbishop Tait dated September 7, 1874 (Julian) (Tait 202. f.
451
A prominent Anglican ecclesiast and author of The Nestorians and their Rituals, 1852.
452
Taylor, p. 24.
453
G.P. Badger in The Times, October 16, 1874.
454
Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p. 18.

145
 The so called Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch has come to England on
business connected with his authority over the Syrian Christians in
India. He is with a Firman from the Sultan and with proper
introduction to me. My views respecting his connection with the
Syrian Christians are embodied in the enclosed newspaper.455

The referenced newspaper is The Guardian, September 16, 1874, which, with
reference to the Indian dispute, stated, "the Archbishop of Canterbury supports
Athanasius, not Dionysius."456
It is clear, from the foregoing, that the Anglican Church was far from being impartial in
this central issue in Patriarch Peter’s visit, and that its position was diametrically opposed to
that of the Syrian Church. Archbishop Tait’s position had been formulated from advice given
to him by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities in India, including in particular one from the
Bishop of Calcutta, stating, in a letter to Archbishop Tait earlier in the year, that "Mar
Athanasius and not Mar Dionysius is the true Mutran [i.e., Metropolitan]".457
Despite this discouraging turn of events and his disappointment with the Archbishop of
Canterbury's response to this central issue on his agenda, the Patriarch turned his focus to the
political authorities, addressing another thorny issue. Writing to Lord Derby, the Foreign
Secretary in October 1874, he sought British “oversight and protection” similar to that to the
Catholics by the Pope and the French.458
On October 31st of that year, Elizabeth Finn wrote to the Archbishop, "The Armenians
in Constantinople have formally accused the Patriarch to the Turkish Government of coming to
England to promote the union of the Syrian Church with the English Church. He is looked
upon in the East as a very liberal man to have come here as he has done".459 This newly
apparent expressed concern for the internal Turkish situation appears to have influenced the
Archbishop. On November 4th, he wrote to the Foreign Secretary, urging the British
Government to formally intervene in the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the Syrians, saying,

455
Letter of Tait to Disraeli, Addington Park, Croydon, September 1874. (Tait 202. f. 221).
456
Taylor, Antioch, p. 18
457
Ibid, p. 19, foot note 11 citing letter of Bishop of Calcutta to Tait, April 8, 1874, (Tait 202. f. 279).
458
Letter of the Patriarch to Lord Derby (Foreign Secretary) of the October 12, 1874, translated by G.P. Badger
(FO. 78/2367).
459 Letter of Elizabeth Finn to Tait (Tait 202. f. 225).

146
"[t]he Roman Catholics and Greeks are protected by the French and Russian Ambassadors but
the other bodies of Christians seem to be exposed to very great privations".460
The British Government, avoiding reference to the issues raised by the Patriarch, chose
silence and merely sent letters to the Governor General of India, and to the Governors of
Madras and Bombay, introducing the Patriarch to the British authorities in India, stating that
the Patriarch was coming to India in connection with questions of his jurisdiction. The letters
made no reference to the ecclesiastical dispute nor to the ensuing divisiveness nor to any role
the authorities there might have had in it.461
Undeterred by the evident lack of progress, the Patriarch now pursued another important
matter on his agenda, that of seeking educational aid. To this end he visited the Society for the
Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK) on November 17, 1874, requesting educational aid.
In response to questions put to him concerning the needs of his community, the Patriarch
enumerated the following:
(a) Schools – The Patriarch wished for elementary schools for the children of
both sexes in all towns and throughout the provinces. The books necessary
would have to be printed there. One lady had already given a small press, but
other and larger ones were required but a beginning once made, help on the
spot would be forthcoming to continue the work. The teachers in the present
schools were not all priests, the clergy themselves were often so ignorant as not
to be able to read the Lord's Prayer. This led to:
(b) Clerical Colleges or Training Schools for Teachers. At present the
knowledge of Holy Scripture, the Liturgy, and a general acquaintance with the
pastoral duties of their future office, but practically much less was accepted as
sufficient. The Patriarch wishes to have a College of deacons and teachers at
his own patriarchal seat near Murden [sic] to be conducted by a teacher
selected by himself. Education at first must be gratuitous, in the course of time,
candidates would be prepared to pay something. The education would include
acquaintance with English and French. If this education was not taken in hand
by those attached to the Patriarch of Antioch, the Roman Catholics would step
in and offer it. At the present time, the Syrian Uniates send their deacons to
Rome.
(c) Books – The Patriarch especially mentioned Bibles, Prayer Books and the
Psalter. He wished for Bibles in four languages, Syrian (first of and above all),
Turkish, Armenian, and Arabic, the style to be vernacular, and such as would
be easily understood by the people.462

460 Letter of Tait to Lord Derby, November 4, 1874 (Tait 202. f. 227)
461
Taylor, Antioch, p. 24.
462 Taylor, Antioch, pp. 27, 28, from the recorded Minutes of Meeting on November 30, 1874, of Standing
Committee of SPCK. (Minutes of the Standing Committee SPCK (22) November 1874-January 1876), pp. 3-5

147
 The details of this request by the Patriarch demonstrated his wish to include girls in any
plans for education as well as to pay particular attention to teacher training and ecclesiastic
education.
A sub-committee was formed in response to the Patriarch's requests, which met three
times in the next three months, only to come to the conclusion that no action should be
taken.463 This attitude underscores the real lack of any true British interest in helping fellow
Christians in the Middle East to improve themselves. It appears the British, at least initially,
wanted enlightenment to occur only through their own missionary channels.
The Patriarch had first sought the Archbishop of Canterbury’s influence to curb the
British missionary intervention in a matter that concerns Antioch’s historical ecclesiastic
authority, but he met with a negative attitude. He next sought political intervention from the
government on behalf of his community in the Ottoman Empire and received no answer. On
November 19th, the Patriarch had seen the Ottoman Ambassador, Musurus Pasha, in an attempt
to enlist his support in his attempts to see the Queen. The Ambassador refused, claiming that it
was not only irregular for a Patriarch to see a foreign monarch, but also that it would bring
suspicion and possible discredit on the other Christian millets in the Empire. He also pointed
out to the Patriarch that the Armenians had written to him attempting to discredit him (the
Patriarch).464 Furthermore, the Patriarchal request for material support in educational matters
was listened to with politeness and interest, but no action was taken.
The negativity that the Patriarch encountered on all fronts did not dissuade him from
pursuing his fight - this time by taking his grievances to Queen Victoria. Here the Patriarch
introduced a new element to the list of unresolved grievances, namely the dispute with the
Roman Catholic Church in Damascus, Mosul, and Aleppo. The Patriarch referred to the fact
that other churches had foreign powers to protect them: "the Roman Catholics have oppressed
us and, being aided by the influence of foreign governments, have taken our churches."465
Objections were raised by the Foreign Office, citing likely objections by the Ottoman
Embassy. On December 28, 1874, four months after arriving in London, an internal account

463
Ibid, p. 28.
464 See 'Abdallah Sadadi, Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah., vol. 23, No. 45/46, p. 277. See also FO 78/2367, for the
Patriarch's letter to Lord Derby reporting the meeting.
465 Ibid.

148
addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury stated, "It is a most unfortunate expedition, and one
can only be sorry that he came." The author of the account went on to say:
Of course these Orientals do not see or understand the way in
which things are managed in England. Had an English dignitary
gone to Syria, he would have been made so much of, that the
Patriarch cannot understand that the Archbishop had not sent to
enquire about him. He already says some bitter things, in
consequence, of our church.466

On the other hand, Tait had already been warned privately of the situation as early as the
5th of January, when Mrs Finn wrote to him on the subject:
The real fact of the matter is that the Patriarch does not wish to
obtain from the British Government authority to exercise spiritual
rule over the Syrian Church scattered throughout the native states
of Cochin and Travancore – so that with the power of England to
support him, the native Princes of those states may be compelled to
recognise as Bishop whosoever he may appoint and use physical
force in ejecting whosoever he may be pleased to depose – but he
does wish…that he may not be prevented from exercizing
authority.467

3.6.3 Shedding Light on the Anglican Position on the Syrian Orthodox Church in India
My research at the Lambeth Palace Library archives unearthed an internal report that was
entitled: The Case of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Fairly Stated, London, January, 1875,
compiled from official documents and authentic papers.468 This 17-page report provides a
detailed background of the dispute within the Syrian Orthodox Church in India and lays the
blame unequivocally at the hands of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) and the British
establishment in India. The first section provides a statement of the issues in which it
acknowledges that Athanasius, using deception and false documents, secured consecration as a
metropolitan by Patriarch Elias II in 1843. Following the discovery of the deception by
Athanasius, and his gross violations of civil and canon laws, the Patriarch summoned him to
Deir al-Za‘faran to answer for these. When he refused to appear, his consecration was annulled
and Dionysius consecrated in his place. However, Athanasius remained defiant, assisted by

466
Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p. 30, quoting letter of E. Hamilton-Blyth to Tait dated December 28, 1874
(Tait 202. ff. 242-3).
467 Letter of Elizabeth Finn to Tait, January 5, 1875. (Tait 202. ff. 250-1).
468
The Case of the Syrian Patriarch Fairly Stated -Compiled From Official Documents and Authentic Papers,
(London, January 1875), Tait vol. 214. ff. 19-28. An abridged version of the report is given in Appendix A 3.3

149
CMS and the British administration in India. The report questions the motives of the
perpetrators and concludes that they are
none other than the desire, springing from a very mistaken religious
zeal, and fostered by plausible assurances of the wily Athanasius, to
see the Syrian Church “reformed” [as they would call it] and
Protestantized.

The report makes a scathing attack on the narrow-mindedness of many Anglican

clergy, thus:

We all know the blindness with which religious men sometimes

mistake the means, and bid us “come and see their Zeal for the
Lord;” and we are no strangers (certainly not in England at this
moment) to the narrowness of party spirit, which regards as
damnable error all worship which is not ruled by our square and
compass.

The report demonstrates the interference the British clergy practiced in the affairs of the
Syrian Orthodox Church in India, quoting a statement by the Bishop of Madras made in
November 4, 1870 in which he criticized Mar Dionysius as being “tenacious of the existing
state of things in the Malabar Church, not willing even to part with prayers to the Virgin,”
The report summarises its findings in a forthright manner giving every right to the Patriarch of
Antioch in the issue, stating:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked for proofs, our Government
have required information. We trust that both the one and the other
will now be satisfied. The fact of the deposition is manifest. The right
of the Patriarch of Antioch to depose is also unquestioned

The last section of the report is as unequivocal as the rest of it in denouncing the
attitude of the British ecclesiastic and civil authorities in India and the practices in which
they were engaged throughout the developments of this issue. It ends with this damming
statement:

But the British Government (ever bound to promote peace among its
subjects), has interfered already, and to some purpose, through its
representative, the Resident of Travancore: for not only has he lent
himself to the settlement at a packed meeting of a disputed monetary
claim; but the supreme Government has, by its persistent refusal to

150
 utter the one word asked for, virtually taken sides, and thrown its
weight into the scale in favour of schism, robbery and wrong.469

However, despite the fact that this internal Lambert Palace report unequivocally lays the
blame for the Syrian Orthodox Church’s trouble in India on the CMS branch of the Anglican
Church, Archbishop Tait remained obdurate. From his entrenched position, he stated in
February, 1875, “It is not desirable that the Patriarch and his attendants remain longer in this
country than is absolutely necessary.”470

3.6.4 Audience with Queen Victoria, then Departure

Still pressing his case on the Archbishop, the Patriarch wrote to him bitterly on February
15th, "When you have distinguished between the good and the evil you will decide justly".471
Tait must by now have been aware that the Patriarch was not prepared to compromise his
position, and this he had reiterated again and again to the three men delegated by the
Archbishop to be responsible for the Patriarch.472
As for the requested British intervention on behalf of the Syrian Orthodox Church with
respect to property rights in the Ottoman Empire, this request was turned down as per Lord
Derby’s letter to the Patriarch on January 28, 1875.473
On March 5th, the long awaited audience requested with the Queen was granted at
Windsor. An interesting account of this audience was given by the Dean of Windsor. The
Queen saw the Patriarch again, one week later, on March 12th. This time they met in the
mausoleum at Frogmore, and no discussion took place.474
With the audience 'achieved', Tait was by now anxious to have the affair brought to a
close and for the Patriarch to leave Britain. He wrote to this effect on March 8, 1875 clearly
indicating that he wanted no more to do with this matter. His final analysis was, “We come to
the conclusion that it must rest with the authorities in India to decide what attitude they ought

469
Ibid., ff. 26-28.
470 Letter of Tait to Sir Thomas Biddulph, February 2, 1875. (Tait 214. ff. 32-34.)
471 Letter of the Patriarch to Tait, February 15, 1875. (Tait 214. f. 62)
472 For details of this, see letter of H. J. Wright to Tait, February 18, 1875. (Tait 214. f. 70).
473
Letter of Lord Derby to the Patriarch, January 28, 1875. (Tait 214.f 17).
474 The accounts of the Audiences may be found in The Syrian Church in Mesopotamia (1908), p. 4, E. Finn,
Reminiscences of Mrs Finn (1929, p. 250. The first Audience appeared in the Court Circular of The Times
Saturday, March 6, 1875, the second did not. (Information from the Royal Archivist, Windsor Castle). In Syrian
Orthodox sources, Julian Calendar dates are used. Thus, Abdallah Saddadi, op. Cit., (Vol. 23, No. 45/46), p. 28
speaks of the audiences on February 21st and 28th.

151
to assume in reference to the divisions which have taken place among the Syrian Christians of
Malabar.”475
The Patriarch left London, heading to India, on March 27, 1875 (Julian, as per Bishop
Gregorius Abdullah’s travel record, corresponding to April 8 Gregorian).476
Thus, the first high level encounter between the Syrian Orthodox and the Anglican
Churches ended with a shock of reality for the Syrian Orthodox Church. While this particular
chapter ended in disappointment and bitterness, it did not completely deter Patriarch Peter from
seeking good relations with the Anglicans. Endowed with endurance and vision, he continued
to appeal persistently for help in the years to come on two fronts: seeking much needed
educational aid for his people, and support in seeking an independent millet status and so
freeing his people from the Armenians yoke. On the educational front, the Patriarch’s repeated
appeals, delivered with charisma and persistence, finally struck a tone of sympathy. A Syrian
Patriarchate Education Fund was created in 1875 with the support of 18 senior bishops as well
as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Below is an excerpt of the committee’s initial report, which
includes Patriarch Peter’s appeal for assistance.
Tait died in 1882. Subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury were not really supportive of a
relationship with the Syrian Orthodox Church that was responsive to this church’s educational
needs. In January 1883, shortly after Benson had succeeded Tait at Canterbury, the Patriarchal
representative in Constantinople Butrus Abd-el-Noor, wrote to Lambeth requesting assistance
from the Archbishop and the Syrian Patriarchate Educational Committee for the maintenance
of a Syrian School in that city. Benson consulted R.T. Davidson, who had been Tait’s domestic
chaplain for an appropriate response. Davidson’s advice bluntly expressed an Orientalist
attitude:
This requires the utmost caution. There is at least one 'schismatic'
lot of 'Ancient Syrians'. I adjure you to send the letter you received
– or the name and style of the authority with a note from yourself to
Curtis, who will tell you if it is alright. The delay is of no
consequence to an Oriental.477

475
Letter to Tait to the Patriarch, March 8, 1875. (Tait 214. F. 87)
476
Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah, No. 23, p. 285.
477
Memorandum of R.T. Davidson to Benson (Lambeth Archives: Benson 11.f.2).

152
 The request was eventually partially fulfilled by printing a number of New Testaments
in Syriac. The Syrian Patriarchate Education Society was also partly responsible for the raising
of the funds to provide a Syriac printing press, the type for which had been cast during
Patriarch Peter’s visit to London in 1874-1875. There appears to be some controversy about
the fate of that press. During his visit to London in 1888, Bishop Gregorius Abdullah requested
a replacement press. The new press was assembled and installed in Mardin in 1889, and the
first Syriac books were printed that year.
A new impetus towards providing educational aid appears to have been generated in
1892. Funds were raised by the Syrian Patriarchate Educational Society to enable Oswald
Parry of Magdalene College, Oxford to visit the region in order to provide a detailed
assessment of educational needs. The visit, which was made over the period from April to
November, 1892, resulted in the publication of his findings in a pamphlet in that year, and in
his famous book Six Months in a Syrian Monastery. His extensive groundbreaking field study
provided a depth of information that was unmatched by most previous travellers, whose
findings were generally somewhat superficial.478
However, the enthusiasm with which Parry advocated providing educational help came
rather too late to have any effect. The developing political situation against the Armenians in
southeastern Anatolia in 1895 and the resulting massacres, which also included Syriac
Christians, prevented any serious contact between the Christians in Anatolia and foreign
countries. A school which had been opened in Mardin in 1888 seems to have fallen victim to
the troubled state of the region in 1895. A. N. Andrus wrote from Mardin that the ‘Jacobite
Syrian School’ had closed on July 2, 1895.479

3.7 Patriarch Abdul Masih and Canterbury

Patriarch Abdul Masih renewed attempts for contact with the Church of England for the
purpose of educational aid while Frederick Temple was Archbishop of Canterbury (1896-
1902), but his requests were met with apathy. The American Congregational Missionary in
Mardin, A. N. Andrus, wrote to Randal Davidson, Temple’s successor, in 1903, hoping for a
different response. However, Davidson declined assistance citing the following reason:

478
Credit must at this point be also given to the two books by Horatio Southgate, namely: Narrative of a Visit to
the Syrian (Jacobite) Church of Mesopotamia,1856
479
Taylor, p. 79referring to a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Times, March 14, 1898.

153
“I fear that it would be impossible for us to hold out any hope at present of being able to send
emissaries to help the members of the church, because of the work which is at present being
carried out among the Assyrians.”480

3.8 Patriarch Abdullah and Canterbury

Andrus’ attempt to persuade Archbishop Davidson to resume educational aide was repeated
upon Abdullah’s access to the patriarchate. However, Davidson’s response dated December 1,
1906 was “a very definite and unelaborated negative.”481
Patriarch Abdullah’s visit to London from October 1908 to August 1909, on his way to
India provided a further opportunity for contact and for request by Andrus for the resumption
of educational aid to the Syrian Orthodox. This time, Elizabeth Finn wrote to Archbishop
Davidson hoping for even more: for a relationship that would be similar to that based on the
mission to the Assyrians. Davidson’s response was embodied in a letter he wrote in August
1909 to the Bishop of Calcutta elaborating on the Patriarch’s visit.
He has had two interviews with the king. He also has seen Lord
Morley. I gather that he hopes in India to collect some funds for his
own flock for the benefit of the suffering people in
Mesopotamia…although it is clear, and I think he understands this,
that we cannot accept definite responsibility for helping him to
meet these particular needs.482

The Educational Society Fund, which had been dormant for years stood at 166 pounds 11
shillings and 8 pence in August 1909 and remained at that same value on December 16,
1914.483
On another front, a Lambeth Conference had been held in the summer of 1908, which is
prior to Patriarch Abdullah’s visit, which commenced in October of the same year. The
Conference resolved to form a closer relationship between the two Churches.484 Thus, in
December 1908, the patriarch was invited to a formal interview with the Bishop of Salisbury,
John Wadsworth, the chairman of the Eastern Churches Committee of the Lambert

480
Letter from Davidson to Andrus, August, 1, 1903 (Davidson 83. f. 434).
481
Taylor, Antioch p. 91.
482
Letter of Davidson to the Bishop of Calcutta, August 6, 1909 (Davidson 299. f. 89).
483
Ibid, p. 94, footnote 27, citing banking info of Coutts & Co, The Strand. The account was closed on December
16, 1914.
484
Ibid, p. 97.

154
Conference. The statement of faith that resulted from the interview, involved 26 questions and
answers, included 22 articles of faith.485 However, Patriarch Abdullah eventually refused to
endorse these statements. According to The Daily News of August 23, 1909.486
Unfortunately there was no practical outcome of the efforts made
during the Patriarch’s stay to promote a closer union between the
Eastern and Anglican Churches. In accordance with a resolution of
the Pan-Anglican Congress, the Patriarch was approached, and had a
series of interviews on the subject, with the Bishop of Salisbury, who
endeavoured to draw up a species of catechism for the information of
the Lambeth Committee of Bishops. The language difficulty,
however, seems to have proved fatal to any understanding, His
Holiness subsequently repudiating entirely the Protestant character of
the answers attributed to him by his English interpreter.487

The Daily News quoted Patriarch Abdullah saying, “I myself am most anxious for a
rapprochement between the two churches if it can be accomplished without sacrifice of any
vital doctrine. We are entirely at one with the High Church party, but the attitude of the Low
Church men is a great obstacle.”488

3.9 The Apostolicae Curae- the Source of a Temporary Rapprochement

In a recent book,489 William Taylor considered the hypothesis of mutual recognition
between the Syrian Orthodox and the Anglican Churches. According to Taylor, the need for
this arose from the Anglican perspective as a result of the issuance of the Apstolicae Curae
Bull by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. The said Bull stated: “We pronounce and declare that the
ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and
utterly void.”490 This was Rome’s response to the Oxford Movement and the Tractarian vision
within the Anglican High Church that had been gathering pace over the previous few
decades.491 For the Church of England between 1895 and 1914, an attempt was being made by
the Oxford Movement to demonstrate that church order of the Church of England and its
ecclesiology were somehow in an unbroken continuity with the Patristic period, something

485
Archival documents P 1100036 to 1100037
486
Taylor p. 98.
487
The Daily News, August 23, 1909, cited by Taylor, Antioch, p. 98.
488
Ibid
489
William Taylor, Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, Cambridge
Scholars, 2014.
490
Ibid, p. 37.
491
Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church: London 1966, I, pp. 212-231.

155
which would appeal to the Orthodox Churches. This and other characteristics, such as the use
of the vernacular in liturgy and Scripture and the historic episcopate, were intended by the
Tractarian apologists to demonstrate that the Church of England, like the Syrian Orthodox
Church and other Orthodox churches, has always been a historic church. Taylor cites a
statement by Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham, which explicitly refers to the shared
values between the two churches: “The interest is mutual. These independent churches appeal
with especial force to England and to the Churches of the Anglican Communion.”492
According to Taylor, in this same discourse of mutual recognition, the Syrian Orthodox
Church was seeking recognition as an independent church of the Ottoman State following its
immense losses through missionary conversion, and poor material conditions. Taylor proposed
that the collective memory of the Syrian Orthodox Church was imbued in its liturgical social
and linguistic tradition for its internal definition of itself, particularly its patriarchal nature.
These characteristics contrasted with its external identity as being a church serving a minority
that, at best, was tolerated, but often persecuted throughout its history under the Byzantine,
Arab and Ottoman rules. This situation naturally contrasts with the position of the Church of
England’s overriding characteristic of being the Established Church of England, with congruity
between monarch and church leadership.493
The theological dialogue that developed during Patriarch Abdullah’s visit to London in
1908/1909 is seen by Taylor as being part of seeking ecclesiastical recognition from Orthodox
Churches as a sister church to them.494 However, as noted before, the theological dialogue
which the Church of England initiated during Patriarch Abdullah’s visit was inconclusive to
the extent that Patriarch Abdullah declined to ratify the resulting document.
In his review of the referenced book by Taylor, Andrew Palmer remarks: “Taylor does
not provide evidence that Canterbury formally sought recognition from Antioch, still less that
the latter formally validated Anglican orders and sacraments.”495
It may be noted here that the Syrian Orthodox sources (i.e., books, journals, and archival
documents inspected by the writer) have not in any way addressed the question of mutual
identity recognition for which Taylor has devoted so much space in his book. Paradoxically,

492
Taylor, Narratives of Identity, p. 63.
493
Ibid, p.16.
494
Taylor, Narratives of Identity, p. 128-132.
495
Andrew Palmer (2014): Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, 1895-
1914, International Journal for Christian Church, published on line: 07, February 2014.

156
with all factors considered, the discussion around mutual recognition underlines the true
independence of the Syrian Orthodox Church from external doctrinal and political influence,
despite its overall weakness in comparison to the power and dominance of an establishment
such as the Church of England.
The merits of analogy Taylor employed in constructing the notion of emerging identities
between the Syrian Orthodox church and the Church of England, notwithstanding the reality,
was that the dialogue between the two churches subsided as the political interests of the British
Government changed. Taylor states: “The years leading up to First World War thus saw a
drawing apart of the Church of England and the Syrian Orthodox Church due to the
incompatible and contradictory aims of British Foreign policy interests and the Ottoman
minority aspirations.”496
All attempts from within the Anglican side to breathe life into the aid enterprise to the
Syrian Orthodox failed. Such attempts were renewed in 1913 when the British felt that their
association with the Assyrians was failing, with the possibility that the Assyrians were inclined
to form a relationship with the Russians. At this point Henry C. Holy, the British Vice-Counsel
in Mosul wrote to Davidson in 1913 incorporating this proposal:
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s mission to the Nestorians has had
ideas of sending a similar mission to the Jacobites. If Mar Shimun
eventually throws in his lot with the Russians, as seems possible, the
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission will very likely be compelled
to withdraw, and should this be the case it is certainly hoped that
they will turn their attention to the Jacobites. They would, I think,
find a more grateful task; moreover, the Jacobites are a well-to-do
community, and would bear the greater part of the expense
themselves; they only want Englishmen as organisers and
teachers.497

The British Consul input in this matter points to the likely link between British political
interests with an Anglican church-based aid. However, as things developed neither this, nor his
meeting with Barsoum in 1913 caused Davidson to change his mind.
Contact between the two churches, which had been minimal since 1892 came to an end
on the eve of the First World War and throughout the war. Contact was renewed, without much

496
Taylor, Narratives of Identity, p. 21.
497
Letter to Henry C. Holy, Vice Counsel in Mosul 20 February 1913 (Assyrian mission papers , box 13, 1911-
17), cited by Taylor, Antioch, p. 102.

157
expectation of a breakthrough on the Syrian Orthodox side in 1919 while Barsoum was in
London preparing to attend the Paris Peace Conference.

3.10 Patriarchal Visits to India

In the course of his two year visit, Patriarch Peter worked hard to introduce ecclesiastical
reform into a church that had suffered neglect and division for such a long time. With his
strong personality, his lifelong experience in dealing with church and community problems, he
was able to bring considerable order into church practices and administration. One of the first
tasks he undertook was to confirm the excommunication of the controversial Matthew
(Athanasius) whose deceitful inauguration in the first place was what had precipitated the
nearly four decades of division within the Indian church.
Through relentless zeal and determination, Patriarch Peter fought for the historical right
of the Patriarchate of Antioch and was by March 1876 able to convince the Maharajah to issue
a decree abrogating the previous decrees that had been issued to Athanasius Matthew, through
which he practiced his disobedience.498 In addition, Patriarch Peter proceeded to affirm the
authority of Antioch upon the Syrian church in Malabar by an order he impressed upon the
Governor of Kalikut to issue in this regard, stating: “There is no authority for the Pope or the
Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon over the churches of Malabar, for they are under the authority
of Antiochian Patriarch from the early centuries”499 The governor of Koolam issued a similar
ruling stating: “The Syrian church in Malabar has always been under the authority of the
Patriarch of Antioch from the early centuries.”500
One of the other land marks of his mission was convening a synod in Mulanthuruthi in
1876. The Synod enacted a number of reform edicts that aimed to regulate the working of the
church and its local councils. One of the edicts was for the re-organization of the communities
into seven dioceses, each headed by a bishop who is to be ordained by the Patriarch. In
forming the division into diocese he relied on the latest official statistics for the population
count of the communities, which totalled 295,770 individuals501. Another reform was the

498
Moosa, 257
499
Ignatius Jacob III, Al-Sara al-Naqiyya fe Tarikh al-Kaneesa al-Suryaniyya al-Hindiyya, p. 84.
500
Ibid. This statement by the Governor of Koolam lacks accuracy, for although the West Syriac writing
inscription, Serto, has been attested as early as the fifth century, most ancient inscriptions attested so far have
been East Syriac.
501
Ibid.

158
establishment of two councils: a consultative council comprising of 130 ecclesiasts and lay
members; the other an executive council headed by an Archbishop with a membership of 24,
one third of whom were to be ecclesiasts. The members of the executive council were to be
elected by the consultative council. The underlying reason for this broad representation was
stated to be as follows: “The church had in the past endured bitter results of division when no
challenge could be mounted against the absolute authority of the Metropolitan.”502
Following the decisions of the Synod, Patriarch Peter divided the church into seven
Bishoprics (i.e., dioceses headed by bishops). These were the bishoprics of Kottayem,
Kandanad, Angamali, Cochin, Niranan, Thompton and Koolam.
Malabar enjoyed stability and peace in the period following Patriarch Peter’s visit. In this
period, two ecclesiasts particularly excelled in Syriac scholarship: Matta Kunat and Gurgis
Watsheeri. In 1889, Patriarch Peter awarded each the title “Malphono” (learned teacher).503

3.11 Subsequent Developments in India

During the patriarchate of Abdullah there was an attempt at a certain measure of autonomy,
when Dionysius Joseph, the senior bishop (Metropolitan of Malabar), chief of the executive
council, requested the authority to ordain bishops. However, based on established tradition,
Patriarch Abdullah turned down the request. Further, early in the patriarchate of Abdullah,
Dionysius Joseph and Iyawannis Paul wrote to the Patriarch for permission to send two
candidates to be ordained bishops. Patriarch Abdullah ordained the two candidates in
Jerusalem on May 31, 1908 calling one Cyril Paul and the other Dionysius Gurgis. Soon after,
Dionysius Paul, the Metropolitan of Malabar, died while Patriarch Abdullah was still in
London preparing to travel to India. Dionysius Gurgis wrote to Abdullah requesting to be
promoted to the metropolitan of Malabar. Patriarch Abdullah approved the request without
sufficient inquiry about the suitability of this individual as candidate, a matter that proved to be
a source of considerable trouble in the years that followed. When Patriarch Abdullah arrived in
India in October 1909, he discovered the disobedience of Gurgis, who was also seeking
authority as a catholicos or a maphrian to enable him to appoint bishops without recourse to
Antioch, a matter that Patriarch Abdullah naturally rejected. Eventually the Patriarch

502
Ibid
503
Ibid, p. 91.

159
excommunicated Gurgis in May 1911. However, Gurgis had his supporters who ignored the
excommunication and continued to support him.
In 1912, Dionysius Gurgis invited the deposed former patriarch, Abdul Masih, to
Malabar. The latter reportedly absolved him from excommunication, and legal action ensued.
In 1923, the court of appeal in Trivandrum confirmed the excommunication of Dionysius.
However, Gurgis journeyed to Deir al-Za’faran to appeal to Patriarch Elias III to absolve him
from the excommunication. Patriarch Elias promised to absolve him if he satisfied a number of
conditions. However the matter remained unresolved. In 1930, the Catholicos and three
bishops submitted a request to the viceroy Lord Erwin to visit India to convene a Synod to
resolve the outstanding issue of Dionysius. Patriarch Elias III acceded to the request and
embarked on a visit to India, arriving in New Delhi on March 8, 1931. In the course of his
visit, Patriarch Elias III absolved Gurgis. However, the problem did not end there for Gurgis
and his followers were seeking a greater measure of autonomy. This question of autonomy was
negotiated over the years and decades that followed until it was resolved by elevating the status
of the Metropolitan to that of a catholicos. This was reflected in a Patriarchal Encyclical that
was issued from Damascus July 12, 1964. The title of catholicos was subsequently changed to
Maphrian in conformity with the Syrian Orthodox historical practice, with jurisdiction
confined to India.504

3.12 Concluding Notes

From the dawn of Christianity, the Syriac Christians of southern India lived by the spirituality
and by the rites of Semitic Christianity. They seemingly lived over the centuries in total
harmony with themselves and under the ecclesiastic authority of Antioch, Ctesipnon, Faris, or
Herat. This harmony continued until it was suddenly disrupted by the arrival of the Portuguese
in the early sixteenth century who forced Catholicism on the Syriac Christians through
intolerance and Inquisition. As a mark of their intolerance, they burnt most of the Syriac
liturgical books and forced a lasting division among peaceful communities on the Malabar
Coast. The Portuguese, thus, inaugurated the first split among the Syriac Christians in India.

504
Ibid, pp. 129-130. It may be noted that the Maphrianate had been eliminated in 1860 following the death of
Maphirian Behnam the Fourth.

160
 When the British took over as a colonizing power they utilized their authority to
introduce their brand of Christianity among the remaining indigenous Christians. As a result,
friction ensued with Antioch whose followers these Christians were.
To the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Christian Church in India was its crown
jewel in the same way that India was the crown jewel of the British Empire. This status of the
Syrian Church in India had gained prominence since the early nineteenth century when Syrian
Orthodoxy in the Middle East had been retreating and feeling demoralized under the
debilitating pressures of conversion in the ranks of its communities to Catholicism. Under
these circumstances the defence of its following in India took on a particular importance and
urgency. The challenge was taken up by the newly elevated 75-year-old Patriarch Peter, who
had never seen a foreign land or spoken English. He made his way to London to seek
permission to travel to India and presented his case in London, overcoming a web of intrigues
of British autocracy over a period of nine months.
While Patriarch Peter was able to limit the damage created by the Anglican missions, a
further division was added to the earlier division created by the Portuguese. Thus, the fifteen
centuries of harmony under Oriental Christianity was broken under the banner of Western
Christianity, first by Rome’s Christianity and then by the Protestant brand of the Anglican
Christianity. These divisions were harbinger of further divisions in the following decades.
Some of these divisions were encouraged by internal weaknesses of the Syrian Orthodox
Church, particularly during the first two decades of the twentieth century. What started as
theological and rite-based divisions extended to quests for autonomy and independence, often
influenced by political aspirations. Thus, the one united Church in southern India before the
Portuguese invasion of the country has now splintered into eight churches: two Oriental
Orthodox: Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church)505 and
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church;506 two Catholic: Syro-Palankara Catholic Church507 and

505
T. Joseph, “Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church - Jacobite Syrian Christian Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Syriac Heritage, Butt, Aron; Kiraz George and Van Rompay, Lucas (edits.), 258-260, Piscataway:
Gorgias Press (2011).
506
B. Varghese, “Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage,
257-258.
507
S. P. Brock, “Malankara Catholic Church-Syrio-Malankara Catholic Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Syriac Heritage,256.

161
Malabar Catholic Church (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church);508 one associated with the Church
of the East: Assyrian Church of the East (also referred to as the Chaldean Syrian Church in
Kerala);509 and three Reformed/ Independent; and Malabar Independent Syrian Church,510 St.
Thomas Evangelical Church andMalabar Mar Thoma Syrian Church.511
Patriarch Peter travelled to London under duress from multiple worries, seeking help
and sympathy from his church’s English counterpart. In addition to the issue of India’s Syrian
Christians, he sought help in his fight for release from the Armenian yoke in the millet system
back home, but more importantly he sought financial aid for educational purposes in order to
release his people from the greater yoke of illiteracy and backwardness. He recognized even
more than his predecessors had that educating his communities was key in facing the
challenges of a new world order in which his church had lagged behind.
The attitude of the English Christian Establishment toward the Syrian Orthodox ranged
from the kind of sympathy and understanding displayed by Brooke Foss Wescott, Bishop of
Durham to the arrogance of R. T. Davidson, advisor to the Archbishop of Canterbury and later
Archbishop of Canterbury himself (1903-1928).
Part of what Westcott expressed in his Preface to Parry’s Six Months in a Syrian
Monastery, referring to Oriental Christians was:
They desire to learn fully the teaching of their own ancient
formulations and Holy Scriptures. They are not committed to any
modern errors...they guard with the most jealous care their
apostolic heritage, and are still able to express through it the power
of their own life… These general remarks apply with particular
power to the Old Syrian Church.512

On the other hand, R. T. Davidson’s statement under reference made in 1883, made in
response to request for educational aid, said:513
This requires the utmost caution. There is at least one 'schismatic'
lot of 'Ancient Syrians'. I adjure you to send the letter you received

508
S. p. Brock, “Malabar Catholic Church (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary
of Syriac Heritage, 254-255.
509
S. p. Brock, “Chaldean Syrian Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage, 92-93.
510
J. R. K. Fenwick, “Malabar Independent Syrian Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac
Heritage, 265-266.
511
J. R. K. Fenwick, “St. Thomas Evangelical Church,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage,
255-256.
512
Parry, Six Months, p. vii.
513
The statement was given earlier and is repeated here for ease of reference.

162
 – or the name and style of the authority with a note from yourself to
Curtis, who will tell you if it is alright. The delay is of no
consequence to an Oriental.514

Given the general lukewarm attitude of the Anglican Church towards the
needs of the Syrian Orthodox Church, it was British foreign policy interests in the
Ottoman Empire that largely defined the attitude of Canterbury toward Antioch. That
was also clearly evident in the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, as will be seen in
Chapter Five.

514
Memorandum of R.T. Davidson to Benson (Lambeth Palace Archives: Benson 11.f.2).

163
 CHAPTER FOUR

SYRIAN ORTHODOXY IN THE PERIOD 1895-1914

EXTERNAL AGGRESSION AND INTERNAL DECLINE

4.1 Introduction
The period from 1895 to the onset of the First World War witnessed such a decline in Syrian
Orthodoxy that by the end of this period, this first century church was threatened with
complete extinction. External and internal factors conspired to precipitate this threat. The
increasingly poisoned political environment that engulfed eastern Anatolia in particular and the
subsequent violence in that region threatened the stability and the social balance in this region,
where most of the Syrian Orthodox traditionally lived. At the same time, internal weaknesses
that had been fermenting for over two centuries became more apparent during the terms of two
patriarchs: Abdul-Masih (1895-1904) and Abdullah (1906-1915). The term of the first
commenced at the start of the 1895 violence against the Armenians but which also involved
other Christians, including the Syrian Orthodox, and the term of the second ended with his
passing in late 1915, at the height of Sayfo, the Year of the Sword. This chapter examines
Syrian Orthodoxy during this critical period.
The external factors were concerned not only with the immediate environment in which
the Syrian Orthodox lived, but extended much further afield to the volatile conditions that had
engulfed the Ottoman Empire from the early nineteenth century. These conditions had major
geopolitical dimensions and were also closely related internal ones that reflected the national
aspirations and social development of many non-Turkish segments of the population,
particularly the Armenians and the Kurds. The complex interplay between these competing
factors gave rise to an era of violence that extended from 1895 to 1914, with its worst and most
intense expression materializing during the First World War.
As a result of these factors, the relatively stable millet system (see Chapter One) under
which Syrian Orthodoxy had managed to maintain its integrity was itself seriously challenged
by the fast moving events of the nineteenth century.515 In fact, the last three decades of the

515
See Chapter One.

164
nineteenth century saw the final unravelling of the basic tenets of the millet system under
which small peaceful communities such as the Syrian Orthodox had hitherto existed.
Although primarily concerned with the Syrian Orthodox Church, this chapter commences
by briefly considering the important external factors in order to gain a reasonable perspective
of the environment that surrounded the Syrian Orthodox communities in eastern Anatolia in
the period in question.
Church authors have generally shied away from spelling out Church leadership weakness
in the period covered by this chapter. This was particularly the case with Abdullah’s critical
period. In his book Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church), Ishak Saka allocates less than
half a page to Patriarch Abdullah’s reign and period, despite its importance.516 An attempt is
made in this chapter to rectify this shortcoming by analyzing both periods with the additional
aid of hitherto untapped, very significant, primary sources, which became available for this
research. These sources are from the Syrian Orthodox archives in Deir al-Za‘faran, Mardin and
Bab Tuma (Damascus). The referenced archival material had been penned in Arabic, some in
Arabic script but many in Garshuni.

4.2 The Geopolitical Dimension

4.2.1 Wars of Independence and Consequences on Ottoman Society
The nineteenth century saw Russian expansion through Trans-Caucasia that threatened eastern
Turkey and led to Muslim migrations from these regions into Anatolia. With Russia’s
expansionist policy unfolding, the Ottomans suspected that in a future war, the Ottoman
Christians would likely side with their co-religionists, the Russians. “They especially suspected
the Armenians, the leading millet among the non-European Christians of the Empire.”517
The Armenians constituted the principal Christian communities in the six vilayets of
eastern Anatolia, namely Sivan, Van, Erzurum, Bitlis, Kharput and Diyarbakir. The Armenian
community leaders looked forward to a future of internal autonomy and security. In addition to
their contacts with Western Europe and with Russia, they began to establish within Turkey
itself close contacts with the representatives of the “New World,” the American missionaries.
By the second half of the nineteenth century missionary institutions – churches, hospitals, and

516
Ishak Saka, Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church), Aleppo, 2006, p. 213.
517
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 80.

165
schools of all grades – were established all over Anatolia in such centers as Smyrna, Istanbul,
Marsovan, Sivas, Kharput, Erzerum, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Aintab, Marash, Adana, Tarsus, and
Kayseri (Caesarea), as well as in many smaller localities. “By 1860 a veritable literary revival
had swept over the Armenians in all branches of literature, adding momentum to the national
rebirth.”518
Events came to the fore in 1875 to 1876 when the Porte suppressed an uprising in
Serbia and in Bulgaria. Representatives of European governments convened in Istanbul in
1876 in order to avert another war between Russia and Turkey and to discuss peace terms
between Turkey and her Balkan provinces. The Armenians wanted to join these deliberations.
The Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul drew the attention of the conference to the suffering of his
people in a document entitled “Report on the outrages which occurred in the Provinces.”519 The
patriarch reminded the participants that the Armenians had not rebelled against the Porte as the
Bosnians and the Bulgarians had done, “but that did not mean that the grounds and
justifications to rebel were wanting.” “If the sympathy of the European powers could be won
only after an insurrection”, the Armenian Patriarch had told Salisbury, the British Foreign
Secretary, “then there would be no difficulty to start such a movement.”520 Clearly, the
Armenians found encouragement in the success of their counterparts in the Balkans.
The Russo-Turkish War in 1877 to 1878 marked a humiliating defeat for the
Ottomans. This war resulted in the Russians claiming several provinces in the Caucasus and in
the independence of several Balkan provinces, including Bulgaria and Serbia. In the Treaty of
San Stefano of March 1878, they secured from the Ottoman government the promise that in the
provinces inhabited by Armenians, their security would be guaranteed against the Kurds and
Circassians.521 When this treaty was revised at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Article 61 of the
new treaty required that the Porte expeditiously carry out the improvements and reforms
dictated by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians.522 The Armenians
hoped that with the help of Russian and other Christian powers such as Britain, they could at
last exercise some form of self-rule. However, the ethnic environment in which they lived
made this untenable.

518
Ibid, p. 82.
519
Krikorian Armenians, p. 116, n. 7; Sarkissian, Armenian Question, pp. 53-54
520
Sarkissian, ibid., p.52
521
For a text of the treaty, see Shaw and Shaw, History, 2:188
522
John Joseph, p. 84 citing text in Krikorian, Armenians, p. 8.

166
 Largely unaware of these inherent dangers that surrounded them, many of the Ottoman
Christians, encouraged by their Western mentors, entered the decade of the 1880s with the
conviction that they too would soon have some relief from the restrictive, often oppressive,
rule of the Ottomans. Many of the missions went further to speculate that the defeat of Turkey
at the hand of the Russians in 1878 marked the eclipse of the political as well as the religious
power of Islam.523
The Turks, for their part, suspected that in a future war the Ottoman Christians would
most probably side with their foreign co-religionists. “They especially suspected the
Armenians, the leading millet among the non-European Christians of the empire.”524 At the
same time the Armenian leaders were well aware of the events that were unfolding in Europe
and were especially familiar with the developments taking place in the Ottoman Christian
provinces in the Balkans. “They were also among the first non-European subjects of the sultan
to experience a literary renaissance and a national awakening during the post-Napoleonic
era.”525

4.2.2 European Power Politics

Britain entered the ongoing encounter, motivated by no small measure by its animosity to
Russia. It noted that the Russians could muster 150,000 Caucasians that could threaten its
interests in Iran and its all-important trade route from India to the Far East. Britain was
concerned that the Christians in east Anatolia (i.e., Armenian Orthodox) would stand with
Russia; that in the case of the Syrian Orthodox, they, the Syrian Orthodox, might be motivated
to turn to Russia to help them resist the aggressive Catholic and Protestant proselytism among
them.
Thus, Britain was making a concerted effort after 1878 to remediate the sad condition of
the Ottoman Christians. “British intervention in [sic] their behalf – whether Armenians,
Nestorians, or Jacobites – was motivated by the desire to keep them loyal to the Turkish
government in the event of a future Turko-Russian war, which could involve Great Britain.”526

523
John Joseph, p. 86.
524
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 80.
525
Ibid, p. 81.
526
John Joseph, p. 85 cites Shaw and Shaw, History, 2:184, that during the 1877-78 war Disraeli and Layard had
envisioned “a possible British expedition into eastern Anatolia to drive the Russians back, perhaps encouraged by
the ‘mob’ demand for a war with Russia to save India as well as the Middle East from [Russian] imperialism.”

167
 While the main European powers - Britain, France, Austro-Hungary and Russia - were in
the midst of their deliberations at the Congress of Berlin, Britain and Turkey signed a
defensive alliance/treaty concerning the Asiatic provinces of Turkey. The treaty provided for
British armed support in the event of Russian aggression in Asiatic Turkey. In return, the
Sultan yielded to British pressure by ceding control of Cyprus to British rule.527 It was also
proposed in late 1878, that the major cities of eastern Anatolia be served by consuls or vice-
consuls. The consular reports, which started to arrive in early 1879, alarmed not only the Porte,
but the European powers as well. The enforcement of the proposed reforms through European
supervision amounted to taking the whole of Turkey under European tutelage.528 The cession of
Cyprus to Britain and the Anglo-Turkish convention was in reality part of the British design to
bring most of the Middle East under the umbrella of the British political system.

4.2.3 A Simmering Internal Unrest Among the Majority Muslims - Consequences

Among the Turkish population itself, there was widespread anxiety, according to a reporter of
The Times of London that their political supremacy in their own lands was in real danger.529
With their power already being threatened by the secularist policies of the reform movement
(Tanzimat), the ulema succeeded in the difficult decade of the 1870s building a negative
response to the secularization imposed by the Tanzimat, the influence of foreigners, and the
intrusion of the foreign representatives, all of which were factors that had brought about the
dire situation in the empire.530 The Muslim population in eastern Anatolia, predominantly
Kurdish, felt especially threatened at that time by natural as well as sociopolitical events. The
decade 1880 1890 saw violence and famine. Robbery and pillage were often resorted to during
periods of famine. Conditions became more acute toward the end of the nineteenth century,
especially after the Turko-Russian War of 1877-78, which paved the way for nomadic attacks
which until then had been drastically reduced. “When it was over, the war of 1878 left its
impact everywhere, on faraway Damascus as well as on Diyarbakir.”531

527
For a text of the ultimatum, see A.J. Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, 1931 (London: 1932), pp. 355-
56.
528
Lynch, Armenia, 2: 410-11
529
Cited in M.H. 76 (1880): 68
530
See Shaw and Shaw, History, 2:157; Roderic H. Davison, “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim
Equality in the Nineteenth Century,” American Historical Review 59 (1954): 864.
531
John Joseph, p. 89.

168
 As more southeastern European regions gained independence from Ottoman rule,
population displacement became a common practice in the late nineteenth century. The
displacement policies of the new states meant that diverse groups of people - Albanians,
Macedonians, Serbo-Bosnians, Muslim Greeks, Crimean Tatars, Muslims from the Caucasus,
Bulgarian Muslims and others - resettled within the Ottoman Empire. The population
displacement situation was further intensified by the wars with Russia, the Balkan Wars and in
Tripolitania with Italy, factors that rapidly altered the demography within the Ottoman
Empire.532 Eastern Anatolia was affected by the resulting influx of migrants. The arrival of
disfranchized immigrants created problems. The new Muslim immigrants came carrying a
grudge against Christians for taking control of the countries in which they had their homes.
As a result of all these conditions, a greater measure of instability occurred over the
period between 1895 and 1914 when communities of Circassian were settled in and around
Diyarbakir.533 According to a British Consular report, Circassians were involved in violence
and extortion against Christian communities throughout eastern Anatolia. An 1896 memo from
the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the Assyrians, describes the role of the Circassians
in creating local instability.
Another favourite means adopted by the Turks of getting rid of
Christian subjects is by sending a number of Circassians to settle in
their midst. It will [sic] well known and openly said by the Turks
that the Circassians will soon cause the Christians to go away from
that district.534

The missionaries stationed all over eastern Anatolia wrote extensively during the 1880s
and 1890s about the mounting trend toward violence that the country was going through. The
Reverend Alpheus N. Andrus, who operated among the Syrian Orthodox of Tur Abdin for
many years from his headquarters in Mardin, blamed Muslim grievances on Islam’s being
“envious of the progress of her [Christian] neighbors.” Andrus then goes on to note that this
envy had accentuated the pan-Islamic movement, and had led to a widening of the gap in
relations between the Muslim majority and the Christian population. The missionary leadership

532
Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire 1700-1922, p. 117.
533
British Consular Report FO 424/184/641, dated October 2, 1895..
534
Enclosure 1: Substance of a letter, dated English Mission House, Urmia, Persia, January 6, 1896, to the address
of the Reverend R.M. Blakiston, M.A., Honorary Secretary, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the
Assyrian Christians (FO 424/186/34, dated January 6, 1896).

169
was also aware of the fact that the reforms urged by the West on behalf of the Ottoman
Christians, was resented by both the government and the dominant Muslim population.535
The complex array of people, races, and religious confessions in eastern Anatolia, and the
lack of central power was a recipe for disaster in 1895 and succeeding years. The central power
was either weak or was part of a coercive plan to deal a blow to some or most of the Christians.
The volatile environment which existed in eastern Anatolia between 1895 and 1914
undermined the tacit balance offered under the millet system, leaving the Syrian Orthodox
community, the smallest of the indigenous Christians communities, vulnerable and
unprotected.
Given what it considered to be untenable conditions, Britain, by 1883, gave up on reforms
in eastern Anatolia. This withdrawal paved the way for a Kurdish-Turkish alliance. As fellow
Muslims, who, geographically were positioned close to the Russian Caucasus on the eastern
borders of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds were the only large sector of the population that the
Ottoman government could trust in these critical encounters. It was therefore of vital priority
for the Porte to bring them under its fold. The scene was set for establishing the Hamidie
Regiments. By the early 1890s Kurdish tribes were officially conscripted and armed into a
group bearing the name of the Sultan, and throughout Abdul Hamid’s reign, and through them
implicitly the Kurdish tribes of eastern Turkey, were given favorable status.536
The broad aim for their establishment was to harass the Armenians in eastern Anatolia,
particularly in the areas that border Russia and Iran. A great deal has been written about the
selection of the Hamidie regiments from among the Kurdish tribes, their mode of operation and
the atrocities they committed against the Armenians as well as other Christians in the period
from 1895 to 1908 when they were disbanded.537 The formation of these regiments reflects
Abdul Hamid’s policy of utilizing the sentiments of tribalism to deal with social and political
issues by playing off one sector of society against another, utilizing historical animosities,
religious or otherwise. The role of these regiments as a counter to rising Armenian political

535
John Joseph, p. 87, foot note 38, cites that as early as 1844 a missionary letter from Mosul reported that “every
dog of a Frank” could go to the Porte and secure a firman where their own mullahs were utterly disregarded when
they complained of grinding oppression. See M.H. 44 (1844): 369.
536
For a study of conditions that led to the formation of the Hamidie Regiments and the role they played as tool of
the Ottoman government to supervise and control the Eastern frontier, see Duguid, “Politics of Unity,” pp. 139-
55. See also Hassan Arfa, The Kurds, pp. 24-25.
537
See Janet Klein,The Margins of the Empire, Stanford University Press, 2011; Selim Derigil, The Well-
Protected Domains, Tauris, 2011.

170
claim and as a reaction to European support for the emancipation of the Armenians is made
clear from a note by the Hungarian Turkologist, Arminius Vambery:
The more the Armenians are supported by Europe, the greater
becomes the danger which threatens them by the hand of the Kurds
and the Ottoman authorities, for the scattered and isolated
conditions of these Christians, makes every effective defence
totally illusory and still more under the present circumstances,
when the so-called Hamidie Regiments consisting of adventurous
Kurds have been provided with modern arms by the Sultan.538

Up to the onset of the 1895 violence, the European countries of Britain, France and
Russia continued to apply pressure on the Ottoman government to effect internal reform
especially in the six vilayets of aastern Anatolia. One of their demands was for better
representation of the Christians in the administration system, as was also voiced in the British
Queen’s speech on August 15, 1895:

Internal troubles have broken out in the Armenian provinces of

Asiatic Turkey, and have been attended with horrors which have
moved the indignation of the Christian nations of Europe generally
and of my people especially. My Ambassador and the
Ambassadors of the Emperor of Russia and the President of the
French Republic, acting together, have suggested to the
Government of the Sultan the reforms which, in their opinion, are
necessary to prevent a recurrence of constant disorder. These
proposals are now being considered by his Imperial Majesty the
Sultan, and I am anxiously awaiting his decision.539

However, while these countries were pursuing these policies they did not ponder
sufficiently the possibility of an adverse reaction by the Ottomans. The Austro-Hungarian
position, communicated to the British Ambassador in 1896 underlines this danger.
But practical statesmen are bound to consider the situation from
another standpoint, and to face the certainty that the conflicting
interests, which are only conciliated by the maintenance of the
Ottoman Empire as it stands, would at once, if the latter were
threatened by coercive measures, be brought into active opposition,

538
As quoted in Jeremy Salt, “Britain, the Armenian Question, and the Cause of Ottoman Reform, 1894-96,” p.
318.
539
Queen’s Speech, House of Lords, Thursday, August 15th 1895, published as ‘The Address,’ The Times, Friday,
August 16, 1895.

171
 with infinitely more calamitous results to humanity at large than
even the savageries being perpetrated on this wretched people.540

4.2.4 The 1894-1896 Violence Against the Armenians

The first incidents of the violence on a large scale occurred in July 1894 in Sasan in the vilayet
of Bitlis, which resulted in the destruction of 25 villages and the massacre of approximately
20,000 individuals.541 This was followed by a massacre of approximately 10,000 Armenians in
Istanbul in September 1895, which marked the start of a bloody campaign throughout the
empire, particularly in eastern Anatolia.542 Sanjian summariszes the further casualties thus:

The abortive seizure of the Ottoman Bank at Constantinople by a

band of revolutionaries on August 26, 1896, brought on a second
massacre in the capital, followed by similar atrocities at other
points. According to conservative estimates at least two hundred
thousand Armenians lost their lives in the course of the three years
(1894-1896), and more than half a million were robbed of their
possessions and made homeless.543

4.3 The Impact of Violence on Christian communities (Syrian Orthodox and Assyrians)
The violence against the Armenians in Diyarbakir was to seriously affect the Syrian Orthodox.
The Syrian Orthodox had no political or nationalist interest that it would share with the
Armenians. The violence against the Armenians, especially in Diyarbakir, seriously impacted
the Syrian Orthodox and increased the dangers surrounding its communities. It was in response
to this critical instance that the Syrian Orthodox sought to distance themselves from the
political aims of the Armenians. Both Ottoman and missionary sources operating in the region
of conflict admit very clear differences between the Armenians and the Syrian Orthodox as
separate and distinct communities. They noted in particular that the Syrian Orthodox did not
share in the nationalist aims of the Armenian groups, nor did they espouse any nationalist
aspirations of their own. Reports by missionaries also shed light on this matter. Andrus,544

540
Sir E Monson to the Marquess of Salisbury, January 1st, 1896 (FO 424/186/ No. 1, dated January 1, 1896).
541
Sanjian, p. 278.
542
Ibid.
543
Ibid. The attempted bank seizure was carried out by members of the Armenian Dashnak party. The bank
employed many Europeans, British and French, and the seizure was ostensibly to draw European attention to the
plight of the Armenians.
544
Stationed in Mardin as an American Congregationalist missionary, Andrus frequently sent reports to the British
Foreign Office and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Elizabeth Finn, who hosted Patriarch Peter in London in

172
stationed in Mardin, sent a report to London, which invited the following elaboration by Mrs.
Finn:

The Christians of the Old Syrian Church are loyal subjects of the
Sultan, perfectly well behaved and inoffensive. They are the
principal inhabitants of Mardin. There has been no disaffection to
the Turkish Government among this simple people. An effort is
being made to collect some funds for their relief, especially among
those who have become acquainted with the late Patriarch when he
was here in 1874-1875, and with the Bishop, Mar Gregorius,
during his second visit to this country in 1888-89.545

4.4. Patriarch Abdul Masih II (Abdul Masih) (1895-1904): Witness to Bloodshed and
Communal Destruction
4.4.1 His Early Life and Election to Patriarchate
Born in 1854 in Qal‘atmara,546 a village located halfway between Mardin and Deir al-Za‘faran,
Abdul Masih joined the monastic order at Deir al-Za‘faran at the age of 12, becoming a rabban
(priest-monk) in 1875. He served in Amida (Diyarbakir) and Midyat until he was ordained
bishop for Syria in 1886 by Patriarch Peter III under the ecclesiastic name Julius. Abdul Masih
served this bishopric until his election as patriarch in 1895.547
Upon the death of Patriarch Peter on October 7, 1894, the normal procedure for electing a
successor commenced with consultations among the bishops with the aim of reaching a
consensus. According to Dolabani, after seven months of consultations, the general consensus
of the Synod was leaning towards the election of Abdullah Sattuf of Saddad, Syria.548
However, there appeared to be last minute changes of opinion which led to the election of
Abdul Masih as patriarch on June 14, 1894.549 Dolabani does not offer a reason for the change
of opinion. Reporting in the Missionary Herald, Rev. Alpheus Andrus provides a summary of
the prevailing divisions among the contenders and the resulting atmosphere that encouraged
further defection to Catholicism:

1874-1875 often acted as an intermediary, as in the following extract of a letter to the Foreign Office, as Andrus
reports.
545
Mrs. Finn to the Marquess of Salisbury, February 17, 1896, 75, Brook Green, London (FO 424/186).
546
Abbreviated from Qal‘at al-Umara` (the fortress of the amirs)
547
Yohannon Dolabani, Phatryarche d; Antiochia , pp. 276-277.
548
Ibid.
549
However, in a letter of congratulation to the Patriarch from Syria dated August 29, 1895, the Synod meeting
was indicated to have taken place on June 12, 1895 (Document 40M-24/46-337).

173
 Several causes have been and are still at work to give impetus to
the downward trend of the Jacobite Syrians. On the seventh of
October their patriarch died. His death was a signal for the
beginning of a rivalry among the bishops in a race for the
patriarchal chair. For the first time in the history of this church and
of the ecclesiasticism in this empire, the government has stepped in
and boldly intimated who of the bishops shall not be allowed to be
chosen patriarch by the Jacobite community, while on the other
hand it holds the office before the remaining eligible candidates
subject to the highest bidder. Each bishop has his coterie of
followers, and the longer this unseemly squabble sways the
community, the deeper becomes the heart-burnings, envies,
jealousies, strifes and divisions among its members.

Already the evil effects of such a chaotic condition of affairs are

beginning to be seen in the defection of some to the Papal Syrians,
and the closing of schools for lack both of funds and interest
necessary to their maintenance.550

The bishops attending the election synod were Qorillos Jirjis the Patriarchal Vicar in
Mardin; Qorillos Shamoun, Bishop of Midyat; Athanasius Dinha, Bishop of Deir Mar Abhai in
Swerek; Yulius Behnam, Bishop of Jazirah; Qorilos Yohannon, Bishop of Nisibin; Athanasius
Aphram, Bishop of Deir Mor Gabriel; Yulius Abdul Ahad, Bishop of Deir al-Salib and
Kurbural; Timotheus Barsoum, Bishop of Deir Mor Melke; and Ewanis Elias Halooli, Head of
Deir al-Kursi (referring to the seat of Jerusalem which had a special status). The following
Bishops who did not attend the Synod, but assigned their votes with the majority: Gregorius
Jirjis al-Saddi, Bishop of Jerusalem and Timotheous Episcope Foulus, Patriarchal
representative in Istanbul. Of the two remaining bishops, Dionysus Behnam Samarchi and
Gregorius Abdullah, Bishop of Amid; the first had been suspended by from service by
Patriarch Peter since 1891 and disallowed from standing for election or for voting in one.551
The second, Gregorius Abdullah, objected to the election procedure and outcome and, backed
by the lay council of the diocese, travelled to Istanbul to voice his objection to the Ottoman
authorities.552 One of the documents examined indicates the Sublime Porte canvassed the
opinion of the some of the dioceses about Abdul Masih’s election, but upheld the decision of

550
Missionary Herald of September 1895: 91, 9: American Periodicals; p. 366.
551
Yohannon Dolabani, Phatryarche d’ Antiochia , p. 277.
552
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 16.

174
the Synod.553 The Sultan issued a firman dated the 19th of Rebiyaul-ewal 1313 H
(corresponding to September 9, 1896) confirming Abdul Masih as patriarch.554

4.4.2 A Troubled Era - The 1895 Violence and the Syrian Orthodox Communities
No sooner had the new patriarch begun to assume the responsibilities of office than his
community in the city of Diyarbakir and ones in surrounding villages and several regions to
the northeast of the vilayet found themselves the target for aggression by Kurdish tribes and
the Hamidie Regiments. Accounts of the violence are reported here from three types of
sources: a secondary source published by Aphram Paulus Barsoum,555 two published sources,
each based on an eye witness account, one by Qarabashi and another by Aphram
Barsoum,556and a number of primary sources in the form of letters to the patriarch, drawing
attention to their dire conditions and to the devastation that had befallen their homes and
villages. This third group of sources are from the archival material at Mardin and at Deir al-
Za‘faran and are published here for the first time.
In early October 1895, signs of violence against Christians became evident in Diyarbakir.
The violence was ostensibly against the Armenians but in reality it included all other
Christians in the and around the city of Diyarbakir. The resulting carnage extended to the
Tigris River at Hisn Kifa, as well as up to Sivas.557 The Turkish authority had ordered the
Kurds to be prepared for an attack on the Armenians, ostensibly to crush an Armenian unrest.
However, the rumours that circulated talked about attacks that would include all Christians.558
Upon hearing these rumours all the Christians closed their shops and barricaded themselves in
their homes while their leaders forwarded requests to Anis Pasha the Vali for protection. The
mob, with swords in their hands, attacked not only Armenians but other Christians too. After
four days of carnage, the governor of Diyarbakir noticed that Muslims were being killed too
through some fire exchange with the Armenians. So, he asked the Syrian Orthodox Bishop

553
Document 40M-24/44-0212, dated July 11, 1895.
554
Gabriyel Akyuz, Osmanli Devletinde Suryani Kilisesi. Mardin, 2002, p.24.
555
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, pp. 16-18.
556
Qarabashi and Aphram I Barsoum, Tarikh Tur Abdin.
557
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, Tarikh Tur Abdin , tras. to Arabic by Gregorius Boulus Behnam [Junia , Lebanon
1963 , and to English: The history of Tur Abdin. by Matti Moosa ( Piscataway: Georgias Press, 2008, pp.135-136.
558
Primary sources covering this are scarce. Secondary sources generally agree about the sequence of events, See
De Courtois, pp. 99-112.

175
Abdullah of Diyarbakir (later Patriarch) to make a joint plea for calm.559 When this plea
produced no tangible results, the Vali wrote to the Mutasarrif of Mardin instructing him to
request the presence of the Patriarch in Diyarbakir in order to calm down the Christians and to
allay their fears. Immediately upon receiving this request, Patriarch Abdul Masih headed for
Diyarbakir. When he arrived on October 20th, he was surprised that nobody was there to meet
him. He immediately headed for the Syrian Orthodox Church “Mariamana” (Church of the
Virgin Mary), which was already crowded, becoming like “Noah’s Ark for all Christians.”560
On that day, a Friday, the Kurds surged out of the mosques shouting “Muhammad Salawat”
(Prayers be on Muhammad). The sound of gunfire soon filled the city. Patriarch Abdul Masih
sent someone with a message to the Vali, but the messenger was stabbed to death. However,
accounts differ as to whether he did manage to deliver the message.561 Patriarch Abdul Masih
then headed out to the Vali, passing by the corpses of slain Christians on his way. The Vali
eventually responded by sending a military force to quell the violence. According to one
account Sultan Abdul Hamid had instructed a confidant in the confidential telegram “to punish
the Armenians for three hours.”562 However, the three-hour punishment extended to days and
then to weeks and was expanded to include not only the Armenians but many other
Christians.563 According to Qarabashi the violence in Diyarbakir lasted until December 18,
1895.564

4.4.3 Eyewitness Accounts of the 1895 Violence

4.4.3.1 Contemporary Published Accounts by Syrian Orthodox Sources
i) The account by Abdul Masih Qarabashi (1903-1983)
Qarabashi, who joined Deir al-Za‘faran as a young student, stated: “I came across a small
booklet in Syriac in the personal library of Priest Paulus, of the Church of Qarabash, the son of
Priest Abdul-Ahad of the Priest Lahdo family.” The content was translated to Arabic by

559
Qarabashi, p. 86.
560
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, Tarikh Tur Abdin, p. 135.
561
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum (p. 18) says that the messenger was killed after he delivered the message,
whereas Qarabashi (p. 87) says that the messenger was killed on his way to the Wali and that the killers delivered
the message to the Vali.
562
Ibid., Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 17.
563
Ibid.
564
Qarabashi, p. 88.

176
Bishop Theophilus George Saliba in 2005, and the account presented here is my translation
from the Arabic text.
The violence, which commenced in October 1985 in Diyarbakir, was precipitated at the
local level by the Kurdish aghas Gamil Pasha and Bahram Pasha, who sent letters to the Kurds
inciting violence against the Christians.565 The letters promised weapons to kill the Christians
and to pillage their homes, as soon as they assembled in Diyarbakir. As in the earlier report, on
the Friday, the Kurds surged out of the mosques shouting “Muhammad Salawat” (Prayers be
on Muhammad), commencing their slaughter. The violence was not confined to that city but
soon spread to include surrounding towns and villages. Qarabashi reports that in al-Sa‘diyah a
village located approximately 10 kilometers to the southeast of Diyarbakir of a mixed
population of 300 Syrians and Armenians the Kurds attacked the Christian population on
November 1, 1895, killing most of the male population, abducting women and pillaging
homes. Those who managed to escape found refuge inside the local church, where they
barricaded themselves. The Kurds with soldiers - likely of the Hamidie Regiment - climbed the
roofs, made a hole through them, poured fuel inside and ignited it. Those who survived the fire
opened the gate only to come face to face with their killers. Only three men survived the
massacre and they managed to reach Diyarbakir to tell their story.566
At the village of Qarabash, Qarabashi’s ancestral hometown, located approximately 10
kilometres to the east of Diyarbakir, the majority of its population of nearly 1,000 were Syrians
(Orthodox) and a few Armenians. Here, the Kurds attacked on Friday November 1, 1895, as
they did in other locations. The attacking Kurds unleashed their swords on the peaceful
population killing the young and the old and looting for two full days. Some of the villagers
found refuge under a huge bird tower located at the northern end of town. The Kurds
demolished the tower from the top, killing all those who had taken refuge underneath it. The
very few who survived the carnage managed to flee under the shadow of darkness, some to
Diyarbakir, and others to surrounding villages, where they found refuge with Muslim friends.
When the survivors returned, they rebuilt the bird tower, under a new name: the “Tower of
Martyrs.”567

565
Ibid, p. 85.
566
Qarabashi, p. 89.
567
Ibid., p. 90.

177
 In Miapharqin, an important town in the early history of the church, located to the north
east of Diyarbakir, a similar tragedy to that in Sa‘diyah unfolded. The town had a population of
nearly 1,000, the majority of whom were Syrians and Armenians. Here, as generally
elsewhere, Kurds used their swords against all Christians. Those who took shelter inside the
local church faced the same fate as those of Sa‘diyah, in that again the Kurds poured fuel into
the church through a hole they made in the roof and set those seeking protection inside the
church on fire. Only 10 men and three women survived.568
In the village of Ai-Bar “located half an hour journey” to the west of Diyarbakir, the
Christian population consisting of Chaldeans, Syrians and Armenians were tricked by the
Muslim chiefs into believing that they were being taken to Diyarbakir for safety. However,
after they gathered them together, they slaughtered them all, and then went back to their village
and pillaged their possessions.
In the village of Swerek, the Kurdish chief Haj Uthman Pasha, and his brother gathered
the Kurds from surrounding villages and led a three day slaughter that massacred all
Christians, except for four families.569
The massacres included the villages Ainsha, Telkhas, Harnak, Satia, Safita, Sa‘diyah -
Qozan to the east; Ali-Bar, Qartta, Qara, Kleesa, Quart to the west; Qadhi and Batrakiha to the
north; Kaibia, Jrihia, Khan Iqbinar, Orza Oghai, Holan, Bshairyah, Lija, Khazwan, Kharput,
Adiaman (Hisan Mansour) and others to the south.570 Attacks in Mardin, were very limited,
and its population was saved by the chivalry of local Muslim leaders. However, villages close
to Mardin - Al-Qusour, Bnaibil, Qal`atmara, Mansourya and many others - were not so
fortunate. Tur Abdin was generally saved from this carnage.
The total number of the Syrian Orthodox who lost their lives in the 1895 massacres has
been estimated to be around 4,000.571 However, the tragedy was not confined to those few
months of 1895, for the Kurds, who appeared to operate with impunity; and indeed with the
tacit approval of Ottoman officialdom, if not at its instigation, became emboldened to continue
after 1895.572

568
Ibid., p. 90, 91.
569
Ibid., p. 92
570
Qarabashi, p. 51.
571
Ibid.
572
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, Tarikh Tur Abdin , pp.135-136.

178
ii) The account published by Aphram I Barsoum, based on a Syriac memro (metrical ode) in
twelve- syllabic meter by Priest Aphram Sharko Safar of Midyat written in 1895.573
When Patriarch Abdul Masih II arrived in Amid on October 20, of this
year (1895), the Muslims attacked the Armenians and smote them by the
sword. Fright gripped the Syrians, Chaldeans and Rum.574 The patriarch
sent a telegram to Sultan Abd al-Hamid II and obtained from him a royal
decree for the protection of the Christians…The Church of the Mother of
God became like Noah’s Ark for all Christians, and the patriarch
continued to comfort and strengthen them…

At noon, the Muslim Turks smote by the sword in Amid

(Diyarbakir) (Christian) men, women and children. The carnage
extended to the boundaries of the Tigris River at Hisn Kifa and up
to Sivas...The Muslims rumored that they were only punishing the
Armenians for their disobedience to the government. In reality,
that they were calling for the annihilation of all Christians [my
emphasis].

4.4.3.2 Unpublished Witness Accounts from the Deir al-Za‘faran and the Mardin Archives
What is presented here is a sample of letters sent to the Patriarch during these events
The letters were sent by clergy, church wardens, deacons or individuals. They are in Garshuni
Arabic vernacular, mostly using highly colloquial language, likely written in a state of great
desperation. Translation to the modern idiom presented a considerable challenge. To be
faithful to the spirit of the original text in these letters, I have opted, where practical, not to
replace the content with my own narrative and to translate the letters in as simple a language as
possible.
i) A letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Priest Ibrahim, who appears to be from
Sherman, located to the northeast of Tur Abdin in the Bitliz Villayet, dated October 23, 1895

Two days ago people from Sherwan arrived to report that on

Sunday the 15th , nearly 100 men of the Danabkta kochers,575 who
are located near Batlis, headed by two sons of the chief of the tribe,
Mijdad Agha, attacked the villages of Koudhadizan, Marj, Madan,
and Hawell Monastery. They killed Priest Gorgias, 10 men and
four women in Madan, three men and a woman in Koudhadizan,
and two men in Marj. They burnt down the Monastery and most of

573
Ibid
574
Greeks, Byzantines commonly known as Rum Orthodox
575
The kochers were Kurdish nomads.

179
 the houses, causing the people to run for their life, taking refuge in
friendly Muslim villages.

The attackers did the same in Eroun, as we have learned. We

reported this to the Mutassarif, who sent a force to quell the
attackers. Two days ago we heard that the Alkia and other kochers
ransacked Kaysama, Kukan, Kilo, Hilcami, and Damsrak, looting
all that they could lay their hands on. The Mutassarif again sent a
force with Sheif Abdul Qahar Effendi to keep order and to help
return some of the looted goods.

One cannot thank this man enough for his chivalry. We will see
how things will develop and will inform your beatitude
accordingly.576

ii) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Deacon Elias al-Khouri, dated November 12,
1895

This letter details the tragic conditions encountered by the Syrians residents of more than 50
villages in the Bsheriya region, which is located to the northeast of Tur Abdin, in the Bitlis
Vilayet. In obvious desperation, the writer starts abruptly, without the usual courtesy thus:
Do something for the poor of this hour, urgently, for there is no
abode for the poor of nearly 50 villages, whose houses were
burned down, and whose people were ransacked and subjected to
annihilation. Those who managed to escape the tribes were trying
to find shelter from the cold next to any walls they find. Many
came to the Monastery, or to Zarjel, Kifirzi, Jeduk and Jansiker,
where they found refuge under the protection of Hassan Agha
Muhammad Ali, and Razjan Agha, sons of Ibrahim Hasso Zarjali.

The writer then explains how local official(s) searched the monastery for suspected “rebels”
and when they found none ordered those who had taken refuge back to their villages. The
writer then describes the dire condition of the poor villages and the threats the normal
occupants of the monastery had to endure:
Thus, they sent these people back to the villages hungry and naked;
the ground being their beds and the sky [their roof]. As a result (of
these conditions), they suffered illnesses that caused 20 to 30 or
more to die every day. On top of that, more than eight days ago, on
Sunday evening, Jaja Babouri and all the tribes of the mountain
and of Ghazrai, came down to the Monastery shouting: 'Come out,

576
Document 40M-24/41-0196.

180
 you priests, because your firman is in our hands, today we will
demolish the Monastery and sever your heads.'577

The writer then speaks about a group of Kurdish Aghas who arrived and exchanged fire
with the attackers for four hours, finally quelling the attack. However, the villagers appear to
have been under the threat of attacks all the time for the writer goes on to add: “Everyday we
hear that attackers are again gathering to attack us.”
At this point the writer switches from Garshuni to Syriac578 to state: “Saeed Agha is a
friend of the ruthless attackers, and he is the one who is responsible for the atrocities in our
area.” Then, reverting to Garshuni, he reports on the very many telegrams he had sent to
officials, and begs for a solution to the dire condition of people in Ghazwan and Jizran, for
families who had been chased out of their villages and were living in the open under no shelter
or protection of any sort, but threatened with daily attacks of annihilation.
The description in this letter reinforces other accounts that demonstrate that, while the
attacks on the non-Armenians was not the intention of the Ottoman officialdom those attacks
occurred due to deeply harboured ill intent, largely based on religious prejudice, to utilize
every opportunity to revert to pillage, despite the fact that those that were being pillaged were
generally as poor as the attackers.

4.4.3.3 The Violence Continues Beyond 1895

The 1895 violence has generally been portrayed as a short-lived event defined by the year
1895. However, the reality displayed by the archival documents and letters from Deir al-
Za’afaran and Mardin does not support this portrayal of the state of events in many parts of the
Syriac Christian homeland. These documents show that the violence extended throughout 1896
and much of 1897, generally becoming a pattern of re-occurrence throughout the years that
followed. In fact, they were the precursors of the Sayfo of the First World War. A sample of
these documents is presented here.
The events that strongly engulfed many Syrian communities in Anatolia in 1895 and
persisted throughout the following years cannot be attributed to political motives, as was the
case against the Armenians in response to their nationalistic aspirations. In the case of the

577
Document No. 40M-24/40-0171, 0172
578
Resorting to Syriac was in many cases when seeking confidentiality.

181
Syrians, the Kurds were perpetrating the killings, abductions, and theft against people who had
no national or political aspirations. They were committing these acts against people with whom
they had shared the same land and the same state of abject poverty for generations. The spirit
of the killing, the pillage and the forced religious conversions appear to mirror the spirit of
ghaza, which was so characteristic of the wars the early Ottomans waged at the formation of
their empire against the people of the lands they invaded. The violence and the lawlessness
described reflect endemic sectarian fissures that are exploited by the aggressors during political
unrest and weak governance.

i) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Donabid bin Hagop, dated March 21, 1896

This is a letter from an Armenian who lived with his wife and their young child in a village in
the vicinity of Diyarbakir. The Kurds, who had abducted his wife and son, agreed to return his
son but kept his wife claiming that she had become a Muslim. In his letter, the husband is
beseeching the Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox to help save his wife from the abductors.
Before the well-known events [referring to the general violence
of 1895], I had travelled to Diyarbakir from my village Jum,
leaving behind your slave, my family (wife) and my three year
old son. I could not return to Diyarbakir during the events due to
the dangers on the road. In the meantime the Kurds had abducted
my wife and son as a reward of ghaza…I need to inform you that
my wife has several brothers in the village. Thus, fearing death
reprisals against them, she has not been able to return to her
faith. She stated in a message that if the Patriarch of the Syrians
took up her case, she would surely be able to return. I beg of you
to call her for an audience before you in order to give her
strength when she appears in court to state her religion.579

ii) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Goria and Sawma, dated July 18, 1897

Here the two villagers tell in a few words their dilemma at the hands of those with whom they
had shared a common existence for centuries:
What is presented before your Holiness is that for some time, we in
the village of Heck have been reduced to nothing, with the looting
of our sheep and all other possessions. Worse still, is that all our
harvest produce are with Haji Kourteck and his followers. Now,
we slaves of your Holiness do not know what to do. People have
579
Document No. 40M-24/40 – 0098.

182
 been thrown out of their villages and have been forced to beg in
order to live.580

iii) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Sawmay Lahdo, dated July 21, 1897

Here, too, is a further example of Kurdish tribal attacks that clearly bear the imprint of
religious attacks carried out in the spirit of ghaza. However, the fact that the writers ask for the
protection of a certain Kurdish agha indicates that despite the general abuse and aggression
chivalry still had a chance to operate.

This is concerning the matter of our ruined village, Zaynorah. We,

the people of this village, had come to you to sort out our
problems. Your beatitude instructed us to return to our villages,
while your beatitude would sort things out. But no sooner had we
returned than the rise against, and the killing of, the Christians
started. So we escaped from our village, and the village remains in
ruins.

Now we again beg your beatitude to solve the problem of our

village, so that we may all return from our temporary places of
refuge and settle in it. We beg you to write to Chalihi Agha to
oversee our peace from being attacked by the tribes, for we have
become extremely poor and exhausted. It is because of our
extreme poverty that we have not been able to travel to you
before now. I have now come in order to find a solution for the
Suryani community in our village.581

iv) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih from Sawmo bin Bolo, from Saroot village, dated
March 2, 1898

This letter tells the story of a village community that was forced to convert to Islam during the
1895 violence, and was forced to remain in that state nearly two and half years later. This is an
example of a state of anarchy, where both ecclesiastic and local civil authorities stood helpless
before the tyranny of Kurdish tribes, who operated undeterred, often under the banner of the
Hamidie regiments.
What I lay before your beatitude is that I ran away from my village
during the troubles. When I returned I found most of the villagers

580
Document No. 40M 24/45 – 0518.
581
Document No. 40M-24/45 – 0458.

183
 were forced into Islam. They forced me to marry one against my
wish. When I now examine my life I feel full of sorrow, we have
nobody to save us from dying under sin. Our children are
unbaptized. We no longer have a priest.582

v) A Letter to Patriarch Abdul Masih, from Goria Ibrahim and two others, dated October
11, 1899

This brief letter shows the dire conditions in which many lived some four years after the 1895
violence. This and other letters clearly shows that the violence that occurred in 1895 was by no
means transient, but reflected deep-rooted attitudes that were perpetuated well beyond that
occurrence. The letter simply states: “We have now been reduced to five families for the
Muslims have taken over our village, and the officials are taking our 'bread'. We do not know
what to do.”583

4.4.3.4 Witness Accounts by Foreign Missions

Further verification of the dire conditions during which existed during and after 1895 can be
found in consular reports and in reports by some of the missionaries who were operating in
southeast Anatolia at the time. The conditions in many places were dire even before the 1895
violence. The Missionary Herald of October 1895 (91,10), reports on the conditions prior to
the 1895 violence. From Van, Missionary Frazer wrote on June 26:
On Monday night Hindostan, a village in a near district, was
robbed of a thousand sheep and two men were killed. On Monday
some men were beaten here in Van, and from Aghausts came news
to the effect that a certain pasha is threatening annihilation of all
Christians between that town and Erzroom.584

It may be noted that although the area referenced above was inhabited mainly by
Armenians, the threat was for “the annihilation of all Christians.” The same letter from the
Missionary Herald includes the following:
Last week letters were received from Moosh, signed by several
priests and our preacher describing the pitiful destitution that

582
Document No. 40M-24/45 – 0391.
583
Document No. 40M 24/45 – 0406.
584
Missionary Herald Nov. 1895: 91, 10.

184
 prevailed. The names of 65 persons who had died of hunger and
exposure were recorded, and an appeal was made for help.585

Writing from Mardin in August 1, 1896, A.A. Andrus reports the following:

The outlook at the end of June, to which date this letter brings
down the record, was not reassuring. The plundered villagers who
have had but a tithe of their property restored to them; their burnt
and broken down houses are still in ruins; much of their grain has
been either pastured while green, reaped when ripe, by the Koords
[sic], or carried from the threshing floor by the marauding Arabs.
Life is hardly more secure than property for those who still retain
the name of Christian, and the prospect for reform is as remote as it
was a year ago. We have no faith in the Ethiopian’s changing his
skin or leopard his spots. Meanwhile the prospect for the next
winter is darker than ever.586

Andrus, commenting on the Hamidie Regiment, states: “This irregular cavalry is very largely
responsible for most of the irregularities which have disturbed those regions during the last
eight years.” Also: “the vast majority of these troops have been drawn from this stalwart and
vigorous Koordish [sic] race.”587

4.4.3.5 A Visit with a Different Aim and Outlook - Pillage and Religious Intolerance of a
Different Form

The sense of defeat and weakness that Oriental Christians experienced, particularly at that
period, extended beyond Kurdish aggression. Some of the missionaries, in addition to their
basic work which involved diverting those Christians from their traditional religious practice,
were engaged in stripping them of their religious heritage under the benign claim of
‘manuscript collection’. The case of Rendel Harris of Clare College, Cambridge offers an
example. In the Missionary Herald of November 1896,588 Mr. Andrus reports on the one month
visit by Professor J. Rendel Harris589 and his wife, pursuing his main interest: collection of
manuscripts:

585
Ibid.
586
Missionary Herald November, 1896; 92, 11.
587
Missionary Herald of January 1902; 98,1,p.43,
588
Missionary Herald of November, 1896; 92,11, p. 488f.
589
British Quaker, academician and Orientalist.

185
 We enjoyed with the professor a hunting expedition for 20 days in
search for old and rare manuscripts in the Jebel Tur (Tur Abdin
Mountain) but did not meet with the success we had hoped because
of the suspicions and covetousness of the people. Moreover, alas!
the Koords in the late raids destroyed a great number of valuable
Syriac manuscripts.590

Mr. Harris’s frustration with the result of his hunt for manuscripts extends to his abject
intolerance of Oriental Christianity when he says:
It is a good district also for studying the decline and the
prophesying [of] the approaching decease of Syrian monasticism,
for most of the monasteries are in ruins and so much reduced as
not to be better than ruins. I am glad to be at the bedside of this
erratic religion, and if a shake would hasten the patient’s
dissolution, I would gladly give him a brace of Shakes.591

The expressed objectives of Harris’s expedition, as well as his disrespectful remarks

warrant a couple of comments. First, his “hunting expedition” for manuscripts of a cultural
tradition that he inherently despises is inconsistent with an academic discipline and more
appropriate for an art dealer. Second, “the suspicions and covetousness of the people” reflect a
growing awareness among clergy and wardens about the value of these manuscripts and the
need for protecting and preserving them as valuable heritage artifacts, even though they may
be fully ignorant of their real content. Third, his remarks about Syrian Orthodox Christianity
and its monastic tradition, employing such intolerant and abusive language, reflects a tunnel
vision of other cultures, which is so contrary to the attributes of what a learned man from
Cambridge should embrace. It is also a further example of the Orientalist attitude that Edward
Said describes so well.592

4.4.4 Consequences on Abdul Masih’s Patriarchate - His Deposition

The Kurdish aggression of 1895 to 1898, coming as it did almost immediately after Abdul
Masih took office as patriarch, became the defining feature of his term. These events exposed,
yet once again, the basic tragedy that marked the life of the Syrian Orthodox communities,

590
Missionary Herald of November, 1896; 92,11, p. 488f.
591
J. R. and B. H. Harris, Letters from the Scenes of the Recent massacres in Armenian (London: J. Nesbit and
Co.1897), p.117, cited by Taylor, Narratives, p. 98.
592
Edward Said, Orientalism, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.

186
living as unarmed minorities among armed Kurdish clans, who were constantly competing for
control of the region and living on the proceeds of terror they caused in order in order to exact
protection money from the Christian population.
In addition to tragically affecting the lives of many communities, the dire conditions that
resulted from the 1895 events also diminished the long held belief in the stature of the
patriarchate as an institution which was responsible for the welfare of its people, and capable
of their protection. Through these events, the Syrian communities came to realize how helpless
the patriarch, as a person and as an institution, was in the face of such events. This point was
clearly reflected in the sharp drop in the number of letters to the Patriarch, many of which were
appeals for help, see Figure 6. Further, by examining Figures 3 and 4, regarding sender identity
one notices a significant drop in the proportion of letters arriving from the laity, see Figure 4.
As a result, the communities increasingly came to the realization that they had essentially
become helpless. This situation encouraged more people to convert to Catholicism and to
Protestantism, where avenues for material help and for protection by external powers were, at
least, perceived to be far more likely and available.
Despite the tragic conditions that prevailed for most of the first three years of his term in
office, Patriarch Abdul Masih worked hard to remedy the numerous wounds in his
communities that resulted from these conditions. He did so by caring about the displaced and
the hungry, and by strengthening the bonds between communities that had been weakened as a
result of pressures of conversion to Catholicism and Protestantism, as he did in Midyat in
1897. He helped many who had converted to Catholicism to return to the mother church.593 In
1900 he headed to Istanbul,594 where he stayed nearly 15 months. In Istanbul he had two
audiences with Sultan Abdul Hamid. The Grand Vazir Saed Pasha dissuaded him from his plan
to visit India.595
However, the traumatic events, particularly many of the events to which he was
personally a witness that befell his community and other Christians in Diyarbakir and
elsewhere early in his Patriarchate affected his mental health. As a result, based on unsound
advice596 he resorted to alcohol to which he became addicted. This adversely affected his

593
Saka, Kanisati, p. 213.
594
Letters in Documents No.40M-24/48-141, and 127.
595
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 21.
596
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 21.

187
mental faculties and his ability to deal with the mounting issues of his community everywhere.
Over time the worsening state of affairs surrounding the Patriarch generated a consensus
among the bishops that he should be deposed and replaced with somebody who was more
capable of dealing with the situation. The lack of an obvious candidate who was both willing
and capable caused considerable delay before a decision for the deposition and replacement
was made. This was made particularly more difficult by the fact that Bishop Gregorius
Abdullah, his rival for the patriarchate, had left the Church in 1896 and joined the Syrian
Catholic Church, as will be discussed in some detail later.
The deposition of Abdul Masih represented a rare event in the history of the Syrian
Orthodox Church. Not surprisingly, rumours persisted long after the event as to whether there
was an external factor, in particular an order from the Sultan to remove him, ostensibly
because of his drinking problem. During my research of this matter, oral sources generally
claimed that Episcope Paulus of Urfa (Edessa), the Patriarchal representative in Istanbul, was
coordinating the effort to unseat Patriarch Abdul Masih, seemingly in fulfillment of an order
by the Sultan. The archival material under study has yielded a document of critical importance,
which has shed light on this matter. This is a letter, which was penned in Arabic by Episcope
Paulus, and sent from Istanbul and dated March 27, 1903.597 This letter clearly shows that there
was no interference from the Porte in this matter; that, to the contrary, the Porte sought
evidence that the deposition of Abdul Masih was by popular demand; “the unseating the
Patriarch depends on his rejection by the millet” as expressed by a decision of the Synod. In
this letter Chorepiscopos Paulus urges the bishops, members of the Synod, to make a clear
decision to depose Patriarch Abdul Masih in what he saw was as a necessary step in order to
save the millet from further decline:
I will emphasize here that this time we would, with the grace of the
Creator and with the Sultanic justice achieve our aspired result, for
when discussing the issue, the Ministry of Justice answered, that
the unseating of the Patriarch depends on his rejection by the
millet, so if you categorically refuse to accept him…Thus, if you
now emphasize that you would never accept Abdul Masih as
Patriarch, they would no doubt replace him.

597
Document 40M-24/26- 0122. My translation of what may be regarded as an important historical letter appears
in Appendix A4.1.

188
 A further, independent, confirmation that the deposition of Abdul Masih was sought by
a decision of the Syrian Orthodox Church is offered in a consular report by Avalon Shipley,
the British Vice-Consul in Diyarbakir, see text in Section 4.5.
It is unclear what steps transpired immediately following Paulus’ letter. However,
Dolabani reports that a synod was held later that year, on October 10, 1903 in Deir al-Za‘faran
which decided to depose Patriarch Abdul Masih. According to Dolabani, those attending the
Synod were: Qorilos Girjis, Patriarchal Vicar of Mardin; Athanasius Yacoub, Bishop of
Nisibis; Athanasius Aphram Bishop of Deir Mor Gabriel; and Athanasius Dinha of Deir Mar
Abhai. The declaration of deposition was also signed by Timotheus Paulus, Patriarchal Vicar
in Istanbul, Mar Dionysius Behnam; Qorilos Elias (Qodso of Mar Mattai); and Iyawannis Elias
(Halooli), Bishop of Jerusalem.
The decision of the Synod was communicated to the Sublime Porte with a request for a
Sultanic order to remove Abdul Masih from the civil authority invested in him by the Porte in
order to commence the process for electing a successor. The Porte’s decree for the deposition
was issued on July 16, 1904 by a decision of the Council of Minutes, which was
communicated by the Grand Wazir to the Governor of Diyarbakir.598

4.4.5 Abdul Masih after Deposition – Manifestation of Continued Decline

After his deposition, Abdul Masih resided in Midyat. There, he watched with added sadness,
his rival, Abdullah, being installed as patriarch in 1906.
In 1908, the new patriarch ordained a number of bishops. One of these was Gurjis, from
Malabar whom he ordained at St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem under the ecclesiastic
forename Dionysius. When the Patriarch Abdullah subsequently visited Malabar, starting in
September1909, Dionysius rebelled against him, which caused the patriarch to excommunicate
him in May 1911.The patriarch then convened a council in August of the same year at Always,
in Malabar. The council, which was attended by the delegates from 230 churches, endorsed the
patriarch’s anathema of Dionysius Gurgis and designated Cyril Paul as Metropolitan of
Malabar.599

598
William Taylor, Narratives, Appendix AXVIII.
599
Tuma, tras. Matti Moosa, p. 290.

189
 In 1910 the disgruntled Gurgis invited Abdul Masih to visit India. Letters between the
two sides were exchanged continuously until 1912 when the Indian party in question sent him
some money to travel. On his way to India he stopped in Mosul, where Antoune Abdulnour, a
well known community leader and dignitary attempted to dissuade him from his plan, but to no
avail.600
In India, Dionysius Gurgis had Abdul Masih ordained a monk, Fannus Kallisery, a
metropolitan with the name Gregorius Gurgis. The ordination was carried out under the claim
that the deposition of Abdul Masih was not legal; that it had not been approved by a synod. On
May 10, 1912, the Turkish government addressed a letter through Tawfiq Pasha to Sir E. Grey
in London, requesting him to write to the governments of Travancore and Cochin that Patriarch
Abdul Masih had been deposed.601
Upon his departure from India he headed to Jerusalem from where one of his relatives
from Qal‘atmara, the Syrian Catholic Chorepiscopos Yacoub Melke, took him to Beirut, where
he joined the Syrian Catholic Church.602 Following this, he travelled to his home town of
Qal‘atmara.603 The details of what actually transpired at that point are difficult to ascertain.
However, all accounts generally agree that he eventually returned to live in Deir al-Za‘faran,
where he spent his last days, died and was buried.
What ensued next is taken up by a contemporary source, Al- Hikmat, a journal that began
to be issued in Mardin starting in 1913. The account, published in the June 11 and June 24,
1914 issues of Al- Hikmat, describes Abdul Masih’s reception in Deir al-Za‘faran and his brief
association with the Catholics. It chronicles “his desire to return to the bosom of his mother,
the Syrian Church, as he became certain of the good will of the Taifa towards him, and, as he
also realized that those who worked to convince him to join Catholicism, did so for their own
aims out of hatred towards the Syrian Church.”

600
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 27.
601
In 1923, the Court of Appeal in Trivandrum confirmed the excommunication of Dionysius Gurgis. In response,
Gurgis journeyed to the Za’faran Monastery to appeal to Patriarch Elias III to absolve him from the anathema.
Patriarch Elias III attempted to resolve the issue during the last few years of his life in India, but to no avail, for it
transpired that Gurgis’ real intention was declaring independence. Thus, this saga unfolded to yield yet another
permanent division in the Syrian Orthodox Church in India.
602
Al-Hikmat, June 11, June 24, 1914, pp. 314-315.
603
Ibid.

190
 According to the Al- Hikmat account, Abdul Masih was invited and
accompanied to Deir al- Za‘faran in a celebratory manner by a number of
dignitaries on June 8, 1914, where he was given residence:
On entering the monastery, his beatitude headed to Beth Qadshe
[the graves of the saints and patriarchs] where he conducted the
prayers for the departed clergy, and wept profusely. He then
entered the church and was shown to a seat that was especially
prepared for him.604

Al-Hikmat takes up the return of Abdul Masih again in its Issue No. 22, June 20 to July 3,
1914, pps.336 and 337. Here, Al-Hikmat provides an account of an encounter between Abdul
Masih and Bishop Gabriel, the Syrian Catholic Bishop of Mardin. This appears to be based on
an official complaint made by Bishop Gabriel in which he claimed that:
Patriarch Abdul Masih, who had gone to Qal‘atmara for a visit, was
taken by the Syrians to Deir al-Za‘faran, where he is now confined
but wishes to return to Catholicism. In addition, he has in his
possession certain items that belong to us, which I wish returned.

Al-Hikmat reported that the Mutasarrif sent a committee to Deir al-Za‘faran to investigate
the claim. According to the same account Abdul Masih denied those claims answering:
I am Syrian Orthodox, I stayed for a while with the Catholics as a
visitor. I have now by my free will returned to the house of my
fathers and grandfathers, to my mother’s bosom. So what is it that
the Catholics demand from me? Are they not ashamed of
submitting a report so devoid of truth, as this?

Replying to the question of the articles that Bishop Gabriel demanded to be returned,
Abdul Masih reportedly answered, “I owe the Bishop nothing. Further, if Patriarch Rahmani
requires the return of what he offered me as a present in replacement of a cross and the ring
and such, let him himself approach me."605

The Spirit of Division and Animosity, a Significant Document

During my search of the Barsoum archives in Bab Tuma, Damascus, in May to June 2009, I
came across a letter, hitherto not made public, and penned in Arabic by Ignatius Ephram
Rahmani, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch. The letter, addressed to Abdul Masih and dated June

604
Al-Hikmat, June 11, June 24, 1914, pp. 314-315.
605
Al-Hikmat No.22, June 20 to July 3, 1914, pp. 336 and 337.

191
16, 1914, provides background of the utmost importance to the seemingly unimportant
argument noted above between Bishop Gabriel and Abdul Masih concerning some articles
ostensibly provided to Abdul Masih by Patriarch Rahmani of the Syrian Catholic Church. My
translation of the letter is given in Appendix A 4.2. In this letter, Patriarch Rahmani refers to a
communication with Pope Pius X concerning Abdul Masih:
In today’s mail we received a letter from his Holiness Pope Pius X in
which he informs us that you have sent him a letter dated April 28
ultimo in which you explained to him what had happened to you,
particularly the theft of the cross and the two rings that he had bestowed
on your respectful beatitude.

Patriarch Rahmani then conveys a message of assurance:

His Holiness and Lord the Pope reminded us to provide you every now
and then with all your needs to cover your expenses. As you well know
we have not and will not detract from providing you with all that which
brings to you comfort and peace of mind, for all that matters to us is
your good health, which we hold dear to our heart, as your good
conscience would attest.

And more importantly, concludes with the reminder:

Further, our Lord the Pope commands us to remind you with what you
promised him, namely that you would exert yourself to re-claim our
separated beloved brethren to the fold of one Catholic Church, and no
doubt you are paying attention to this matter. As we promised you, we
will, upon our receipt of the next mail, God willing, forward to you the
cross and ring and a sum for your pocket expense.

It may appear remarkable that the Pope of Rome would engage in details of
soliciting help from a person whose small church had declared him unfit to run
that church, all in order to bring that church under Rome’s control. Spectacular as
this evidence may generally seem, it is not isolated as it falls within the spectrum
of means and practices that were employed by the Latin missionaries and their
local counterparts, with French official backing, in fulfilling the same aim.
Examples of this evidence are offered in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.

192
4.5 At the Turn of the Twentieth Century - Attrition Under Multiple Threats
The compounded weakness of the Syrian Orthodox Church at the turn of the twentieth century
is, as noted earlier, well reflected by the dramatic reduction of letters the patriarch received
from his clergy and community (see Figure 4 in Chapter Two). From this figure it can be seen
that the number of letters reduced from 660 in 1897 to 143 in 1900 and to a mere 32 in 1904.
The crises that the community faced, whether from continued Kurdish tribal aggression or
from pressures to convert to Catholicism or Protestantism, were beyond patriarchal ability to
confront.
Another independent perspective on the prevailing conditions in Jazirah, Tur Abdin and
nearby regions is offered by a British consular report dated December 4, 1905.606 The report
refers to the feud within the Syrian Orthodox hierarchy following the deposition of Abdul
Masih. It confirms the separate evidence presented here earlier that the deposition was by an
internal decision:
The Jacobite community throughout the country is being at the
present moment greatly agitated by the struggle between the
partisans of the ex-Patriarch and the partisans of the Bishop of
Mosul. The former was dismissed by Iradé [decree] at the request
of a great majority of priests and people some months ago, but has
refused to relinquish his position.

The internal feud within the Syrian Orthodox following the deposition of Abdul Masih
played into the hands of the Kurds who exploited these divisions to exact protection money
from the feuding sides, which appeared to have fed into the ill-intent of some of other of the
Christians who were “not ill-pleased to see them do it”.
This report, with sections quoted below, describes and comments on the dire conditions
of the Christians who were living among the Kurds in the districts of Nisibis and Midyat,
which lie in the heartland of the Syrian Orthodox in Anatolia. The condition of the Syrian
Orthodox - the Jacobites in the consular report - was particularly dire. Beset by internal
weakness in their ranks over the past 10 years, matters became worse as a result of the division
and uncertainty following the deposition of Abdul Masih.
In addition to affirming these conditions, the report refers to the role that the Latin
missions played, often in tacit collusion with the Kurds, in deliberately making the position of

606
F.O. 424 Further Correspondence/Asiatic Turkey, 1905 Inclosure No. 106 from Vice-Consul Avalon Shipley
to Sir N. O’Conor, Diarbekir, December 4, 1905.

193
the “Jacobites” worse in order to force them to convert to bear the allegiance to Rome in return
for French-sponsored protection:

The districts of Nisibin and Midiat are in a very disturbed state,

owing to continuous fighting between the different tribes. The
Christians who suffer in consequence are mostly Jacobites, and
their representative at Diarbekir tells me that they are gradually
being forced to leave their villages and take refuge in the towns.
My French colleague confirms this statement, but adds what the
priest was not able to maintain, that the suppression of the
Christians by the Kurds is a deliberately pursued policy of the
Government [my emphasis].

How the Kurds utilized the dissensions between the Christians, Catholic (i.e., Syrian and
Chaldean), and the Syrian Orthodox to their advantage is discussed next.
As far as I understand the question, it seems to me that the Kurds are
taking advantage of dissensions existing among the Christians to
induce rather than force them to take different sides, and thus expose
themselves to retaliation from the tribes to whom they do not belong,
while paying heavily for such protection as they may get from those
to whom they do.

This report clearly points to the attitude of apathy that the French Consulate in Diyarbakir
adopted towards the persecution of the non-Catholic Christians by the Kurds, all with the
cynical aim that the persecuted Christians would be “driven into the Latin fold” for protection.
I have been greatly surprised to find how generally entertained
among the Moslems, the Jacobites, and the Catholics (Armenian,
Chaldean, and Syrian) is the opinion that the 'Latins' are carrying
on a very active propaganda through their missionaries, and that
they are not disposed to view the persecution of the Christian
villagers by the Kurds with unmitigated displeasure, and that the
French Consulate does not press for their protection with the
energy with which it appears to do so. This in the hope that they
will be driven into the 'Latin fold.' 607

607
F.O. 424 Further Correspondence/Asiatic Turkey, 1905 Inclosure No. 106 from Vice-Consul Avalon Shipley
to Sir N. O’Conor, Diarbekir, December 4, 1905.

194
4.6 Patriarch Abdullah II Sattuf (1906-1915) - Oscillating Allegiance at Time of Turmoil
4.6.1 Early Ecclesiastic Career
Born in Saddad, a small town located to the southeast of Homs in Syria, in 1883, Abdullah
Sattuf (Abdullah) joined monastic life as a vocation in early youth. He studied and then taught
in Edessa, and spoke Arabic, Turkish and Syriac from an early age. By an order from Patriarch
Jacob II (1847-1871) in 1870, monk Abdullah embarked on a project to register the names of
the households of the Syrian Orthodox communities in the two vilayets of Diyarbakir and
Bitlis, and to collect Patriarchal dues from these communities.608 He was ordained a bishop,
with the title Gregorius, by Patriarch Peter in 1872609 for the Monastery of St. Mark in
Jerusalem.610
Soon after this ordination, Bishop Abdullah was summoned by Patriarch Peter to
accompany him on his journeys to England and to India in the period 1875 to 1877. He wrote
an account of these journeys, which has been published in Al-Majala al- Batriarkia (the
Patriarchal Magazine), and referenced in Chapter Three. Following his journey, accompanying
Patriarch Peter to India, Bishop Abdullah led a life that was marked with controversy and
disagreement with many, including those in his home community in Syria, but above all with
Patriarch Peter. His controversial position in his relations with others, and his disobedience
toward Patriarch Peter led to his dismissal from his position as bishop. However, his
subsequent atonement led to his re-instatement, a situation that was repeated three times during
Patriarch Peter’s tenure. Eventually, shortly before Patriarch Peter’s death he was appointed
Bishop of Amid (Diyarbakir).611
During the early days of Abdul-Masih’s Patriarchate, Abdullah found himself in
controversy with the Ottoman authorities during the critical period of the autumn of 1895, as a
consequence of which he took refuge in the French Consulate. Several of the documents from
that period cite that the French Consul told him that he could not stay in the consulate or be

608
Iskandar Bcheiry, The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Register of Dues from 1870-An Unpublished Historical
Document from the late Ottoman period, Georgias press 2009, pages 25.
609
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, Batarikat al-Surian fe al-Qarn al-‘Shreen, Beirut, 2001, p. 33.
610
This ecclesiastical title was in the conformity with the custom that was valid until that time for a bishop
appointed for that monastery. The said monastery, known as Deir al-Kursi (the Monastery of the Seat referring to
the historical ecclesiastical lineage to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem from the fourth century), had a certain status
which was also reflected in the manner of appointment of its bishop. For, whereas generally a bishop is appointed
by the Synod for a specific bishopric on the basis of a petition by the community of the bishopric, the bishop for
Deir al-Kursi is appointed by a joint decision of the Patriarch and the Synod.
611
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, Batarikat, p. 34

195
provided with a safe exit unless he joined Catholicism. Documents from both Syrian Orthodox
and Syrian Catholic sources612 confirm that he joined the Syrian Catholic Church until 1906
when he returned to his old Church, to be elected a patriarch.
Syrian Orthodox sources generally brush over this unsavoury chapter of its history. In his
often quoted book on the history of the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs Dolabani613 assigned a
mere page and half to Abdullah’s patriarchate while Saka614 gave it a mere half a page.
Aphram Paulus Barsoum615 did assign somewhat more space, but that was to cover part of his
journey to India. However, like the other named authors, Aphram Paulus Barsoum avoided
addressing the decline the Church witnessed during and through his patriarchate. A more
detailed account of Abdullah’s life before and during his term as patriarch has been extracted
and complied from the archival material that has become available for this study, as set out
below. Let us look in more detail as to what happened as derived from the archival material.
Following his return from the trip to India with Patriarch Peter, Abdullah was appointed
Bishop for Syria with seat in Homs. However, difficulties he had with priests and congregation
caused Patriarch Peter to move him from that position. Whilst he was there the Patriarch
received letters from Saddad616 and from Homs617 that expressed bitter complaints from the
congregation of these two communities about him. Following further controversial relations he
had with other bishops and communities where he was assigned to serve, Patriarch Peter sent
him to England in 1887 to gain experience in operating the printing presses that England had
decided to provide the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate.618
As an indication of the troublesome relations Bishop Abdullah had with others, one of
the documents,619 a letter dated December 26, 1886, from Patriarch Peter to the Khandan of
Homs,620 provides an indication of the problems resulting from Abdullah’s conduct. In this

612
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, Batarikat al-Surian fi al-Qarn al-‘Shrin, p. 34 and Tarazi, Philpp de-Tarazi, Al-
Salasil al-Tarikhiya fi Asaqifat al-Abrashiyat al-Suryaniya, Beirut, 1910, pp. 350-352. This issue is covered in
more detail with the aid of archival documents later in this Chapter.
613
Yohannon Dolabani, Fatriarkhe d Antiokhia, pp. 282-283.
614
Ihashaq Saka, Kanisati al-Suryaniya, 2006, p. 213.
615
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, Batarikat al-Surian fi al-Qarn al-‘Shreen, pp. 33-40.
616
Archival Document K10-B20-0753, dated February 2, 1882.
617
Archival Document K10-B20-0813, dated February 3, 1882.
618
Given that the source documents are un-catalogued, no continual timeline concerning the period from
Abdullah’ return from India until he travelled to London on his second trip in 1887 could be compiles in the
course of this study.
619
K10-B45-0015
620
Chief Ottoman administrator.

196
letter Patriarch Peter informs the chief local official that Abdullah has incited problems
wherever he went; that he repeatedly disobeyed Patriarchal orders, and that, consequently, he
has been discharged from his ecclesiastic duty in Homs, and been replaced by Abdul Masih.
The Patriarch asked the Khandan to ensure that Abdullah did not stay in Homs, but should
either return to Deir al-Za‘faran or to go to Beirut. It appears that, subsequent to this, Abdullah
opted to go to Beirut, where he was to learn the installation and the operation of the printing
presses.621 Abdullah, it appears, subsequently found his way to London. Based on reports of
further challenge to authority, the Patriarch decided to discharge him from ecclesiastic duties
yet again. The Patriarch explained his action in a letter to Dr. Tramlet of the Anglican Church
dated September 18, 1897.622 Receipt of the Patriarch’s letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury
was acknowledged by David Sasson, who communicated with the Patriarch in Arabic and who,
in this case, acted as liaison with the Anglican side, as per his letter dated February 23, 1888.623
It appears that after another pleading for pardon Patriarch Peter pardoned Abdullah once
again. The pardon was communicated to London and was acknowledged in a letter by David
Sasson dated May 22, 1888.624 In this letter, Sasson speaks well of Abdullah who was being
trained in the assembly and operation of the printing presses. Sasson also notes, apparently in
response to a demand for Abdullah’s return to Anatolia, that it would be nearly impossible to
find someone who would travel out to install the printing presses. Sasson also said that he
would be recommending an extension to Abdullah’s stay as this would also help in collecting
funds for educational purposes. Here Sasson notes that after Abdullah’s return, there may not
be anyone who would pursue the educational fund matter.
With the archival documents being un-catalogued and incomplete, it has not been
reasonably practical to trace Abdullah’s movements after 1888. However, in a letter dated July
11, 1894, addressed to a number of dignitaries,625 barely a few weeks before his passing on
October 7, 1894, Patriarch Peter laid out the problems that Abdullah continued to create with
the communities with which he came in contact, despite the repeated efforts he (the Patriarch)
made in attempting accommodate his wishes. One of the later duties he had assigned him was
the bishopric of Diyarbakir, while he (the Patriarch) was in Mosul in 1892. The letter continues

621
Patriarch Peter’s letter to Abdullah dated February 12, 1887 (K10-B45-0022).
622
K10-B45-0027
623
K07-B24-Part1-0106.
624
K10-B02-0542.
625
40M-24/48-447. In deference to issues of privacy I have considered it inappropriate to publicize the letter.

197
to state that a report reached him about Abdullah’s continued problems in Diyarbakir, at which
point, the letter clarified, Abdullah undertook to settle down in his hometown, Saddad, which
Patriarch Peter permitted.

4.6.2 On Abdullah’s Departure to the Catholic Church

Abdullah’s history following Patriarch Peter’s death was no less controversial than
during the Patriarch’s life. Abdullah was unhappy with the choice of his rival Abdul Masih as
Patriarch. In the course of disturbances and violence that started in Diyarbakir in October 1895,
Abdullah reportedly took refuge in the French Consulate in Diyarbakir. According to accounts
that circulated in that period, the French Consul informed Abdullah that he could not keep him
or organize a safe passage for him out of Diyarbakir unless he became a Catholic (see below).
A contemporary Syriac Catholic source (Tarazi626) simply states: "On March 30, 1896
Gregorius Abdullah Sattuf swore the oath of Catholicism in the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul
in Diyarbakir in the presence of Bishop Marutha Butrus Tabal, representing Patriarch Behnam
II.”627
The archival material in Mardin and in Bab Tuma provides several documents concerning
Abdullah’s departure to the Syrian Catholic Church and referring to the ensuing results. The
following is a partial list:
 A letter from Yusuf Akhtiar from Diyarbakir, to Patriarch Abdul Masih, dated October 10,
1895 (40M-24/40-057) in which Akhtiar, a warden and likely a lay patriarchal
representative, refers to Bishop Abdullah’s action of taking refuge at the French Consulate
in Diyarbakir. A more detailed translation of the contents of this letter will shortly follow.
 A letter from Altoune Abdelnour from Mosul to Patriarch Abdul Masih, dated October 20,
1895 (40M-24/46-322) referring to the critical issue created by Bishop Abdullah’s refuge at
the French Consulate and news of his joining the Catholic Church.
 Two letters from Aboud Suriyani,628 Homs, one dated April 4, 1896 (40M-24/46-205); the
other dated December 10, 1897 (40M-24/47-255), both to Patriarch Abdul Masih, generally

626
Philip de Tarazi was a well known Syrian Catholic dignitary, author and benefactor. His book Al-Salasil al-
Tarikhia al-Suryaniya, Beirut, 1910, is held to present the historical events from the Syrian Catholic perspective.
627
Ibid., pp. 351-352.; Apram Paulus Barsoum, p. 34. This issue comes up in other archival documents later in
this chapter.
628
Aboud Suriyani a leading Orthodox lay dignitary and church warden with a record of long service to the
church in Syria.

198
 referring to the controversies that Abdullah continued to create among the Syrian Orthodox
Church communities in Homs and in other locations.
 A letter priest Abdullah of Homs, dated November 17, 1897(40M-24/47-249), referring to
the controversies that Abdullah continued to create among the Syrian Orthodox Church
communities in Homs.
 The letter from Bishop Abdullah himself to a number of dignitaries in Diyarbakir, dated
September 25, 1896 (40M-24/45-051,052) about his journey to Deir al Sharfa (The Seat of
the Syrian Catholic Patriarchate in Lebanon). A more detailed translation of the contents of
this letter will shortly follow.
 A letter from Bishop Abdullah to Alntoune Abdelnour629 from Deir a-Sharfa, in Lebanon
dated September 25, 1896 (Bab Tuma – P1090664). In his letter, Abdullah describes his
journey from Diyarbakir to Deir al-Sharfa, without getting into an analysis of his situation.
 A letter from Bishop Abdullah to Altoune Abdelnour from Deir a-Sharfa, in Lebanon dated
January 3, 1897 (40M-24/48-417). In this letter, Bishop Abdullah expresses his personal
trials and complains about the way he had been treated since he joined the ecclesiastic
service. Without dwelling on the circumstances of his departure from the Syrian Orthodox
Church, he acknowledges being in the care of the Syrian Catholics.

The following are two letters that directly relate to Abdullah’s departure to the Catholic
Church:
i) The Letter from Yusuf Akhtiar630 from Diyarbakir to Patriarch Abdul Masih, dated
October 10, 1895.631

This letter is significant for two reasons. First, it was from someone who was very close to
both the Patriarch and Bishop Abdullah, and second, it was written in the midst of the
unfolding issues.
After the preliminary address:
629
Altoune Abdelnor was a well known Syrian Orthodox educated lay dignitary in Mosul, who, beside his trading
business with foreign countries including India, acted as an advisor and facilitator between Deir al-Za‘faran,
during the patriarchates of both Abdullah and his predecessor Abdul Masih, and the Syrian Orthodox ecclesiastic
hierarchy in India.
630
Yusuf akhtiar is the father of Yakoub Akhtiar (al-Amadi), cited by Taylor in Narratives of Identity, p. 98-103.
631
Archival Document - 40M-24/40-057. The letter is written in highly colloquial local dialect, which presented
considerable difficulty in deciphering certain expressions. Help of older folk with ancestors from that region was
sought.

199
 [i]f you ask about Bishop Abdullah, I would inform you that when
he received your telegraph, calling him to attend before you, he
said nothing. Shortly after, government representatives arrived
requiring him to accompany them to the Patriarch. He requested
them to come back in two hours. In the meantime he mounted his
horse and headed to Oseb’s home. Mr. Oseb took Bishop Abdullah
to the home of the Consul (French Consul), where Bishop
Abdullah remained. The consul asked Oseb to go to the Vali to
relieve the Bishop of any demand by the government. The Vali told
Oseb not to interfere in this matter. The Consul then went to the
Vali and informed him that the Bishop Abdullah has become
Catholic. Thus Bishop Abdullah moved to and lived at the
Armenian Catholic Church.

The Bishop’s family started to talk ill of your Holiness; that your
move was to coerce him [the Bishop] in order to get rid of him by
making him change his faith. As a result the motive of your letter
was unclear.

Three days ago I sent a note to Bishop Abdullah requesting to meet

him secretly. He answered after an hour, inviting me to visit him. It
was a Saturday and we met alone. We talked about the subject. He
asked 'what have I done to cause this problem? In what did I
disobey him that he would hand me over to the government?' I said
to him 'the Patriarch did not complain about you, it was the
government who wanted your removal from here to avoid creating
a problem among the community. It was for this reason he was
forced to send a telegraph so that you may not feel frightened when
you are sought by the government.' So the Bishop said 'if you agree
with the Patriarch’s claim, I will also agree, and let us keep all in
confidence. The Patriarch is my superior and 'the crown of my
head' and I will never become Catholic and will not become 'Latin',
I will not change.' The writer then requests the Patriarch to send a
letter of further assurance.

ii) Bishop Abdullah’s Perspective

This is expressed by his letter from Deir al-Sharfa, Lebanon, dated September 25, 1896. The
letter is addressed to a number of individuals in Diyarbakir632.

The grace of God and the heavenly blessing may embrace our
beloved, dear and esteemed dignitaries: Qiryaqos Khadrasha,
Shammas Tomas Alinaq, shammas Hanna Moumchi and Hanna
Efendi, Najma and Yaqoub Rathwaali, Yaqoub safar and Yaqoub
Balaq.
632
Archival Document - 40M-24/45-051, 052.

200
 May the blessing of God dwells on them, on their homes and
children by the intercession of our Mother, the Virgin Mary, and
all martyrs and saints, Amin.

We wish to inform your friendly selves that we [I] received your

letter dated August 4, 1896, and were very happy and moved by
your expression and pure love which pleased our hearts. As your
heart imparted friendliness, this became manifest in our minds’
eyes and we raised thanks to the Throne of He who became
majestic by His uniqueness, supreme by His qualities and who
endowed upon us that our heart may rejoice by your precious
wellbeing.633 As you are saddened by our separation so are we
many times. In fact the separation has become extremely hard on
us but to no avail, for this has been our fate, and, when subjected to
trials, man has to persevere until the moment of deliverance is at
hand. We hope that if God wills, we will be together again in order
to quench our desire to see you.

Upon our departure from Diyarbakir we spent the first night at the
home of our brother Mutran Dinha, at Swerek. However, we soon
caught cold and a stomach ailment from which we suffered for the
rest of the journey to Homs. The doctors advised that we should
continue to Beirut to consult with a doctor there. Upon our arrival
in Beirut we had to proceed to Deir al-Sharfa in Mount Lebanon in
order to recuperate. It is for this reason that we attended the said
monastery as we sought a quiet environment, which this monastery
offered better than any where else in the Ottoman Empire. So we
have decided to stay in it for two reasons: first for peace of mind
from troubles and known disturbances, and second for the climatic
quality of the air in the mountain. We are now staying in here
awaiting the appropriate time when we may return to Homs, at
which point we will contact you, as we will not, and will never,
forget you.

You have mentioned that his Beatitude’s heart is with us. We, on
our side, are grateful to his Beatitude, especially for the kindness
he showed in the home of Mr. Asfar and we know that as far as he
is concerned, we have no fear, and are sure of his promise. So we
ask God Almighty to help us act in accordance to His will for our
intention is to do good toward all, and the salvation of our soul.
This would be known to you. We request you to convey our
respect to his Beatitude, requesting that he does not forget to

633
The extensive introductory salutation is often encountered in letter-writing although perhaps not to the extent
exhibited here. This rather lengthy introduction has been included here in order to convey this genre of letter
writing. It may be appropriate to again remind of the use of ’we’ for the first person singular, and, similarly, the
corresponding use of ‘you’.

201
 include us in his prayers. We send peace to all members of the
taifa. May the Grace of Jesus Christ be with you always, Amen.
Our father who art in Heaven ……etc.634 , September 25, 1896

By the Grace of God

Gregorius, Mutran Abdullah, the weak From Deir al-Sharfa

Seal

It is not entirely clear with what duties he was charged in the Syrian Catholic Church.
According to Suhail Qasha,635 Abdullah, as a Syrian Catholic bishop, took part in the election
of Ephrem Rahmani, as patriarch of the Syrian Catholic Church in the Synod meeting of that
church that was held on October 9, 1898.
Philip de Tarazi states:

On March 30, 1896, Abdullah swore a Catholic Oath at the Church

of Sts. Peter and Paul in Diarbakir before Bishop Marutha Putrus
Tabbal, deputizing Patriarch Benni II. He (Abdullah) was then
appointed bishop for the Syrian Catholic in Homs and its environs.
In 1902 he travelled to Rome and visited France, where he was
shown appreciation and offered considerable help. He then went
with Patriarch Ignatius Ephram Rahmani [Syriac Catholic
Patriarch] to the Sublime Porte where he had the honour to be
presented to the Sultan who bestowed on him the Mejidi-Class 2
Medal.636

On the other hand, Gregorius Jirjis Shaheen belies Tarazi and claims that he,
himself, is the bishop of Homs, Hama, Tadmur and Environs.637 Shaheen confirms the
scenario of Abdullah’s refuge at the French Consulate, adding:
When he saw that the Consul would not protect him unless he
became Catholic, he declared his Catholicism at the hands of the
Consul, who then sent a telegram to Patriarch Behnam Binni in
Mosul, who accepted him and sent him fifty French Lires.

634
It has always been the normal practice that only a patriarch ends his letters with the first sentence of the Lord’s
Prayer. It is therefore rather strange that Abdullah, a Bishop at that point, would end his letter in this manner.
635
Suhail Qash, Tārīḵ Dayr Mar Behnam fi Miat Sana 1900-2000 (History of Deir Mar Behnam in One Hundred
Yrears 1900-2000, Lebanon, p. 13.
636
Terazi, p. 352.
637
Gregorius Jirjis Shaheen, Kashf al-Anqibah ‘an Wugooh al-Mu′alifeen wa al-Mu´arikheen al-Kathabah, 1911,
pp. 66-67.

202
 I have not encountered any information as to the date and the detailed circumstance of
Abdullah’s return to the Syrian Orthodox Church. Available published sources simply state
that when the position of Patriarch in the Syrian Orthodox Church became vacant, Abdullah
was elected to take up that position.638 Among the Bab Tuma archival documents I found a
reference to his return to the Syrian Orthodox Church on a loose page of what would have been
part of a report by Yuhanna Abachi, a priest-monk (later a Bishop of Deir Mar Mattai in 1923).
On this page, Abachi, quoting Bishop Abdullah, states: “As my return to the Church drew near,
a Jesuit from Homs came to see me in the house and inquired ‘I have heard that you have
decided to return to your [sic] Church’. I replied: ‘It is not known yet’, at which point he [the
Jesuit missionary] said ‘You have decided to do this’, repeating it several times and adding
‘you are excommunicated, you are excommunicated’. At which point Bishop Abdullah became
angry and said to him [to the Jesuit] “You are who is excommunicated and your Pope is
excommunicated” at which point he [the Jesuit missionary] left running.'639
This encounter with the Jesuit missionary sheds further light on the atmosphere of
animosity and divisiveness between the two branches of the Syrian Church, and the prevailing
spirit of exploitation that was being practiced by the foreign missionaries who, for more than a
century, had been promoting this division, often encouraging and indeed promoting, and
attracting to their fold ecclesiasts from the Syrian Orthodox Church who had grievances in
their own church. The cases of Abdul Masih and of Abdullah are vivid examples of this. Rome
was directly involved in the decisions relating to their acceptance into the Catholic Church in
both these high profile cases: in the one Abdul Masih who had been Patriarch of the Syrian
Orthodox Church, and in the second, Abdullah, who became the succeeding Patriarch in the
same church. In both cases the “conversion” was seemingly not based on doctrinal conviction
but was essentially motivated by a desire for higher office, as in the case of Abdullah, or as an
expression of revenge, as in the case of the deposed Abdul Masih. The return of both
individuals to their old church, as was also often the case with other dissatisfied ecclesiasts of
lower rank, particularly around that period, provides support of this argument. This issue points
to Rome’s basic interest, which was, first and foremost, to further weaken the Syrian Orthodox
Church and to quicken its final demise.

638
Dolabani, pp. 282-283, Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 34,
639
Document P110370.

203
4.6.3 Abdullah Sattuf the Patriarch
4.6.3.1 Initial Period
Abdullah was elected and ordained as Patriarch Abdullah II640 (Patriarch Abdullah) in Deir al-
Za’faran in August 15, 1906.641 Tarazi’s reference to the return of Abdullah to the Syriac
Orthodox Church was marked with acceptance accompanied with the hope that Abdullah
would continue to shoulder the task he undertook by his reunion with Rome: “No doubt this
eminent ecclesiast who officially declared union with the Church of Peter, and made a promise
before the Holy Gospel to remain in its faith will continue to promote reunion between the
Syrians and work to remove division in the branches of the honourable old nation.”642
In early March 1908, Patriarch Abdullah ordained a number of Bishops in the Church of
the Forty Martyrs in Mardin as follows: Iyowanees Elias Shakir, for Diyarbakir; Ostatheos
Saliba, Patriarchal Vicar in India; Gregorius Ephram Al-Saddi for Deir al-Kursi, Jerusalem;
Qorilos Mansour, for administration and to oversee the printing press in Deir al-Za’faran, but
later transferred to Edessa; Athanaseus Tuma Kassir, Bishop at large in Diyarbakir and later to
Mosul; Antimos for Edessa; Julius Ibrahim; Severus Samuel Deir Mar Melke; and Philoxenus
Abdulahad.

4.6.3.2 Patriarch Abdullah’s Travels

No sooner than he completed these ordinations, Patriarch Abdullah left Deir al-Za‘faran
and Mardin on March 14, 1908, and as it turned out, never returned to these places again. He
set out on a journey of almost five years to the far lands of England, India and Egypt and upon
his return he headed to Jerusalem, where his journey ended on April 3, 1913. Apart from brief
trips to Syria, which he made following his return from India, Patriarch Abdullah resided in
Jerusalem until his death on November 26, 1915. He was buried in the Monastery of St. Mark
in Jerusalem.
This trip to England was his third and that to India his second. He had accompanied
Patriarch Peter on his first trip to both countries in 1875 to 1877, and he subsequently made a

640
Abdullah I was Patriarch from 1550-1557. Abdullah I was renowned for his effort to print the Syriac New
Testament, for which purpose he sent priest Moses to Europe with a manuscript of the Syriac New Testament with
a task of having it printed in the west-Saka 202.
641
Saka 213; Almanach 1925 (parjeans. Chukke)-K05-KUR00004; Tarazi p.353
642
Tarazi, p. 352.

204
follow up trip to England in 1887 to 1888, in connection with the acquisition of printing
presses.
Published Syrian Orthodox sources make no reference to Abdullah’s trip to England as
Patriarch beyond stating that he had an audience with King Edward VII.643 As to his trip to
India, these sources644 provide a brief summary of Patriarch Abdullah’s difficult encounters in
that country. His decree to excommunicate Dionysius Gurgis caused additional division, since
shortly after his departure from India, the aides of the ex-communicated bishop invited the
deposed Abdul Masih to India, where he re-instated the excommunicate Gurgis. This action set
into motion the politics for further entrenched divisions from which the church in India has not
completely recovered to the present day.
Patriarch Abdullah’s journey abroad began in Mardin on March 14, 1908 and ended in
Jerusalem on April 3, 1913. According to my survey of the literature, nothing has been
published about this five year journey, except a two page summary on the Indian leg of the
journey.645
My search in the Barsoum’s archives in Bab Tuma uncovered a most valuable 70-page
Arabic manuscript, a diary of the entire journey.646 The authorship of the diary is not stated in
that documents that were found. However, Tuma states that Patriarch Abdullah was
accompanied by two monks: Yuhanna Abachi and Elias Qoro.647 The same author (i.e., Tuma)
states elsewhere648 that Yuhanna Abachi was Patriarch Abdullah’s secretary and scribe during
the noted trip. One can therefore postulate that the author of this diary was Yuhanna Abachi.
I found a second document in Barsoum’s Bab Tuma archive that relates to Patriarch
Abdullah’s journey. This is an 86-page Arabic manuscript, in a handwriting that appears to be
the same as that of the first document, which indicates the same authorship, namely Rabban
(priest-monk) Yuhanna Abachi.649 The bulk of the document relates to encounters in India.
However, the first eight pages report on the period that the travelling party spent in London
and a discussion the Patriarch had with representatives of the Church of England.

643
Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, p. 36.
644
Saka p.285-286 and Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, 36-40.
645
Severius Yacoub Tuma, History of the Indian church, 1951 pp. 375-376.
646
P1100475-P1100510
647
Severius Yacoub Tuma, History of the Indian church, 1951 pp. 375.
648
Yacoub III Toma, Dafaqat al-Teeb fe Tarikh Deir al-Qiddees Mar Matta al-Ajeeb, Zahle-Lebanon 1961, p.
145.
649
P1100422-P1100467.

205
 Travel diaries such as the one under reference often make for very informative reading
concerning the routes followed, modes of travel, the places visited, the people encountered and
the dignitaries visited. Such reading can provide a more realistic perspective that adds to the
historical narrative that relates to core topics of the documents. In this respect, the five-year
journey Patriarch Abdullah took provided an abundance of interest. It was a journey through
three countries - England, Egypt and India - on three continents. What is particularly
interesting is that the diary includes descriptions of audiences with two emperors Sultan Abdul
Hamid and King Edward IV, in addition to an audience with a Maharajah.
The audience with Sultan Abdul-Hamid sheds light on several interesting features of
Ottoman royalty at that time. Interestingly, and perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it shows the
position of respect and recognition that the Patriarch of a small non-Muslim community living
at the remote edge of the Empire, held at the highest office of the Empire. As for the
theological dialogue with the Church of England, a nuanced comment will be offered later.
Perhaps a third point of specific interest of this journey is the route taken and how different and
indirect that route was compared to routes that would be taken not many years later, when
travel over land became much safer and more agreeable than at the time in question.
The travel diary commences thus in my translation:
When his Beatitude Patriarch Abdullah decided to proceed to the
Sublime Porte to seek audience with our Great King the Sultan,
son of the Sultan, son of Ghazi, Abdul Hamid, he sent a telegram
to al- ‘Attaba al- Shahinshahya, with a copy to the Esteemed
Director of Jubilees and a copy to his Chorepiscopos Paulus,650
requesting permission to proceed, as per normal custom. His
Beatitude also appointed Mutran Tuma Kassir as his deputy.651

4.6.3.3 The Journey to Istanbul

The Patriarch and his travelling companions, the two priest-monks, left Mardin on March
14, 1908, on their first leg of the journey, heading to Diyarbakir, where they awaited the
Sultan’s permission to proceed to Istanbul. The permission arrived on March 28, and the
travelling party then started on its journey to its first destination, Istanbul. The party stopped
for the night at Swerek, at the residence of Bishop Dinha of Jazirah. The next main stop was

650
The patriarchal representative in Istanbul
651
P1100476

206
Urfa (Edessa), where the party arrived on April 2, 1908. The next stops were Sarugh652 and
Mabbug,653 and arriving in Aleppo on April 5, at the start of Passion Week, which the party
celebrated in Aleppo. The Patriarch and his party were received at every stop with pomp and
procession by the clergy and the community. From Aleppo, the party then headed to Homs,
arriving in that city on April 17. The next two weeks witnessed several receptions given in
honour of the Patriarch by governors of cities and dignitaries. These events continued until
May 1, 1908, when the party headed for Jerusalem. Interestingly, the trip from Homs to
Jerusalem was by train from Homs to Baalbek and Beirut then by boat from Beirut to Jaffa and
then by train from Jaffa to Jerusalem, where the party arrived on May 4, 1908, entering the city
through the historical Bab al-Khalil.
In Jerusalem, the Patriarch and his party headed to St. Mark’s Convent (Monastery).654
On May 16, 1908 the party of Patriarch Abdullah held a meeting in St. Mark’s Monastery that
was attended by Bishop Halooli and the monks of the Monastery in addition to the monks who
were travelling with His Beatitude. At St. Mark’s, the Patriarch ordained two bishops for India:
Mar Qorillos Paulus and Mar Dionysius Gurgis. The ordinations were based on petitions which
the two candidates had brought with them from India. The Patriarch and his party stayed in
Jerusalem until June 11, 1908, during which period they held meetings with officials and
dignitaries from other churches. Subsequently, the party resumed its journey, travelling from
Jerusalem on to Jaffa by rail, and sailing to Istanbul on June 12, 1908. After a brief stop at
Izmir where the party attended the Greek Orthodox Church, the party resumed its travel,
arriving Istanbul on June 18, 1908.
Soon after arrival in Istanbul, the Patriarchal party visited the Bash Katib at the Porte to
express the Patriarch’s wish for an audience with the Sultan. The Bash Katib undertook to seek
the Sultan’s approval for this request. The approval was granted on August 20, 1908 for an
audience on the following day, namely Friday August 21, 1908. However, in the intervening
period, the travel diary recorded the street celebrations it witnessed marking the deposition and
the replacement of the Grand Vizir. No doubt the Ottoman archives have detailed descriptions

652
The home town of the sixth century poet Jacob of Sarugh.
653
The home town of the fifth century theologian Philoxinos Mabbug.
654
Convent is the historical name. The Syrian Orthodox Church consider St. Mark’s Convent to be where Jesus
and his Disciples had the Last Supper and where the Disciples were meeting on the Pentecost

207
of this event. However, what makes the current account interesting is that it was viewed from a
politically unmotivated ecclesiast coming from a remote corner of the Empire:
On Friday, July 11, 1908, Farid Pasha, the Grand Vizir, was
deposed and replaced with Saeed Pasha. A Hamayoun was also
issued to re- activate the Constitution. This decision gave rise to a
great three-day celebration that was unprecedented in the history of
the City. The inhabitants of Istanbul displayed a great many
ornaments and exhibits, and happiness was evident everywhere.
On the fourth day, the crier made an announcement in the souks
and in the streets, and the newspapers published that 'by order of
our Lord, the celebrations should come to an end and all are to
return to work.' The newspapers appeared every day, praising the
virtues of honesty while, at the same time, condemning those who
betrayed the King and the milla.655 As part of the celebrations,
prisoners were released throughout the country and individuals
who had been exiled were allowed back to their region of
residence, with feeling of happiness.656

Another interesting entry in that specific period was the return of the exiled Armenian
Patriarch Izmirian and the visit that the Patriarch and his party paid to him:
July 25, 1908 marked the return of his Beatitude the Patriarch
Izmirian to Istanbul after a 12 year exile in Jerusalem. For soon
after the events657 they,658 in an attempt to ameliorate the ill-
feelings, and as a gesture of good will, awarded Izmirian a nishan.
However, Izmirian did not accept the nishan stating: 'I would not
sell the blood of the people, and keep quiet by getting a nishan.'
Thereupon, he was exiled to Jerusalem for twelve years. The day
of his return was a great day, which was celebrated by all
newspapers in Istanbul.659

In its entry for July 26th, the diary records that the Patriarch and Bishop Elias paid a visit
to the Armenian Patriarch on the occasion of his return from exile. The journey by horse-drawn
carriage to the Armenian Patriarchate at Qum Qabi took twelve hours.
On August 20th a bashi from the Ministry of Justice arrived, bringing the documents that
carried the notification regarding the proceedings at the upcoming Royal audience.

4.6.3.4 Patriarch Abdullah’s Audience with Sultan Abdul Hamid

655
Milla is used here in its broadest context as community at large irrespective to religion and ethnicity.
656
P1100481
657
Referring to the 1895 violence and the associated massacres, particularly of the Armenians.
658
Referring to the Ottoman authorities.
659
P1100482.

208
One of highlights of Patriarch Abdullah’s four-year travel - from leaving Mardin on March 14,
1908 and returning to Jerusalem on June 2, 1912 - was his audience with Sultan Abdul Hamid.
The audience was brief but its significance was in the fact that it did take place between the
Sultan and the head of a small Christian community that lived at the edge of the Empire. The
respect with which the Patriarchal party was met is also worthy of note.
The following is my translation of the main parts of an account of this audience, as per
the entry on August 21, 1908 in Abachi’s Diary.
On Friday at 4 am. His Beatitude, Chorepiscopos and his aide, his
Eminence the Bishop, Fahim Beg, monk Bishara, and monk Elias
headed to the reception parlour of the Royal. Half an hour before
arrival we saw that the Shahinshah military had lined up the road.
Music played and a huge crowd of over ten thousand, not counting
the military, had lined both sides of the road. We alighted from our
carriages while a path was made for us to pass between the lines of
soldiers. We walked to the Humayun Office, which was located
within Yaldiz Palace, the residence of our lord, Sultan Abdul
Hamid.

We were taken to a special office in an open space. At five

o’clock, a signal was given that his Shahinshah will attend to pray
at the Hamidie Mosque, which is close to Yaldiz Palace. The
military and the people stood in lines. We too, came out to the
veranda and stood by the military to salute our lord, Amir-al
Mu’mineen. Beautifully ornamented carriages carried the Sultanic
Harem. Two officers with their arms embraced, walked in front of
each carriage, up to the entrance to the Mosque. These were
followed by carriages carrying the sons of his lordship, who all
alighted and entered the Mosque. Suddenly, there was a great
uproar and the sound of fine music was heard as our Lord arrived
in a carriage that was ornamented with gold, as were the fine
carriage horses, while his lordship dressed in simple attire. With a
sword in his hand and a smile on his face, he waved to the well-
wishing crowds, who had aligned both sides of the carriageway,
until the Royal Carriage arrived at the gate of the Hamidie
Mosque, when he alighted from the carriage and entered the
Mosque.

The next paragraph demonstrates the special attention the Patriarch received at
breakfast, which was delayed for the rest of 150 guests in order to meet the Friday
fast practice of the Patriarch:

209
 In the meantime, we returned to the beginning of the procession,
where the chief of the military, adorned with First Class Majidi and
First Class Ottoman medals, arrived and presented his Beatitude
with a cigarette and coffee, as he then did to the rest of the party.
He invited his Beatitude to a breakfast. However, as it was Friday
and his Beatitude660 was fasting he thanked the host but excused
himself from eating, explaining the reason. The hosting officer said
'there is also of what your honour would eat.' The military officers
became busy, setting up special tables with silver plates and
utensils for serving the fasting food, all to a fine order. After his
Beatitude had his meal, they invited us and guests more than 150
to have breakfast, which we did within half an hour, that is, before
our Lord completed his prayer.

The next section of the diary entry describes the ceremonial Sultanic procedure that
unfolded:
There upon the crowd stood ready to salute his Sultanic lordship.
As his Lordship mounted his carriage accompanied by the Grand
Vizir and his first in line, his eldest son, he again waved to the
welcoming crowds until he arrived the Buldan Sarabi in honour
and in high esteem. After he ascended to the hall that overlooked
the road he bid farewell to the crowds as the victorious military
started to depart also. At this point, the Master of Ceremonies
‘Atuqolto Ghalib Pasha presented his Lordship that in accordance
with a Royal Decree, the Patriarch of the Old Syrians is here
present to offer his respects. Thereupon, the Master of Ceremonies
came back and accompanied his Beatitude with Mutran Elias and
the Episcope Paulus for the audience [with the Sultan]. They were
away for about ten minutes. After making his salutation his
Beatitude spoke in Arabic, wishing his Lordship continued
Sultanic leadership to the end of time. His Sultanic Lordship was
pleased and paid extraordinary attention, and said 'I am thankful.
Convey to all the people my salute, and give them the good news
about the Constitution so that they would act in accordance with it,
as I am personally concerned with the well-being and comfort of
all the Ra‘eyah.'

After a final farewell bid, the party left and his Beatitude offered
thanks for some twenty of those who attended to the party with
special thanks to the Master of Ceremonies, who said that thanks
are really to the Grand Vizir.

660
Refraining from eating animal product.

210
 On September 23, 1908, at 11 o’clock, the Patriarch and Chorepiscopos Paulus attended
Yaldiz Palace to offer congratulations and blessings for the start of Ramadan. On September
29, 1908, permission was granted for the operation of the printing press that had been installed
in Deir al-Za‘faran.661 On September 18, 324662 the Porte issued its permission for the Patriarch
to travel to England and to India.
On October 9, 1908, the Patriarch and his aides left Constantinople for Marseille,
stopping on the way in Napoli and arriving in Marseille on October 16, 1908. This was
followed by a train journey to Paris from which, on October 17, 1908, the party continued by
train, boat and train again, arriving in London on the same day.663

4.6.3.5 Patriarch Abdullah in London

The purpose of the visit to London was ostensibly to seek permission of the British
Government for the Patriarch to travel to India. This permission was conveyed in a letter from
the Minister for India and was handed over to the Patriarchal party on July 12, 1909, nearly
nine months after the party’s arrival in London. Beside courtesy calls, an audience with King
Edward VII on December 22, 1908, and a medal award from His Majesty on July 9, 1909, not
a great deal was accomplished by the visit. The Church of England did not enter into a
dialogue with the Patriarch about the tenets of its faith, it did however have a dialogue with the
Patriarch about the tenets of faith of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The January 29, 1909 entry
of the travel diary states: “On Friday at 4 pm we went with his Beatitude to the office of the
Archbishop of Canterbury [Lambeth Palace]. There were six Bishops and nine priests forming
a Synod. They asked about the beliefs of our Orthodox Church, for they were saying that the
Syrians denied the incarnation of our Savior Jesus Christ. After questions to and answers by his
Beatitude, they became convinced that the Syrians are truly Christians. The question and
answer session lasted two hours.”664The inquiry relating to the tenets of faith should be looked
at in the context of the rapprochement sought by the Church of England with the Orthodox

661
P1100484
662
The date is stated here (P1100484) according to the Rumi Calendar. This corresponds to September 18, 1908
according to the Julian Calendar, according to which the diary is dated, and to October 1, 1908 according to the
Gregorian Calendar
663
P1100485, P1100486.
664
This meeting appears to have been subsequent to that held at Salisbury on December 21, 1908 that was
attended by Dr. Wordsworth, the Bishop of Salisbury and others and in which the tenets of faith were discussed,
as per Taylor, Narratives of Identity, pp. 128-133, and Archival Documents P1100029-P1100037. Curiously, no
reference in the diary is made to the Salisbury meeting.

211
Churches in facing the Apostolic Curae Bull by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, referenced here in
Chapter Four.
As an interesting aside, the diary entry dated April 11, 1909 (corresponding to April 24,
1908, Gregorian), made while the travelling party was still in London reads: “On Monday,
London Newspapers have reported that Sultan Abdul Hamid has left for Germany. The reason
is unknown.”665 The entry of Wednesday, April 15, 1908 (corresponding to April 28, 1908,
Gregorian) states: “The Monday newspapers have reported that that they have installed
Muhmad Rashad, the Crown Prince, as King [sic] instead of Sultan Abdul Hamid. We have
seen his picture in the newspaper, which reported that the new sultan is in Turkey.”666

4.6.3.6 Patriarch Abdullah’s Journey to India 667

Patriarch Abdullah and his party left England on August 8, 1909, heading for India.
The voyage took the party through the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, out
into the Indian Ocean, and ended in Bombay on September 12, 1909.
The main events of the two year sojourn in India are described in Rabban Abachi’s
diary and in its accompanying supplement. The encounters in the course of these two years are
outside the scope of this work. An informative summary may be found in the account by Tuma
(Ignatius Yacoub III).668
Patriarch Abdullah left India on October 8, 1911, heading for Egypt where he arrived
on October 18, 1911. His stay in Egypt lasted until May 31, 1912.669 The diary entries of the
seven and a half month’s period provide little justification for the continued absence from the
Patriarchal seat in Deir al-Za‘faran or Mardin. One of the issues that appear to have consumed
much of his time was his attempt to seek Lord Kitchener’s approval to be granted a plot of land
for a church, a matter that was not even resolved by the time he left Egypt.670 In the mean time,
letters from various Bishops started to arrive, complaining about the prolonged period of

665
P1100490.
666
Ibid.
667
Dates relating to the journey are according to the Julian Calendar. Thus thirteen days must be added to change
to Gregorian dating.
668
Ignatius Yacoub III, History of the Syrian Church in India, (Trans. Matti Moosa), Gorgias, 2010.
669
P1100508.
670
Ibid.

212
absence from the Patriarchal seat (see later). Eventually, Patriarch Abdullah and his party
sailed from Egypt and arrived in Jaffa on June 2, 1912.671
The Abachi diary reports that over the next several months the Patriarchal party travelled
between Jerusalem, Homs, and nearby towns while matters elsewhere had been in need of
greater attention and were getting progressively more acute. One entry notes: “in these days
the Bishopric of Homs and the rest of the Bishoprics are in such acute disorder that prompted
an Egyptian newspaper, al-Muqattam, dated December 7th, to claim that nearly 20,000 of the
Syrians and their Bishop in the Diyarbakir vilayet desired to depart to the Rum Orthodox
Church.” 672
The entry of April 1, 1913 refers to the return of the Patriarchal party to Jerusalem, to
treat his Beatitude’s eyes. The diary ends with the entry on May 23, 1913, which marked the
celebration of the Pentecost in Jerusalem and ends with a note: “In that evening the Rum
Orthodox prevented us and the Copts from entering the Dome; however after a lot of to and fro
they did allow us to proceed to perform the old rites.”673
Despite repeated requests and pleadings from all quarters for the Patriarch to return to the
Patriarchal seat in Deir al-Za‘faran or Mardin in order to attend to the faltering state of affairs
of the Church and community, as will be expanded on below.

4.6.4 Facing the Wrath of Community and Clergy

Following Patriarch Abdullah’s return from his long tour, many letters began to arrive from
dioceses, church communities and from prominent dignitaries requesting, in fact urging, his
return to Deir al-Za‘faran to deal with the faltering affairs of the church, particularly in the
critical period leading to the First World War. Unfortunately, he paid little attention to the
increasingly urgent requests. His deputy at Deir al-Za‘faran, Mor Qorilos Mutran Jirjis, was
aging and was becoming increasingly incapable of managing the affairs of the church at large.
The letters expressed anguish and a deep sense of concern fearing the complete
annihilation of Syrian Orthodoxy and the eradication of its venerable heritage which many
previous generations had fought to keep alive. This was the period that saw the culmination of
a century of unprecedented external challenges from the proponents of Western Christianity,

671
Ibid.
672
Archival Document P1100510
673
Ibid.

213
an accumulated internal decline of the Church, and, on the other hand, meager human and
material resources to defend itself against the collective external pressures. The continued
absence of Patriarch Abdullah from his seat of responsibility, whether premeditated, as many
of even those who had been close to him began to suspect, or because of sheer apathy, brought
the Syrian Orthodox Church to the edge of the abyss. Selected quotes from these letters are
included in the following narrative. The letters, hitherto unpublished, are unique in the
unprecedented, increasingly desperate language used in addressing the patriarch. For this
reason, where appropriate, a more detailed translation of their text is given in Appendix A 4.
All the letters were addressed to Patriarch Abdullah, except for the first one
which was addressed to Mutran Jirjis, his deputy at Deir al-Za‘faran.

i) A Letter to Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Deir al-Za‘faran and Mardin, from
Khouri Hanna Shamoun, Azikh, dated December 30, 328 Rumi (December 30, 1912,
Julian; January 13, 1912, Gregorian)674

Khouri Hanna Shamoun, a priest in Azikh, expresses the agony that was
increasingly felt by many when he states: “We are unhappy, because we do not know
what has happened to our Syrian Taifa and we have no news about his Beatitude. We
have become embarrassed towards other twa’if.”675 Expressing despair the writer
declares: “All that is left for us is to climb the top of the mountains and other high
places and scream with tears (cry out tearfully) with Jeremiah in his lamentations.
Who will give water to my head and to my eyes so that I may cry day and night for
the killing of my people’s daughter,676 that is, on the tragedy of our Syrian taifa,
which has become food stock for lies and pasture to feed for all the tawa’if.”677
Three letters from Bishopric Boards, which included lay members, expressed increasing
degrees of concern and desperation at the neglect of the patriarch which caused the unraveling
of many of the Church affairs and the defection in increasing numbers of members of its
communities, as well as many of its clergy, to Catholicism or to Protestantism. Two of these

674
40M-24/46 – 0452
675
Plural of taifa.
676
This is a variant of verse 3:48 in the Lamentations of Jeremiah.
677
40M-24/46 – 0452.

214
letters, dated August 1, 1911 and May 10, 1913, were from the Bishopric Board in Diyarbakir
and the third, dated March 6, 1913, was from the Bishopric Board in Mardin.

ii) The letter from the Old Syrian Taifa Board of Diyarbakir to Patriarch Abdullah, dated
August, 1, 1911678

The writers after expressing various concerns, inform the patriarch that “most of the
bishoprics now say 'Patriarch Abdullah has gone away; he does not enquire about the milla and
is unconcerned with its affairs.' Thus it is necessary that you should return to attend to all
matters that have suffered delay…”

Signed by Majlis al Taifa (Board of the Community), in Diyarbakir, with 13 seals and
signatures.

iii) A letter from the Milla Board and the Patriarchal Vicar in Mardin, dated March 6,
1913679

The letter expresses frustration more forcibly:

We informed your Eminence in previous letters of the decline in
the entire milla. We no longer know which matter we should
address first and which we should postpone. Two days ago we
expressed the sad conditions in Kharput. The conditions in Midyat
are several times worse. We still receive, daily, telegrams from the
various bishoprics expressing their grievances with each other and
the infighting that is going on, no doubt with dire consequences,
while your Beatitude continues to postpone resolution of the issues
from month to month.

The letter ends with this warning:

If you desire the diminution of the milla, we are acting to remove

the blame that might be placed on us, and you would have to
answer to what is happening. There is no value in repeated
correspondence, for the condition of the milla no longer allows
delay. We therefore repeat our request for a speedy positive
resolution.

Mutran Jirgis, the Patriarchal Vicar, Mardin and 12 lay members of

the Milla Board,

678
P1090606.
679
P1090656.

215
 Dated March 6, 1913.

iv) The letter from the Bishopric Board of Diyarbakir to Patriarch Abdullah, dated May 10,
1913 680

The letter appears to be a follow-up of a letter sent a few weeks earlier on March 30,
1913 frankly informing the Patriarch about the dysfunctional state of the milla, and attributing
this to his unwarranted absence. “Being away from this Seat has caused our milla to abdicate
its rights and to lose its opportunities for progress. If you are thinking of abandoning your
duties, as has been the case for such a long period of time, then how unfortunate is this poor
milla!” In an unprecedented reprimand, the letter states:
Who will answer for that before Almighty God on the Day of
Reckoning for this neglect and for not asking about the rights of
the milla, while the other milal [plural of milla] are devouring us
from every side? Who is the shepherd, who is the head and who is
the one who is responsible before God and before the living
conscience?

The letter then describes the losses and the missed opportunities in the sale of properties
in order to finance the most necessary social projects; the loss of ownership of many properties
(i.e., lands and buildings) due to poor follow-up with authorities concerning registration of
ownership of many of these, and so on. It then refers to the failure of the administration to
inform the community of the new laws that would affect their lives. It also refers to the neglect
in dealing with the important matters of ratifying the ordination of new bishops with the
appropriate authorities at the Sublime Porte and the repercussions accruing therefrom, in terms
of loss of prestige, loss of rights to administer Bishopric boards, local and municipal elections,
military service, and such, all in comparison with the diligent pursuit of these matters by other
Christian Churches. The letter then addresses the neglect in following-up the matter of the
enactment of the millet regulation (Nizamnanah). The letter tells the patriarch that “[t]hrough
bad management, we have become a laughing stock among other tawa’if” and in conclusion
warns:
We will await, hour by hour, a telegram from you to notify us of
your return. Otherwise results would be dire, and this is our last
letter to your Beatitude. [my emphasis]
680
P1090669-P1090671

216
 Signed: Suriyani Qadim Millet Majlis of Diyarbakir, May 10, 1913

v) A letter from an individual signing as: “the one who is sad about the affairs of the
Milla, Elias Shamoun,” dated August 1, 1913681

A separate three-page letter from “one who is worried about his milla,” (Elias
Shamoun) echoes the terrible state of affairs: “I am in a state of great sorrow
concerning the current conditions of the Syrian nation, and of the incurable wounds
with which this poor taifa has been inflicted.”
The decline in the taifa, coupled with non-concern during your
time has never been witnessed at any other time by our fathers and
grandfathers…These matters will mark a black blot on the history
of your Patriarchate, that will never be removed by coming
generations. Suffice it to say that since your return from your tour
of India four of your Bishops have moved to other churches.

He expresses fear that the Catholics and the Protestants have designs on the
Church:
If you did not ask about your flock, who is then to ask about them?
Would it be the chiefs of the Pappists. Or would it be the Proates
[Protestants]? who are both ready to snatch our milla to
themselves? So, if you are a true father, a decent shepherd, it is
your duty to return to the Seat [Patriarchal Seat] and to enquire
about your sheep. Otherwise the milla would disintegrate and then
you know you would answer to that before the throne of God.

He concludes, likely expressing the general feeling at that time stating:

I am not in the position to threaten nor do I intend to disobey;

however, the burning in my heart and the pain in my chest call me
to write as a son would write to his father and grandfather.

Signed: “the one who is worried about his milla, Elia Shamoun,”
on August 1, 1913.

Two letters from Altoune Abdelnour, a well known Syrian Orthodox lay dignitary in
Mosul and a close acquaintance of the Patriarch, were written late in 1913, to draw attention to
the increasingly dire situation in the milla everywhere. By virtue of his close contact with the

681
P1090658-P1090660.

217
Syrian Orthodox hierarchy in Malabar, India, Abdelnour drew Patriarch Abdullah’s attention to
the intrigues that were being plotted in Rome and in Deir al-Sharfa, the seat of the Syrian
Catholic Church against Syrian Orthodoxy in that country.

vi) The first letter from Altoune Abdelnour, Mosul, dated November 21, 1913682

In this letter Abdelnour addresses the increasing critical situation of Patriarch Abdullah’s
extended absence from the Seat of the Patriarchate in Deir al-Za‘faran, with its likely
consequence of causing the disintegration of the milla. He draws attention, in particular, to the
equally critical situation in India and the attempts by the Syrian Catholic Patriarch, Ephram
Rahmani, to convert the Syrian Orthodox community in India to Catholicism. With regard to
the affairs of the milla in general Abdelnour states:
As is known, the affairs of the milla are unraveling everywhere,
that, according to general opinion, you have been complacent by
preferring to remain in Jerusalem, a situation that would soon lead
to the disintegration of the milla. He who entrusted you on this lot
will not accept this neglect from your Holiness.

Abdelnour, likely referring to previous letters, was becoming increasingly critical of the
Patriarch’s insistence on staying in Jerusalem after his prolonged absence from the seat in Deir
al-Za’faran. In his letter dated November 21, 1918, Abdelnour complains that the affairs of the
milla are unravelling everywhere, that according to general opinion the Patriarch had been
complacent in the fulfillment of his duties by staying in Jerusalem and that has led to a
situation that would soon lead to the disintegration of the milla. He refers in particular to the
Syrian Catholic attempts to take charge of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Malabar and to hand
it over to Rome. Regarding Rahmani’s attempt to convert the Church’s members to
Catholicisim, Abdelnour warns that “[i]f this was to occur in your time what the Catholics had
claimed about you, would come true.”683 Abdelour’s letter shows the intrigues in which the
Syrian Catholics were engaged in order to undermine what was left of the Syrian Orthodox
Church and particularly to score good points with Rome. In this regard the letter also refers to

682
Bab Tuma P1090689 and P1090692.
683
Likely referring to a statement by Tarazi , commenting on the return of Abdullah to the Syrian Orthodox
Church to become a Patriarch, stating “No doubt this ecclesiast who officially declared his union with Peter’s
Church, and gave a promise before the Holy Gospel to remain firm in his beliefs, will labour to bring about the
union of the Syrian race…” Tarazi, p. 352.

218
attempts by the Syrian Catholic Patriarch Rahmani to exploit the deposed Abdul Masih in an
endeavor to impress Rome. The letter also claims that the Propaganda in Rome held the upper
hand relative to the Syrian Catholic Church in conducting Rome’s drive to bring Syrian
Orthodoxy under its control. One indication of Rome’s limited confidence in Syrian Catholic
leadership was the Propaganda’s decision to directly control and manage any of the Malabar
Churches that would be converted to Catholicism. In this regard Abdelnour states:
It has reached us from your friend and my friend, priest Yusuf
Khayyat Al-Mosulli, that Rome has sent Bishops Elias Halouli and
Ibrahim to Malabar684 to dismantle our milla there, and turn it
Catholic, and that it [Rome] has provided the funds and arranged
for the stay of that party there. This man [Yusuf Khayyat] is a
trusted source, so do you want this to occur in your time [during
your patriarchate]? If this was to occur, what the Catholics had
claimed about you, would then come true. As for us, as soon as we
heard this news, we wrote to inform Bishop Saliba, and Priest
Matti Konat,685 to get this news verified and to convey to them our
thoughts should this become actuality.

Thus, the letter seemingly based on reliable sources, foretold what actually transpired two
decades later, when the Syrian Orthodox Malabar Churches that were converted to Catholicism
became directly attached to Rome and not to the Syrian Catholic Church in the Middle East.

In a post script, the letter writer tells of a further development, based on news he had just
received certain monks in Mardin joining the Prouts (Protestants), and he again urges the
patriarch to return to Mardin.

vii) A letter from Altoune Abdelnour, Mosul, dated December 12, 1913686

After the usual introduction, the letter reviews the position of the people of Mardin and of
other regions with respect to current issues. He reminds the patriarch that he had not fulfilled
earlier promises to return to Deir al-Za‘faran, and with frustration states:
Thus, based on our mutual love and respect, we dare express what
is our duty in accordance with our conscience and state that it is
not permissible by the tenets of Church law and the tenets of

684
These two bishops defected to the Catholic fold, but later returned to the Syrian Orthodox Church.
685
Both were located in India.
686
P1090694.

219
 proper administration that you abandon the milla with no caretaker
while you stay in Jerusalem as if the matter is of no concern to
you. We do not believe that the Creator who entrusted you with the
flock would accept this from you, in accordance with the promises
you made on your installation on the Antiochian See.

Abdelnour then provides an update of news from the Church in India. He reports on
developments in the Bsheiriya district near Siirt, where the Catholics, through the Chaldean the
bishop of Siirt, are suspected of planning to convert Syrian Orthodox communities. The letter
unveils the rivalry between the Latins (i.e., Roman Catholics) and the Syrian Catholics who are
both aiming to convert nearly 4,000 Syrian Orthodox and gain the accrued benefits to their
respective sides. He provides what turned out to be his last warning687 to his old friend, the
Patriarch, in no uncertain language:
You will see to what state our milla has descended, and what the
enemies have done to it from all sides, with no one to raise
concern. Is it permissible that the sheep are left to be devoured by
the wolves while the chief of its shepherds remains unaware of all
this? Some write to say that His Beatitude’s actions are deliberate,
proving Tarazi right688 and others said about him. I am
exceptionally surprised, and I have fallen sick as a result, and have
been under the attention of a doctor…It is out of our [my] extreme
anguish that we [I] have written this request so that you would
exercise your full determination and effort to repair the affairs of
the milla, if you were to return to your Seat in order to end this
deteriorated state of being under the mercy of wolves, and not to
give cause to prove what the others have said about you.

Despite all these and likely many other pleadings, Patriarch Abdullah stayed in
Jerusalem, giving his ailing health as the reason. He died in Jerusalem on November 26,
1915,689 during Sayfo, ‘the Year of the Sword’ and was buried at St. Mark’s Monastery. Thus,
of his nine-year tenure he was away from his patriarchal seat for nearly seven and a half years.

687
Altoune Abdelnor, the author of this letter, died less than two months later, on February 4, 1914, as per Al-
Hikmat, 1913/1914 No. 14, p. 210.
688
Referring to Terazi’s statement in Al-Salasil al-Tarikhiyah, p.352, in which he expressed confidence that
Abdullah, as patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox, would continue to work for the Catholic Church.
689
P1100421

220
4.7 Beyond Church Leadership
The paralysis at Church leadership level, particularly during Patriarch Abdullah’s term,
resulted in increased calls for reform, both at milla Board and at individual levels. Some of
these calls translated into positive actions. The following is a summary.

4.7.1 The Nizamnamah - Milla Constitution

The much awaited Milla Constitution (Nizamnamah) was finally drafted in 1914. Millet
constitutions were mandated by the Tanzimat reform, the Hatt-i Humayun, of 1856. The milla
Board level 1914 finally saw the completion of the milla Constitution (Batriarkana
Nizamnamah ‘Mumi -1330).690 The draft for this legislation was prepared by a milla board that
was particularly set up for the purpose. This board was formed from the combined membership
of six ecclesiasts and six lay dignitaries.691
The drafting board completed its work on March 18, 1914 and sent a draft to the
Patriarch for approval. This approval was reported in Al-Hikmat.692 The accepted draft was
sent to the Porte for final approval and enactment. With the Porte being engaged in the
upcoming war, it is unclear whether the Nizamnamah was enacted. However, this became a
moot point, as the events on the ground in the years that followed prevented a meaningful
application of the document for many years. This notwithstanding, upon his election, Patriarch
Elias III signed a memo that was attached to the Nizamnamah document, undertaking to follow
its provisions.693
The draft Nizamnamah consisted of 64 articles that stressed the democratic
representation of the milla in decision making at the level of the individual diocese, as well as
regulating the appointment of bishops and clergy and defining their duties.

690
Based on a copy of the draft document penned by Bishop Yuhannon Dolabani in my possession.
691
The six ecclesiasts were: Timotheos Episcopus Paulus, the Patriarchal Vicar at the Porte; Qorilos Mutran Jirjis,
the Patriarchal Vicar in Mardin; Iwaneese Mutran Elias (later Patriarch Elias III), Head of the Diocese of Mosul;
Athanasius Uitran Tuma, Head of the Diocese of Diyarbakir; Qorillos Mutran Mansour , Head of the Diocese of
Kharput; and monk Ephram Barsoum (later Patriarch Ephram I Barsoum), head of Deir al-Za’faran. The lay
dignitaries were Mansour Kan‘o, Naoum Shahristani, Hanna Siri Tchikki, Yousuf Raji, Hanna al Qass, and Hanna
Hanasha.
692
Al-Hikmat, 1914, 1, 22, p. 336.
693
Based on the copy in my possession

221
An article appearing in the July 1914 issue of Al-Hikmat694 shows that there was a clear
awareness that the mere enactment of a law does not by itself yield reform; that the spirit of
change must be mobilized to effect the desired change. To demonstrate this point the article
draws a stark comparison between the French and the Japanese revolutions on the one hand,
and the Ottoman and the Persian ones on the other. It draws attention to the difference in
degrees of success between these contrasting examples, clarifying that while the French and
the Japanese were ready to exploit the opportunities presented by their revolutions, the
Ottomans and the Persians were not.

4.7.2 Journalism
The first Syriac periodical issued in Turkey was Kevkeb Medinho (The Star of the East), which
first appeared in 1910. It was published from Diyarbakir by Naoum Faiq as a literary journal.
However, it had nationalistic overtones that aimed to raise awareness for the need to dispel
lethargy and to rise above the humble status quo. The journal was published in Ottoman
Turkish, expressed in Syriac script (Garshuni Turkish). Faiq immigrated to the U.S. in 1912
from where he continued to publish his journal. This was likely the most popular Syriac
periodical of the late Ottoman period.695
A second journal entitled Murşid-i Asuriyun (The Guide for the Assyrians) was first
published in Kharput by Asur Yusuf from 1909 to 1914. This, too, was published in Ottoman
language expressed in Syriac script.696
A third paper with a Diyarbakir connection, was Intibah (Awakening), a periodical that
was published in the U.S. by Cedbur Boyachi between the years 1909 and 1915, and appeared
under the name Beth Nahrein from 1916.697 A fourth journal, published in 1918, was Sifuro
(Bugli) with the stated aim tenvir-I efkara hadem (servant to the illumination of the thinking
(people).698
Last, was an institutional journal, Al-Hikma, which designated itself as ‘Religious,
Literary, Historical, and News Source Journal’. This was issued from Deir al-Za’faran and

694
Al-Hikmat, 1914, 1, 23, 341-342.
695
Trigona Harany 2009; 287-300.
696
Emrullah Akgunduz, in “The Syriac Christians of Diyarbekir in the Late 19th Century” in Social Relations in
Ottoman Diyar bekir, 1870-1915, ed. Joost Jongerden and Jelle Verheij, Brill, 2012, pp.232-233.
697
Ibid.
698
Ibid, citing (Simsek, 2003, 195-7)

222
printed on this monastery’s presses that were acquired as a result of Patriarch Peter’s visit to
England 1874/1875. Al-Hikmat was bi-weekly with its first year starting in August 1913. In the
opening statement of the first issue Mikhail Hikmat Tchikki, the editor states that Al-Hikmat
was the first news magazine to appear from Mardin.699 The advent of the First World War and
the following unsettled period caused this journal to shut down after completing its first year,
not to reappear until 1927/1828, this time from Jerusalem.
The first article of the first issue Al-Hikmat, following the editor’s opening statement,
was by monk Ephram Barsoum (later Patriarch I Barsoum) and was entitled “Voice of
Heavenly Wisdom”. In it he invites the reader not to rely on ancestral pride, but to lift the soul
from the depth of despair to the hope that is coupled with action in order to ensure a bright
tomorrow.700 All 24 issues of the first year stressed the same theme, the need to dispel lethargy
and to work hard adopting the progress of the advanced nation as guide and an example. The
journal also included a good variety of historical literary articles relating to church history, as
well as news. It also addressed several social issues.

4.7.3 Theme of Periodicals in Anatolia

A common theme between these periodicals, except perhaps Al-Hikmat, which focused more
on Church history and current affairs, was their emphasis on “union and progress,” called for
by the intelligentsia of the day. The call for progress was evidently justified in a society that
had suffered centuries of decline. The intent, therefore, was to mobilize the people to remedy
this crucial ill. Progress in the form of unification and awakening sought by Suryani
intellectuals Ashur Yusuf, Naoum Faig and Sabbur Boyaci was predicated on these
awakenings being amongst the people as well as the ecclesiastic structure of the church.
The call for union is more difficult to explain in light of the known conditions that
prevailed at that time, as well as from the documentary evidence. There were no known
schisms or divisions within the society or among the different societies that constituted the
overall Syrian Orthodox community in the period in question. There were, indeed, local
variations, even prejudices, in customs and habits, about which people many strongly felt,
something that has commonly existed even among fairly homogeneous societies. Further, since

699
Al-Hikmat, 1913, 1, 1, pp. 1-3.
700
Ibid., pp. 4-9.

223
the Syriac Orthodox communities, unlike those of the Church of the East, were non-tribal,
societal differences did not go beyond normal variations. It may, therefore, be reasonable to
question whether the call for “unity” was part of the political brand of the day with which the
Syrian Orthodox intelligentsia wished to associate and to promote at that time, all for a good
reason, namely its call for “progress.” However, Trigona-Harany, based on an extensive study
of the Suryani press, advances some of the alternative thinking that was espoused by Ashur
Yusuf, Naoum Faiq, and Sabbur Boyaci in this regard.701 According to contemporary thinking,
the call for unity was motivated by the desire for independence, that of the Suryanis from the
Armenian millet. This trend was motivated by the emergence of conflicts between the
Armenian and the Suriyani churches over the ownership of property particularly during the
second half of nineteenth century. Compounded by the problems resulting from the 1895
violence, some of the intellectuals reacted negatively against clergy who took moderate
attitudes towards the Armenians. Mutran Tuma Kassir was accused of allowing Armenians to
use the Forty Martyrs church in Mardin on the premise that there was “no difference” between
the two communities. It appears that now Naoum Faiq reacted harshly to this stating that, in the
past, seeing the Suryani and the Armenians as one and the same “ruined our millet, our kind
(cinsiyet) and our language and allowed [the Armenians] to occupy our churches, monasteries
and religious foundations, making us their subordinates, and to conceal what was rightfully
ours.”702
Thus, threatened by the minority status under the Armenians and worst still under the
Kurds, Ashur Yusuf, Naoum Faiq and other nationalists of the day likely supported Ottoman
nationalism as the most plausible means of their people’s survival, who had no independence
aspirations of their own. They saw this without necessarily renouncing their Suryani or
Assyrian identities. Naoum Faiq would in fact become the Assyrian nationalist portrayed in the
historiography, after he arrived in the U.S. in 1912, and especially after he began to receive the
news of the massacres and of the devastation endured by the Christians remaining in the
Ottoman Empire during the First World War.703

701
Benjamin Trigona-Harany, The Ottoman Suryani from 1908 to 1914 , Gorgias, 2009, pp. 113-151.
702
Ibid., p.p. 198-199.
703
Ibid., p.212.

224
4.7.4 Beyond Anatolia
Considering the Syrian Orthodox communities outside Anatolia in the few decades preceding
First World War, Mosul and its environ stand in the forefront in terms of population size and
sociopolitical importance (see Section 1.6.3). What is significant to point out here, is that while
Syrian Orthodox intellectuals in southeastern Anatolia were forging a revival perspective that
was within the concept of Ottmanism, those in Mosul, like the other Christians in the city, were
in a different political environment; one that was strongly Arab nationalist, with an Islamic
overtones. Being Arabic-speaking, ancestrally or more recently, they did not feel alienated
from the general motif of Arab nationalism. In fact, many of them embraced this trend as part
of the quest for revival of the historical Arab civilization of which the Christians were part.704
They were, no doubt, being influenced by the much more pronounced trend that was being
pioneered by their co-religionists in the Levant, and to some extent in Egypt at the time. They,
like the other Christians, were in the forefront in importing and setting up printing presses and
taking active interest in journalism.705 The resulting environment was crucial for setting the
stage for the coming church and community revival in the coming decades.

4.7.5 A Promising Personality

In 1905, a young man of 18, Ayyoub Barsoum from Mosul, joined Deir al-Za‘faran as a
student. He had studied as a child in the Dominican School in Mosul, and studied Arabic
literature and rhetoric at the hands of a local Muslin imam. He was tonsured a monk in 1907
and named Aphram after St. Ephrem the Syrian and priest in 1908. He taught at the school in
Deir al-Za‘faran and became a director of its printing press in 1911, when he compiled and
printed a number of liturgical books.706 Over the next three years, he toured Tur Abdin and
most churches and monasteries throughout Iraq, Syria and Sinai, searching for and
documenting Syriac manuscripts. During his extensive tour of Tur Abdin he conducted
extensive interviews with older folk of various communities, documenting their stories about
704
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Al -Mosul wa al-Harakat al-‘Arabiyah al-Qawmiyah” in Mawsoo‘at al-Mosul al-
Hadhariyah, Mosul, 1993,4, pp. 129-144.
705
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Al-Nashir wa al-Sahafa fe al-Mosul” in in Mawsoo‘at al-Mosul al-Hadhariyah,
Mosul, 1993,4, pp. 362-377.
706
G. A. Kiraz, Gorgias Encyclypedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 2011, p. 62. Poulus Behnam, Nafaha al-
Khuzam , pp. 22, 23.

225
their ancestral history and that of church personnel in those times. Consider the massacres and
displacement of the people in question in the coming few years, Barsoum’s enterprising
initiative turned out to be singularly valuable. Most of the material he gathered was
subsequently published in the Patriarchal Magazine in the 1980s.707 In 1913, at the age of 26,
Barsoum embarked on an extensive journey through western Europe, visiting libraries and
museums in Florence, Rome, Paris, Berlin, London and Cambridge, documenting Syriac
manuscripts.708
Not surprisingly, therefore, Barsoum who was endowed with scholarly potential,
coupled with a pride of his community’s historical heritage, would lead his Church in the years
to come to a much awaited revival.

4.8 Concluding Discussion

The 1895 violence in southeast Anatolia, which was centered in Diyarbakir but included
surrounding villages, affected the Syrian Orthodox community more than any other non-
Armenian Christians (i.e., Chaldeans, Syrian Catholics and Assyrians). The atrocities, which
were committed in late 1895, mutated over the following years to pillage, robbery, pressures to
convert to Islam, all under the threat of the sword. The poor economic conditions of these
communities made them unable to pay for their livelihood with money. The miseries they
faced during the years that straddled the turn of the twentieth century were well documented by
consular reports. One British consular report, which I have quoted in some detail describes the
state of misery which Kurdish tribes consistently caused the Christians in that region. The
report also sheds light on the way the Latin missionaries, in a tacit unholy alliance with the
Kurds and backed by French diplomatic personnel, exploited the misery of the Syrian
Orthodox communities in order to drive them to the Latin fold. These events came at a time
when the Syrian Orthodox were at the weakest point they had been for a long time. The waning
mental health of its patriarch, the move of his rival to Catholicism, the declining state of the
clergy, and last but not least the general state of poverty, all combined to bring the church to its
lowest point in history.

707
See typically, Vols. 2, 1981; 6, 1981; 9., 1981; 10., 1981; 13, 1982; and 23, 1883, .
708
Poulus Behnam, Nafaha al-Khuzam , p. 23.

226
 The ordeal surrounding building a consensus to depose Patriarch Abdul Masih continued
for several years, becoming especially critical in the years 1903 to 1905. The absence of an
obvious suitable replacement threw the church into further turmoil and deeper decline and
provided the impetus for further desertion to other churches. When the replacement finally
arrived it turned out to be none other than Abdullah Sattuf, bearing his controversial history
that included joining the Catholic Church for over 10 years.
Abdullah’s term as patriarch was no less controversial than his previous ecclesiastic
career. He stayed in Deir al-Za’faran for only a year and three quarters out of his total term of
nine years. He embarked, quite unnecessarily, on a trip to England, India and Egypt that lasted
five years with very little to show for it. When he returned, he went straight to Jerusalem,
where he spent the last two and a half years of his term until his passing on November 26,
1915, at the height of Sayfo. During his stay in Jerusalem he received many requests and
pleadings to return to Deir al-Za’faran to handle the increasingly critical situation which
existed in all the dioceses. However, he ignored all pleadings citing health reasons. In the
meantime the Church was descending into further decline with increasing pressure on members
to convert to obtain greater security.
Reprieve from the pressures to convert paradoxically came when all Christians were
subjected to the sword, to Sayfo, when all foreign missionaries fled the field and the churches
they formed faced a common fate of massacres and exile with their historical brothers.
The following other points are worthy of specific mention:
1. The position of dignity and respect accorded by the Porte to the patriarch of a small
Oriental Church and community, existing at the far edge of the Empire, demonstrated
here by the audience which Patriarch Abdullah had with Sultan Abdul Hamid and with
King Edward VII in London.
2. The travel diary of priest-monk Abachi provided a contemporary perspective on the
ordinary life, personalities and means of travel in the many countries: Turkey, England,
India and Egypt and the Levant.
3. The letters addressed to Patriarch Abdullah in Jerusalem shed light on a number of
delicate issues. The letters by Altoune Abdelnour from Mosul dated in 1913 alluded to
the hitherto little known attempts by the Syrian Catholic Church to swing converts in
India to its fold at the same time as the Propaganda in Rome was intent on taking these

227
 converts under its own fold. Many years later, in 1930, a separate Syrian Catholic
Church was formed in Kerala - the Malankara Catholic Church709 - that was indeed
directly attached to Rome as Abdelnour’s letter noted in 1913.
4. Based on Abdullah’s neglect of his church, which amounted to abandonment at its most
critical moment in history, many, even those who were close to him, began to have
doubt as to his allegiance to the Church. Those who voiced this doubt referenced his
defection earlier to the Syrian Catholic Church and his return from it only to become its
Patriarch. In voicing this doubt they alluded to a statement in Tarazi’s book,710 and
hinted that his neglect of the affairs of his office was in fulfilment of his allegiance to
the Syrian Catholic Church. The question of his real allegiance to his office as
patriarch, thus remain a troubling one.
5. Despite the paralysis with which church leadership was inflicted during the period
under discussion, signs of modest revival and social awareness within the communities
began to appear. This revival was expressed and enhanced by the press medium, before
it was scuttled by the First World War.

709
See S. P. Brock in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 2011, p.256.
710
Philip de Tarazi, Alsalasil al Thahabia, p. 352.

228
 CHAPTER FIVE

MASSACRES AND EXODUS – FROM SAYFO TO SAFETY

5.1 Introduction
The atmosphere of aggression and terror that began during the 1895 massacres continued in the
years that followed. Villages were plundered and people abducted and forced to convert with
increasing frequency throughout the Eastern vilayets, with no serious attempt made by the
Ottoman State to control or curb such activities. The suspicion that the Ottoman authorities had
shown towards the Armenians was utilised by the Hamidie regiments and most of the Kurdish
tribes to abuse the entire Christian communities in those vilayets. The actions of these groups
were a harbinger of worse things to come during the First World War. A broad reference to the
immediate political developments that preceded these events was made in Chapter Four.
In fact the period between1895 and 1915 was not free of massacres. The main event in
this period took place in and around Adana, the provincial capital of Cilicia.711 In a two week
long attempt to gain power in 1909 by demonstrating its allegiance to Sultan Abdul Hamid, the
local mob committed a massacre that broke out on April 14 of that year against Armenians as
well as other local Christians. It was ostensibly to protest against the Young Turks movement
that had forged an alliance with the Armenian Tashnak party. The toll this time totalled nearly
20,000 Christians including 850 Syriacs and 422 Chaldeans.712 The failed counter-revolution
attempt at that time by Abdul Hamid led to his replacement by Sultan Muhammad V (R 1909-
1918), who was merely a figurehead monarch. These riots were blamed on the old monarch,
and some of his officials were hanged. However, what was new here was that all Christians
shared the same fate in these massacres, which were driven by an essentially religious focus
rather than by an ethnic political one. These massacres signified that the brewing Turkish
nationalism had turned its attention against all Christians, not just the Armenians.
Thus, the horrific annihilation of Christians starting in 1915 demonstrated itself to be a
religiously based ethnic cleansing that had started in 1895, revealing its ugly face again in 1909
and then demonstrating its full wrath in 1915 and the following years. During the 1895
pogroms, the Great Powers pressured the sultan to put an end to the massacres. However,

711
Avedis Sanjian, p. 279.
712
Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors, p. 45

229
during 1915 and the following years, the situation was different. This time the Ottomans were
on the opposite side of the Western powers. Consequently, the Ottoman military and civil
authorities were unhindered in creating the pre-conditions for a general massacre, providing
the climate713 orders for its implementation and giving the perpetrators a free hand to execute
it. Thus, what came to be increasingly considered in the international arena as genocide that
targeted the Armenians and the Greeks, immediately spilled over ruthlessly to include all other
Christians.714 This was in accordance with the Turkification scheme, which was designed to rid
the Ottoman state, and subsequently Turkey, of all ethnic and religious groups, particularly the
Christian population, that did not fit within the narrow limits of that ethno-religious group (see
Chapter One). The year 1915, which marked the beginning and witnessed the worst events of
the massacres, came to be known by all Syriac groups as Sayfo, which literally means “sword”
and has come to signify the Year of the Sword, or the events of 1915.715

5.2 Sayfo
A good deal has been written about the Armenian genocide, which has over the past fifteen
years also been increasingly recognized on the international scene indeed as genocide, albeit
nearly a century after the occurrence. The total number of Syriacs affected by the different
massacres was certainly much lower than that of the Armenians. However, the proportion of
losses in relation to total population, particularly for the smaller Syriac communities, such as
the Syrian Orthodox, was in fact higher. Sayfo, which started in April of 1915, continued for
most of that year, while the ‘safarbarlik’ (the exile) continued well beyond that year. The
massacres abated when the Ottomans, in reaction to international pressure, or as a measure of
appeasement, ordered a halt of the massacres in late 1915. However, the animosity that was
behind the violence naturally continued and marked a clear motive for the survivors to seek
safe existence elsewhere.

713
Providing evidence of official planning and implementation of these events to what constitutes a‘genocide’ is
outside the scope of this work. With 2015 marking the first centenary of these horrific events, the subject of
defining those events as ‘genocide’ has come to the fore, although it remains mired in political considerations.
714
The year 2015, marking a centennial of those massacres, has witnessed a greater international recognition of
those massacres as constituting a genocide, although this subject is still mired in political considerations.
715
See Introduction for a further elaboration on the term Sayfo.

230
 Several studies have emerged, particularly recently,716 which have focused on the horrific
massacres inflicted on non-Armenian oriental Christians: Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic,
Chaldeans, and Assyrians (members of the Church of the East).717
Contemporary sources form the backbone of witness accounts about the dreadful realities
of what happened. In addition to diplomatic archives, the account by Dominican Father J.
Rhetore718 is particularly extensive for its coverage of the massacres of all Christians in the
eastern provinces of Anatolia. Statements by American missionaries, which were compiled by
James Barton,719 the head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions that
operated in the Ottoman Empire, provide a further source of valuable information.
Contemporary native sources generally include those by: Ishak Armala,720 Abdul Masih
Qarbashi,721 Yousif Gibrael al-Qass and Elias Hedaya,722 and Ignatius Aphram Barsoum.723
It is not the purpose of this study to elaborate on the scope or details of these events in a
manner that would serve the subject with the justice it merits. However, it must be noted that in
addition to the gruesome human toll, no church or monastery was spared and no sanctity was
respected. Deir al-Za‘faran, the seat of the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church from the
12th century, was not spared from attack. The monastery had become a refuge for hundreds of
women, children and the elderly from the surrounding villages. Qarabashi, who was twelve at
that time and a resident student at that monastery, was an eye witness who later collected notes
from older eye witnesses.724 Qarabashi’s account of the attack on Deir al-Za‘faran shows that
had it not been for the chivalry of one army officer, who saw the state of the beleaguered and

716
Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors; De Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide; Fredrick A. Aprim,
Assyrians: From Bedr Khan to Saddam Hussein, Driving into Extinction the Last Aramaic Speakers: Xlibris
Corporation, 2006; Ronald Sempill Stafford, The Tragedy of the Assyrians, Piscattaway: Gorgias Press, 2006 and
Hannibal Travis, “’Native Christians Massacared’: The Ottoman Genocide of the Assyrians during World War I,”
Genocide Studies and Prevention, 1:3 (2006), pp. 327-371.
717
The term ‘Assyrian Genocide’ has been used in many recent studies whereby ‘Assyrian’ in this context is a
general umbrella term for peoples with closely related ethnic and Christian identities, otherwise identified by their
church affiliation as of the Church of the East, Chaldeans, Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholic.
718
Jacques Rhétoré, Les chrétiens aux betes. Paris: Cerf, 2005, based on Les Chretiens aux betes, four manuscript
notebooks Fr. Rhetore, a Dominican Father (1841-1921) left behind.
719
James Barton, Compiled, “Turkish Atrocities”: Statements of American Missionaries on the Destruction of
Christian Communities in Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917, Michigan, Ann Arbor: Gomidas Institute, 1998.
720
Ishak Armala, Al-Qisarah fi Nakabat al-Nasara(The Tragedy in the History of the Christians), Beirut: Deir al-
Sharfa, 1910.
721
Abdul Masih Qarabashi Al Dam al-Masfook, tras, Theophilus George Saliba, Lebanon 2005.
722
Yousif Gibrael Al-Qass and Elias Hedaya,, Azikh Ahdath wa Rijal , Aleppo, 1991.
723
Aphram Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin (trans Matti Moosa), Gorgias Press, 2008.
724
Qarabashi, pp. 170-172.

231
frightened refugees and felt mercy towards them, all of the refuge seekers would have been
slaughtered and the monastery robbed and destroyed. According to the cited sources, as well as
many others, most of the towns and villages inhabited by Christians suffered almost total
annihilation. Diyarkbakir, Nusaibin, Azekh and Siirt (where the carnage included the scholar,
the Chaldean archbishop Addai Sher) saw an almost total annihilation of their Christian
populations.
According to Father Rhetore, who was an eye witness to many of the events he describes,
of the 174,670 Christians who were in the Diyarkbakir vilayet in 1914, 82.5% disappeared as a
result of Sayfo.725 Both de Courtois and Gaunt, relying on Rhetore, estimate that the Syrian
Orthodox community lost nearly half of its Middle Eastern population in the First World War
carnage.726

Two Samples of the Massacre Accounts

A detailed or comprehensive account of the massacres and the resulting carnage are well
outside the scope of this work. It may, however, be instructive and appropriate to convey a
little of what has been written in the form of two samples, both from eye-witness accounts: one
by Qarabashi, a Syrian Orthodox, and the other by Rev. Alpheus Andrus, a missionary of the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who was based in Mardin since
1868.

a. The Account by Qarabashi

In the introduction of his account Qarabashi states:
From the start of First World War in 1914, I started to write down
what I could about the events that I either witnessed or heard about
from trustworthy people. The general feeling was that the war was
not going to last. However, our hopes were soon dashed, as the war
extended for four years. The tragedies: pain and suffering, theft,
hunger and disease, and all forms of extermination that were
witnessed during the war made it feel like a century rather than
four years.727

725
Rhétoré, p. 136.
726
De Courtois, p. 195; Gaunt, Massacres, Resistance, Protectors, pp. 434-5.
727
Qarabash, p.109.

232
 The account starts with rumours that spread on August 3, 1914 of a war by Germany
and Austria against Russia, England and France. Orders for mobilization and conscription were
issued on the same day. Pressures were applied by local government on Christians, first to join
the campaign for conscription, but then to doubt their allegiance, accusing them of harbouring
feelings of sympathy for the English and French enemies.
Qarabashi provides a chronology of events leading up to the massacres. The following
are some of the important events: On March 1915 the Ottomans issued an order for all
Christians in Diyarbakir to surrender their arms, especially those who had been under
conscription, and were forced to perform hard labour, such as carrying stones for road
building.728 On April 9, 1915, the Ottoman military detained over 1,200 of Diyarbakir’s
Christian elites, and subjected them to torture. On April 25, the authorities had the detainees
bound in ropes and led outside the city to the River Tigris, where they were told to be taken by
boats to Mosul. What actually transpired was that the soldiers accompanying the prisoners
were joined by a Kurdish tyrant, ‘Malki, and his men. After a two-day journey, the prisoners
were made to land where they were all shot dead and their bodies burnt.729 When the killers
returned to Diyarbakir, the vali repeated the killing campaign, this time taking 500 men who
were taken to the nearby valley, slaughtered and dumped.730
Qarabashi’s account recites repeated scenes of forced labour for men, the killing of
men, women and children, rape and forced conversions. People in the thousands were paraded
out of the city through “Mardin Gate” ostensibly to be deported to Mosul, but in actuality to be
made naked, with their clothes and whatever else of value taken, then killed and dumped.731
The campaign that started with the Armenians, very soon included all other Christians.
The accounts recite the atrocities not only in the city of Diyarbakir but also in other towns and
villages of the vilayet: K’aibiya, Qatarbil, Jarokiya, Sacdiya, Hawarjiya, Amid, Juma Harrar,
Aubarchi.732 Even Deir al-Za‘faran, the seat of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate was not
spared the ordeal, saved only by a last minute response to pleadings by Mutran Jirjis, the
patriarchal deputy, to the governor of Mardin733 the chivalry of individual soldiers. The

728
Ibid, pp. 124-125.
729
Ibid, pp. 126-127.
730
Ibid, p. 127.
731
Ibid, pp. 137-149.
732
Ibid, pp. 156-171.
733
Ibid, pp. 171-172.

233
villages that were in the vicinity of Deir Za‘faran: al Qalsatma, Al-Mansuriah, Bnabil,
Bkeera,Dara, Macsarta, Baval, Bkeera, al-Qusour, Qilath and Sour, were not saved by the
appeals for mercy and were devastated like the others.734 The horrific massacres of the
Christians at Azekh, Siirt, Kurbaran and Nissibin735 further demonstrated the sectarian intent
and brutal Ottoman rulers and their Kurdish collaborators and, based on a pattern of official
behaviour and repeated, consistent outcomes constituted the makings of a genocide, based on a
pattern of official behaviour and repeated consistent outcomes.

b. The Account by Andrus

The account by Alpheus Andrus was part of a number of accounts that were collected and
published by James Barton referenced earlier. The section written by Andrus who remained in
Constantinople until the summer of 1917 reports on incidents to which he or others were eye
witnesses. I have selected two locations whose inhabitants were almost totally Syrians, namely
Kulleth located twenty-five miles northeast of Mardin, and Bnedbeel located “2 1/2 hours”(as
per cited report) east of Mardin.
From Kulleth:
Koords (sic) from the surrounding villages of the Rajhdeeya,
Makhashneeya and Devorareeya districts attacked the village in the early
morning hour. Pastor Hanoosh Ibrahim (Protestant) was killed on the
threshold of the parsonage, and his aged mother on top of him. As many as
the villagers had arms and daggers defended their firesides, but most were
slain, many women and children were made captives while very few
escaped. The Koords did not assist the government in the deportations, but
only in killing, the taking of captives and booty. The entire village of some
250 houses (there were no Moslims (sic) in it) was wiped out, and the
houses and lands were appropriated by Koords. The village was 2/3 Syrians
and 1/3 Syrian-Protestant.736

From Bnedbeel:
I saw the Koords coming on to attack the village and gave the alarm. It
was daylight. The villagers assembled and put themselves under my
leadership, as I knew Koordish tactics, having lived so much among
them. Putting myself at the head of the villagers we suddenly charged
and scattered the Kurds. This gave time for the villagers to gather up

734
Ibid, pp. 174-184.
735
Ibid, pp. 196-208.
736
Barton, p.100.

234
 what they could, and seek safety for their families and themselves by
fleeing to Deir Zaofaran (sic) and Mardin. I then advised the leading
men not to accept the invitation of the soldiers, who nominally were
sent to protect the village from just such attacks, to eat breakfast with
them, as I distrusted them, since they had not helped us to drive the
Koords off. They did not take my advice, which I emphasized, by
leaving the village with what of my household goods I could take with
me (my wife and children I had previously sent on to Mardin
foreseeing trouble). In self-confidence they prepared food for the
soldiers and sat down to partake of it with them. When the soldiers
finished eating they turned on their hosts and shot them down. The
Koords, learning what had happened, returned and helped the soldiers
in plundering the village.737

The Qarabashi and the Andrus accounts clearly demonstrate that the massacres were aimed
at Christians, irrespective of whether they were Armenians or not.
A more detailed account of the losses among the Syrian Orthodox is given in the following
table, which was presented by Severus Aphram Barsoum to the Paris Peace Conference in
February, 1920. Barsoum’s numbers are generally supported by Rhetori who estimated Syrian
Orthodox losses to be 96,000 lay persons, in addition to two bishops and 156 priests, with the
destruction of 111 churches and monasteries.738 Eight out of twenty Syrian Orthodox dioceses
were entirely or largely wiped out and whole areas that had historically had considerable
Syriac presence, notably Bsheriyya (Syrian Orthodox and Chaldeans) and Hakkari (Church of
the East), were entirely depleted of their Christian populations. Further Sayfo prompted the
survivors to seek safety abroad, thus generating the impetus for the creation of a massive
diaspora that came to account for a large proportion of all Syriac Christians.739

737
Ibid.
738
Rhetore, p. 185.
739
See S. P. Brock, “Sayfo” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, 2011, p. 361.

235
 List of Losses Incurred by the Ancient Syrian Orthodox Nation in Mesopotamia and
in Armenia During the War of 1915-1918.740

Name of Names of Number Number People Churches Priests Bishops and

Vilayet Cities and of of Massacred and and Vicars
Kazas Villages Families Monasteries Monks Killed
Ruined Killed

Diyarbakir vilayet
1 Diyarbakir 30 764 5379 5 7
and
surroundings
2 Shirwan 9 174 1195 1 1
3 Lice 10 658 4706 5 4 F. Siman,
Episcop. Vicar
4 Deirek 50 350 1 1
5 Siverek 30 897 5725 12 12 Mgr. Denha,
B. of Siverek
6 Viranshehir 16 303 1928 1
7 Mardin 8 880 5815 12 5
8 Savur 7 880 6164 2 3
9 Nusaybin 50 1,000 7000 12 25
10 Jezireh 26 994 7510 13 8 F. Stiphan,
Patriar, Vicar
11 Besheriye 30 718 4481 10 10
12 Baravat 15 282 1880 1 1 F. Gibrail,
Archmandrite
13 Midyat 47 3935 25830 60 60 F. Ephrem,
Vicar; Mgr.
Yacoub,
Bishop of Deir
al Salib
Bitlis vilayet
14 Bitlis 12 130 850 1
15 Siirt 100 650 1 2 F. Ibrahim,
Vicar of Siirt
16 Shirwan 9 283 1970 2 4
17 Gharsan 22 744 5140 12 9
Harput vilayet
18 Harput 24 508 3500 5 2
Urfa sanjak
19 Urfa 50 340

TOTAL741 345 13350 90313 156 154 7

740
Presented to the Paris Peace Conference by Archbishop Severus Aphram Barsoum, representative of the Syrian
Orthodox Church at the Conference.
741
As noted in several subsequent publication, such as Manarat Antakia al-suryaniyya, published by Gregorius
Yuhanna Ibrahim, Dar al-Ruha, Aleppo, 1992, p.XIV, the “Totals” line has errors whereby the number of villages
should be 336, number of families 13,360, number of churches and monasteries 160, and number of priests and
monks killed 155.

236
5.3 A Devastated Community with a New Leader- Elias III Shakir (1917-1932)
During Sayfo came the news from Jerusalem of the passing of Patriarch Abdullah on
November 26, 1915. He had been away from Turkey, continually, since 1908 until his death in
Jerusalem, a period during which he had been quite distant from the main affairs of his office,
(see Chapter Five). Thus the news of his passing made no noticeable impression on a
community that had been, and was still, so absorbed with its own life and death matters. Mor
Iwanis Elias Shakir, the Archbishop of Mosul, was voted as a Locum Tenans (Patriarchal
Qaimmaqam) on February 27, 1916. Archbishop Elias Shakir742 conducted the duties both of
archbishop and patriarch from Mosul, where he continued to organize relief work for the
survivors of the slaughter and the deportees of all Christian denominations, who had been
arriving in Mosul and its environs mainly from Siirt, Diyarbakir and Jazirah since the
beginning of Sayfo.
When the carnage abated, Elias Shakir headed to Deir al- Za‘faran on October 17, 1916
where he called for a meeting of the Synod to elect a patriarch. The Synod voted him patriarch
by seven out of nine votes, and he was installed patriarch on February 12, 1917 (February 25,
1917 Gregorian) as Ignatius Elias III.743 The date of his election is not given in the often
referenced sources.744 However, I came across an interesting archival document, a letter that
indicates that the election took place on November 8, 1916.745 This letter, which was signed by
Elias Shakir as Patriarchal Qaimmaqam (Locum Tenens), was addressed to Aphram Barsoum
(later patriarch) who at that time was a raban (priest-monk) and, according to the letter, was
deputizing for Archbishop Gregorius Ephrem of Jerusalem for the purpose of the election.746 In

742
Born in Mardin on October 30, 1867, Nasri Shakir studied at the school of the Forty Martyrs Church in
Mardin. At Patriarch Peter’s encouragement, Nasri joined the theological school at the Forty Martyrs Church
where he was ordained a monk in 1889, assuming the name Elias and Raban (priest monk) in 1892. In 1895, he
was appointed head of the monastery of Quryaqos, in Bcheiriyah, and the following year to the position of chief
monk at Deir al- Za‘faran, where he paid particular attention to the education of the young orphans, who had
found refuge in the monastery following the 1895 violence. In 1899, he was sent to Midyat to make peace in a
region that had been troubled by division resulting from Christian denominational conversions. In 1902, he was
sent on similar missions to various parts of the Diyarbakir region, where he served with compassion and
commitment. On March 2, 1908, he was consecrated Bishop of Amid (Diyarbakir) by Patriarch Abdullah, with
the ecclesiastic title Mor Iwanis. After a brief working assignment in Midyat in 1911, he was transferred as
Bishop of Mosul in March 1912. Source: Al-Majalla al- Batriarkiyya, No. 1, 1931, p.3.
743
Al-Hikmat, Year 2, 1927/1928, p 42; Al-Majalla al- Batriarkiyyah, No. 1, 1931, p. 4.
744
Al-Hikmat-journal; Al-Majala al- Batriarkiha- journal; Severious Isaak Saka, Kanisati Al-Suriyaniyya.
Damascus: Alif Baà al-Adeeb Press, 1985; Athanasius Aphram Barsoum, Batarikat al-Suryan fe al-Qarn al-
‘Shreen.
745
Archival Document P1080563.
746
Poulus Behnam, Nafahat al-Khizam, p. 24, refers to this event.

237
addition to being a noteworthy correspondence between two prominent personalities in the
Syrian Orthodox Church, one a patriarch and the other the next patriarch, the letter sets out the
essentially simple, democratic procedure for electing a patriarch.747 The following is my
translation of the Garshuni Arabic text of the letter:
To the Very Reverend Father Aphram efendi, Deputy of His
Eminence Mor Gregorius Aphram Bishop of Jerusalem, of Total
Respect.

There will be a final meeting for the election of a patriarch in the

morning of Wednesday, the 30th of the current month, which is the
memorial day for Mor Yacoub, the malphan (teacher). This (the
election) will be performed by each (participant) writing his opinion
(choice) on a paper which he drops in a cup on the Altar. The
outcome is then revealed. We have notified this to his honour the
deputy of the Mutassarif who may attend. I am also notifying you so
that you may be prepared at the appointed time. May the Lord guide
us, with you, to what leads to the Glory of His Holy name.

Penned on the 28th of November, 1916.

Elias III’s patriarchate was characterised by extensive pastoral missions throughout

Turkey, Greater Syria and northern Iraq and in India in a tireless endeavour as father and
shepherd in the resettlement of entire communities that had been devastated by Sayfo.
On May 20, 1918, the new patriarch ordained Aphram Barsoum an Archbishop of Syria
under the ecclesiastic title Severus. In 1919, Barsoum accompanied the Patriarch to Istanbul,
where, on September 26, 1919 he had an audience with the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed Wahid
from whom he received a firman (decree) for his patriarchal appointment. On his way to
Istanbul, the new patriarch visited a number of communities in Diyarbakir, Urfa (Edessa),
Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Damascus, Zahle and Beirut to offer moral encouragement.748
In common with other Christian religious leaders who lived through and closely
witnessed the devastation of the massacres, Patriarch Elias III faced the additional task of
dealing with the Turks under whose jurisdiction thousands of his flock still lived. Additionally,
unlike other Christian communities living in Turkey prior to World War I, the Syrian Orthodox
had had the seat of their patriarchate in Asia Minor for no less than fourteen centuries, and in

747
This procedure saw a recent application in the election of the current (new) patriarch on March 30, 2014.
748
Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyyah, 1933, No.1, pp. 4,5.

238
Deir al- Za‘faran in particular, since the twelfth century. Being driven from that patriarchal
seat, as indeed did eventually occur during the term of Patriarch Elias III (see later) was an
additional blow of historic proportion to his church and people. Thus, the task ahead for
Patriarch Elias III was enormous and the resources, whether human or material, were meagre.
He was, however, endowed with a compassionate nature that helped console his devastated
communities.
5.4 International Forums and Treaties - The Paris Peace Conference
5.4.1 Sèvres and Lausanne
The period immediately after the First World War was a time of critical transition for many
parties: the Allied victors (headed by the “Big Four”: Great Britain, France, the United States
and Italy), and the defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and the
Ottoman Empire/Republic of Turkey). Of particular importance, however, were the lands and
their inhabitants that were under the control of the losing side. These issues were discussed at
the Paris Peace Conference, which was convened over the period from January 18, 1919 to
January 21, 1920.
President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, one of the main attendees submitted his
famous document, ‘Wilson’s Fourteen Points’, which aimed to establish a more liberal and
diplomatic world based on the concepts of democracy, sovereignty, liberty, and self
determination.749 However, it was Britain and France, already major colonial powers, who
controlled the proceedings of the Peace Conference.750 Their prime ministers (David Lloyd
George of Great Britain and Georges Clemenceau of France), aided by their large delegations,
maneuvered and competed against each other to control the proceedings and to divide up the
lands and the colonies of the losing sides between them.
In addition to the decision about the formation of the League of Nations, five major peace
treaties resulted from the Paris Peace Conference. One of these, the Treaty of Sèvres, dated
August 10, 1920, dealt with the legacy of the Ottoman Empire.751 However, this treaty proved
unworkable when it was rejected by the Turkish side for what it considered to be onerous

749
Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919:Six Months that Changed the World, Random House, 2002, pp.495-6.
750
One of the other main attendees was Vittorio Orlando, the Prime Minister of Italy, in addition to
representatives from 32 countries and nationalities.
751
The other four treaties were; the Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, dealing with the legacy of Germany; the
Treaty of Saint-Germain, September 10, 1919, dealing with the legacy of Austria; the Treaty of Neuilly,
November 27, 1919 dealing with Bulgaria; and the Treaty of Trianon, August 10, 1920, dealing with Hungary.

239
conditions, including the significant loss of territory and internal control. Paul Helmreich offers
the following assessment:
The developments of 1919-20 created such turmoil in the Near East
that it is questionable whether any treatment drawn up in the winter
and spring of 1919-1920 could have brought anything approaching
long range stability and peace in the Near East. Given the
traditional policy attitudes of the Allies and their seeming inability
or unwillingness to take these new developments realistically into
account, the possibility of a stable peace virtually disappeared... By
the time the powers succeeded in formulating the treaty, its
provisions no longer applied to the situation in hand.752

As a result, the Treaty of Sèvres was renegotiated and was ultimately replaced by the Treaty of
Lausanne on July 24, 1923, which was negotiated and signed with the Republic of Turkey.
For the Near East, British and French intentions had been formulated prior to the War in
the secret Sykes-Picot bilateral agreement of 1916, which involved dividing the Arab lands of
Greater Syria and Iraq between Britain and France. The British and French, in a declaration
they circulated widely in Arabic, “conveniently discovered that their main goal in the war on
Ottomans had been ‘the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed
by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their
authority from the initiate and free choice of the indigenous populations.’”753 In reality, British
and the French acted as though the Middle East was theirs to quarrel over. They squashed any
consideration of “national” political demands, confining the matter to the much more limited
and vaguely phrased “protection of minorities”. Under the Treaty of Lausanne, these lands
were formally divided between these two colonial powers and brought under their control as
mandate states.

5.4.2 The Case for the Syriac Christians

At the Paris Peace Conference, representatives of different affected ethno-religious groups
were granted the opportunity to present their case before the Conference. The Syrian Orthodox
were represented by Archbishop Aphram Barsoum, Archbishop of Syria at the time. In his

752
Paul C. Helmreich, From Paris to Sevres, the Portion of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conference of 1919-
1920, Ohio University Press, 1974, p. 332.
753
Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919, Six Months that Changed the World, New York, Random House, 2003, pp.
386, 387.

240
Memorandum (see Appendix A5.1), Barsoum presented a six-point request that included a
measure of autonomy in Turkey, and recognition of, and compensation for, the loss of life and
property. He noted that “our nation apart from the persecutions inflicted upon it in the by-gone
days of the Red-Sultan Abdul-Hamid in 1895, has proportionately to its number suffered more
than any other nation whose fate was the cruel sword of the Turks and the dagger of their
brothers in barbarism the Kurds.” He specifically noted that the massacred included 90,000,
“Syriens” (Syrians) and 90,000 Nestorians and Chaldeans. Addressing the international
political arena, Barsoum bewailed the fact that “this ancient and glorious race which has
rendered so many valuable services to civilization should be so neglected and even ignored by
the European press and diplomatic correspondence” which talked about ‘Armenian Massacres’
while the right name should have been ‘The Christian Massacres’ since all Christians have
suffered in the same degree.” In asking for financial compensation and a reassurance for the
safety of his people against “criminal Turkey,” he also objected to “the projected establishment
of a Kurdish authority” and requested “the emancipation of the villoyet of Diarbekir (sic),
Bitlis, Kharpout, and Ourfa from the Turkish Yoke.”

5.4.3 Barsoum’s Attempt for a Dialogue with the British and the French
Prior to the presentation of his memorandum, Barsoum attempted to have an audience with the
British and French Foreign Ministers. In both cases he had little success. He wrote to Stephen
Pichon, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs on November 17, 1919, requesting a meeting.
He also wrote to Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Minister, on February 16, 1921, for the same
purpose.
The initiative with the French side set into motion a series of communications within the
corridors of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Review of these communications sheds
considerable light on the mode of French thinking during that crucial period in the history of
the Middle East. The following are some of the letters in question.
Mr. Goût of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported on the requested visit by
Barsoum in a note dated November 26, 1919,754 (See Appendix A 5.2 for full text). In
describing the visit, he recapitulates the historical rivalry between the Syrian Orthodox and the
Syrian Catholics, encapsulated at the monastery of Mar Elian, near Homs, which had been

754
De Courtois, pp. 233, 234., with images of the original document in pp. 322, 323.

241
recently transferred to the former by the Ottoman authorities. Describing Barsoum as “just
another of the intriguing priests the East abounds in,” Goût claims that the Patriarch, “seeing
that the French influence will soon be preponderant in Syria, now rushes over to us, forgetful
of the flattery with which he showered the Turks and the Germans.” Taking a superior
position, Goût says that “there is no need for concern..... his patriarchy and community are of
no real consequence.”755
It appears that the French could not see the dilemma of the Middle Eastern Christians
except through the narrow prism of religious affiliations. Barsoum’s request for recognition of
Christian rights, including those of his own church, was overlooked by Mr. Goût, who clearly
reflected the intra-Christian sectarianism, which his country had so persistently practiced
throughout the nineteenth century. Mr. Goût then goes on to state: “it does not seem possible
that we should take up the position against our protégés756 and the only thing to do is to
recommend to General Gouraud that he stays out of the affair, at least for now.” In the last
paragraph Mr. Goût demonstrates clear streaks of partisan politics coupled with Orientalist
arrogance and sheer disdain for a “small group of Christians.”
French preoccupation with sectarian divisions at a time of deep crisis is also evident
from the following confidential report on Barsoum’s youth757 (see Appendix A 5.3), which
had been requested by the French diplomatic services. This states that Barsoum had
converted to (traditional) Catholicism after studying with the Dominican Fathers at Mosul.
He subsequently went to Deir al-Za’faran where he returned to the language of his fathers
in the hope of becoming a bishop. This did not happen until 1920. He lived in Homs and
then in Damascus where he was “an ardent supporter of Emir Faisal.” He had accompanied
Patriarch Elias to Constantinople because he was “the only Jacobite prelate to speak
French.”
The inquiry again demonstrates that the French were more concerned about the
messenger than with the message. According to the report, the messenger Aphrem Barsoum
had been Catholic at one point. Like many other Syrian Orthodox school students of his age at
that time, he had attended the Dominican Fathers’ well-known school in Mosul. In 1905, at the
age of 18, he left the Dominican school and travelled to Deir al-Za‘faran, which he joined as a

755
Ibid.
756
Referring to the Syrian Catholics
757
De Courtois’s p, 235 is a translation of the original document whose image is given on p. 328.

242
monk.758 The other interesting observation was that “Mgr. Severius has proven an ardent
supported (sic) of Emir Faisal”, which to the French was a highly undesirable attribute.
Another French diplomatic report, a telegram from Charles Roux, dated November 7,
1919, repeats the apprehension about Barsoum’s affinity to Emir Faisal759 (see Appendix A
5.4). It states that Barsoum had left for Paris on the previous day using a French passport as
a”special protégé”. The report warns that “this Orthodox prelate was fairly closely connected
with Emir Faisal in Damascus, and that he tried very hard to woo the Arabs, even in his public
speeches.
Thus, the tone of warning and disapproval with which the French regarded Barsoum was
because of his non-Catholic affiliation and his pro-Arab nationalistic stance which, worse still,
included support for Emir Faisal, a “presumed protégé” of their British rivals. This again
shows the partisan intra-Christian policies, which were being played out in dealing with the
central issues of security for Oriental Christians following their horrendous ordeal during the
First World War.
Again regarding the rivalry between the French and the British, de Courtois provides an
insight into a further interesting incident: “on the Catholic side, Mgr. Rahmani came in person"
to the Paris Peace Conference. Before leaving Syria, a part of which was still under British
military occupation, Mgr. Rahmani had had to cheat in order to get out of the country, by
“having the Pope send for him to come to Rome, since the British would never have let him
leave otherwise.” As de Courtois notes, this little incident illustrates the tangible tension
between France and Great Britain on the Eastern Question.760
Barsoum’s attempt to seek a direct meeting with Lord Curzon, the British Foreign
Secretary, although wrapped in typical British diplomatic garb, fared no better than his attempt
to see his French counterpart. In the course of attending the Paris Peace Conference, Barsoum
visited London where he requested to see Lord Curzon. There is no indication that the visit
actually materialized. However, according to a letter dated February 16, 1921 from Patriarch
Elias III to Archbishop Davidson, head of the Church of England, a response to the request for
the visit was received from Curzon’s assistant, dated March 12, 1920, quoting Patriarch Elias

758
For Barsoum’s biography see Poulus Behnam, Poulus Behnam, Nafahat al-Khizam, Mosul, 1959, p. 22.
759
De Courtois’s p, 231 is a translation of the original document whose image is given on p. 318.
760
De Coutois, p209

243
III that “the interests of our nation will not be lost sight of when the moment for their
considerations arrives.”761

5.4.4 Barsoum’s Nationalist Position

The French accusation of Barsoum as being a supporter of Faisal and a promoter of the Arab
cause at the Paris Peace Conference merit some elaboration. That Barsoum was a promoter of
the Arab cause was a reality as is evident from a speech he made at the Paris Peace Conference
(see Appendix A 5.5) and is consistent with his background. Barsoum grew up in Mosul, a city
that was deeply rooted in Arabic tradition and culture, and with least attachment to Turkish
culture and influence. Though primarily Sunni Muslim in character, Mosul also embraced
Arabism towards the latter part of the Ottoman period,762 no doubt influenced in no small
measure by the nascent Pan-Arab cultural revival in Greater Syria in that period. The active
participation of the Christian intelligentsia in that revival and their prominent role in promoting
Arabism had reverberations in Iraq, all be it to a lesser extent, where many Christian
intellectuals joined their Muslim colleagues in the move towards independence from the
Ottoman rule. As an example of this trend, which was espoused by many Christian
intellectuals, one may cite from a case that closely relates to Barsoum’s immediate family
background. One of Barsoum’s maternal cousins, Thabit Abdulnour, headed one of the pro-
independence Arab nationalist societies, Jam‘iat al-‘Alam,763 which was formed in 1914.764
The society, whose membership included such eminent figures as Ali Jawdat al Ayoubi and
Mawlud Mukhlis,765 became particularly active during the Arab Revolt of 1916. In the course
of promoting the aims of the Revolt, the society’s leaders, with Thabit Abdulnour in the
forefront, made direct contact with Al- Sherif Al-Hussain.
But beyond home background, Barsoum, as an intellectual, residing in Syria where he
was archbishop of Syria and Lebanon, would have been well aware of the intellectual currents

761
Letter of Patriarch Elias III to Archbishop Davidson, dated 16th February 1921 (Davidson 199. f. 124)
762
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Al-Mosul wa al-Haraka al-‘Arabiyya al-Qawmiyya” (Mosul and the Arab Nationalist
Movement at the Turn of the Twentieth Century), in the Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol. 4, 129-144. Mosul:
University of Mosul Press, 1992.
763
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad notes that in order to avoid harassment by the Ottoman authorities, the founders of the
society gave it a name that could be read as al-‘Alam, meaning flag, as an indication for a new nation, or al-‘Iim
meaning knowledge
764
Ibid, pp. 138-139.
765
Ibid.

244
in that country and with the work of the pioneers of Arab cultural revival and nationalist
thought. His address before the Paris Peace Conference, see below, and his nationalist position,
while he was patriarch, all to his credit, support the accusation by the French that he was a
Faisal and an Arab nationalist supporter.
No doubt Barsoum’s encounter with Western indifference towards the ‘Christian
genocide’ on the one hand and towards the aspirations of the people of the Arab lands on the
other cemented his nationalistic vision. But these were not the only factors that affected
Barsoum, and indeed his subsequent community leaders, patriarchs and others. It was the
added comfort that after enduring four centuries of existence at a neglected margin of the
Empire under Kurdish tribal tyranny,766 his people were now in the milieu of the historically
more accommodating Arab cousins with whom they shared common cultural roots and
centuries of worthy cultural interactions.

5.4.5 Barsoum’s Address Before the Paris Peace Conference

In an interview with Paulus Behnam (later Archbishop Gregorius Paulus Behnam),767 Aphram
Barsoum reflected on his participation in the Paris Peace Conference. Below is my translation
of this reflection is given in Appendix A5.5. Addressing the Conference in French, Barsoum
expressed his support for World Peace and then vividly “described in detail the tragedies that
befell [his people].” At the conclusion of his speech he sensed no empathy for his people from
the attendees. He said, “I felt I was addressing rigid statues of dead stones” and left the
meeting feeling quite hopeless.
Following a meeting of a number of Free Arabs (Arabs seeking freedom), where,
together, a list was made of points to make to the Conference, he rose again to speak to the
Conference. He brought out the Arab cause and aspirations. He emphasized “that the Arabs
are Arabs whether they are Muslims or Christians,” and recounted some of the tragedies that
had occurred in Arab lands, concluding by stating “that the Arabs have a holy right to
freedom, independence and the life of honour for theirs is a great nation with an enduring
historic heritage and a vast contribution to human civilization from the oldest of times.”

766
Ignatius Aphram I Barsoum, History of Tur Abdin, pp.127-136.
767
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām (The Aromas of Lavender, or the Life of
Patriarch Aphram), Mosul, 1959, pp. 26-27.

245
Barsoum was reflecting the feeling of the majority of the Christians, particularly the exiled,
who found peace and safety among the historical co-inhabitants of their common homeland.
This last statement was met with acclaim from his Arab colleagues. It was in appreciation of
this nationalistic position that his Arab colleagues shouted “you are the ‘Bishop of Arabism,’
indeed you are the ‘Priest of Time.’”
The principal and influential participants in the Paris Peace Conference, Great Britain and
France, made no serious effort, if any at all, to punish the perpetrators of the Armenian and
Syrian ‘genocide’. They were preoccupied with dividing up the booty of the war between
them. They had the opportunity to develop humanitarian policies and strategies to prevent
repetition of this ‘genocide’, but showed no real interest in pursuing such a course. Had they
shouldered their moral and human responsibilities at that time, they might well have prevented
the larger genocide that was to come.
The Syrian Orthodox leadership, having become aware of the attitude of indifference
towards its central issues shown by the participants at the Paris Peace Conference and to its
pleadings for help and security, and with many of its people still living under Turkish rule,
settled back to its conventional philosophy of seeking peace and practicing compliance, as
faithful citizens of whatever country they found themselves. This was Patriarch Elias IIIs’
approach, as we will see next.

5.5 In the Upper Mesopotamian Homeland in the Aftermath of the War

5.5.1 The Patriarch Preaches Allegiance
In addition to being a period of major political transformation across Europe and the Middle
East, the period between the end of the First World War in 1918 and the proclamation of the
Turkish Republic (October 29, 1923)768 was a transitional phase during which different
minority groups still living in Turkey attempted to secure safer living conditions for their
members.
While Barsoum was making the case for his people at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919
and subsequently at the meetings in Lausanne in 1923, the Patriarch, mindful of the dangers
that still surrounded the remaining Syrian communities in Turkey, continued with his approach

768
This period may be extended to 1926 when the Mosul Question between Turkey and Great Britain was
resolved.

246
of pledging allegiance to the Ottoman, and after that to the Turkish, authorities. During his visit
to Urfa (Urhoy, Edessa) in 1919, he was criticized by some of his community members on
account of his plan to visit the Turkish governor of the city before visiting the British governor.
According to Abrohom Nuro769, who is originally from Urfa, and confirmed by Zakaria
Shakir770 (1972), the Patriarch reacted to this criticism with the advice: "My Son, let me do my
job. I know what I am doing. The English are guests, whereas the Turks are here to stay."771 It
is likely that as time passed, Patriarch Elias III became increasingly convinced of the
soundness of this approach, particularly after he realized that the Western countries were not
going to show much interest in the Syriac Christians beyond the bounds of their own interests.
Indeed, he often expressed solidarity with Turkish political elite such as Rauf Bey, Ismet Inonu
and Fevzi Cakmak, as his secretary Zakaria Shakir confirms in 1972:
…So when the Patriarch visits Turkish statesmen for the first time
…he speaks about and explicates his Turkish policy… ‘We, the
Syriac denomination, are loyal to the administration to which we are
subject.’…’We don’t have any links with Western nations.”772

The Patriarch’s conciliatory approach was based on a survival strategy and should be
viewed in the context of his own time and, particularly, based on his personal experience
during Sayfo. Consistent with this attitude, Patriarch Elias III maintained amicable relations
with Turkish political elites. His secretary Zakaria Shakir (1972) reports that the Patriarch had
three meetings in Ankara with Mustafa Kemal. Prior to his meeting with Mustafa Kemal on
February 9, 1923, Patriarch Elias III was interviewed by Celal Nuri, the owner of the
newspaper Ileri and a close ally of Mustafa Kemal. In this interview, the Patriarch made a
statement about his position on the future of Assyrians/Syriacs in the Turkish Republic:773
So far, the issue of minority rights has entered neither the minds nor
the dreams of the community I represent. We shall protest this very
vigorously. I, on behalf of my community, did not make any such
demand, nor do I make it now, nor shall I in the future. Süryaniler are

769
A well-known Syriac teacher and an active proponent of Syriac heritage, he was born Ibrahim Kahlaji in Urfa
in 1923, then migrated as part of the massive Edessan exodus of 1924. He was probably the first to Syriacize his
name, to Abrohom Nuro. He died in 2009, leaving behind a rich personal library (see: George Kiraz, “Abraham
Nuro,” Hugoye Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 12.1, 3-4 (2009).
770
Zakria Shakir was Patriarch Elias IIIs’ nephew (brother’s son) and personal secretary, see Athanasius Aphram
Barsoum, p. 59.
771
Atto, p. 90.
772
Ibid, pp. 88-89.
773
Ibid, p. 92 where background to this and to similar quotes are given in some detail. Ileri, 9 February 1923.

247
 the minority of the people who live within the boundaries of the
Misak-I Milli [National Oath]. They merely wish to live together with
the majority [Turks] in good times and in bad and to enjoy the
benefits of this…

No doubt, the loyalty that Patriarch Elias III so expressed reflected the insecurity and fear
that he felt; he had no leverage with which to negotiate the future of his people with Mustafa
Kemal. In the absence of any support from the Western Powers, he and his community were
simply at the mercy of the Turkish rulers. It is thus ironic to note that after the post-First World
War negotiations, the Syriacs, as a people, who had historically been recognized as a largely
semi-independent, self-managed community (millet) were now, at the conclusion of the Paris
Peace Conference, no longer protected by any treaty or established tradition.

5.5.2 The Expulsion of the Patriarchate from Turkey

In spite of his policy of loyalty, the stay of Patriarch Elias III in Turkey was becoming
untenable even before it was officially ended in 1924. This was part of a Turkish policy to
prevent any non-Muslims from holding any status in the country, and subsequently to get rid of
non-Muslim presence. In a speech in May 1924 Mustafa Kemal announced that religious
institutions constituted a discrepancy within a state which functioned on the basis of a single
jurisprudence. He declared unequivocally, according to Atto, that: "The Orthodox and
Armenian churches and Jewish synagogues which are based in Turkey should have been
abolished together with the Caliphate."774
Additionally, the fact that the Syrian Orthodox community had not been recognized as
a non-Muslim minority in the Treaty of Lausanne provided a pretext as well as a step toward
the removal of the Patriarchate. Certain events in 1924 and 1925 provided the Turks with a
final excuse. These events were the ‘Nestorian revolt’ in the Hakkari Mountains in 1924 and,
one year later, the support given by a few members of the Assyrian/Syrian community to the
Sheikh Said Revolt775 in 1925. The Kemalists utilized these events to eliminate any perceived

774
Atto, p.98 citing Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri. Volume III, Ankara, Atatürk Araştirma Merkezi, 1997, pp
102-103
775
For an early source see Sykes (1924: 473-74).

248
opposition. Atto reports that a letter in the Secret Archive of the Vatican776 reveals that 150
Assyrians/Syrians (both Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics) were deported from Midyad,
Inwardo, Anhel, Mzizah and Midin. Another hundred persons were deported from Azikh.
Despite the loyalty demonstrated by Patriarch Elias III, the Kemalists perceived the
Syrian Orthodox Church leadership as a potential threat that had to be eliminated. In 1924, an
official decree issued by the authorities prevented Patriarch Elias III of the right to use his
official (patriarchal) title in his communications with the authorities.777 An oral account given
by Chorbishop Gabriel Aydin (Bar Yawno), who was a pupil at Deir al-Za‘faran when the
Patriarch received the message to leave Turkey, states:778
…one day the governor of Mardin came to the Monastery to deliver
a telegram from Ataturk [Mustafa Kemal] which had been sent to
him [the governor]. The telegram read: ‘The clerical leader in the
black cassock [the Patriarch] should leave Turkey immediately and
should never ever return!”

Following this decree, Patriarch Elias III left Turkey in the spring of 1924779 and, with
this forced departure, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate lost the seat that had been its home
since Michael the Syrian (Michael Rabo) was inaugurated there as Patriarch in 1166.
From Deir al-Za‘faran the Patriarch travelled to Aleppo, where he consecrated a
church,780 then to Zahle (in Lebanon) before settling temporarily in Jerusalem. By an official
directive dated July 7, 1931,781 Patriarch Elias III was stripped of his Turkish citizenship on the
grounds that he had acquired Iraqi citizenship without seeking permission from the Turkish
authorities. As a consequence, he longer could maintain any direct relations with Turkey.
The Turkish authorities also prohibited Patriarch Aphrem Barsoum from re-entry into
Turkey on account of his stance at the Paris Peace Conference. A Turkish decree dated June 7,

776
Secret Archive of the Vatican (Archivi Nunziature Partigi). Busta 392, cited by Atto p. 98, Foot Note117.. See
also Luke (1925: 113) who mentions that the Patriarch was expelled from the Zafaran Monastery in spring of
1924.
777
Atto, p. 98 based on two sources: Israel Audo (2004) in Beth Sawoce and Bar Abraham (2009).
778
Atto, p. 99 reports that other according to oral information the governor of Mardin, Abdulfattah Baykurt Bey
(1923-1925), who had a close relationship with the Patriarch, informed the Patriarch that it would be better for
him to leave the country if he were not to forfeit his life.
779
Luke, Mosul and its Minorities, p. 113.
780
This is the Church of Saint Ephrem, which was constructed in the Sulaymania district of Aleppo from a
donation by the benefactor Salim Azar.
781
This document was signed by the President of Turkey (Mustafa Kemal), Prime Minister Ismet Inonu and other
cabinet members. See for this document: T.C. Devlet Arsileri Genel Mudurlugu, BCA- Basbakanlik Cumhuriyet
Arsivi, Basvekalet, 036/16/01/02, 17-1-18.

249
1937, also banned the bringing into Turkey of any publications "because of their dangerous
content."782
The actions by Turkey to eliminate the presence of a small church from its historical
roots in that country could not have been motivated by any perceived threat by that church that
was in fact known for its peaceful historical record. Rather, the church's expulsion was
prompted by the general policy of Turkification that saw Christians as unfit candidates for
citizenship. The next section provides a further amplification of this.

5.5.3 The Further Alienation of the Non-Muslim Minorities

The ‘official’ Turkish minority policy, as outlined in the Lausanne Treaty 924 of July
1923, incorporated the provision that non-Muslims would be allowed to exercise certain rights.
However, Turkey limited the application of the non-Muslim rights to the three largest minority
groups: the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jews.783 Although, as Oran notes,784 the Treaty
consistently used the term “non-Muslim,” nowhere in the 143 articles are the three groups
singled out. Smaller Christian groups (e.g., the Syriac Christians) were excluded from the
protection of many rights such as those rights which were spelled out in the Treaty. One of
these rights was the right given in Article 40 to “to establish, manage and control at their own
expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments
for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their
own religion freely therein.”785 An attempt by the Syrian Orthodox to start a Bible study as late
as 1949 met with frustration and failure.786 Oran reflects on the likely reasons for excluding the
Syriac Christians from obtaining the rights given to other non-Muslim minorities and offers a

782
Atto, p. 100, citing T.C. Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu, BCA- Basbakanlik Cumhuriyet Arsivi,
Basvekalet, 030/18/01/02. 75-50-1.
783
Baskin Orat, “The Minority Concepts and Rights in Turkey: The Lausanne Peace Treaty and Current Issues”,
in Human Rights in Turkey, Zehra Kabasakal Art (Ed.), University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, p. 38.
784
Ibid.
785
Fredrick A. Aprim, Assyrians: From Bedr Khan to Saddam Hussein Driving into Extinction the Last Aramaic
Speakers, Xlibris Corporation, 2006, p. 135.
786
Atto, p. 95 demonstrates how difficult it had become for the Syriac Orthodox Church to educate its members in
the liturgy and the Syriac language of its church when on the 19th of October 1949, Archbishop Dolabani applied
to the Turkish authorities (via the Governor of Mardin) to obtain permission to start a Bible course in the Za‘faran
Monastery. The correspondence between the Archbishop and the Turkish authorities illustrates the almost
insurmountable difficulties which Dolabani encountered when he made this application and how he eventually
had to give up after failing to make progress. The Turkish Ministry of Education set the condition that a
compulsory Turkish language class, a history class and a geography class be included in the curriculum of the
Syriac Bible course. See further for this correspondence, Akvuz (2005: 450-453).

250
possible explanation: “the lack of a kin-state that would serve as an advocate of these
groups.”787 However, as it turned out, even the recognized minorities did not fully enjoy the
rights agreed in the Treaty of Lausanne, for in time recognized minorities too found themselves
victim of legal and social discrimination and eventual expulsion from the country.788
Following the almost total annihilation of the Armenian and Syriac communities and the
forced mass-population exchange between Greece and Turkey, the policy of Turkification,
aimed at creating a homogenous Turkish nation. Thus, despite the declared secular nationalist
policy of the Turkish Republic, Islam became a central element in the discourses on
Turkishness. Poulton789 notes that Mustafa Kemal saw Christians as inappropriate candidates to
become "Turkified.”
As a consequence of the application of the Turkification policies of the state in the
1930s, all minorities were forced to change their surnames to Turkish ones, in accordance with
the Surname Law of 1934.790 Similarly, the names of Assyrian/Syriac villages were changed to
Turkish names at the beginning of the 1940s.791 This was in accord with the Turco-centric
focus, which totally ignored the heritage of the indigenous peoples of the land and had as its
prime concern the interests of the Turkish-speaking groups. Further, although the role of Islam
was downplayed by the state-based modernization that was vigorously pursued in the country,
religion remained the criterion for determining everyday relations. While Christians were
allowed to play a noticeable role in public office during the late Ottoman period in particular,
under Turkification they were practically banned from being public servants. One Syrian
individual, expressing the majority sentiment, reportedly complained: “I could not even
become a garbage collector!”792

787
Oran, 2007, p. 38.
788
Atto, p. 95 citing B. Oran (2004).
789
Hugh Poulton, Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent: Turkish Nationalism and Turkish Republic, New York: New
York University Press, 1997, pp.97-99.
790
See Atto, p. 101-102, where it is noted that the law prohibits the use of surnames which are related to ‘races
and nations other than Turkish’ (Guven 2006: 115). It also forbids the use of certain suffixes in surnames, such as
–yan, -of, -ef, -vic, -ic, is, -idis, -pulos, -aki, -zade, and –bin.
791
According to studies which have been conducted, the names of approximately 28,000 places have been
changed into Turkish names since the 1940s, when the Expert Commission for the Modification of Names (Ad
Degistirme Ihtisas Komisyonu) was established. See further Tuncel (2000) for the 1949 legislation pertaining to
the administration of cities (Il Idaresi Kanunu).
792
Atto, p.107, made in reference to Law 788 which regulated the employment of officials (Memurin Kanunu),
which was applied between 1926 and 1965.

251
 Thus, for the remaining Syriac Christians, the scene was set for the following decades
when more emigrations would, of necessity, occur. This time, in addition to North and South
America, new destinations were added. Western Europe –– initially Germany, but later
Sweden, Holland and other countries – became the new target and the hope for security in an
ever expanding diaspora.

5.6 Following the Exodus

5.6.1 Resettlement and Challenges
During and following the War, most of the Syriac Christians who had escaped the carnage
headed south to Iraq and Syria. Those who headed to Iraq were mainly from Jezireh, Siirt,
Diyarbakir and parts of Tur Abdin and generally sought refuge in the city of Mosul and in its
environs. 793 The majority of the deportees/emigrants headed south to northern Syria where
they settled, at least initially, along the belt from Aleppo, in the west, to the border with Iraq.
In addition to Aleppo, this belt included Ras-al ‘Ain, Qamishli, Malkiyah and Hasaka. These
and other recipient towns and villages became significant settlement centres for the
newcomers. From these locations many moved on to various other Syrian cities: Damascus,
Hama, Homs, as well as to Beirut and Zahle. Those fleeing Adana in 1919 generally found
refuge to the south in Tripoli in northern Lebanon. Jerusalem and Bethlehem generally
attracted emigrants from Azikh and its surrounding villages. Further waves of migration from
Cilicia arrived in 1922 as well as in 1933.794 The annexation of Alexandretta (Iskanderun) by
Turkey in 1938 resulted in further waves of emigrant to Syria and Lebanon.
Many of those who initially reached Lebanon and the northern Syrian coast immigrated to
North America. Fewer refugees went to South America, generally to Brazil and Argentina.795
The presence of Syrian communities in North America, particularly in the United States, dates
back to the late nineteenth century, when many silk weavers from Diyarbakir settled in New
Jersey. Generally, new immigrants followed in the footsteps of previous immigrants from the
same town or neighbourhood. Thus, those from Kharput generally followed the trail of people
793
In the 1926 deliberations concerning the future of the province of Mosul, Britain countered Turkey’s claim by
citing the presence of large Syrian/Assyrian and Kurdish minorities.
794
Poulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām, p. 29.
795
In an interview with the writer in July 2013, the Syrian Orthodox Archbishop of Jerusalem, Murad Malke, who
had served in South America recalled that many of the Syriac immigrants recited their ancestors stories intending
to immigrate to North America but found themselves in South America, either as a result of their ignorance of the
existence of two Americas or due to abuse by travel organizers.

252
from their previous town to Massachusetts, and those from Tur Abdin established residence in
Rhode Island, as workers in local mills, while others settled in Michigan. Those who headed
north to Canada generally settled in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Clergy were assigned from Jerusalem
to look after the immigrants as early as 1907.
Many of those who made northern Syria their new home worked on the land, while others
pursued local trades. Land ownership, especially on a large scale, was controlled by the
mandate authorities, which facilitated land acquisition and farming. Both in Syria and Iraq, the
new immigrants experienced an atmosphere of safety that allowed them to integrate with ease
into the recipient societies. This situation contrasted sharply with the dire conditions they had
experienced in Anatolia, particularly since 1895.796
This new feeling of security may be attributed to two main reasons. First, they were now
essentially living in an Arab environment, especially in cities, under a discourse of Arab
tolerance that Muslims and Christians came to believe in and to promote. When the victims of
the massacres arrived in Mosul, which was still under Ottoman/Turkish rule, they were
welcomed by the residents and were, including the Armenians, assisted to settle in the city and
its environs. This outlook had been cultivated and practiced from the early rules of both the
Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates. Second, the Mandate rules in Iraq and Syria offered stable
governance that permitted the new immigrants to begin to mend their shattered lives. The fact
that these immigrants were readily granted citizenship in the new countries added to this sense
of security. In addition, they enjoyed certain rights and facilities that were almost unknown to
them previously; civil rights, freedom of worship without harassment, public education and
government-based employment.
The sense of accommodation and welcome provided to the Syrian Orthodox, Syrian
Catholic and Chaldean immigrants in both Syria and Iraq during the Mandate years were
maintained after both countries gained their independence: 1932 in the case of Iraq and 1943 in
the case of Syria. The course of immigration and settlement for the Assyrians (members of the
Church of the East), however, followed a different path, one that was based on demanding
autonomy, and which ended in the tragic massacres of 1933 in Simele, in Northern Iraq.797

796
Al-Hikmat, Third Year, Nos. 3 and 4, March and April 1929, pp. 113-122.
797
For more details see R. Stafford, The Tragedy of the Assyrians, 2006; J. Joseph, The Modern Assyrians of the
Middle East, 2000; E. Shimun, The Assyrian Tragedy, Xlibris, 2010; Fredrick A. Aprim, Assyrians: From Bedr
Khan to Saddam Hussein, 2006.

253
5.6.2 The Exodus of the Last Edessans -The Last Caravan from Urfa
One of the remarkable cases of emigration/deportation following the War was that of the
Christians of Urfa (Ruha, Edessa) in 1924. Urfa, located approximately 200 km to the east of
Mardin, had a post-War Christian community consisting of nearly five thousand, mostly Syrian
Orthodox Christians with a minority of Armenians, Chaldeans and Syrian Catholics. The
Armenians, who totalled nearly five hundred, and who were all that were left of a pre-War
Armenian community of 25,000, 798 also joined the exodus. All the rest had been slaughtered
during the War.
In the spring of 1924, this entire Christian community emigrated en masse in one caravan
journey heading south towards Aleppo, leaving behind their homes and entire belongings. In
his Al Qafila al-Akhira (The Last Caravan),799 Namiq, who was ten at that time, describes the
exodus citing witness accounts and stories he collected later from elders. He stresses the
feeling of insecurity and fear that prevailed on the eve of the exodus and the sense of great
urgency that surrounded its execution. Namiq also emphasized the air of intrigue around the
reasons for this unprecedented event. In fact, parents, relatives and elders hardly ever
subsequently talked about it, preferring to hide behind some form of amnesia with regard to the
reasons for it and the circumstances surrounding it. All the same Namiq, drawing on discreet
rumours by elders, hints that the emigration likely occurred as recompense for unfulfilled
obligations by a few of the community elders in commercial dealings with Muslim elites in the
town. Sato, who studied the exodus and the re-settlement of the Urfallis, was unable to find a
definitive cause for the emigration, opting for characterizing it as a “Selective Amnesia.”800 In
reviewing the history of the massacres and oppressions of Christians of Urfa in the period 1915
to 1924, Sato brings into attention the 1920 battle between the French, who had occupied Urfa,
and the Turkish troops. As a result of this battle the French withdrew after incurring
humiliating losses. Elements of the Armenians had reportedly sympathized or even joined the
French in battle, and this withdrawal by the French exposed the Armenian community to a

798
Rhetore, p. 70.
799
Yusuf Namiq, Al Qafila al-Akhira, (Aleppo: Dar al-Ruha, 1991).
800
Noriko Sato, “Selective Amnesia: Memory and History of the Urfalli Syrian Orthodox Christians,” in
Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 2005. 12:3, 315-333.

254
period of further slaughter. Subsequently, the Syrian Orthodox feared that they, too, would be
subjected to a similar fate.801
While more than one reason might have been at the root of this amnesia, the
overwhelming factor was likely the psychological need, as a survival mechanism, to forget the
past when their historical right had been shattered. Thus, as Sato notes: “their Turkish past
exists in a shadowy silence.”802 However, what might have been at the root of the amnesia was
likely the sad realization that they, the heirs of the great city of Edessa, venerated as the first
kingdom of Syriac Christianity, the center of the Syrian Church, the birthplace of classical
Syriac literature, the Blessed City, as stated in the fifth century teaching by Addai,803 had
handed it over to the aggressors. Their last two churches were taken over - one was used as a
mosque, and the other as a workshop and a stable.
Archbishop Barsoum showed special kindness to the people of Ruha as they flocked to
Aleppo in 1924. He felt extreme sadness as he witnessed their arrival at Aleppo about which he
said:
Oh my God where are the Ruha’s monastic cells, monasteries,
monks. Such have been the events of time and the swords of
conquest and the policies of the tyrants, the plots of the greedy, the
lapse of the mind, the errors of management, that caused Ruha to
topple from progress to decadence and to swing between migration
and mingling, thus Syriac was replaced with foreign tongues.804 The
tempest of our time has flung Ruha’s remnants to one of the
quarters of Shahba’ (Aleppo); they came with the feeling of shame,
we felt compassion towards them as the mother does to its infant
child.805

Barsoum visited the exiles from Ruha often, encouraging them to build within
themselves the spirit of zeal to overcome their predicament. He followed up carefully
their steps of settlement in Syria and of “becoming citizens who are faithful to God and
to their new homeland in which they should not feel strangers."806

801
Ibid, p. 320.
802
Ibid, p. 323.
803
J.B. Segal, The Blessed City, Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1970; The Teaching of Addai, translated by George
Howard, Ann Arbor MA: 1981.
804
The Syrians of Ruha no longer spoke Syriac; they spoke Turkish and Armenian.
805
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām, p. 30.
806
Ibid.

255
 In their exodus, those last Edessans took with them what they could of the movable
cultural heritage, including a few historical books. One of these was the oldest known copy of
the Chronicle written by the twelfth century Michael the Syrian. This historical treasure
remained in the custody of one of the community elders until it was lodged in a safe in St.
Ephrem’s Church in Aleppo. Together with others attending a cultural event in Aleppo in
2008, I had the particular honour of viewing this document.807
As the French mandate in Syria neared its end, a modest number of immigrants crossed
from Syria to Lebanon under the perception that Lebanon with its strong Christian presence
offered a greater measure of safety in addition to providing an easier access to foreign travel.

5.6.3 Help Arriving from Expatriates

The deportees and emigrants lived under difficult economic conditions in their places of
refuge. Having left their properties and possessions behind, they eked out an existence under
very difficult conditions. Even though the recipient countries extended a sincere welcome to
them, these countries and their resident communities were themselves under difficult economic
conditions after the War.
Having always been materially as poor and needy as the communities it served and from
which it was derived, the church could not provide financial help for the task of resettlement.
Its awqaf (religious endowments) in Turkey were in ruins, with 156 of its churches and
monasteries in ruins (see Table). The awqaf it had in Jerusalem barely provided a living for the
few monks at Monastery St. Marks.808 Thus, attention turned to the Syrian Orthodox
communities that had been immigrating to the New World since 1895 and in some cases a few
years earlier. These communities had maintained close ties with the old country, where most
social and cultural activities revolved around the church and the community. In 1899 a group,
principally originating from Diyarbakir, formed an association to promote education among its
fellow community members in the homeland. This association came to be known as TMS
(Taw-Meem-Simkat) which stands for “Taraqi Madrashto Suryoyto” (the Syriac School for

807
This historical document was subsequently imaged and published by Gorgias Press in 2009 under the title The
Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, Edessa, Aleppo Syriac Codex, and has recently been translated into English by
Matti Moosa, and published by Beth Antioch in 2014.
808
Its traditional appellation “Convent” is commonly replaced with “Monastery.”

256
Progress).809 This group expanded in membership and in the scope of its nationalist aspirations,
particularly when Na‘um Fa’iq, a nationalist and an intellectual who immigrated to America in
1912 joined the association.810 The association became a gathering that was increasingly
encouraged and inspired by zeal and nostalgia to help the communities in the homeland.
Through the efforts of this association a much needed orphanage and school was set up in
Adana in the province of Cilicia, in southern Turkey, in 1919, when this province was under
French control. However, because of increasingly difficult conditions in Turkey, and with
encouragement from Patriarch Elias III, the orphanage was moved to Beirut in 1921, where it
continued to provide the essential services of looking after orphans and their schooling. It also
fulfilled an important need in providing candidates to serve church services as deacons and
priests, for the new communities that had settled throughout Syria. In fact the Beirut
Orphanage became a symbol of the support that the early and the later emigrants to the New
World continued to provide to their homeland communities. In 1923, the orphanage and
associated school were moved to a larger facility that had been specifically constructed for this
purpose in the Musaitbeh district of Beirut. A larger facility was later constructed in Beirut in
1928. The T.M.S association continued its support in the succeeding decades through its
expanding branches in the United States. The archival records indicate that the community in
America was also supplying funds for the construction of the orphanage in Deir al-Za‘faran as
well as the one in Adana.811

5.6.4 Exploring the Prospects of Foreign Aid

In the 1920s, the Church made an attempt to seek financial aid from the Anglican Church and
from the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. In the case of the Anglican Church, the aim
was to bring some life into the Syrian Patriarchate Education Fund , which had been
established following the visit of Patriarch Peter III to England in 1874 to1875, and which had
been dormant since the early 1890s (see Chapter Three). My search through the Church’s
archival material has uncovered three letters that are relevant to the question under discussion.

809
Ashur Giwargis and Matay Arsan, “Brief History of (Taw Meem Simkat) TMS., Assyrian National Schools”,
Assyrian Star Magazine, Sept. 2006.
810
See Chapter Six.
811
Archival Document 40M-24/38-181 reply to a letter dated 27/5/1920 to Dolabani.

257
The letters clearly show the lack of real willingness to help a devastated Oriental church that
had fallen victim to unspeakable aggression.
The first archival letter812 is a reply from Priest Arthur Henry Finn, writing on
behalf of the Education Committee that was associated with the Fund. Finn’s letter
appears to be in reply to a letter from Patriarch Elias III dated “1st Tishreen in the past
year”.813 Finn’s letter attaches a bank draft for 181 pounds and sixteen shillings,
marking the closing of nearly thirty year old dormant account. Further, as would be
noted from the text, he also requested an acknowledgement of a rather obscure nature
listing “precisely the names of the children and of the teacher who will profit by the
good will of the Christians in our country …” A facsimile of this letter is included in
Appendix B, Document P1100039.
The second archival letter814 is from the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed to Patriarch
Elias III in Constantinople. The letter, dated March 2, 1921, is in response to a detailed letter
from the Patriarch dated February 16, 1921. The texts of the two letters are given hereinafter
in chronological order.
i) The letter by Patriarch Elias III dated 16th February 1921:815
The patriarch provides a brief account of the losses incurred by his
community in Turkey and alludes to the attempts made by his
deputy to the Paris Peace Conference to meet with Lord Curzon. He
expresses appreciation for the assurance given by a representative
of the British government that “the interests of (our) nation will not
be lost sight of when the moment for their consideration arrives.”
The Patriarch then proceeds to ask the Archbishop to mediate at the
London Conference that was about to be held, for help in the
restoration of churches that had been destroyed, and in advancing
the call for the security of his community in the Turkish territories.
This was in essence a request that embodied faith in the addressee’s
ability as well as the willingness to act

ii) The response by the Archbishop of Canterbury came in a letter dated March 2, 1921.816 In
his response the Archbishop of Canterbury states that he himself has no “direct power or
voice” but hopes that Britain will do all that it can to aid the Syriac Orthodox. However, he

812
Archival Document P1100039.
813
Finn’s letter does not specify which “Tishreen”, Tishreen Awal (October), or Tishreen Thani (November).
814
Archival Document No. P110043. A facsimile of the letter is given in Appendix B
815
Letter of Patriarch Elias III to Davidson, 16th February 1921 (Davidson 299. f. 124).
816
Archival Document No. P110043

258
fears that such help may be more limited in scope than he would have liked due to “graver and
more anxious” conditions. His reply carried political overtones that related to questions about
the minorities in Turkey that were still being raised in the Paris Peace Conference at that time.
However, coming after similar responses over the previous thirty years, it caused the Syrian
Orthodox Church to be apprehensive about any meaningful future interaction with the English
Church in the future.
Despite the above, Archbishop Barsoum made one more attempt at seeking aid in 1927
on his way to America. This time, too, the response was negative, as can be gauged from the
strongly worded letter Barsoum addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
The ordinary expression “I will try”, and “I am sorry”, and “I
regret” intimidate me. I regret very much that our church cannot
engage the attention of the Episcopal Church and my three missions
in 1913, 1920 and 1927 have been unsuccessful. . .817

The third archival letter818, with the text below, is dated July 25, 1928, and addressed to
Patriarch Elias III from the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The
letter was a reply to one delivered by Archbishop Severius Ephram Barsoum while on a
pastoral and academic visit to the United States. Here, John G. Murray, the Presiding Bishop of
the Protestant Episcopal Church of America expresses a desire for close contact with the Syriac
Orthodox church appreciating that its “long history of good works and sad martyrdom of your
church and people has always won us to a desire for a closer contact with a Church that could
be humble in prosperity and patient under adversity.”
Yet the Presiding Bishop of the named church regrets that the request for help was
being made “when the country is facing grave financial difficulties.”
This response, coming from a prominent church in the richest country of the world, in
replying to a request for help from the smallest church in the Middle East, one that had been
devastated by massacres and displacement, is remarkable for its apparent lack of real concern.
Taken together with the responses from the Anglican Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church
came to the inevitable conclusion that, as a church which had lived in complete reliance on
itself throughout its long challenging history, it would have to continue to do so in the modern
age as well.

817
Letter of Barsoum to Davidson, 19th May 1928 (J. A. Douglas)
818
Archival Document No. P1100127. For a facsimile see Appendix B.

259
 Archbishop Barsoum, who had also seen firsthand the attitude of the West regarding the
issues relating to the Syriac Christians at the Paris Peace Conference, would have likely not
been surprised by these responses. Most likely it would have been Patriarch Elias III, who
might have had more faith and hope for help from the Western Christians, who would have
initiated and pressed for these attempts in seeking help. It was he who having noted the
outcome would have likely been the one most disappointed with the reality.

5.7 Re-Building Church Institutions

The Church lost 155 monks and priests and seven bishops and vicars (see Table) in the
massacres, not counting over ninety thousand faithful victims by the war. In the aftermath of
these massacres and mass displacement of the survivors, Patriarch Elias III moved to re-assign
the survivors of his clergy for services in various areas of settlements in Syria, Iraq, Palestine
and Lebanon, in addition to attending to the remnant beleaguered communities in Turkey. As a
first step, he ordained nine bishops in the period from 1923 to 1927,819 a great many within
such a limited period.
It was also important to re-establish some form of training facility for the much needed
new ecclesiastic cadre. Attention for this turned to the orphanage school in Beirut, described
before, as one potential source for student candidates. The Diocese of Aleppo was revitalized
to provide help in the settlement of the new immigrants who flocked to this diocese,
particularly those who had recently been arriving from Urfa. St. Ephrem’s Church, which, as
noted earlier, had been constructed in Hay al-Sulaymania in the City by the benefactor Saleem
‘Azar, was consecrated by Patriarch Elias III on December 7, 1925.820 The seminary provided
Syriac language and liturgical teaching. Yuhanna Dolabani, who had distinguished himself

819
This list of the ordained bishops appeared in Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyyah (The Patriarchal Journal) No. 1,
1933, p. 6. The list comprised the following:
Gregorius Gibrael on March 12, 1923, for Jerusalem,
Qlimis Yuhanna on March 12, 1923, for Deir Mor Matta,
Iwanis Yuhanna on September 24, 1923 for the Seat (Deir al- Za‘faran),
Yulius Elias on September 24, 1923, as General Bishop,
Timotheos Tuma on October 1, 1923, for Tur Abdin,
Dionysius Michael on October 11, 1926 for Kottayam, India,
Diosqorius Tuma on October 11, 1926, for the Cannaniates, India,
Timotheos Augin on May 2, 1927 for Kundnat-India, and
Qorilos Michael on October 11, 1926, as General Bishop.
820
Al-Hikmat, 1927/1928, II, No.1, p. 44; Athnanasius Barsoum, pp. 48, 49.

260
from an early age in promoting the Syriac language, was assigned to administer the start of this
school, initially in Adana and then in Beirut.

5.7.1 The Dawn of a New Freedom – Welcoming the Patriarch in Mosul

Patriarch Elias III moved his temporary patriarchal seat from Jerusalem to Mosul in early
1928. Church-based literature does not offer an explanation of the reason for this move. The
journey, which started on December 16, 1927, turned out to be an extensive pastoral tour that
included Haifa, Beirut, Zahle, Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Deir al-Zur, and Sinjar821 before ending
in Mosul on January 6, 1928. Patriarch Elias III was given a tumultuous reception as he entered
Iraq coming from Syria, and then proceeded to Mosul. The freedom of public expression
demonstrated by the reception he received upon his entry to Mosul contrasted sharply with the
atmosphere of oppression that was prevailing in Turkey at that time, and may be worth noting.
The following is my translation of part of the account of this reception, given in Al-Hikmat. 822

When the news of his beatitude’s arrival in Sinjar January 4, 1928

reached Mosul, the whole of the taifah (community) prepared to
welcome him in a manner that befitted his esteemed status. For this
purpose it sent a welcoming delegation to Sinjar that consisted of the
scholar, Ni‘mmat Allah Denno, and Messrs Stephan Jerjis, Khadhouri
Abdul Noor, Nassir Sarsam and others. On the morning of January 6
the entourage of his holiness departed Sinjar. Additional welcoming
notables joined the entourage as it travelled towards Mosul, headed by
Mor Athanasius Tuma Kassir, Archbishop of Mosul, priests, monks
and dignitaries that included Dr. Abdul-Ahad Abdul Noor…. Before
the entourage arrived in Tal-‘Afar,823 cars carrying delegates from
other Christian tawaif arrived in Tal-‘Afar to join the entourage:
Armenians, Chaldeans, Syrian Catholics and Protestants.824 Upon
reaching the outskirts of Mosul, his Holiness was transferred to an
automobile that was specifically provided to carry him ceremoniously
into the City. His vehicle was followed by 217 other vehicles, followed
by many on horses and pedestrians. A large police contingent was
provided to facilitate the ceremonial procession through the city. More
than one thousand students, male and female, holding olive branches,

821
A town in north-western Iraq, near the Syrian border, around 125 kms from Mosul.
822
Al-Hikmat, Vol II, 1927/1928, p. 155-162, and 211.
823
A town on the route to Mosul located around 70 kms from it.
824
In 1915 -1916, when Elias was the Archbishop of Mosul, he welcomed and provided assistance to the
survivors of the massacres who were arriving in Mosul and its environs on a daily basis at that time, irrespective
of their denominational affiliation. The Armenians, who suffered most, were particularly appreciative of that help,
an appreciation that they exhibited during the reception, Al-Hikmat, Vol II, 1927/1928, p. 161.

261
 deacons in their white vestments, and scouts beating on drums, stood
on both sides of the road leading to the church, as priests carrying a
large cross welcomed his holiness as he entered the church.

The richness of the reception and the sense of freedom felt and enjoyed by those taking
part was in sharp contrast with the oppressive mood that had prevailed in Turkey for a long
time. The freedom displayed in Mosul with its conservative Muslim background was equally
present or even more pronounced, throughout Syria, Lebanon and Palestine at that time.

5.7.2 Patriarch Elias III in Mosul then in India

In his as yet still temporary office in Mosul, Patriarch Elias III remained in particularly close
constant contact with Jerusalem, where St Mark’s Monastery was becoming an important
ecclesiastic centre. Priest-monk Dolabani had moved to it from Beirut in late November/early
December 1927825. In Jerusalem, Dolabani was assisted by priest monk Samuel Yashu, who
had been appointed an administrator at the monastery.826
Dolabani took an active part and directed the cultural activities at the Monastery: teaching
at its seminary,827 editing and re-issuing school curricula for the dioceses,828 re-printing of
liturgical books,829 and contributing articles for publication in the Al-Hikmat journal. Al-
Hikmat, a religious, literary and historical monthly review,830 first appeared in 1913/1914. It
was printed at, and issued from, Deir al-Za‘faran. However, it stopped being issued during the
War years. The conditions that prevailed after the War delayed its resumption until 1927,
when, with encouragement from Patriarch Elias III, it was re-issued from Jerusalem, with its
second year being 1927/1928.831 Earlier, one of the two printing presses at Deir al-Za‘faran
was imported and re-installed at St. Mark’s Monastery.832 This printing facility proved vital in
printing liturgical material requested by the different dioceses. Patriarchal encyclicals were

825
As per Archival Document J- 0349, dated November 23, 1927 and J- 0351, dated January 16, 1928
(Gregorian).
826
As per Archival Document J- 0348, dated February 11, 1927.
827
As per Archival Document J- 0353, dated June 12, 1928 and 0354 dated July 10, 1928.
828
As per Archival Document J- 0364, dated October 21, 1929.
829
As per Archival Document J- 0363, dated February 11, 1927. In this instance Husoye and Bar Ma‘dani books
were requested.
830
As per title page of journal.
831
Al-Hikmat, Vol. II, St. Mark’s Syrian Orthodox Convent (Monastery), Jerusalem, 1927/1928.
832
I was able to see this long retired printing press during my visit in search of archival documents at the
Monastery in July 2013.

262
printed and sent out, thus marking the first time the patriarch was able to address his flock on
certain occasions, particularly the pre-Lent Message.

5.7.3 The Mar Matti Synod of 1930 833

One of the initial important landmarks on the road to revival was the convening of a
synod to regulate the life in the church and to encourage lay participation in its affairs. This
took place in 1930 in Mar Matti Monastery near Mosul. Although synods had prior to that been
convened, they were usually for the purpose of the election of a new patriarch or for enacting
the occasional law. Further, due to travel difficulties, they were not usually fully attended.834
Saka notes that important prior synods had been: the Synod held in the Monastery of Mar
Barsoumo in 1555 during the patriarchate of Athanasius VI (1138-1166); and the Synod of
Hitakh in 1523 during the patriarchate of Abdullah I (1521-1567).835
The Mar Matti Synod, which was convened over the period October 11 to 25, 1930 Julian
(October 24 to November 7, 1930 Gregorian), passed 41 resolutions that covered various facets
of church activities and clergy duties. It also enacted a general parish (lay) council law to
regulate the shared responsibilities between parish bishops and the elected representatives of
the community. In addition to bishops, the Mar Matti Synod was attended by lay dignitaries
that included representatives from the dioceses of Mosul, Deir Mar Matti, Syria, Aleppo,
Jerusalem, and America. These were: N‘imatallah Denno, Abdul Ahad Abdulnour, Elias
Sha‘ya, Antonious Khoury, Khacho Jirjis and Abboud Hazo.
Some of the Synod resolutions of particular interest here are the following:
 The need to coordinate between the liturgies adopted by various regions that had
seen significant divergence over the decades and centuries. A committee was
formed for this arduous task that comprised Aphram Barsoum, Yuhanna Dolabani
and Ni‘matallah Denno (Article 4).
 Recognition of the need to work on documenting by writing and sound the Beth
Gaz (the traditional melodies of the various historical schools of Edessa, Mardin
and Tikrit (Tigrit)) (Article 5).
 A decision to print various liturgical books and to perform careful translation of
their contents to Arabic (Article 6).
 Emphasis on the teaching of the Syriac language in Church-run schools (Article
16).

833
Al Hikmat, Vol IV, pp. 513-530.
834
Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra, Vol. IV, Aleppo, pp. 142-144.
835
Ibib.

263
  Various articles to modernize church prayers and to encourage lay participation in
church affairs.

5.7.4 Patriarch Elias III Terminates his Journey in India

Not long after the conclusion of the Mar Mattai Synod, Patriarch Elias III embarked on a
journey to India. The journey, which commenced from Mosul on February 6, 1931, was in
response to an invitation by the British Viceroy in India to resolve an outstanding recurring
issue of ecclesiastic leadership (see Chapter Three). Patriarch Elias III was accompanied by
Bishops Abachi, priest monks Qiriaqos and Yashu of Jerusalem, Zakaria Shakir, his secretary,
and Elias Khadouri, a lawyer. In the course of that journey, while on a difficult mission trying
to get peace between warring factions 836 he suffered a heart attack and died on February 18,
1932. He was the first Syrian Orthodox patriarch to die in India. He was buried at St. Stefans’
Church in Maninkara.837
Patriarch Elias III led the Syrian Orthodox Church community through the most troubling
period in several centuries in its history. He was endowed with tremendous wisdom and
compassion, two qualities that were most needed in those troubling times. With these qualities
he prepared the church for the next stage of its modern history and renaissance. This next stage
demanded additional qualities: a more ambitious vision and greater resolve. This is the subject
of the next chapter.
5.8 Concluding Remarks
1. Syrian Orthodoxy, already weakened by centuries of decline and over a century of
conversions to Catholicism and Protestantism was, along with other Christians, the victim
of what has been increasingly regarded as a genocide that eradicated nearly half of its
population in the Middle East. This was a ratio that was higher than that suffered by the
other Syriac Christians. As a result, many doubted whether Syrian Orthodoxy would
survive these colossal losses, particularly given that such doubts existed even before the
genocide. Thus, as the first centennial commemoration of Sayfo approaches, the story of
the survival of Syrian Orthodoxy remains remarkable.
2. Unaided by the outside world well before Sayfo (see Chapter Three), Syrian Orthodoxy
fared no better after Sayfo, when it was attempting to heal the wounds of its stricken

836
See Chapter Three.
837
Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyah (The Patriarchal Journal) Vol. 1, 1933, p. 6.

264
 communities, all despite appeals for external help. The reasons for the absence of help were
likely, once again, essentially that this group was too small to be politically significant or
too unyielding to the pressure to join a Western Christian order.
3. While the losses of the Syrian Orthodox were proportionally larger than those of the other
Syriac churches and communities, there was an element of paradox in what transpired. This
was in the fact that, in the hour of need, her “sisters” who had been “protégées” of Western
orders shared its fate in the sword unaided by their protectors. This must have given the
stricken Syrian Orthodox a lift of morale to some extent in that, in spite of their weakness
at the end, they were not alone;- it was Christianity itself, not any particular denomination
within it that determined their fate before the sword.
4. A further paradox may be perceived from the fact the deportation and exodus from the
homeland offered the refugees, once they overcame the initial shock and were somewhat
settled, a climate of safety they had always lacked. The new environment presented the
newcomers with an opportunity for revival that would not have been available had they
remained in the oppressive homeland environment in Ottoman Turkey.
5. The proceedings and the outcome of the Paris Peace Conference were essentially focused
on the victors dividing up the war gains among themselves. Under this climate all hopes for
justice for the victims of the genocide and for the rights of the survivors were relegated to
low priorities that effectively rendered them meaningless.
6. In the immediate post-war period, the Syrian Orthodox Church, led by Patriarch Elias III
and Archbishop Aphram Barsoum, in their different ways, laboured to provide
compassionate leadership and demonstrated resolve to commence a period recovery,
revival and renaissance. Both were far-sighted leaders who were aware of the constraints of
their immediate environment and proceeded wisely forward.
7. Patriarch Elias III, very much aware of the plight of his people who were still living in
Turkey, followed a policy of accommodation and submission towards the new Turkish
leadership. Barsoum, then Archbishop of Syria and Lebanon, had already concluded that
the future of his church and people lay within the Arab social and cultural environment to
which it had contributed such a great deal many centuries earlier. This was consistent with
his instinctive pro-Arab nationalist background and leaning. It was also reinforced by his
negative experience in dealing with Western Powers in Paris and with Western churches.

265
 CHAPTER SIX
SYRIAN ORTHODOXY AT THE THRESHOLD OF ITS SECOND RENAISSANCE

6.1 General
The twelfth and the thirteenth centuries have generally been recognized as forming an era of
“Syriac renaissance.”838 That era witnessed the literary output of three outstanding Syrian
Orthodox scholars: Dionysius Bar Salibi (d.1075), Jacob Bar Shakko (Al-Bartilli) (d.1241) and
Gregory Bar Hebraeus (d.1286). This period also bequeathed to us two important chronicles,
one by the renowned historian Michael the Syrian (d.1199) and one that came to be identified
as the Anonymous 1234,839 largely believed to have been written and completed in that year by
a monk from the historically famous Syriac City of Edessa.
In the fourteenth century the Syrian Orthodox and other Oriental Christians entered a
period of over five centuries of hardship and decline that terminated with the tragic events of
World War I for a great many, including in particular the Syrian Orthodox. Despite these
tragedies the Syrian Orthodox witnessed a remarkable revival during the first half of the
twentieth century which in turn paved the way for a greater revival in the succeeding decades.
In Chapter Five consideration was given to the rehabilitation of those communities that had
been devastated by the events of the War in Anatolia. In this chapter attention will be focused
on studying the revival, which came to be reviewed by many as a second renaissance. This
revival had two aspects: one related to the Church and the other to its community. Given their
historical inseparable identity and fate, the advances experienced by one branch had a direct
impact on, and formed an incentive to, the other. Despite this positive interaction each of the
two grew under its own specific potentials and emerging personalities. Both the church, as an
institution, and the community made major steps forward from the early 1930s on, despite the
economic and the socio-political difficulties caused by the two World Wars, which had
significant impact on the pace of recovery. In the course of this revival the Church in question
made education of its clergy a major priority. Other priorities included the forging of a
continuing bond with its communities and the review of liturgical material to better address the
needs of modernity. A consequence of the revival is that the Church was able to shed the

838
Herman Teule, “Reflections on Identity .” p. 179.
839
The number 1234 appearing in the name refers to the date of the last entry in the chronicle.

266
stigma of backwardness that had been attached to it, particularly over the previous century, and
that had been exploited by others to apostatize its followers to join other branches of Western
Christianity. The Church’s success in these endeavours enabled it, by the turn of the second
half of the twentieth century, to re-establish itself among its followers and to shed the
debilitating stigmas of the past. The momentum generated by the first generation of reformers
continued in the following decades to mark a recovery that, according to the late Patriarch
Zakka I Iwas,840, had not been matched since the days of Bar Hebraeus in the thirteenth
century. In this chapter attention is paid to the narrative of this revival that Syrian Orthodox
came to view as a second renaissance.
The beginnings of the revival were humble and the first steps were barely noticeable
flickering lights that had appeared over the horizon during the years that immediately preceded
World War I. Those beginnings were characterized by working out an internal millet
constitution (Nizamnameh), printing a few liturgical books and attempting to manage the few
schools that the church had finally been able to establish. By all optimistic accounts, the
Church in Anatolia was at that point at least half a century behind that of the Armenians living
in eastern Anatolia, and even further behind in relation to the Armenians and the Greeks living
in Istanbul. In Mosul, a traditional stronghold of Syrian Orthodoxy, Christians were in a better
cultural environment than their counterparts in Anatolia, but were still generally behind the
Chaldeans, who had had several decades of prior Latin missionary cultural and economic help,
which put them well in the lead in professional and cultural achievements, such as in
journalism and printing. In Mardin, an important Syrian Orthodox stronghold, the intellectual
fervour of the years immediately preceding World War I resulted in the issue of the first
literary journal, Al-Hikmat, in the summer of 1914. In Diyarbakir there were a few signs of
enlightenment too. However, the flickering lights in Anatolia were soon to be extinguished by
the advent of Sayfo.
Given this state of affairs it is reasonable to pose the following question: How did the
Syrian Orthodox Church, the smallest of the indigenous Oriental Churches, already exhausted
by safety issues with neighbours over the several previous decades, and by resisting alignment
with the West for more than one century still survive the additional existential threat during

840
Ignatius Zakka Iwas, Buḥūṯ tārīḵiyya wa-diniyya wa-adabiyya (Historical, Religous and Literary Treatises).
Vols. I and II, Damascus, 1988; Vol. III, Damascus, 2000, p. 292.

267
Sayfo and still revive? What is additionally remarkable is that this revival did not come as a
result of aid from others, for, as has been shown in Chapter Five, attempts to garner the help of
Western Christians - both British and American - after the War proved fruitless. Thus, revival
came about by drawing on the Church’s own resources. If this was the case, what were the
main ingredients of this revival, and what were the catalysts? Who were the main actors in the
vanguard of the healing process, which also ushered the Church over the threshold into new
renaissance? This chapter will attempt to answer these questions.

6.2 Motivations for Revival

There are four factors which come to the fore in considering what motivated the revival: a
number of inherited characteristics of the church in question; its inclusion of a large following
in India, which conferred upon it a “universal” dimension; its exiled communities from Turkey
now being in a new supportive social environment; and, last but not least, the rise of a core of
motivated reformers under effective leadership. These factors are now considered in some
detail.

6.2.1 Motivations Derived from Inherited Characteristics

a) The Church’s Historical Identity with Antioch
The Syrian Orthodox, as well as other West Syriacs (the Antiochian Orthodox, the Melkite
Catholic, the Syrian Catholic and the Syrian Maronite) take pride in identifying themselves
with Antioch, the City, and the historical Church of Antioch, even though Antioch was lost to
all of them over the centuries. This city, which was the capital of Greater Syria, was one of the
three capitals of the Roman Empire.841 More importantly, it was where the first adherents to
the new faith were called Christians.842 Further, it was where Peter the Apostle preached in 34
CE,843 and where he stayed until 41 CE. The Syrian Orthodox consider Peter the Apostle to be
the first Bishop of Antioch.844 When Peter left the City on a preaching mission, he appointed
two bishops to manage the affairs of the new faithful: Aphadius, who was assigned to the

841
Asaad Rustum, History of the city of Antioch, Beirut 1958, V-1, p. 14
842
Acts of the Apostles 11:26
843
Zakka I Iwas, The Syrian Orthodox Church at a Glance, trans. Bismarchi, 2008, p. 20; Severus Yacoub Tuma
(later Ignatius Yacoub III), Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. I. Beirut 1953, pp. 54-57.
844
Ishak Saka, Kanīsatī al-suryāniya, p. 126; Zakka I Iwas, The Syrian Orthodox Church at a Glance, p. 27.

268
Christians of pagan origin, and Ignatius the Illuminator for the Christians of Jewish origin.845
Upon the passing of Aphadius, Ignatius of Antioch became the sole Bishop of Antioch.846 I t
was Ignatius the Illuminator who gave the Church of Antioch the appellation “The Universal
Church” for it included both Jews and the uncircumcised.847 The Church of Antioch was one of
four Churches that were recognised with specific geographic jurisdiction by the Council of
Nicea of 325 CE, the others being the Churches of Rome, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem.
Constantinople was added by the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. The Bishop of
Antioch had jurisdiction over Asia. As a mark of reverence to Ignatius, all Syrian Orthodox
patriarchs starting with Bin Waheeb ai-Mardini (1293-1333) have assumed the ecclesiastic title
“Ignatius.”848 This adoption provided continuity to church identity over the centuries.

b) A Church that is Heir to a Venerable Semitic/Aramaic Tradition

What helped preserve the morale of this church throughout the centuries of hardship, adversity
and historical minority was the sense that this church was heir to a past glory; and that its
church fathers and followers excelled in the pursuit of culture. Some of that culture was
secular, which, in common with similar efforts by other Christian scholars at that time, was
utilized in the transfer of Hellenic and Greek philosophy and science, to help build the nascent
Arab civilization. Some of the growing culture was liturgical, which the church did not leave
on the shelves but incorporated into its own liturgy. Today’s liturgy still bears strong witness to
this.
The Christianity of Antioch was Semitic with clear Jewish roots. It was “greatly
influenced by the faith that Jesus and his disciples and their early followers preached and
practiced.”849With their continued attachment to their Semitic roots, away from Greek
influence, the Syrian Orthodox “eventually alone inherited this ancient liturgy of Antioch,
which since the schism has been used only in its Syriac form.”850 Thus, as Fortescue states with

845
Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 3:22.
846
Ishak Saka, Kanīsatī al-suryāniya, p. 126.
847
Severus Yacoub Tuma,Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. I. Beirut 1953, p. 77.
848
Ishak Saka, Kanīsatī al-suryāniya, p. 166.
849
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 9.
850
Ibid.

269
reference to the “Jacobites”: “so the rite of Antioch, once so mighty in the East, became the
speciality of one little sect only.”851
The inclusion of the poetry of the fourth century St. Ephrem the Syrian and of the
fifth/sixth century Jacob of Sarug in the daily liturgy continues to bear witness to this and acts
as a reminder of past glory. The scholarship of these and others, such as Philoxenus of Mabug
(d. 523), and Moshe bar Kepha (d. 903) signified an early development of an indigenous Syriac
exegetic culture that was increasingly independent of Greek thought. Further, while the Church
was under a minority status under Islam, its scholars and historians Jacob of Edessa, Dionysius
of Tell Mahre, and - in the late Abbasid period, early Mongol period, the exegetist, historian
and scholar of Dionysius bar Salibi, Michael the Syrian, and Gregory bar Hebraeus adorned the
pages of history of this small church with an outstanding cultural heritage.852 The culture
which the Syriac fathers developed was Semitic/Aramaic, which reflected the roots of
Christianity in Palestine. Thus despite their minority status, the Syrian Orthodox were aware
that they carried within them the DNA of a venerable Semitic/Aramaic culture, which became
one of the main inspirations for their revival.853

c) A Paradigm of Martyrdom
The Syrian Orthodox Church, in common with other Oriental churches, inherited martyrdom,
as a paradigm of an exemplary mode of sacrifice for the sake of belief, from the early martyrs
of the Church starting with Stephanos, Christendom’s first martyr. It was again in Antioch
where Ignatius accepted his fate as martyr when he left for Rome upon orders by the Roman
Emperor Trajan (98-117)854 to stand on trial knowing that the likely outcome would leave him
to be devoured by the lions. Thus, if Peter conferred upon Antioch the robe of unwavering
faith855 by being its first head, it was Ignatius who conferred upon it the robe of martyrdom,
and who, thus, initiated a paradigm of willingness and aspiration of its forefathers to pay

851
Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern churches, p. 346.
852
Herman Teule, “Reflections on Identity .” pp. 184-187.
853
Dorothea Weltecke, “Michael the Syrian and the Syriac Orthodox Identity” in Church History and Religious
Culture, ed. Bas ter Haar Romeny, Vol. 89, No. 1-3, (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 115-125; Herman Teule,
“Reflections on Identity. The Suryoye of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Bar Salibi, Bar Shakko, and
Barhebraeus” in Church History and Religious Culture, ed. Bas ter Haar Romeny, Vol. 89, No. 1-3, (Leiden:
Brill, 2009), pp. 179-189.
854
Christine Chaillot, The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, 1998, p. 22.
855
“The Rock upon which I built my Church said Jesus.”

270
whatever price was needed for the sake of faith. The reverence of martyrdom is widely
reflected in the Syrian Orthodox liturgy, and specifically in a canon that is often recited by
which the martyrs of early Christendom are remembered.856

d) A paradigm of Survivability under Persecution and Minority Status

The post-Chalcedonian history conferred upon the Syrian Orthodox Church the robe of
endurance under Byzantine persecution. This persecution is abundantly attested to in the
literature.857 As Bas ter Haar Romeny, et al. note “[T]hose who had been persecuted by the
Byzantines assumed the role of martyrs and were remembered as such. These memories
formed the basis of a historical conscience.”858 During the same period the fate of the Church
and of its communities under the Sassanids fared no better. They suffered at the hands of
Sassanids not only for being of a different faith from that of the king, but for following the
Church of Antioch which was located in the Roman enemy territory. Matters became more dire
after the Council of Ephesus (341 EC) due to the animosity that arose between the followers of
the two churches in the Sassanid Empire. Thus, the Syrian Orthodox, who had been a minority
in Iraq relative to their coreligionist Church of the East, became subject to animosity by those
coreligionists as well.859
The relief that the Syrian Orthodox obtained following the Islamic conquest was only
partial and at best temporary. Under the new freedom, which lasted nearly two centuries, it
enjoyed equality with other Christians (i.e., Rum and Church of the East). However, many of
the succeeding Islamic rulers gradually took all Christians, the Syrian Orthodox included, back
to the status of infidels. During this period the Church shrank in size and its churches and
monasteries were frequently sacked. However, the church still managed to survive because of
the immunity against dissolution, which it had acquired over the centuries.
The minority position of the Christians as dhimmis under successive Islamic rules brought
all Christians under one umbrella of equal status. However, the Syrian Orthodox constituted a
numerical minority within the dhimmis, a paradigm under which they continued to live. They

856
The Holy Qurbono: the Canon of the Virgin Mary and the Saints.
857
Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern churches, p. 327; John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 10.
858
Bas ter Haar Romeny, etal, “The formation of a Communal Identity among West Syrian Christians: Results
and Conclusions of the Leiden Project”, in Church History and Religious Culture, Vol. 89, No. 1-3, 2009, pp. 46-
47.
859
John Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations, p. 5.

271
learned the skills of survival as a minority: self-reliance, prudence and allegiance to their
church. The millet system which was adopted by the successive Islamic rulers particularly in
the format adopted by the Ottomans, helped the Syrian Orthodox survive in what was
otherwise an intolerant environment. In particular, it helped retain the bond of those
communities which were thinly scattered over eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq and Syria.
In the late Ottoman period, Syrian Orthodoxy, though becoming severely weakened by
conversion to Catholicism and to Protestantism, remained resolute in its independence of and
resistance to Western pressures. In 1909 the British Consul in Mosul alludes to this resilience
quality:
The Old Syrians or Jacobites are one of the most ancient and
interesting of the Eastern Churches. In spite of persecution and
comparative poverty they have stoutly maintained their
independence for sixteen centuries, steadily refusing to sacrifice
their convictions and freedoms for the advantages offered by
Rome. When it is remembered that these advantages would include
payment of the Priests and Bishops, free education for their
children and, above all, the steady protection of their interests by
the French Government, this unbending attitude is the more
remarkable in a relatively small community.860

e) Responsibility for a Large Following in India

One of the significant factors that helped the beleaguered church promote the will to survive
and revive, was its feeling of responsibility towards its large following in India, a following
that was several times greater than its following in the Middle East. This added sense of
responsibility for what was at stake gave rise to an added sense of determination to overcome
hardship and to forge ahead on the road to recovery. It was in the context of this feeling of
responsibility and attachment that Patriarch Elias III headed for India in 1931, even though his
communities in the Middle East were still in the midst of recovery from the results of Sayfo.

f) The Venerable Historical Standing of the Patriarch among his People

The church communities held their patriarch in high esteem because of his spiritual and
historical position as Patriarch of Antioch. He was also the chief of their millet, a corporate
status that endowed a significant temporal authority. However, one of the main reasons for

860
H. E. Wilkie Young and E. Khadourie, “Mosul in 1909,” in Middle Eastern Studies 7:1971, p. 234.

272
attachment between the patriarch as leader and his people was the manner in which he was
appointed and the simplicity of his daily life. He lived as one of the people for the people. He
lived in a monastery surrounded by monks, not in a palace surrounded by nobility. His life was
as endangered as their own was. Just as their towns and villages were sacked, so was his
abode.861
The Syrian Orthodox patriarchs did not come from a particular tribe or family, as was in
fact the case with their neighbours in the Church of the East. The patriarch rose up the
ecclesiastic ladder from being a junior monk to a bishop, and thence was voted by a synod to
the patriarchy. Many joined a monastery as young orphans or were dedicated by their parents
to serve the Altar. There was no monopoly on geographic provenance: Patriarch Peter III was
brought in as an orphan from Mosul; Patriarch Abdul Masih, again an orphan, was from Qalat
Marah, a village near Mardin; Patriarch Abdullah was from a small town, Saddad, in central
Syria; Patriarch Elias III came from Mardin; while Patriarch Aphram Barsoum travelled as an
eighteen year old young man by himself from Mosul to answer his vocation in Deir al
Za‘faran.
The patriarch lived an austere life, but was deeply respected and revered by his people.
The enormous corpus of letters from the Deir al- Za‘faran and Mardin Collections (see Chapter
Two) bear clear witness to this. At the hours of need throughout history, and there were so
many of them, he was always one of them, living among them, fully sharing their sorrows and
fighting for their survival, well-being and dignity. This bond between patriarch and people was
a crucial factor in preserving the integrity of the church in the face of the many historical
adversities that it encountered.
The attributes noted above provided the potential revivalists with a sense of purpose and
duty to uphold these historical honours, as well as with the resolve and the encouragement that
the task demanded.

6.2.2 Congenial and Supportive New Environment

One of the main factors that aided the revival was the nature of the environment in which the
Syrian Orthodox communities found themselves following their exile from Anatolia. The

861
See Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian, pp. 194-213 on the simplicity of the patriarchal setting in
Deir al-Za‘faran, and p. 225 on the insecurity of that monastery. See also Parry, pp. 61-63.

273
majority that settled in Greater Syria (present day Syria, Lebanon and Palestine) enjoyed the
safety and the tolerance offered by the people of these lands with whom they had shared a
largely peaceful history many centuries before. Further more, the newcomers greatly benefited
from being in the congenial cultural environment that these countries offered at that time. Syria
had been in the forefront of Middle Eastern cultural revival and thus offered the new
immigrants remarkable opportunities that were completely unknown to them in their previous
homeland in Anatolia. Those who immigrated to Northern Iraq settled largely around Mosul
and benefited from the educational and cultural opportunities that Mosul offered at that time.
Although the cultural status of Iraq at the end of World War I was markedly behind that
of Syria, Iraq embarked on major steps in the field of education, beginning in the early days of
the British Mandate in 1921 and continuing after the declaration of full independence in 1931.
The yearning for revival that Iraq witnessed was most noticeable in Mosul, which had a
tradition of being in the forefront of cultural revival in that country. This tradition had been
cultivated during the Jalili period (1726-1834) and was subsequently largely maintained by
learned personalities and in the houses of learning, both Muslim and Christian. In the course of
the nineteenth century, Mosul benefited in no small measure from the missionary schools that
had been established by the Dominican fathers as well as from the traditional Muslim houses
of learning. Those houses of learning were privately sponsored and run, entirely outside the
State’s scope of interest, by prominent families that were reputed for their learned status,
particularly in the Jalili period. These important steps in promoting literacy and appreciation
for the arts and other facets of culture were supported by the relatively early introduction of the
printing press and journalism in Mosul.862
Following World War I and particularly following the attainment of independence, the
drive for better education in Iraq was given primary attention. This drive was spearheaded by
Sati‘al- Husari, a Syrian educator who had accompanied Prince Faisal to Iraq. Al-Husari
promoted a tradition of prioritizing public education. This tradition remained a priority
throughout all succeeding regimes. What was particularly important was the fact that the
general public of all strands of society came to share in this vision, so that education became
the aim of all, rich and poor. As stated before in Chapter Two, Iraqi Christians distinguished

862
Ibrahim Khalil Ahmad, “Al-Nashr wa al-Sahafa fe al-Mosul” (Publication and Journalism in Mosul.) in The
Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol. 4, University of Mosul Press (1993): 363-377.

274
themselves from the beginning in several aspects of learning: medicine, education, engineering
and industrial development. They emerged as active participants who were usually at the
forefront in most of professional fields. From the early 1920s and well into the 1960s,
Christian teachers and doctors and other professionals provided much needed service in the
Shi‘ite towns and villages around the marshes of Southern Iraq. The newly exiled immigrants,
who found themselves in this active education-driven environment, soon became active
participants in it.
The recovery of the exiled Syrian Orthodox communities in Syria was somewhat slower.
This was likely due to prolonged French colonial rule, as well as to the more limited economic
resources in comparison with Iraq. Such more limited resources would have also likely been
overstretched in the northern border areas where most of the new settlers lived. Yet despite
these difficulties the new environment in which the exiles found themselves, whether in
Greater Syria or in Iraq, offered opportunities for education and advancement that they had not
known previously.
The educational and employment opportunities that independent Iraq offered its Christian
citizens must be duly acknowledged. This attitude of fair treatment based on qualification
contrasts sharply with that of the Republic of Turkey, where the Syriac Christians did not even
have minority rights. A couple of examples will demonstrate the traditional quest for learning
in Mosul from Ottoman times and the encouragement the educated enjoyed in the post-
Ottoman Iraq. This is a family story of two brothers, Abdulla and Daoud Kassir of a Syrian
Orthodox family.863
The younger brother, Daoud (1892-1976) attended a Dominican primary school in Mosul
and was sent by his parents, travelling by mule-drawn coach, to Lebanon, where he attended a
secondary school in Brumana in the Lebanese mountain to the north of Beirut. In 1911 he was
admitted to the American University of Beirut where he studied pharmacy and mathematics,
graduating in 1918. He returned to Mosul, where he opened the first pharmacy in that city. He
then obtained a scholarship for entry to Columbia University in 1926, where he obtained his
Ph.D. in mathematics, after which he returned to Iraq where he participated in many
educational pursuits. He was appointed as the first Dean of the College of Engineering in 1943,

863
The narrative cited here is based on two sources: my personal knowledge of the family, with the two brothers
being my mother’s maternal cousins, and on a biography published in 2013, The Paediatrican, a Pioneer in the
Garden of Eden, by Maria Kassir, a German-born Abdulla Kassir’s daughter in law.

275
a college that was very prestigious in the course of the early development of Iraq, benefiting
from the fast-growing oil resources in that country.864
The story of his brother Abdulla (1887-1978) is even more adventurous and interesting
and marks a legacy of endurance and achievement. Born in Mosul, Abdulla completed his
elementary education at the Dominican Mission School in Mosul and his secondary education
at the Evangelical School in Mardin. He then attended the School of Medicine at the American
University of Beirut in 1909. In 1914, one year before completing his medical studies, he was
conscripted into the Ottoman army. He was sent to serve as a doctor with the Third Division in
the Caucasus near the refinery at Baku in Azerbaijan and then in the west of Armenia.865 In
January 1916 he was transferred to Jerivan and was told that his unit would soon be sent to
Mesopotamia to fight the British. 866 He saw atrocities being committed against the Armenian
population when his unit was marching from Jerivan to Van. The fact that the Ottomans were
systematically exterminating the Armenian population was apparently unknown to him.867 He
was shocked when he saw how “defenceless civilians became the victims of the revenge and
lust of the Turkish soldier. With the instinct of a hunting dog they found the hiding places of
the Armenians who had survived and made a cruel game of torturing them and knocking down
the old men with the butt of their rifles. If they still moved, a kick in the chest with their heavy
boots left them dead. They fell on women and silenced the screams of children, with a
bullet.”868 When he questioned one of the soldiers about these acts he was told, “But their sons
and brothers and fathers and cousins, the whole lot of dirty Armenians! They spied for the
Russians; that is why we lost thousands of soldiers. They are Christians and wanted the
Russians to win so that Anatolia would become a Christian country. We fight for Islam and
will exterminate all Christian minorities.”869 Abdulla was glad they did not know he was a
Christian.870 They heard his Arabic name “Abdulla Suleiman” and thought he was one of their
religion.871

864
Article by Ibrahim Khalil al-‘Alaf, Al Dactore Daoud Kassir Awal ‘ameed likuliyyat al-Handasa al-‘Iraqiyya
(Dr. Daoud Kassir the First Dean of the Iraqi College of Engineering), in Al-Hadba’ daily No. 1388, January 28,
2012,
865
Maria Kassir, p. 91.
866
Ibib, p. 96.
867
Ibid, p. 97.
868
Ibid.
869
Ibid, pp. 97-98.
870
Ibid, p. 101.
871
His name was, and still is, more commonly a Muslim name.

276
 Abdulla joined his next assignment in Kut on the Tigris, 160 km to the southeast of
Baghdad. There the British army comprising 13,000 English soldiers and Ghurkas from India
under General Townsend had surrendered in April 1916. The Ottomans decided that the
prisoners be taken to Istanbul and Abdulla was ordered to accompany them as a medical
doctor. Under the already burning sun, many of the prisoners fell victim to heatstroke, cholera
and malaria, diseases which the Ghurkhas resisted better than the English did. As a result only
one third of the English and half of the Indians survived the journey.872
Upon completing his assignment, Abdulla was released from the army and was allowed
to pursue his studies in Beirut, at the Syrian Protestant College (later the American University
of Beirut) where he was awarded the degree of doctor of medicine in June 1917. He then
returned to Iraq, where his first job was an appointment as Chief Medical Doctor of Baghdad
Prisons. He then pursued his further studies in England from 1932 to 1934, when he was
awarded a diploma as a paediatric specialist. Returning to Baghdad, he co-founded the Iraqi
Children’s Protection Society and in 1943 he was appointed to the first Chair of Paediatric
Medicine in the prestigious College of Medicine.873
While the case of the Kassir brothers is by no means usual,874 it does, taken with many
others, demonstrate the Christians’ active pursuit of learning and the equitable opportunities
that subsequent regimes in Iraq, appreciating these qualities, offered them in the course of their
pursuit of education and employment. In this context it is perhaps also relevant to cite that
when the University of Baghdad was established in 1958, from a large number of fully
functioning individual colleges, its first president was Dr. Matti (Mathew) Akrawi, a Syrian
Orthodox.875

6.2.3 The Role of the Church in the New Age

The bond that was forged between church and community during the course of the revival
is worth examining. In Europe, the link between church and community that had generally
existed prior to the Age of Enlightenment began to wane by reason of the impact of modernity
and the residual effects of wars. The French Revolution, which stressed the separation of state

872
Maria Kassir, p. 101.
873
http:/www.geni.com/people/Abdullah-Kassir/6000000008007806499
874
Their father had a large farming estate and was engaged in foreign trade. However, as per Maria Kassir (pp.
31-40) due to repeated poor harvest, Abdulla’s travel to Mardin was delayed three years.
875
www.en.uobaghdad.edu.iq/Uni_Presidents_en/index.html.

277
and church, provided a clear manifestation of the new era. In contrast, in the Middle East,
where the Christians lived for centuries within the strictures of the pre-nineteenth century form
of the Ottoman millet system, the church held, in addition to its religious duties, a central
corporate position in relation to its community. In the new environment following WWI this
changed, as members of the community became fully fledged citizens in the newly established
Arab states. This development considerably reduced the temporal relationship between church
and community. However, in this new social environment, the church remained as an essential
ingredient of the individuals’ identity, whether in relation to the Muslim majority, or to other
Christians. Even more important, the Church was a spiritual refuge to the stricken survivors
who had witnessed the massacres of their beloved ones during Sayfo. These factors placed an
added sense of duty and care and, at the same time, offered the Church the opportunity to
extend its historical role as a faith base and guardian of the community.

6.2.4 The Rise of a Core of Motivated Reformers

From within the people of this impoverished church arose a core of three reformers who
initiated and led the drive against a decline that had been entrenched for so long. The three,
with Aphram Barsoum in the lead, also included Yuhanon/Yuhanna Dolabani and Ni‘matallah
Denno/Dinno.876 With their concern and devotion they were able, by example, to inspire others
to shed off the lethargy of the past and to turn what had been a debilitating decline into a
revival. They promoted the education of the clergy and of the community, and worked to
rejuvenate and reform liturgical practice to suit modern needs. But above all, by their devotion
to scholarship, they raised the aspirations of their communities to emulate the glorious past and
thus encouraged the rise of the enlightened ecclesiasts of next generations. Their initiatives
resulted in the rise of succeeding generations of inspired scholars and reform-minded
personalities who advanced the cause of revival. A brief account on first and next generations
of reformers will follow shortly.

876
In an interview I had with Patriarch Iwas in St Ephrem’s Seminary in Ma‘arat Sednaya (located 40 km to the
northwest of Damascus) on August 26, 2007, Patriarch Iwas expressed what he considered to be his own opinion
as well as what he considered to be the general consensus among his generation of Church scholars, that the
names noted above formed the core of modern Syriac reformers. Ishak Saka, Al Suryan Iman wa Hathara, Vol.
IV, p. 153, also includes Naom Faiq (see 6.4.4), Yacoub Saka (d. 1931), Paulus Behnam (see 6.4.5.2), Abdul-
Ahad Tuma (Later Patriarch Jacob III) ( see 6.4.5.1) and Moosa Shamani (d. 1976).

278
6.3 Milestones of the Revival
6.3.1 Re-settlement of Refugees and Church Construction
The re-settlement of refugees was clearly the first step on the long road towards rehabilitation
and was covered in Chapter Five. Church construction closely followed re-settlement but,
understandably, was constrained by limited financial resources. In the interim, make-shift
churches were the answer.

6.3.2 The Education of the Clergy

Due to general illiteracy at the start of the twentieth century, this aspect of the revival
presented one of the greatest challenges to reformers. As will be seen, Barsoum paid particular
attention toward the establishment of a functioning seminary as a nucleus around which the
education of the clergy could receive the necessary attention. This materialized by the
establishment of the Ephremic Seminary in Zahle in 1939. Prior to this, the need for seminaries
was met in limited scope by a number of local seminaries. The earliest was set up in Deir al-
Za‘faran in 1911 by the efforts of Bishop Behnam Samarchi and the lay scholar Hanna Chiqi
(the first editor of al-Hikmat journal in 1913). Dolabani was one of its teachers. The advent of
WWI caused the closure of this seminary.877
A second seminary was started in Mar Mattai Monastery near Mosul in 1923 under the
initial guidance of Bishop Clemis Yuhanna Abachi. Its teachers included Yacoub Saka and
Ni‘matallah Denno. This seminary continued until 1934 when the Zahle seminary was opened,
but was re-opened from 1942 until 1946, when it was combined with the Ephremic Seminary
that had been moved to Mosul that year. Another local seminary was set up in St. Mark’s
Monastery in Jerusalem in 1928 with the encouragement of Patriarch Elias III. Yuhanna
Dolabani and Murad Chiqi were amongst its teachers.878
With the need for educated clergy being much greater than what one seminary or more
could in practical terms supply, individual dioceses were encouraged throughout most of the
twentieth century to engage school teachers, who in those days were in the vanguard of the
educated, to join the priesthood. The fact that priests in the Syriac Orthodox Church are
required to be married helped in attracting older experienced teachers to priesthood.

877
Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra, Vol. IV, pp. 291-301.
878
Ibid, pp. 274-275, 280.

279
6.3.3 Church-Community Interaction in Education
The quest for the education of the clergy extended to an active participation of the church in
the general education of future generations. Church-run schools existed before the turn of the
twentieth century, but were limited in scope and attendance. A number of archival documents
show school reports from the Mar Toma School in Mosul from 1921, although the school had
been in existence probably since 1880.879 A second church-run school for boys was opened in
Mosul in 1909. This was followed by a third for girls in the following year. These schools were
subsequently incorporated into the government school system, but in deference to a request by
the Church, they were granted a priority of offering their services of the Church communities.
As a result, their curricula incorporated additional Christian faith-related material, as may be
seen from school records.880 This pattern of church-community interaction in the field of
education saw extensive application in the twentieth century throughout the region, albeit with
certain fluctuations, depending on the policies of the government of the day. With careful
attention being paid to teacher qualification, these schools generally enjoyed high standards of
achievement and became exemplars to other schools. Their success strengthened the bond
between church and communities as church was no longer seen as simply where one attends
for a Sunday prayer, but increasingly as an integral part of society and family life. Thus, the
affairs of the church increasingly became of immense interest to the community, and its reform
and revival increasingly reflected the community’s desires and aspirations.

6.3.4 Liturgical Development

Liturgy was reviewed and streamlined in order to remove repetition and to generally shorten it
to better suit the times. Liturgical books were printed for the first time, from their historical
format as manuscripts, with appropriate modifications and updates inserted, and distributed to
churches. This was a task that many of the early reformers Barsoum, Dolabani and Denno
undertook and others subsequently continued. Part of the development involved increasing the
Arabic content in the liturgy in many of the churches of Iraq and in Greater Syria, where the
majority, even those from Tur Abdin, did not understand Syriac, but were increasingly

879
Saliba Sham‘un, Tāriḵ abrašiyyat al-Mawṣil al-suryāniyya (History of the Syrian Archdiocese of Mosul),
1984, p. 72.
880
Archival documents K10-BZ5-0089,0091,0092.

280
conversant in Arabic. The introduction of Arabic hymns in the early 1930s in Mosul (see
Section 6.4.3) was part of this effort, which presented the congregation with the opportunity of
participating in a tongue they understood, a matter that rendered church attendance more
meaningful.

6.3.5 Translation Movement

If we considered the linguistic profile of the Syrian Orthodox communities in Iraq and in
Greater Syria, the two regions where the majority of the post-Sayfo emigrants settled, we
would find the following: the majority of those who settled in and around the city of Mosul and
its environs arrived either from Mardin or from the lower regions of Tur Abdin, such as Azekh,
where Arabic was the language of the majority of the newcomers. It as it was also the language
of the indigenous Christians of Mosul. Those who made their way to Greater Syria were a
mixture of those whose home tongue was Arabic or Turoyo, the Neo-Aramaic vernacular of
Tur Abdin. The latter had the greatest initial difficulty in learning and adopting Arabic, which
they considered to be the language of those who massacred their beloved. However, this
difficulty was slowly overcome by the schooling of the young, the commonality between the
two tongues and, perhaps more importantly, by the will to start a new page in their lives.
The church was mindful of the psychological barrier against adopting Arabic among
many of the newcomers from Tur Abdin. Its reformers on the other hand recognized from the
start the importance of translation into Arabic as a necessary means for the transmission of the
Syriac heritage to new generations. Given the post-Sayfo demographic map, those early
reformers appreciated that translation constituted an essential component in the process of
cultural continuity and development and, thus, a means towards an aspired renaissance.
One may find an important precedence to translation from Syriac to Arabic in the
liturgical context even in the Abbasid period when Christians adopted Arabic as a theological
language, creating new terms in this language especially abstract names: ’ulūhā, from allahutha
in Syriac; ta’annas, from ’ethbarnash, etc. They also adopted Arabic “neutral” names, neither
Islamic nor Christian such as: Hasan and Faraj.881

881
A. Harrak, “L’influence du Syriaque Sur l’onomastique arabe chretie’nne,” Parole de l’Orient 18(1993), pp.
275-289.

281
 It may be noted that effective translation required two pre-requisites: linguistic
competence in both languages and, even more importantly, a thorough understanding of the
translated content, particularly if it is of a philosophical or a theological nature, which was the
case for most of the material actually translated. Given these attributes and prerequisites it is
not surprising that all reformers, starting with Aphram Barsoum, were engaged to one degree
or another in the translation of church liturgical books and other facets of Syriac cultural
heritage. Finally, it is reasonable to speculate that the acceptance of Arabic as a linguistic
medium among the Turoye was no doubt made more acceptable by the pro-Arab stance of
Aphram Barsoum, which went a long way towards creating a feeling of affinity among the new
comers with their new environment, a feeling of being in a milieu that is also “home.”

6.3.6 Restoration of Historical Name and Identity

Throughout their history, the Syrian Orthodox lived under the handicap of a name not of their
choosing but of the choosing of their opponents in the Christological divide that resulted from
the Council of Chalcedon of 451. They were called “Jacobites” after Jacob Baradaeus, and
were also dubbed “Monophysites” based on the Chalcedonians’ perception of their
Christology, which they shared with the Copts, the Abyssinians and the Armenians. In the
course of their quest for revival, the Syrian Orthodox came to voice their discontent,
increasingly, with these deeply entrenched terminologies, considering the first pejorative and
the second a misnomer. Denno researched the historical archives of over fourteen centuries and
presented the results in a seminal publication in 1949.882 This research likely was in the spirit
of revival following centuries of decline. The noted publication provides evidence from the
sixth to the thirteenth century sources that shows that the Syrian Orthodox called themselves
‘Syrians’, ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Syrian Orthodox.’ A sample of this evidence is given in Appendix
A.6.1.

Denno notes that Bar Hebraeus also used the name “Jacobites,” mostly in Volume II of his
Ecclesiastic History, where he used the term thirteen times, usually in the context of
comparisons and discourses with what he called “Nestorians”, a term Bar Hebraeus used 59
times, and with the Melkites. It is interesting to note that in contrast to this, Michael the Syrian

882
Ni‘mat Allah DINNO/DENNO, Iqāmat al-dalīl ‘alā Istimrār al-Isim al-Aseel wa Istinkār al-Na‘t al-DaKheel,
Mosul, 1949 , (Establishing the Proof on the Original Name and Negating the Alien Adjective).

282
was somewhat more remote from the environment of discourse with other Oriental Christians
and did not use the term “Jacobites” except five times, and that was in quoting opposing sides,
whereas he used the terms Syrian or Orthodox 149 times.883

6.4 The Reformers and their Contributions

The revival activities outlined above were advanced by the first and subsequent generations of
reformers, who are introduced hereinafter. Biographies have been included in order to
delineate their contributions, particularly to scholarship, which, generally, has not had Western
exposure.

6. 4.1 Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum (1887-1957)

6.4.1.1 Brief Biography
Ayoub -Barsoum’s first name at birth- came as a young man of 18 from Mosul, to Deir al
Za‘faran in 1905, where he pursued his Syriac language and theological learning. He was
tonsured a monk in 1907 and a priest-monk in 1908, taking the ecclesiastic name Aphram, in
honour of Ephrem the Syrian the venerable and prolific Syriac-language fourth century
hymnographer and theologian. In 1911, he took on the responsibility of managing the
Monastery’s press, in addition to teaching at the Monastery. Motivated by a keen interest in the
Syriac heritage, church and community history, he began to tour the towns and villages in
southeastern Anatolia where the Syrian Orthodox traditionally lived, and Tur Abdin in
particular. He visited churches and monasteries where he documented their possessions in the
form of books and manuscripts and interviewed elders for recollections of events of the past.
The calamities that befell these communities a few years after these visits and interviews,
eradicated most of these communities and scattered the survivors, making the wealth of
information he collected unique.884 His keen scholarly interest was evident from his early days
at Deir al Za‘faran. The archival documents bear clear witness to this. One particular document
scribed in Arabic by young Ayoub carries the date February 10, 1906, when Ayoub was barely
19 years old. On the back cover of the document Ayoub writes: “copied from an Arabic copy I

883
Khalid Dinno, “The Syrian Orthodox Church: Name as a Marker of Identity,” in Parole de l’ Oriente 38
(2013): 193-211.
884
A considerable portion of this information was published largely by Ignatius Zakka Iwas, as will be noted later.

283
found at the end of an old book in Deir al Za‘faran.” The document was a copy of a 12 page
epistle sent by Patriarch Jirjis the Third to Pope Pius VI in September 1776, explaining the
tenants of faith of the Syrian Orthodox Church.885 What may be noted from this is the research-
oriented inquisitive nature of that young man.
In addition to his travel and research in Anatolia, Barsoum travelled to several centres of
learning in Europe in 1913 in the pursuit of his study of Syriac literary heritage in manuscripts
and in other literary sources. These included London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Cambridge, Oxford
and Florence. These travels presented Barsoum with the opportunity of meeting with
Orientalists with whom he would have had so much to discuss and to explore. During this trip
he wrote an introduction to the Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa.886 He also published with
Chabot the work entitled Chronicon Anonymum in CSCO in 1920.887
His interaction with the literary figures of his time is typified by the letters he exchanged
with Paul Bedjan.888 When the letters were written in 1920, Bedjan, a renowned scholar who
had published 40 Syriac volumes, was 82 and Barsoum 33. Yet, despite the large age
difference the tone of the letters conveys a deep sense of respect from a seasoned scholar to a
fellow scholar who was only just beginning to make his imprint felt in the world of scholarship
and ecclesiastical leadership. Further, the topics discussed indicate the two were well
acquainted with each other’s scholarly work. Such was the reputation that Aphram Barsoum
had gained in the literary field even from an early age.
Beginning with his early years at Deir al Za‘faran, Barsoum gained the reputation of
being an active pursuant of Syriac heritage and seeker of reform. Two letters from the archives
provide clear evidence of this. The first was from the Mardin branch of Jamiyat al Intibah
(Society for the Promotion of Alertness), a lay Syrian community society that was concerned
with promoting social-cultural progress, which had branches in major towns. The letter, dated
June 30, 1913, pleads with Barsoum not to travel at that time in view of the rise of certain
sensitive issues concerning Jerusalem, in which the Society wished him to play a leading

885
Archival documents P1090925 and P1090943.
886
Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, The Glory of the Syrians, Mar Ignatios Ephrem Barsaum, Biography and
Bibliography, 1996, p. 76
887
Ibid, p. 34
888
Khalid Dinno and Amir Harrak, “Six Letters from Paul Bedjan to Aphram Barsoum.,” in the Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9, 2009, Gorgias Press, 55-73

284
role.889 However, despite this request Barsoum did travel to Europe as reported earlier. Later in
his travels Barsoum received another letter, this time from the community in Warenshahir, near
Diyarbakir, which was represented by Jamiyat al Intibah in that town, the “millet Board” and
the local priest. The letter dated December 9, 1913, requests his early return. The content and
tone of the letter provide clear evidence of the hopes the Syrian Orthodox communities placed
on the shoulders of this 26-year old-monk. After a usual cordial introduction the letter states:
Our state and condition are wretched. We state, and we cannot
hold back ourselves from stating, that if our condition continues as
it is as present we would, God forbid, be dissolved. However, as
we reconsider matters, and realize that we still have zealous people
like you, then we should have no fear since we are certain that your
zeal, deep conviction and chivalry would heal the deepest wounds
in the body of our poor millet which has been beleaguered by the
times… Our Syrian forefathers were martyred for the sake of this
glorious jewel… Thus, it is unbefitting that we should let this jewel
be buried by the earth of ignorance, for if we did our ancestors
would seek justice from us until the end of time. We thus look
forward with deep anticipation to your return. We wish you
complete success to form a shining light for our millet and finally
to leave an honorable memory on the pages of history.890

Signature stamps of: Head of Intibah, Millet Board and Shepherd of

Syrians, in Warenshahir.

Dated December 9, 329-Rum Calendar, corresponding toDecember

9, 1913 according to the Julian Calendar and to December 22, 1913
according to the Gregorian Calendar.

His image as a luminary was not confined to people of his generation but has lived on
through successive generations to the present. Bishop Gregorius Paulus Behnam (d.1969) of
the second generation of reformers wrote a biography of Barsoum in which he brought out
many facets of Barsoum’s scholarship and leadership qualities as a luminary to his
community.891
The late Patriarch Zakka Iwas (1933- 2014), who may appropriately be thought of as
belonging to the third generation of revivalists, published a good deal of Barsoum’s
unpublished work in the patriarchal magazine. In a speech he made on November 22, 1987,
889
Archival Document 40M 24/48 – 175.
890
Archival Document 40M 24/48 – 003.
891
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām (The Aromas of Lavender, or the Life of the
Patriarch Aphram). Mosul, 1959.

285
marking the first centennial of Barsoum’s birth and the 30th year of his passing, he reminded
his audience that the golden age for his church, the Syrian Church of Antioch, was in the first
four centuries, marked by the appearance of St. Ephrem the Syrian and which extended
through the time that witnessed the appearance of Baradeus, Manbagy,892 Severus,893 the
Rahawi894 and Michael the Syrian. He continued:
That golden age ended in the thirteenth century with the passing of
Bar Hebreus. After Bar Hebreus, the church witnessed the
imposition upon it of harsh and dark circumstances, which it
survived by the will of the Almighty God, who at the turn of this
century sent the learned scholar Mar Ignatius Aphram Barsoum of
blessed memory, who ended the nightmare of the harsh years,
rescued the Church from its fall and opened its eyes to its blessed
history. He shone as a bright star for the Syrians and as a great
reformer who created a new beginning in the history of the Church, a
new frontier of enlightenment and revival… He lived seventy years
that made up for the loss of seven hundred years from the thirteenth
to the twentieth century that Syrian Orthodoxy lost from the time of
Bar Hebreus to the rise of Aphram Barsoum, upon whom God
bestowed unique intellectual qualities, vision and endurance. He was
truly unique in his blessed qualities.895

6.4.1.2 Barsoum the Scholar

Despite the enormous responsibilities Barsoum had to shoulder, he devoted much time to
scholarship, to searching for and recording for posterity the nearly lost heritage of Syriac
literature and history. The range of his interest and expertise is astounding as may be noted
from the following brief treatment of his literary work. His main published work may be
classified as follows:
i) Spiritual
1. Kitāb al-tuḥfa al-rūḥiyya fī al-ṣalāt al-farḍiyya (The Golden Key of the Obligatory
Prayers), 1911.
2. Al-zahra al-qudsiyya fī al-ta‘līm al-masīḥī (The Divine Flower of the Christian
Catechism), 1912.
3. Qiṯār al-qulūb (The Harp of the Hearts), a volume of collected poems, published in
1954.

ii) Syriological
892
Referring to Filexinous of Mabug, the fourth century exegete.
893
Referring to Severus of Antioch.
894
Referring to the Anonymous Chronicler of 1234
895
Zakka I Iwas, Historical, Theological & Spiritual Articles & Essays (in Arabic), Part three, Lebanon, 200, pp.
286-287.

286
 4. Al-Lu’lu’ al-Manthur (The Scattered Pearls), 1943.
5. A translation of Tahḏīb al-Aḵlāq (The Training of Characters), by Yahya Ibn ‘Adi,
published in the Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, 1928.
6. An edition of Bar Hebraeus’s Risāla fī ‘ilm al-nafs al-insāniyya (A Treatise on
theHuman Soul), 1938.
7. A translation of Bar Hebraues’ Kitāb ḥadiṯ al-ḥikma (The Speech of Wisdom), 1940.

iii) Philological
8. Al-alfāẓ al-suryāniyya fī al-ma‘ājim al-‘arabiyya (Syriac Words in the Arabic Lexica),
1951.

iv) Historical
9. Nuzhat al-aḏhān fī tāriḵ Dayr Za‘far (The Excursion of the Mind in the History of Dayr
al-Za‘faran), 1912
10. Al-durar al-nafīsa fī muḵtaṣar tārīḵ al-kanīsa (The Precious Pearls of the
Compendious History of the Church), 1940.
11. Macktabnotho d-‘al Athro d- Tur ‘Abdin (in Syriac), (History of Tur Abdin), translated
into Arabic by Paulus Behnam (1963) and into English by Matti Moosa (2008).

v) Apologetic
12. A treatise refuting Al-zahra al-ḏakiyya fī al-baṭriyarkiyya al-anṭākiyya al-suryāniyya,
written by Ishaq Armala in 1909. After this refutation appeared in 1910, Armala
apparently replied for Barsoum published another refutation in 1912.

In addition to the above, Patriarch Barsoum authored other works that have never been
published. His Syriac-Arabic lexicon and his compendium of church history in the twentieth
century are written in both Syriac and Arabic. In Arabic, he also wrote a history of the
Patriarchs of Antioch and the famous men of the Syrian Church, a history of Syrian dioceses,
an index of Syriac manuscripts, and translations of 10 liturgies of the Syrian Church. Also, in
1909, when he was a monk at the Monastery of Za’faran, he translated into Arabic the second
part of the Ecclesiastical History of Bar Hebraeus.896
Of Barsoum’s entire scholarly heritage his book al-Lu’lu’al-manthur remains the most
distinguished and best known. Dolabani translated it into Syriac and Moosa Matti into English
under the roughly equivalent title “The Scattered Pearls, A History of Syriac Science and

896
This additional work may be summarized in the following: Book Sheemo, the weekly prayer book in Syriac in
1913 and in 1936; Catalogue of manuscripts, especially those in the Oriental libraries; Arabic/Syriac Lexicon;
Chronicle of Patriarchs of Antioch; History of Syriac Parishes, in Arabic; The book Hadeeth, containing stories of
the 19th century as recited by elders and church clergy; and Collection of sermons and speeches in Arabic, Syriac
and French, including poems, which reflect his renowned oratory ability.

287
Literature.”897 In his introduction, Moosa notes that unlike his Western predecessors, Barsoum
does not depend heavily on thework of Assemani, but he draws much information from the
Syriac manuscripts surviving in churches and monasteries throughout the Middle East and
from other original sources. The wider range of material generally does not lead him to
conclusions that are in conflict with those reached by Western scholars, but frequently enriches
his presentation of factual information. Wright,898 for example, in his biographical sketch of
Bar Hebraeus, cites only the Bibliotheca Orientalis and Bar Bebraeus’ own writings. Barsoum
furnishes additional evidence from the metrical biography of Bar Hebraeus and of his brother,
by Gabrielle of Bartelli. A more detailed analysis of al-Lu’lu’ al-Manthur may be found in
Matti Moosa’s introduction to his English translation.899
The search for literary heritage is generally motivated by the curiosity of a researcher.
To Barsoum, however, this search was the product of more than an academic curiosity, but of a
life-long interest in the heritage of the forefathers, as is evidenced by the enormous corpus of
unpublished material he left behind. He documented manuscripts of lectionaries, liturgical
books, Gospels and other material that he unearthed in his painstaking search throughout the
region when he was a monk in Deir al-Za‘faran. In later years, Barsoum prepared indices in his
own handwriting of the hundreds of Syriac manuscripts that he had discovered, and
commented on them extensively. In his biography of Barsoum, Yuhanna Ibrahim900 describes
the lists of the manuscripts, which Barsoum prepared in the 1940s as series of indices. Some of
these were published by Yuhanna Ibrahim in three volumes: a 469-page volume covering the
manuscripts of St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem,901 a 472-page volume covering the
manuscripts at Deir al-Zafaran,902 and the general index consisting of 488 pages. Recently,
Patriarch Zakka I was published three volumes of Barsoum’s manuscript collection indices.903
One of the most valuable legacies Barsoum left is his personal compilation of the
history of the Syriac Archdiocese. This is a huge 467-page manuscript, which Barsoum

897
Barsoum, Patriarch Aphram. Al -Lu’Lu’ al-Manthur, (The Scattered Pearls) published originally in Arabic in
1943, was translated by Matti Moosa ( New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2003).
898
Ibid, pp. vii, viii apud William Wright, Syriac Literature (London, 1894).
899
Ibid, pp. vii-xix.
900
Yuhanna Ibrahim, The Glory of the Syrians-Mar Ignatius Ephrem Barsoum, p. 38.
901
Ibid.
902
Ibid, p.39.
903
These were published in Damascus, 2008 under the titles: Omid and Mardin Manuscripts, (506 pages);
Deyrulzafaran Manuscripts, (506 pages); and Tur Abdin Manuscript ,(531 pages).

288
authored and inscribed in his own handwriting. A selection of the resulting history was
published by Barsoum in various issues of the Syrian Patriarchal Journal that were published
in Jerusalem from 1933 – 1941. Further extracts of this unique history have also been
published by Patriarch Zakka Iwas in the Patriarchal Journal from1980 onwards.904 An
English translation of these has been made by Matti Moosa and published by Gorgias Press.905
The source book for this material is divided into eight volumes that cover a total of more than
180 towns, villages and monasteries that were at some point in the history of the Syrian
Orthodox Church part of its Archdiocese, which, in the thirteenth century extended east to
include Herat and to Sigistan in Afghanistan, south to Yemen, and north to Azerbaijan and
parts of Armenia. I have been extremely fortunate to have obtained a facsimile copy of this
document, which I have utilized in this thesis in sketching out the historical distribution of the
Syriac diocese and their numbers over the centuries.906

6.4.1.2.1 His Literary Style

a) General
In his biography on Barsoum,907 Paulus Behnam wrote concerning several facets of Barsoum’s
scholarship, especially his style in writing history, which is worthy of special note. Behnam
notes that in addition to providing historical facts, Barsoum infuses his description with a
literary poetic description of people and places; and that he commences his description with an
eloquent preamble that serves to put the reader in a multi-dimensional perspective, which
enriches the subject with a sense of time and place.
“As an example listen to him describe Antioch as though he is viewing this historical city
through a kaleidoscope that reveals its distant history.” Quoting Barsoum, he states (my
translation):
Great Antioch, the great capital of the East and its beautiful pride; a
city renowned for its religious and civil history, its natural beauty

904
Aphram Barsoum, by Zakka Iwas. The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch
and All the East. No. 1, 1981, pp. 21-26; No. 2, 1981, pp. 73-81; No. 3, 1981, pp.145-151; No. 4, 1981, pp. 208-
221; No. 6, 1981, pp. 269-282; No. 9, 1981, pp. 333-346; No. 10, 1981, pp. 407-413; No. 12, 1982, pp. 16-24; No.
13, 1982, pp. 4-19; No. 17, 1982, pp. 8-14; No. 23, 1983, pp. 21-28; No. 24, 1983, pp. 24-32; No. 25, 1983, pp.
27-34; No. 27, 1983, pp. 26-33; No. (28, 29), 1983, pp. 37-42; No. 30, 1983, pp. 18-20.
905
Aphram Barsoum, History of the Syriac Dioceses, (tras.) Matti Moosa, Gorgias Press, 2009.
906
I am deeply indebted to Metropolitan Yohanna Ibrahim who made a copy of this corpus available to me in July
2010.
907
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām, Mosul, 1959.

289
 and its important geographical location. In it Greek and Roman
civilizations came together and bequeathed to subsequent
generations the most beautiful of riches and the worthiest of
heritages… In it were erected towering arches and great
thoroughfares, beautiful gardens around fast moving rivers and
imposing waterfalls. In it were erected rich temples and great
churches. It had its golden days and historical zeniths, it is where
Roman soldiers crowded to guard the kingdom, becoming the second
capital after Rome to guard the frontier of the kingdom. It was in it
where Caesars: Ghalos, Constantine and Ilianos preferred to reside in
order to protect the people. It was here where the Apostles of Christ,
to whom be glory, raised the banner of the Holy Gospel and the fall
of the banners of Dafna (sic), Apollo and Venus thus proclaiming the
noble principles of Christianity through which the fallacies of
atheism were discredited. This is how Christianity transformed
Antioch, making it the first shining center of Christianity, with
founding fathers and scholars who adorned her with the crown of
glory and ordained her bosom with magnificent honours.908

This description would likely appear excessively romantic in today’s mode of

scholarship, which tends to confine its scope and description to the immediate facts in hand.
However, Barsoum belonged to a generation of writers that was engaged in awakening society
from a deep sleep, particularly in the social/political sphere. Using poetic expression and
flowery language were common means to lift the reader’s morale from the state of lethargy and
despair that had dominated his life for centuries. Other examples of this mode of writing may
be found in the works of Mohammad Abda, Jamal al Din al Afghani and Jurji Zaydan.

b) His Translation Style from Syriac to Arabic 909

Describing Barsoum’s skill in translating to Arabic, Behnam states “When you read his
translated text you will feel a sensation that these texts had originally been written in Arabic.
This is due to his astounding excellence in both languages. He enriches his translation with an
extensive preamble that gives an in-depth historical background and a discussion of the core of
translated text.”910 Behnam cites several examples of translated works including in particular
the exegesis of Ishaias by Dionysius Bar Salibi, the eleventh century exegete, which Barsoum
published over a period of four years in the Patriarchal Magazine, starting in1935. Other

908
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām, p.p. 56- 57
909
Ibid, p. 106
910
Ibid.

290
translations include works by Moshe Bar Keefo (d. 905), John of Phetonia (Deir Mar
Quonsreen) by the seventh century luminary, Isaac the Syrian (also known as Isaac of
Nineveh), and the Christological homilies by Isaac the Syrian. More directly related to the
revival of his church, Barsoum worked hard to translate many Syriac liturgical texts into
eloquent Arabic. By doing so, he began a trend that was to be continued by others in the
following decades. Emerging scholars in the diaspora were also encouraged to translate the
liturgical literature into European languages, all as part of a concerted effort to bring the liturgy
closer to the understanding and the appreciation of churchgoers in the diaspora.

6.4.1.3 Barsoum the Nationalist

Barsoum’s efforts to bring a semblance of justice for devastated Syriac Christians at the Paris
Peace Conference were discussed in Chapter Five, in which his support of the rights of the
Arabs at that forum was also addressed. Barsoum maintained those positions throughout his
life. However, he remained above local politics. His basic stance on major issues, such
forfeiture of Iskandaroun, and hence Antioch, to Turkey in 1939, and the war in Palestine in
1947 was respected by politicians of all stripes.
When the French army entered Homs, he was invited to speak at a public gathering in
celebration of the liberation of the city, which was also attended by the French General. In his
speech, Barsoum reminded the French troops, who also attended the gathering, of their duties
as liberators. He admonished them to be in Syria not as conquerors and invaders but as
liberating friends. He praised the efforts of the Arabs for their role in the liberation of their land
and whose rights should be respected. Many years later, in 1939, when the French yielded
Iskandarun to Turkey, he criticized them for this action. It had been only in the previous year,
as though he had prior knowledge of what was to happen, that he had written an article on the
history of that wilaya and on its historic connection with Syria.911

6.4.1.4 Barsoum the Reformer in Action

a) The Ephremic Seminary
One of Barsoum’s principal goals, particularly in the initial years of his patriarchate, was the
establishment of an ecclesiastic school, a seminary, that was qualified to graduate educated
clergy to serve in the spirit of the new age. This had been the dream of his predecessors for at
911
Al-Majallah Al Batriarkiyya Al-Surianiyya (The Patriarchal Journal), Year 5, pp. 256-265.

291
least 60 years, but they had lacked the necessary academic and financial resources.912 He had a
building constructed for this purpose in Zahle, Lebanon. The choice of the location was
influenced by Lebanon’s favourable position in the area of academic and religious studies at
that time. He aptly called the school the Ephremic Seminary in reverence to the memory to
Ephrem the Syrian, the renowned fourth century Syriac liturgical poet.
The foundation stone for the building was laid in 1934 but the acute lack of financial
resources was a stumbling block towards the completion of the building. Patriarch Barsoum
issued encyclicals to urge the communities to donate towards realizing this vital project.913
However, by 1938 much was still needed to complete the project. He, thus, sent a nuncio to the
United States to collect donations. After one year the nuncio was able to collect US$1,200
dollars, which assisted in completing the building.914 Such were the material constraints facing
the community everywhere. The school was finally opened on March 29, 1939. Paulus
Behnam, the author of Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām, states that he was the school’s first registered
student.915 The school was moved to Mosul in 1946, which, with the rising of the spirit of
revival in that city, it was deemed to provide a better learning environment. Barsoum continued
to follow the progress of the school right until the end of his life, all based on his deep
conviction that the revival of his church was closely linked to the success of this project. He
believed deeply that it was the plight of having uneducated clergy as shepherds in the past that
had caused many of the flock to veer to the Catholic and to the Protestant churches.
In Mosul the Ephremic Seminary was an astounding success. Young men converged on it
from all parts of Syria as well as Iraq, and some of its learned past graduates from Zahle, such
as Paulus Behnam, and a number of learned scholars such as Nimmat Allah Denno, taught at
the school. Its graduates were sought after to take ecclesiastic responsibilities in towns and
monasteries throughout the region, as well as in the diaspora. The seminary’s sejour in Mosul
ended in 1959 on account of the unhealthy socio-political environment that developed there at
that time, which caused the majority of the Christians to leave that city for the safer social

912
Paulus Behnam, Nafahat, p. 44.
913
Malateus Barnaba, Al‘ithat al-Thahabiya fe al-Manshourat al-Batriarkiyya, (The Golden Sermons in the
Patriarchal Encyclicals), 1964, pp. 95-97. This is a collection of Aphram Barsoum’s encyclicals.
914
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām, p. 46.
915
Ibid.

292
environment in Baghdad.916 Thus, the seminary was moved initially back to Zahle, then to
‘Atshana in Lebanon. However, the atmosphere of unrest from the Lebanese civil war that
started in the mid-1970s once again prompted its move, this time to Damascus, where it still is.
While the geographic location was shifting in response to environmental circumstances, the
aims of the seminary, its popularity and status as a vital organ of a reviving church remained
unchanged. The importance Barsoum attached to the seminary helped it maintain its status as a
beacon that derived its shining light from the glorious past, which it aimed to emulate. As such,
its graduates were increasingly encouraged to pursue higher studies in Western universities, as
will also be noted later.
b) Re-settlement of Refugees and Church Construction
Barsoum, aided by Dolabani, worked hard to facilitate the settlement of the new refugees (see
Chapter Five). With the majority of the churches and monasteries in Syria belonging to the
Syrian Orthodox Church being taken over by the Syrian Catholics in the course of the
nineteenth century, an acute need arose to construct new churches to serve the post WWI
immigrants in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. New churches were constructed in each of Hasaka
and Aleppo. The one in Aleppo was donated by Selim Azar and consecrated in 1925. Other
churches in that early stage of re-settlement included the Church of Mar Jirjis in Zahle, again
consecrated in 1925; the church of Our Lady in Maskina, in Homs; the Church of Mar Ilian in
the Qariatain, which was consecrated in 1932.917 Other churches constructed in that period and
the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul in Msaitabah, Beirut, which was consecrated in 1933,
principally served the immigrants from Adana, Mardin, Diyarbakir, Qilith, and Tur Abdin. One
of the larger churches that were constructed in Aleppo at a later stage was the Mar Jirjis’
Church in Hay al-Suryan, which was consecrated in 1952 to serve the increasing population of
the Rahawi immigrants, who had been exiled in 1924. T.M.S., the association of expatriates
referenced earlier, continued to provide financial help, even through the years of the Great
Depression. This help that was used for the running of Beirut orphanage. Funds were also sent

916
This was in the aftermath of a failed coup d’ etat on March 7, 1959 by Al-Shawaf, an army general, which
resulted in a breakdown of law and order and violence with strong sectarian overtones that lasted for several
months. However, the insecurity systematically experienced by the Christians, coupled with threats, kidnapping
and killing caused the majority of the Christian population of the city to migrate to the safer environment in
Baghdad.
917
This church was constructed to replace a well known church at the monastery of the same name that had been
taken over by Catholics with French help.

293
to aid the construction of the seminary in Zahle that had been initiated by Barsoum (see
shortly), and many years later for the running of a seminary in Deir al-Za‘faran. 918
One of prominent personalities who advanced the church and school construction
programme in Northern Syria was Osthatheos Qiriaqos - Bishop of Syrian Jazerah (1943 -
1979). He was endowed with a serene personality that enabled him to work with others: Arabs,
Kurds and other Christians. He was known as man of action who achieved a great deal with
quiet resolution. He was appointed to a diocese that, by reason of its geographic location, had
borne the brunt of the waves of migration from Anatolia. He conducted his work efficiently in
a workman fashion and he achieved a lot and was greatly respected. He oversaw the
construction of no fewer than 20 churches and a similar number of schools.919
c) Synods and Canon Law
Aphram Barsoum convened four synods, all in Homs, Syria, the first in November 1933 and
the last in November, 1954. He convened the first during his term as Qaimmaqam (Locum
Tenens) following the passing of his predecessor Patriarch Elias III in India in February, 1932.
The synod was held in Homs in November, 1933, to which, for the first time, bishops from
India were invited. The synod considered the various matters concerning the church and
decided to modify the decisions taken by the Synod of Mar Mattai of 1930. The new synod
enacted 140 canons that organized the various aspects of the Church, the milla (lay) councils,
the seminary, church schools and societies. Following this, this synod elected the new
patriarch. By a vote of 14 out of 15 Aphram Barsoum was elected patriarch. He was installed
in this position in Homs on December 16, 1933. The other synods convened during Barsoum’s
patriarchate were from July 2 to July 21, 1934; from December 7 to 22, 1946; and from
November 15 to 25, 1954.920

6.4.1.5 Barsoum the Father and Teacher Addresses His Community

a) General
Barsoum addressed his community through encyclicals that were read out in churches. He
wrote over 40 encyclicals in which he addressed the issues of the day, including the annual

918
Ashur Giwargis and Matay Arsan, “Brief History of (Taw Meem Simkat) T.M.S., Assyrian National Schools”,
Assyrian Star Magazine, Sept. 2006.
919
Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra, Vol. IV, pp. 266-269.
920
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām, pp. 183-186.

294
encyclicals that were issued at the start of Lent.921 Some of the earliest encyclicals urged
support for the opening of the Ephremic Seminary in Zahle, Lebanon. Each encyclical would
commence with an artful opening that would lift the spirit of the reader or listener. The body of
the encyclical would be in a clear, carefully crafted language that brought out the importance
of the issue. Despite the literary format of his address, at a time when communities were still
battling illiteracy, his encyclicals conveyed a message from a kind, loving father, one who was
deeply concerned about the future. He reminded them of the glorious past of their ancestors
and urged and admonished them to discard lethargy and inaction. He repeatedly impressed on
them that illiteracy and ignorance had been the reasons for their sad state over the past
centuries. He spearheaded the modernization of their liturgical books, translating many into
Arabic to serve the Arabic speaking regions of his spread-out dioceses. However, the central
theme for his reform plan was the education of the clergy. The founding of a seminary was one
of his main concerns. The success of the seminary particularly after its transfer to Mosul in
1946 was key to propagating the revival movement throughout Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and
Palestine. This revival as noted before, was greatly facilitated by the recent cultural revival in
those countries. Revival in the communities that were still living in Turkey, where the minority
Christians continued to be severely disenfranchised, proved to be far less possible. As late as
the 1940s, Barsoum was still attempting with little success to set up a seminary in Deir al
Za‘faran to cater to the communities that still existed in Mardin, Diyarbakir, Tur Abdin, as is
evident from his general epistle to bishops dated July 8, 1952, see next in b below.

b) Typical Encyclicals:
i) The Encyclical on the Establishment of the Ephremic Ecclesiastic School, dated March 20,
1934 (Julian)
When we (I) reflected on the past glory that emanated from our
numerous monasteries and religious schools, a glory that was
based on virtues, theological and philosophical learning, as well
as on those famous scholars and clergy who graduated from these
schools; when we reflected on their holiness, wisdom and culture
that were based on an enduring legacy and the crown of glory and
heritage; and when we have also seen what has transpired in later
times when that the glory vanished and its remaining light
dimmed to what is unbefitting of our venerable past and of the
921
Ibid, p. 86.

295
 clergy who bequeathed to us their legacy of learning, we have,
with the Synod, resolved on the need to establish an ecclesiastic
school to train clergy the cost of which would be borne by the
believers.
When we (I), by grace and calling of God sat on the Apostolic Seat
of Antioch, I aspired to make an offering from the fruits of my
labour to God in order to purchase a suitable spacious land in
Zahle, Lebanon. We have had a school built on it again out of my
own funds,922 as an offering to God Almighty and to his Church, in
the name of my namesake, the great malphan (teacher) of our
Church, Saint Ephrem the Syrian…923

The encyclical then calls upon the believers in all dioceses to donate towards the cost of
running of the school.
ii) Lent Encyclicals
Barsoum issued an encyclical before the start of every Lent, a practice that has been followed
ever since. The encyclical is read out in all churches on the Sunday that immediately precedes
Lent. These encyclicals presented Barsoum, as they have done with succeeding patriarchs, with
an opportunity to directly address the general congregation. The encyclicals stressed the virtues
of fasting, but were more than just that; they were general sermons in which he preached
Christian values. The following is an excerpt from an encyclical he issued in March 1937.
God has granted us the spirit of bravery and this spirit is supported
by the Christian faith in [promoting] the merits of the holy fast,
which is one of the pillars of worship required of all believers. Thus
ye, the chosen of God, be robed by this strong armour that cannot
be penetrated by the arrows of the enemy, and go forth into the
fields of the honourable battle with hearts filled with belief and
souls enriched with hope for victory. Come forth and receive it with
smiling faces and happy hearts that render its hardship easy…
All Ye, the wealthy, do not despise fasting through insolence,
relying on your opulent tables, but empower your souls to fast, and
share for a little while, the need of your poorer brethren, and let not
the fast complain about you to God who laid down the command of
the fast…924

922
I might add the following with reference to Barsoum’s private funds. Iin an interview I had with Patriarch
Ignatius Zakka I Iwas on June 6, 2009, Patriarch Iwas cited that Barsoum’s mother had given young Ayoub most
of her gold savings as he set out on his travel to Deir al-Za‘faran in 1905, funds that he used in subsequent years
to pay for his travels and to donate towards church projects.
923
Malateus Barnaba, Al-‘ithat al-Thahabiya fe al-Manshurat al-Batriarckiya, pp. 95-97.
924
Ibid, pp. 12-14.

296
iii) A General Epistle to Bishops dated July 8, 1952
After offering our prayers and wishes for peace, we (I) have heard
some of you complain of the weakness in the spiritual life of the
believers. This is a case that is more acute in Europe and America
than in Eastern countries. If we reviewed its immediate reasons, we
would find they are the result of the recent wars. These are
sorrowful events with dire effects that have been the concern of
many society leaders. If we confine our attention to our blessed
community, we would find that most of our people possess a
measure of spiritual fortitude which is inherited and which is
fortified by family upbringing, in addition to fortitude that is
acquired from community schools, sermons and the reading of
church books. However, the foregoing is inadequate to combat the
corrupt facets of modern civilization, their fast development and
their effect on society. The appropriate upbringing of the young in
schools, church and public, needs fresh and careful attention and
deep thought to ensure that graduates are offered adequate
knowledge and awareness of their church’s principles, history and
liturgy so that they may grow up feeling love and deep commitment
to it. Failing that, the young would either be swept by the dangers of
devious currents or grow non-caring and indifferent to the orthodox
beliefs and to commitment to the welfare of the community.925

The epistle then proceeds to enumerate the essential ingredients for promoting spiritual
fortification of the next generation, as well as the older ones. It stresses certain priorities: that
sermons be given by qualified clergy, attention be given to community schools, religious textbooks
be made available, and finally that the reading of patristic literature be encouraged. He draws the
attention of the bishops to the need to encourage the re-printing of many of the prayer books that he
had authored or collated and translated to Arabic himself over the years. But he emphasizes that the
education of the clergy has always been central to any effort to move forward.

6. 4.2 Bishop Philoxenus Yuhanna/Yuhanon Dolabani (1885 – 1969)

Dolabani was born in Mardin and educated at the Syrian Orthodox School and at the
Cappadocian School in Mardin. He was tonsured a monk in 1908 and was appointed soon after
to teach at the Patriarchal School in Deir al-Za‘faran. He was ordained priest monk in 1918 and
in the following year accompanied Patriarch Elias III on a tour to provide help and comfort to

925
Ibid, pp. 111-113.

297
the remaining Syrian Orthodox communities in Anatolia. Over the next 15 years he looked
after various church institutions, including schools, of the communities that emigrated from
their homeland. In Adana, he looked after the orphanage that had been set up with aid from
Taw-Mem-Simkat (see Chapter Five) and subsequently supervised its transfer to Beirut in
1921. In 1928 he was put in charge of the Hikmat journal that was being printed and re-issued
in Jerusalem, while at the same time he continued his teaching of Syriac and liturgical material
at the St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem. He was then appointed Patriarchal Vicar of the
Mardin region in 1933, thus once again serving the community and being in the environment
he so loved. He was ordained Bishop of Mardin in 1946, an appointment he maintained until
his passing in 1969.926
Driven by a strong missionary spirit, Dolabani trained and ordained many priests and
monks and deacons to serve in remote places as far away as Bitlis and Van, where the faithful
had lost their clergy. He was a role model for generations of Syrian Orthodox clergy and
members of church communities, especially for those with roots in southeast Turkey. In that
capacity alone, he contributed greatly towards the revival of his church. Dolabani had an
ascetic personality which enabled him to devote most of his life to scholarship in the fields that
he loved so much: Syriac literature and philosophy. He authored over 40 books in Syriac,
Arabic and Turkish, penned eight manuscripts and published numerous articles in literary and
parish journals. A brief account of his publications is given in Appendix A6.2

6.4.3 Ni‘matallah Denno927 (1885-1951)

Denno was a scholar, educator and reform-minded member of the Syrian Orthodox community
in Mosul. He was born in Mosul, and grew up at a time when his church was at its lowest ebb.
He also witnessed the arrival of refugees fleeing the 1915 massacres of Syrians and Armenians
in southeastern Turkey. He saw the dire need to educate the members of his community, young
and old, in the virtues of the beliefs of his church and in the richness of its Syriac liturgy and
heritage. He served his church as deacon and then as archdeacon, by which title he was widely
known. Apart from initial schooling he was self-taught. He mastered the Syriac language and

926
G. A. Kiraz, “ Dolabani, Philoxenos Yuhanon,” in Gorgias EncyclopedicDictionary of the Syriac Heritage,
eds. Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, Lucas Van Rompay, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011,
pp. 129-130.
927
Ni‘matallah Denno was my grandfather’s cousin.

298
wrote several grammar text books for it. He wrote a number of books and articles defending
the Syrian Orthodox Church and its beliefs against what he saw as defamations and distortions
of historical facts (see Appendix A6.3). He wrote about the Aramaic and Syriac cultures and
on church history and commented on literary works by others. He paid particular attention to
church music and wrote a series of articles in which he analyzed the role of music in Syriac’s
liturgical tradition. However, he was also aware of the dire need to engage the Arabic speaking
communities of his church in the liturgy. As part of this effort he complied and published the
first hymn book in Arabic in the Syrian Orthodox Church.928
Denno worked closely with Aphram Barsoum over the years starting from the time
when the latter was monk,929 then Bishop of Syria and later Patriarch. Many of the letters
exchanged included their individual reviews of ecclesiastic history.930 As with Barsoum and
Dolabani, Denno was at the forefront of efforts to introduce structural church reforms and to
promote a meaningful education of the clergy. He left behind an enduring reputation and a
legacy that bore the imprints of a man who was devoted to bettering the church that he so
deeply loved, to enable it to meet the challenges of a new era.931

6.4.3.1 Testimony of an Eye-witness

The following is based on an article by Patriarch Zakka I Iwas which was published in the
Patriarchal Journal in 1982 under the title “The Learned Archdeacon: Ni‘matallah Denno.”932
In this article Patriarch Iwas traces his and his fellow seminarians’ encounters with Denno who
taught at the Mar Ephrem Seminary in Mosul in the 1940s, and in particular how he inspired
his students and instilled in them the desire to research the rich heritage of their Syriac
ancestors. He states:
(I) considered Archdeacon Denno to be first after the Most
Learned of blessed memory933 Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum and
the most learned of blessed memory Bishop Yuhanna Dolabani.

928
Dinno, Khalid, “Arabic Hymnology in the Syriac Orthodox Church in Iraq in the Early 20th Century”, Parole
de l’Oriente 35, (2010) 169-179.
929
Letter from Barsoum to Denno, dated March 2, 1917 (Archival Document P1100532).
930
Letter from Barsoum to Denno dated March 31, 1926- from my personal collection of the Denno archives.
931
See recent reference in Iraqi National Library and Archives-Ministry of Culture, March 29, 2015-www.iraqla-
iq.com
932
Zakka I Iwas, “Al-‘Alama al- Arkhidyaqon Ni‘matallah Denno” (The Most Learned Archdeacon: Ni‘matallah
Denno), The Patriarchal Journal, No. 11, 1982, pp. 36-42.
933
The term used in Arabic, which is based on Syriac may be translated as “Thrice Blessed”

299
 And we knew that our teachers, the monks Paulus Behnam
(subsequently Bishop of Mosul then of Baghdad) and Abdulahad
Toma (later Patriarch Yaqoub III) used to consult him about
difficult issues on Syriac heritage: linguistic, historical and
theological. . .

The article describes the spirit of encouragement that Denno infused in his listeners and
readers to emulate the learning and the glory of their ancestors in the defence of their faith and
church:

In his essays and in his poetry, he inspired the reader and the
student with a spirit of enthusiasm for the church and for the
homeland, and the singing of her glories, and the following of the
example of the fathers of faith. Through the studies of his Syriac
books and the reading of his Arabic essays, theological, historical,
literary, and especially apologetic, we joined in the fervour of our
dear Archdeacon Denno in the defence of the honour of the Church
and in the upholding of her holy truth, and we felt a responsibility
with him for engaging with our opponents on the battlefield, seeing
in him David triumphing over Goliath in the name of the Lord
God.

The article also brought out the humanitarian side in Denno’s work in the settlement of
the Sayfo survivors in and around Mosul through the work of Jamiyal-al-Ihsan, a benevolent
society that he had formed. In this regard the article quotes from a letter Denno wrote to
Ruphael Butti, the editor of Al-‘Iraq newspaper, on April 30, 1926 in which he describes a
recent persecution by the Turkish authorities of the Christians of Azikh, a town located in the
southern part of Tur Abdin, and of the historical town of Nisibis, and the exile of the survivors
from their ancestral homeland. The article concludes with a summary appraisal that notes:
From a review of the above we sense the wisdom with which God
endowed Archdeacon Denno. He was truly like Stephanos, the first
head of the deacons: “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3)
to fulfill the word of the Lord “I was a stranger, but you gave me
shelter” while at the same time he was endowed by the Spirit to act
with wisdom such that while, defending the rights of the persecuted,
he thought of the safety of others who could be subject to the same
fate. . .

An abridged version of the article by Patriarch Iwas is given in Appendix A 6.3

300
For Denno’s literary legacy, see Appendix A6.3. In addition his literary legacy also included
several unfinished literary works, which Patriarch Zakka I Iwas published on his behalf in the
Patriarchal Journal934 over several years. Two areas of work that are closely related to the
theme of this chapter merit a specific mention: his work on church name and identity (See
section 6.3.6) and his introduction of Arabic hymns in the liturgy. This introduction was a
landmark development towards promoting a more active participation of the Arabic-speaking
majority of the churchgoers in Divine Liturgy. Published in 1934 under the title Al-Tarneemat
al-Rouhiyah (The Spiritual Hymns), this book included 61 hymns that Denno had collected and
edited. The use of these hymns was initially popular in Mosul, with its well-established Arabic-
speaking community. Denno published a second expanded edition in the mid-1940s that
incorporated 102 hymns. By the time a third re-print was published in 1962, the hymns had
become widely known and were chanted throughout the Syrian Orthodox Churches outside
Iraq as well. The latest re-print, the seventh, was published in Jerusalem in 2006.935 These
hymns have often been incorporated as part of general prayer books.936 Denno provides an
interesting historical background on the source of the hymns he had collected. Some of these
hymns were early twentieth century composed largely by Barsoum, but others were from much
older sources.937

6.4.4 Na‘um Fa’iq (1868 – 1930)

Fa’iq was born in Amid (Diyarbakir) where he attended church school. When the
school was shut down due to lack of funds, he pursued self-teaching and later became qualified
to take up teaching as a profession, along with many other intellectual interests from 1888 to
1912, when he emigrated to America. Fa’iq had an enthusiastic affection for the Syriac
language and literature. He was also a renowned Syriac journalist and nationalist, who like

934
Ni‘mat-allah Denno, by Zakka Iwas, The Patriarchal Journal: No. 11, 1982, p.36; No. 13, 1982, pp. 20-33;
No. (65,66), 1987, pp. 238-250; No. (94, 95, 96), 1990, pp. 154-155; No. (133, 134), 1994, pp. 158-159;No. (191,
192, 193), 2000, pp. 24-29; No. (221, 222, 223), 2003, pp. 29-60; No. (224, 225, 226), 2003, pp. 239-240;
No.(241, 242, 243), 2004, pp. 17-26.
935
Ni‘mat-allah Denno , Al-Tarneemat al-Rouhiyah, Seventh Edition, Jerusalem, 2006.
936
Yuhanna Ibrahim, Rafiq al-Mu’min (the Companion of the Believer), Mardin-Dar-al-Ruha, 1996, and in Holy
Qurbono, Divine Liturgy of Saint Jacob Bar Salibi According to the the Rite of the Syriac Orthodox Church of
Antioch, Beth Antioch and Gorgias Press, New Jersey, 2009.
937
The older sources include: Gregorius ‘Adul Jalil al-Mosuli, Bishop of Jerusalem (d.1681);Yuhanna Ghrair,
Bishop of Damascus (d.1685); Issa al-Hazzar, early 17th century; Deacon Yussuf al-Hakeem al-Saddadi (d.1700);
Gregorius Yuhanna Shqair Bishop of Damascus (d.1783); and Simeon al-Manie, Bishop of Tur Abdin (d.1730).

301
many others of his generation witnessed the persecution and extermination of his people in
their homeland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He reflected his devotion to the Syriac
language and nationalism through his extensive journalistic pursuits and in his other
publications. He published a newspaper Kawkab Madenho in Diyarbakir in Syriac, Arabic and
Turkish from 1910-1912. He initially had faith in the Young Turk movement, but that faith
soon dissipated when the Islamic backlash to the Italian invasion in 1911 became evident. The
persecution of nationalists not aligned with CUP caused him to emigrate to America in 1912,
where he lived in New Jersy, where he established the newspaper Beth Nahrin (Mesopotamia)
(1916 to1921). He also was editor-in-chief of Hudoyu - Al-Itihad (the Unity), which was
founded by the National Chaldean Assyrian Society in America. In addition, he contributed
numerous articles to two other papers, Al-Intibah (Vigilance), which was published in
America, and Murshid al-Athorieen (the Mentor of the Assyrians), which was published in
Kharput in Turkey.938 In addition to his journalistic pursuits, Fa’iq authored no fewer than 28
books. Many of these were on the Syriac language and literature while others were of a
pedagogical nature on subjects that ranged from mathematics to geography.939

6.4.5 Second and Subsequent Generations of Reformers

6.4.5.1 Abdul-Ahad Tuma (Later Patriarch Jacob (Yacoub) III (1957-1980)
Born in Bartilla, a historical Christian town near Mosul in 1912, Shaba Tuma (his name at
birth) received his early education in his hometown before joining the seminary school of Deir
Mar Mattai in 1923. In 1931, he left for Beirut where he taught the Syriac language at the
Syriac Orphanage in Beirut. In 1933/1934 he was tonsured a monk, taking up the name
Abdulahad, and was soon after ordained a priest monk He was sent in the same year by
Patriarch Barsoum as patriarchal envoy to India to head Mar Ignatius Seminary in Malabar.
This he did over the next 12 years during which period this seminary graduated no fewer than
60 graduates. He also learned the local language, Malyalalam, and published in it. In 1946, he
joined the Ephremic Seminary in Mosul, working closely with his colleague Paulus Behnam.
In 1950, he was ordained Bishop over Lebanon and Syria, taking up the episcopal title of

938
For an extensive account on the journalism in question see The Ottoman Suryani from 1908-1914 by Benjamin
Trigona-Harany, Gorgias, 2009, pp. 113-127
939
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language), pp. 546-548; M.F.
Chiqqi, Na‘um Fa’iq: Dhikra wa Takhlid, Damascus, 1937.

302
Severus Jacob. In 1957, he was elected Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius Jacob III) following the
death of Patriarch Aphram Barsoum.
Patriarch Jacob III was an accomplished orator and a prolific writer whose works
covered a wide spectrum of knowledge: theological, linguistic and historical.940 He was well-
versed in Arabic, Syriac, English and Malayalam, which he mastered during his service in
Malabar. He published most of his work in Arabic but he also published work in Syriac and
Malaylalam.941 He wrote extensively on church history up to the fifth century, on the history of
the Syrian Orthodox Church in India, on the Himyerite Christian Arab martyrs in the sixth
century, as well as on literary topics on the interaction between Syriac and Arabic literatures.942
A list of his most significant publications is given in Appendix A 6.4.
In addition to his ability as a scholar, he was exceptionally skilled in liturgical Syriac
music of both the “School of Tikrit”, popularly followed in the churches of Iraq, and of the
“School of Edessa”, popularly followed elsewhere. He was endowed with a remarkable
memory for the tunes of over 700 melodies of the Beth Gaz, the Syrian Orthodox treasure of
liturgical music tunes and their variations. This treasure had been orally transmitted over the
centuries, but, in the midst of the turmoil of the early twentieth century, was in danger of being
lost, despite certain attempts at expressing it in modern musical format in the 1920s.943 It was,
therefore, most fortunate that an excellent sample of the Beth Gaz tunes was recorded in
Patriarch Jacob III’s voice in the early 1960s and recently made available on the Internet as
invaluable resource.944
Patriarch Jacob III re-launched the Patriarchal Journal in 1962, and supported it with
numerous literary articles. This journal has flourished ever since with contributions from a
wide spectrum of learned authors. In addition, he has also contributed many articles on
different subjects that were published in other major Middle Eastern periodicals.

940
See Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. IV, Aleppo,1983, pp.
233-240 and Christine Chaillot, The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, Geneva, 1998, pp.146-
147.
941
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya, pp. 570-572.
942
For his bibliographical profile see Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra, Vol. IV, pp. 241-251, and for a
summary see Matti Moosa’s translation of Ignatius Yacob III, History of the Church of India, Gorgias 2010,
author’s profile.
943
Yuhanna Ibrahim, Beth Gazo according to the School of Edessa- Music of the Syrian Orthodox Church of
Antioch, Damascus, 2003.
944
See sor.cua.edc/BethGazo/PY3RecordHistory.html

303
6.4.5.2 Paulus Behnam (1916 – 1969)
Born in Bakhdeda (Qaragosh), a historic Christian village near Mosul, Behnam received his
preliminary education in his hometown and further education at the Seminary School of Deir
Mar Matti starting in 1929. In 1938, he joined the Ephremic Seminary in Zahle, Lebanon,
where he completed his studies and became a teacher in the College. He then became dean of
the College when it was moved to Mosul in 1945. He edited and published two literary
journals in Arabic: Al-Mashriq from 1946 to 1948 and Lisan Al-Mashriq from 1948 to1951.
Both journals were scholarly and highly educational. Their articles had a deep impact on the
community for their cultural and educational value, and their publication represented a
milestone towards learning, spreading awareness, and appreciating the wealth of the Syriac
cultural heritage. The journals were augmented with contributions from wide spectrum of
literary scholars,945 including Muslim scholars,946 on topics on Syriac and Arabic cultural
interactions. In 1951, Patriarch Barsoum awarded Behnam the title “Melphan” for a thesis he
wrote on Moshe Bar Kepha. In addition to being a prolific writer he was an outstanding
orator.947 His sermons attracted large audiences for their rich context and poetic expressions.
His humility and kindness added to his immense popularity.
He was ordained Bishop of Mosul in 1952. In 1959 he took a study leave at the Union
Theological Seminary in New York. Upon his return, he resumed his duty as bishop, this time
in Baghdad, until his death in 1969.
Ishak Saka published a biography on Paulus Behnam in 1988 under a title that gives a
clue of the legacy Behnam left behind: Sawṭ Naynawā wa-Ārām aw al-muṭrān Buluṣ Bihnām
(the Voice of Nineveh and Aram, or the Bishop Paulus Behnam). In the introduction, Saka
notes:
The purpose of writing a biography of Gregorious Paulus Behnam,
is not only to keep the memory of this eminent scholar alive, but to

945
Abdulahad Tuma (later Patriarch Yacoub III, Ni‘matallah Denno, Yuhannon Dolabani, Matti Moosa, Mary
Abdul Ahad, Gorgies Awwad, Issa Iskander Ma‘loof, Hanna Butrus, Yusuf Mas‘oudi, Jirjis Yusus (later Bishop
Barnaba), Yusuf Amin Qassir, Hanna Saigh, Ibrahim Khouri, Ghanim Naqash, Victor Naqash, Abdul Maseeh
Aphram, see Ishak Saka, Sawṭ Naynawā wa-Ārām aw al-muṭrān Buluṣ Bihnām (The Voice of Ninevah and Aram,
that is Mutran Paulus Behnam). Aleppo: Ruha Publications, 1988 , p. 104.
946
Shathil Taqa, Shaban Rigab Shihab and Tho-al-Noon Shihab, see Ishak Saka, Sawt Neinawa wa Aram, p. 104.
947
I had the immense pleasure in listening, in person, to many of his sermons and lectures between 1965 and
1969, the year of his passing.

304
 give the Syriacs true cause for pride from the memory of this great
personality. Whoever wishes to prove that the Syrians still enjoy an
enduring culture, then the life of Paulus Behnam is one of the best
proofs for that.

No doubt the twentieth century has been the Syrian’s most

enlightened era , one that has been akin to the era of Jacob of
Edessa (d. 708), Moshe bar Kefa (d. 903) and Bar Hebraeus (d.
1286); for in this new era a group of enlightened scholars arose who
have been widely recognized for their esteemed scholarship and
impact, such as Priest Jacob Saka (d. 1931), Deacon Na‘um Fa’iq
(d.1930), Archdeacon Ni‘mat-allah Denno (d.1951), Patriarch
Aphram I Barsoum, the prime promoter of cultural renaissance in
the twentieth century and its leader (d. 1957), Pheloxinos Yuhanna
Dolabani (d. 1969) and Patriarch Jacob III (d. 1980). On par with
these was Bishop Paulus Behnam (d. 1969). All these venerable
personalities have been a source of great pride for their
contributions towards the Syriac culture. The intellectual movement
that they pioneered continues today with pride and great strength
under our honoured living patriarch scholar Zakka Iwas.948

In addition to the numerous articles Behnam wrote in al-Marshriq and in Lisan al-
Marshriq, he authored a number of books on Syriac heritage, including a well-known treatise
on Bar Hebraeus’ Ethecon.949 Among other books he authored or translated one may cite: Ibn
al –Ibri al-Sha‘ir (Bar Hebraeus, the Poet) 1967; A‘alaqat al-Jawhariya bein al Lughatain al-
Suryaniyah wal ‘Arabiyah (The Intrinsic Relationship Between the Syriac and the Arabic
Languages); translation of Aphram Barsoum’s History of Tur Abdin from Syriac to Arabic;
Khamael al-Rihan (Orchards of Blossoms), a rebuttal to Ishaq Armalah concerning the
renowned Sixth Century liturgical poet Jacob of Sarugh.

6.4.5.3 Patriarch Zakka I Iwas (1933-2014)

Born in Mosul, Sanharib joined the Ephremic Seminary in Mosul, where he was re-named
Zakka. He took his monastic vows in 1954 and joined the Patriarchal Secretariat during the last
years of Patriarch Aphram Barsoum’s life. He studied at the Episcopal School of Theology in
New York in 1961 to1962. He represented the Church at Vatican II in 1962 to 63. He was

948
Ishak Saka, Sawṭ Naynawā wa-Ārām aw al-muṭrān Buluṣ Bihnām (The Voice of Ninevah and Aram, that is
Mutran Paulus Behnam). Aleppo: Ruha Publications, 1988, pp. 17-18.
949
See Ishak Saka, Sawṭ Naynawā wa-Ārām, and Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya, pp. 563-566.

305
ordained Archbishop of Mosul and environs in 1963, where he served until 1969, when he took
charge of the Diocese of Baghdad and Basrah. He was enthroned as patriarch on September 14,
1980. He held a fellowship of the Institute of Syriac Studies at the University of Chicago in
1981, and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the Episcopal General School of
Theology in New York in 1984. Endowed with a friendly personality he helped his church
meet the challenges of the 34 year term of his office with a progressive ecumenical attitude.950
He accompanied Patriarch Jacob III in meeting Pope Paul VI in 1971 when a Common
Declaration was issued (see later), and he held a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1984 when
a second Common Declaration was issued (see later).
One of Patriarch Iwas’ most fruitful legacies has been his encouragement of seminary
graduates to seek further learning at institutions of higher learning in Europe and America. As
a result, most of the younger generations of bishops and many of the clergy have higher
university degrees. The necessity of educating the clergy to keep up with the demands of
progressively advancing society was not lost on Patriarch Iwas. The fact that the current
patriarch, Ignatius Aphrem II Karim is a doctorate graduate from a Western university gives
evidence of this fruitful approach.
Patriarch Iwas was also published extensively on several issues: ecumenical, church
history, Syrian Orthodox theology, on the role of women in the Syrian Orthodox Church and
many other topics that relate to Christian life in late twentieth century (see Appendix A6.5 for
a summary). Some of his most significant contributions were the numerous articles he
published in the Patriarchal Journal on varied topics, including from the legacy of
unpublished works by previous authors such as Aphram Barsoum, Ni‘matallah Denno.951
Two of Zakka’s contemporaries merit specific mention. These are Ishak Saka (d. 2011)
and Saliba Shamoun.

950
The author personally knew Zakka Iwas as Archbishop of Baghdad and Basrah and then as Patriarch whom he
visited several times. He is deeply indebted to Patriarch Iwas for granting him the approval to search for and
photograph the archival material used in this work.
951
The Patriarchal Journal:On Aphram Barsoum No. 1, 1981, pp. 21-26; No. 2, 1981, pp. 73-81; No. 3, 1981,
pp.145-151; No. 4, 1981, pp. 208-221; No. 6, 1981, pp. 269-282; No. 9, 1981, pp. 333-346; No. 10, 1981, pp.
407-413; No. 12, 1982, pp. 16-24; No. 13, 1982, pp. 4-19; No. 17, 1982, pp. 8-14; No. 23, 1983, pp. 21-28; No.
24, 1983, pp. 24-32; No. 25, 1983, pp. 27-34; No. 27, 1983, pp. 26-33; No. (28, 29), 1983, pp. 37-42; No. 30,
1983, pp. 18-20. On Ni‘matallah Denno: No. 11, 1982, p.36; No. 13, 1982, pp. 20-33; No. (65,66), 1987, pp. 238-
250; No. (94, 95, 96), 1990, pp. 154-155; No. (133, 134), 1994, pp. 158-159;No. (191, 192, 193), 2000, pp. 24-29;
No. (221, 222, 223), 2003, pp. 29-60; No. (224, 225, 226), 2003, pp. 239-240; No.(241, 242, 243), 2004, pp. 17-
26.

306
6.4.5.4 Ishak Saka (1931-2013)
Born in Bartilla in 1931, 952 he graduated from the Ephremic Seminary in Mosul in 1952. He
was, throughout his life, devoted to serving at seminaries and religious schools; St. Ephrem
Seminary in Mosul (1953 to 1955), and al-Hasaka Syriac School (1956 to 1961). He was
ordained priest monk in 1961 and bishop in 1981. He continued to serve in various capacities
in seminaries in Zahle, Mosul, Deir Mar Mattai, and was appointed Patriarchal Vicar for
Higher Studies in 2002. He published 16 books and numerous articles. Some of his books are
on exegetic topics, such as al-Asrar al Sab‘a (the Seven Sacraments) which he co-authored
with Zakka Iwas, others are of historical nature. Of theses al-Suryan Iman wa Hathara (the
Syrians- Faith and Civilization), an extensive work that appeared in five volumes and
Keneesati al-Suryaniyah (My Syrian Church), stand out in particular.953

6.4.5.5 Saliba Shamoun (1932-)

Born in Bartilla in 1932,954 he graduated from the Ephremic Seminary in Mosul in 1954 and
served initially in several dioceses and at different ecumenical conferences. He represented the
Church in the Second Vatican Council in 1964/1965. He was appointed bishop of Mosul in
1969 taking up the ecclesiastic forename Gregorius. He authored nine books on various
liturgical topics, and translated from Syriac to Arabic 11 others, most important of which are
The Six Days by Jacob of Edessa,955 the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian,956 the Chronicle of
Bar Hebraeus, and Fan al Fasaha (Art of Linguistic Eloquence) by Anton of Tikrit.

6.4.5.6 Gregorius Yuhanna Ibrahim (1948- )

One of the outstanding examples of the succeeding generations of ecclesiastical and cultural
reformers is Yuhanna Ibrahim. Born in 1948 in Kamishli, northern Syria, he joined the
Ephremic Seminary, graduating in 1967. The path he followed from that point demonstrates
the development of the phenomenon of revival of the Syrian Orthodoxy in the second half of

952
Ishak Saka, Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church), Aleppo 2006, pp. 414-417.
953
Ishak Saka, Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vols. I to IV, Aleppo, 1983.
954
Saliba Shamoun, Fan al Fasaha (Art of Linguistic Eloquence) , Duhook, 2014, back cover.
955
Published by Dar al-Ruha, Aleppo, 1990.
956
Saliba Sham‘un, Fan al Fasaha (Art of Linguistic Eloquence), Duhook, 2014.

307
the twentieth century, which among other features, was characterized by the opening up to and
the interaction with the rest of the world. He studied in Rome, the quintessential opponent of
an independent Church of Antioch and of Syrian Orthodoxy in particular. This step was a
manifestation of the attitude by the Syrian Orthodox Church towards the ecumenical vision
that appeared on the world scene following Vatican II, in the mid 1960s. Both Patriarchs Jacob
III (1957-1980) and Zakka I Iwas (1980-2014) interacted positively towards this new
atmosphere in intra-Christian relations. Young clergy were encouraged to pursue their further
studies in reputed centres of learning, irrespective of the denominational affiliation of these
centres. The church thus entered a new era in its revival with confidence as it found no cause
for fear of conversion of its clergy to other denominations, as had been the case a century or
less earlier.
Ibrahim’s post-seminary studies were at the Oriental Institute in Rome, where he
obtained a bachelor’s degree in Oriental Canon Law and a master’s degree in history from the
in 1976. His ecclesiastic service also reflected another side of the Church’s new responsibilities
towards its communities in the diaspora. He served as parish priest in both Holland and
Belgium for a year before serving as principal of the Ephremic Seminary from 1977 to 1979.
He was ordained as Metropolitan of Aleppo in 1979, a position he has held ever since.
While meeting the challenges of an expanding diocese in Aleppo with new schools and
youth activities, he contributed greatly towards the Syrian Orthodox Church’s interaction with
the rising ecumenical movement. He represented his church at meetings of this movement and
was a member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, and a consultant
for (Euomina e religioni ct. egidiou state committees) in Rome. He was also an active member
of the Standing Commission of the Syriac Dialogue (Pro-Oriente) in Vienna from 1990 to
2006; of the Standing Committee of the Oriental-Catholic dialogue (Pro-Oriente); the
Orthodox-Orthodox Dialogue Commission; and an advisor to the Executive Committee of the
Middle East Council of Churches from 1999 to 2003 and to the Forum Syriacum of the
foundation of Pro-Oriente since 2006.957
One of Ibrahim’s major contributions towards the revival of the Syriac culture was his
establishment of publishing houses in Aleppo, Dar al-Ruha , and Dar Mardin in 1980 through

957
I am indebted to Aziz Abdulnour and to Chorepiscopos Joseph Shabo, Syrian Orthodox priest in Aleppo, for
providing a CV of Bishop Ibrahim.

308
which he provided encouragement to scholars, both experienced and new, to research and write
about this heritage. He often wrote lengthy prefaces to the contributor’s work, a matter that
attests to the breadth and spectrum of his scholarship. His publishing facilities issued more
than 170 books, before they were closed down in 2011 by the events of the civil war in
Syria.958
In 2008, Ibrahim started a programme of International Syriac symposia that were to be
held bi-annually in Aleppo, each devoted to a theme or a historical Syriac scholar. The 2008
Symposium was on the work by Jacob of Edessa (d.708), marking 1,300 years of his passing.
The 2010 Symposium was on the work by Gregory Bar Hebraeus (d.1268).959 The one
scheduled for 2012 could not be held due to the war in Syria.
On Monday, April 25, 2013 Bishop Ibrahim was kidnapped near Aleppo, along with Paul
Yazdigi, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo. Nothing has been heard of either since
then. This has been a matter of the utmost concern, not only for their safety but, taken in the
broader context, for the future of Christianity in their historical homeland.

6.5 Epilogue: In the Second Half of the Twentieth Century – Achievements and New
Challenges
The work of the early reformers was continued by the succeeding generations, as it gained their
admiration and became encouraged by its results. Education of the clergy, which was pivotal to
the revival of the church, received further impetus from the policies of the late Patriarch Zakka
Iwas. His term from 1980 to 2014 witnessed a surge in young monks and nuns who were sent
for graduate study at recognized universities in Europe and in North America. This surge
spilled over to create an increased desire among the emerging class of lay intellectuals to
pursue studies in Syriac culture and history to one that served society, spiritually and socially.
Priesthood that was once in poor repute because of the ignorance of those practicing it, now
became attractive, not only to the forward looking younger generations, but also to some of the
established intellectuals who sought in mid-life to switch careers. This in turn led to a closer
958
List provided by Fr. Joseph Shabo, who, until the start of the Syrian civil war, undertook the distribution of
most of the books published by Dar al-Ruha and Dar Mardin.
959
I presented a paper at each of the 2008 and the 2010 Symposia: a paper entitled “The Physical World in Jacob
of Edessa’s Hexaemeron,” at the 2008 symposium, published by Gorgias Press, 2010, and a paper with Deena
Dinno, as co-author, entitled: “The Cross-Cultural Outlook of Bar ‘Ebroyo” at the Second Aleppo Syriac
Colloquium, June 30-July 4, 2010. The advent of the Syrian civil war has hindered publication of the symposium
papers.

309
bond between church and community, as both collaborated towards a common goal of revival
and progress.
The historical bond between people and patriarch under the millet system, which was
characterized by an institutionalized link between individuals and the church, has now, in the
new age of citizenship, had transformed but not diminished. The individual as citizen in the
new age and environment no longer needed the church as an intermediary in his dealings with
officialdom. However, the bond between the two continued to be strong, as the church still
played a significant role by offering the community an important identity, particularly in
Middle Eastern countries, where sectarian identity, be it religious, political, ethnic, or tribal,
continued to be important.

An Expanding Cultural Renaissance

The revival of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century formed the essential
building blocks for a modern Syriac renaissance. However, the Syrian Orthodox were not the
only contributors to this renaissance. Thomas Audo, the Chaldean metropolitan of Urmia
(1853-1917) who published a major Syriac-Syriac dictionary, the first of its kind and Ephrem
Rahmani, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch (1853-1917) were among the distinguished early
scholars from other branches of Syriac Christianity who also contributed to this renaissance,
and who were followed in the twentieth century by an impressive array of many others from all
branches of Syriac Christianity.960
As part of this home-based cultural revival, the twentieth century witnessed a remarkable
increase in interest in the study of the Syriac heritage also by Western scholars, a trend that has
increasingly extended to cover institutions of learning world-wide.961 As a further witness to
this trend, international conferences have been held, most of them on a regular basis, which
have been dedicated to the study of Syriac culture. Among these are Symposium Syriacom that
has been convening every four years since 1972; the North American-based Syriac

960
G. A. Kiraz, “Audo, Toma” in Gorgias EncyclopedicDictionary of the Syriac Heritage, eds. Sebastian P.
Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, Lucas Van Rompay, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011, pp. 47-48; S. P.
Brock and G. A. Kiraz, “Rahmani, Ignatius Ephrem II (1848-1929)” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the
Syriac Heritage, eds. Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, Lucas Van Rompay, Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2011, p. 350.
961
In addition to universities, there are now cultural institutions that are wholly devoted to Syriac studies such as
Beth Mardutho, NJ, which issue a specialist periodical Hugoye, or to Aramaic studies: ARAM Society for Syro-
Mesopotamian Studies, in Oxford, which publishes ARAM Periodical.

310
Symposium, which is also convened every four years (the most recent being in 2015), as does
the SEERI (St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute)962 conference which is held in Southern
India, the home of churches that follow the Syriac tradition.

An Expanding Ecumenical Vision

One of the most significant developments in this period was the rise of an ecumenical spirit
between churches of different denominations. Despite feeling trepidation from the past, the
Syrian Orthodox Church reacted positively to this. During Patriarch Jacob III’s term, the
Church joined the World Council of Churches in 1960963 and Pro Oriente.964 Through him too,
as well as through Patriarch Zakka I Iwas, remarkable progress was made with the Roman
Catholic Church despite a troubled history. Two particularly historic highlights emerged from
the meeting of Patriarch Jacob III with Pope Paul VI in Rome in October 1971, and from the
meeting of Patriarch Zakka I Iwas with Pope John Paul II in Rome in June 1984.
The Common Declaration from the October 1971 meeting states, in part, that:

Progress has already been made and Pope Paul VI and the Patriarch
Mar Ignatius Jacob III are in agreement that there is no difference in
the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God
made flesh and become really man, even if over the centuries
difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions
by which this faith was expressed. They therefore encourage the
clergy and faithful of their Churches to even greater endeavours at
removing the obstacles which still prevent complete communion
among them. This should be done with love, with openness to the
promptings of the Holy Spirit, and with mutual respect for each other
and each other’s Church. . .

What is striking about this text is that it took nearly fifteen centuries to recognize that,
once prejudices are laid aside, the fifth century Christological controversies were not based on
theology but on linguistic expression.

962
SEERI homepage (http://www.catholicate.net)
963
The World Council of Churches was founded in 1948 to include most Protestant and Orthodox Churches.
964
Pro Oriente was founded in 1964 to improve the relationship between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern
Christians.

311
 The Common Declaration from the October 1984 meeting consisted of in 10 points. The
following are excerpts from points number three and number nine. From point number three:965
Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and
schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the
doctrine of Incarnation.

From Point Number Nine of the Common Declaration, we read:

Our identity in faith, though not yet complete, entitles us to

envisage collaboration between our Churches in pastoral care, in
situations which nowadays are frequent both because of the
dispersion of our faithful throughout the world and because of the
precarious conditions of these difficult times. It is not rare, in fact,
for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own Church
materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their needs and
with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such
cases to ask for the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and
Anointing of the Sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister
Churches, when they need them. It would be a logical corollary of
collaboration in pastoral care to cooperate in priestly formation and
theological education. Bishops are encouraged to promote sharing
of facilities for theological education where they judge it to be
advisable.966

Had the above been the attitude of Rome in the previous centuries, the misery of so many
would have been avoided. Clearly, it was the ecumenical spirit that prevailed in Vatican II was
which encouraged positive dialogue that promoted better understanding of the other.

Challenges: An Expanding Diaspora

The second half of the twentieth century witnessed increased emigration of Syrian Orthodox
communities to the West principally from Turkey, but to a lesser extent from Syria, Palestine
and Lebanon. The majority, particularly those originating from Turkey, headed initially to
Germany but later to Sweden, Holland, Belgium and France as well as to Australia and to New
Zealand. This trend continued well into the 1980s, at which point emigration from Iraq,

965
Vatican website:www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-
docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19711025_syrian-church_en.html.
966
Vatican website:www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-
docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html.

312
hitherto limited, began to take place following the start of the Iraq-Iran war (1980 -1988), as
well as subsequently to the Gulf War of 1991.
The Church responded to this wide-scale movement of its communities across five
continents by setting up new dioceses to serve the diaspora communities. Thus, the Church
continued to constitute a central focus in the life of these communities, albeit not as uniquely
or as decisively as it had been in their home countries. Thus, the Church, which in 1933 had
eight dioceses in the Middle East967 and one in the diaspora (United States and Canada),968 by
the end of the twentieth century had 28 dioceses:15 in the Middle East,969 and the rest in the
diaspora,970 in addition to approximately 20 dioceses in India.971 Emigration from Iraq
increased markedly following the American invasion of that country in 2003, and the resultant
state of anarchy and insecurity throughout the years that followed. The post-2013 extremist
Islamic onslaught on Mosul and environs threatens to eradicate Christianity from one of its
earliest homes. The resulting quest for emigration is strongly evident.
A critical study of the impact of the new social environment on the lives of those
immigrants was carried out within the scope of the Leiden Project.972 Considering the
immigration to Sweden as a case study, Naurs Atto provides a clear insight into the
psychological impact on the immigrants of leaving a historical homeland to settle in a
remarkably different environment. One of the issues that emerged from the study is the
difficulty of forging an identity in a new social environment and the competing considerations
in doing so. The hitherto unchallenged identity of belonging to the Syrian Orthodox Church
was now increasing challenged by alternative identities that included ethnic and political
dimensions. In this situation the church, while attempting to serve the new communities, has
struggled to stay above these divisions, however, not always successfully.

967
Mosul, Mar Mattai, Syria and Lebanon, Aleppo and Ben Nahrain, Jerusalem, Diyarbakir, Mardin and Tur
Abdin.
968
The Patriarchal Journal, 1930, pp. 13-15.
969
Three in Iraq (Mosul, Mar Mattai, and Baghdad and Basrah); four in Turkey (Istanbul, Mardin, Adiyaman and
Deir Mar Gibrael); four in Syria (Damascus, Aleppo, Jazirah and the Euphrates, Homs and Hama); one in
Jerusalem (including Jordan and the Holy Land); and three in Lebanon (Beirut, Mount Lebanon and Zahle).
970
Two in the US, one in Canada, one in each of Argentina, United Kingdom, Australia & New Zealand, the
Netherlands, Switzerland & Austria, Belgium & France, Germany; and two in Sweden. Source: Syrian Orthodox
Church’s official Web site.
971
Ibid.
972
Naures Atto, Hostages in the Homeland, Orphans in the Diaspora, Leiden University Press, 2011.

313
An Ominous Existentialist Development
The civil war in Syria, now in its fifth year, has resulted in a humanitarian tragedy on a
massive scale, with millions of refugees leaving the country. The evident Islamic focus of this
conflict threatens to uproot Christianity from the land of its founders. The Syrian Orthodox
Church, the smallest of the indigenous Christian churches, did survive the existentialist
onslaught of Sayfo in 1915, and moreover subsequently revived and witnessed a flourishing
renaissance. This was in no small measure made possible by the fact that the Church was still
anchored to the land of its forefathers. But will it survive a new Sayfo if it is separated from the
last of its historical physical roots?

314
 CONCLUSIONS

No study, in any language, has covered the history of the Syrian Orthodox Church over the
designated period as fully as this current study, which it is hoped will fill a dire gap, perhaps
breaking ground in new research. The basis for this study, in addition to published sources, has
been approximately 6,000 relevant images that were filtered from a much larger collection of
uncatalogued, unedited and unpublished archival documents that were made available for this
study and for which I am duly grateful. Searching through the archives of over 24,000 images
was an arduous task, but it has been a task that has paid clear dividends in shedding light on a
challenging subject. The conclusions of this study may be summarized as follows:
The millet system, which assigned the internal affairs of non-Muslim communities to the
leaders of their respective religious institutions, strengthened the bond between religious
institutions and their respective communities. Despite certain important shortcomings, this
system preserved and protected the smaller, and one may dare say, even the larger Christian
churches and their communities from being coerced to apostatize and from the pressures of
being under the direct authority, whether at central or local levels, of a potentially intrusive
system and corrupt officialdom. However, the arrival of Western missionaries with their intent
to apostatize indigenous Christians changed the basic tenets of security that were central to the
millet system. This resulted in divisions within the indigenous churches, in addition to wider
sociopolitical implications throughout the Ottoman Empire.
There was an intimate yet very respectful relationship between the ordinary people of the
Syrian Orthodox communities and their patriarch. The patriarch was directly accessible to all:
individuals and groups. Letters were addressed directly to the patriarch by name. Yet, this
accessibility was coupled with expressions of utmost respect that would strike the present day
reader as outlandish, even obtrusive. A letter addressed to the patriarch is termed ‘ubūdiyya’
(testament of slavery), while a letter issued by the patriarch is termed ‘musharrifa’ (honour
bestowing honour).
Surviving throughout its ancient history as a minority, Syrian Orthodoxy, in common
with other Christian communities living under Islam, has always vested its identity with its
patriarchs who stand as guardians of the Apostolic seat they inherit. By analogy, the patriarch

315
derived his respect and authority from this noble standing, akin to the manner the Ottoman
Sultan derived his authority from no less than the Caliphate tradition.
What further contributed to this bond within Syrian Orthodoxy was the fact that the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, which was headed by the patriarch, consisted of people of humble
background, such as comprised the vast majority of the Syrian communities. There was no
social nobility, such as ‘Medicis’ or Armenian “amiras” that would monopolize or control
ecclesiastic appointments, including that of the patriarch. Similarly, there was no tribal
structure within the Syrian Orthodox communities, no geographic dominance and no hereditary
tradition that would pre-determine or monopolize any of the ecclesiastic appointments,
including that of the patriarch.
Syrian Orthodoxy faced existentialist challenges from Western Churches both in the
Middle East and among its communities on the Malabar Coast of southern India. The challenge
to Oriental Christianity by the Western Christian orders (i.e., Catholic and
Reformed/Protestant) has conventionally been considered to have occurred first in the Middle
East, the birthplace of Oriental Christianity. However, a closer examination shows that the
initial challenges were first encountered in southern India, home to Syriac Christianity from the
early centuries of the Christian era. Roman Catholicism came to southern India by means of
the Portuguese who invaded that country in 1503. This was considerably earlier than the
missionary campaign that Rome mounted in the Middle East following the establishment of the
Congregation for the Propaganda of Faith in 1622. Considering the Reformed/Protestant
churches, their first missionaries arrived during the early days of the British colonization of
that country, which commenced in 1795. This was still a few years earlier than the earliest
American Protestant mission in the Middle East. It was the division caused by the British
Protestant missionaries among the Syrian Orthodox in southern India that prompted the first
contact between Antioch and Canterbury. This starting point of the relationship, which
developed between the two churches during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, has not
been duly acknowledged.
In the Middle East, the Syrian Orthodox encountered pressures to convert firstly to
Catholicism throughout the nineteenth century and, to a much lesser extent, to Protestantism
during the second half of the same century. Both modes of conversion drew on the
accumulated weakness of the old Church. After an initial failed attempt by the Catholics at the

316
patriarchal level a few years before the start of the nineteenth century, pressures to convert
were mounted throughout the nineteenth century with the help of Latin missionaries and
French diplomatic intervention at the Porte. The track followed was the unprecedented method
of taking over churches and monasteries from the old Church through French consular
intervention at the Porte. The dichotomy between the secularism advanced by the French
Revolution and the practice to the contrary of promoting sectarian division on a foreign land is
remarkable. The attempts to shut down this church, as a surviving mark and beacon of Oriental
Christianity, weakened it, and by the early twentieth century, brought it near to dissolution.
Although the violence that started in Diyarbakir in the autumn of 1895 against the
Armenians, but also engulfed other Christian communities, was initially somewhat localized, it
set the trend for similar acts in many other parts of southeastern Anatolia in the months and the
years to come. That violence was in fact the precursor to the much more intense violence, the
massacres of the Sayfo of 1915 and subsequent years. The lack of decisive governmental
response to truly quell the aggressions of 1895 against the peaceful Syrian Orthodox and other
Christian communities emboldened the perpetrating Kurdish tribes in most regions, as well as
some of the Arab and Yazidi tribes in Jezirah and Nisibin, to loot and terrorize those
communities that lived in their midst, and to apply pressure on them to convert to Islam. It also
resulted in a loss of confidence on the part of the people in the patriarch’s ability to protect
them against external aggression. Evidence of this can be readily seen in the diminishing
number of letters appealing for help that were addressed to the patriarch at the turn of the
twentieth century, whether by individuals or groups of individuals compared to previous
periods. Further, the hunger and poverty, which engulfed most communities because of these
events, accentuated the already desperate economic state of most of these communities. Their
dire economic conditions rendered them increasingly susceptable to conversion under material
enticement and a promise of better security offered by connection to a Western power. The
documents, including consular reports, bear clear witness to this.
To compound matters, Patriarch Abdul Masih, traumatized by the killings he had
personally witnessed in 1895, became increasingly unfit both to deal with the demands of his
position as an ecclesiatic and as a civic leader, and to provide the stewardship that his people in
this and other regions needed most during these critical years. He was eventually deposed in
1904. As a mark of the accumulated weakness of the Church at that point, Abdullah, who had a

317
controversial past was elected as the next patriarch in 1906. Abdullah’s shortcomings did little
if anything to arrest the trend of decline: his continuous absence from the patriarchal seat in
Deir al-Za‘faran, from early 1908, right up to his death in November 1915; his preoccupation
with his travels to England and India; his subsequent residence in Jerusalem for claimed health
reasons all pushed the church further to the edge of the abyss. At that point total conversion to
Catholicism and Protesatantism was deemed by many to be the likely prospect for what was
left of Syrian Orthodoxy. Based on Abdullah’s neglect of his church, which amounted to
abandonment at its most critical moment in history, many, even those who were close to him,
began to have doubt as to his allegiance to the Church, particularly in light of his previous
defection to the Syrian Catholic Church.
The Sayfo genocide eradicated nearly half of the Syrian Orthodox population in the
Middle East, a proportion of loss that was higher than that suffered by other Syriac Christians.
Combined with previous losses through religious conversion, this tragedy brought the Church
to the edge of the abyss from which many doubted it would survive. However, the arrival of
the majority of those exiled to the Arab region, where Arab nation states were in the process of
being formed, brought these communities to the threshold of a new life, to be among people
who welcomed them in their midst, as though in remembrance of, and as a measure of
reciprocity for, the way the Christians in Greater Syria and Iraq had welcomed their Arab
cousins in their midst some thirteen centuries earlier. This new, much more tolerant
environment afforded the devastated emigrants from Anatolia safety and the opportunity to
begin to heal their lives from the devastation that had befallen them in their traditional
homeland.
Refuge in the Arab states also gave the Syrian Orthodox Church a much needed
opportunity to begin to reverse the trend of decline that had beset its existence for centuries.
Thus, the demise of Syriac Christianity in Anatolia sowed the seeds of its re-birth in a land
where it once shone. And it was this land, also part of their historical homeland, that would
give rise to those few individuals who were to spearhead the long journey for revival. While
Syrian Orthodoxy was receptive to Arabism as the nascent marker of nationhood, it, at the
same time, also asserted its traditional Syriac/Aramaic identity. Thus, the emancipation of the
Arab world from Ottomanism offered Syrian Orthodoxy the opportunity to engage in cultural
revival both as indigenous Syriacs and as constituents of historical Arab culture.

318
 Freed from latter-day Turkish and Kurdish oppression, the Syriac Orthodox, as well as all
other Christians who emigrated from Anatolia, felt safe away from the threat of the sword,
forced conversion and other persecutions. Despite its challenges, the new environment offered
a new beginning for people who had been marginalized for so long. The new immigrants found
themselves in the proximity of fellow Christians, who had been actively involved in the
cultural emancipation of these nation states. This offered the newcomers unique opportunities
for education and self betterment. Through education they had the opportunity to become
active participants in the ensuing sociopolitical environment of these nascent nation states.
This was in stark contrast to the environment of marginalization they had left behind.
The new nation states also offered a complete departure from the ‘sectarian’ millet
system that still lacked the spirit of equality and citizenship, despite its reform during the
second half of the nineteenth century. The immigrants, as citizens of the new nation states,
began to feel an overall sense of freedom and security in the new environment. They also came
to see the relationship between themselves as individuals and the Church as basically religious
and not civic. At the same time, the new environment offered the Syrian Orthodox Church,
with its new well-defined and reduced level of social responsibility, the opportunity to embark
on much needed revival, not least by means of the education first of its clergy. The Church
succeeded, in the course of this transformation, in developing a new bond with its communities
through cultural and social interaction that was commonly based on the tenets of revival.
In the immediate post-war period, the Syrian Orthodox Church, led by Patriarch Elias III
and Archbishop Aphram Barsoum, in their different ways, laboured to provide compassionate
leadership and demonstrated resolve to commence a period of recovery and revival. Both were
far-sighted leaders who were aware of the constraints of their immediate environment and
proceeded wisely, though with differing scopes of aspiration. Patriarch Elias III, very much
aware of the plight of his people who were still living in Turkey, followed a policy of
accommodation and submission towards the new Turkish leadership. On the other hand,
Barsoum, then Archbishop of Syria and Lebanon, had already concluded that the future of his
church and people lay within the Arab social and cultural environment to which it had
contributed such a great deal many centuries earlier. This was consistent with his instinctive
pro-Arab nationalist background and leanings. It was also reinforced by his negative
experience in dealing with Western Powers in Paris and with Western churches.

319
 The post-World War I revival, which came to be largely viewed as a second renaissance,
had two aspects: one related to the church and the other to community. Given their historical
inseparable identity and fate, the advances experienced by one had a direct impact on and
formed an incentive to the other. Despite this positive interaction each of the two grew under
its own specific potentials and emerging personalities. Both the church, as an institution, and
the community made major steps forward from the early 1930s on, despite the economic and
the sociopolitical difficulties caused by the two World Wars. In the course of this revival, the
Church made the education of its clergy a major priority. In consequence of the Church’s
success in this endeavor, and particularly in light of the reputation of Ignatius Aphram
Barsoum as a learned scholar, it succeeded in shedding the debilitating stigma of backwardness
that had been attached to it, particularly over the previous century, something that had been
exploited by others to apostatize its followers to join one or other of the branches of Western
Christianity.
The momentum created and promoted by the first generation of reformers continued in
the following decades to mark a recovery that, in the words of the late Patriarch Zakka I Iwas,
“had not been matched since the days of Bar Hebraeus in the thirteenth century.”973
One of the mechanisms of revival that was actively pursued by the early, and indeed,
subsequent generation of reformers, was spearheading a translation movement into Arabic that
utilized rising literacy among the communities in the new environment. This movement, which
addressed the literary works of the forefathers - Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Sarug, Jacob of
Edessa, Bar Salibi, Michael the Syrian, Bar Hebraeus and many others - had its core purpose to
educate the communities about their venerable past and to instill in them the desire to emulate
their achievements by the pursuit of learning. In the same vein many liturgical works,
particularly hymns chanted during prayers, were also translated into Arabic, which was
increasingly becoming the language of the immigrants from Anatolia.
Emboldened by this spirit of revival, Syrian Orthodoxy engaged as an active participant
in the ecumenical movements that flourished in the second half of the twentieth century.
Further, the revival of the spirit of confidence enabled it to meet the challenges of an extended
diaspora with its inherent danger of dissolution in the wider world. To this end the Syrian

973
Ignatius Zakka Iwas, Buḥūṯ tārīḵiyya wa-diniyya wa-adabiyya (Historical, Religious and Literary Treatises).
Vols. I and II, Damascus, 1988; Vol. III, Damascus, 2000, p. 292.

320
Orthodox re-organized their communities by creating a four-fold increase in the number of
their dioceses from the immediate post-World War I period, with much expanded jurisdiction
extending from Australia to Sweden and from India to the Americas, overseeing over 48
dioceses, thus reflecting some of the glory in bygone days when Patriarch Dionysius of Tel
Mahri (d. 845) ordained bishops to serve in over 80 dioceses that were spread out across Asia.
With Arabic being the language of the majority of the secondary sources (i.e., the
published literary contributions of reformers), I had to translate a good deal of this material
into English. It is hoped that, as a result, this will now provide an opportunity to Western
scholarship to be introduced to these sources.
Finally, it is sad to ponder what effect the current intensifying sectarian conflict in the
Middle East may have on the future of Christianity in its birthplace.

321
 APPENDIX A 1

Map No. 1 of Tur Abdin by courtesy of Hans Hollerweger from His Book Published in 1999.

Map No. 2 of Tur Abdin at the time of Oswald Parry’s travels in 1892.

322
323
324
 APPENDIX A 2

The letter from Patriarch Elias II (1838-1847), addressed to “Patriarch Alexander

Griswold.”974

Note that an accompanying archival document penned by Horatio Southgate975 defines the
addressee to be Right Reverend Alexander Viets Griswold, D.D., Presiding Bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, U.S.A.
After the customary elaborate salutation, the letter acknowledges the receipt of a letter
of introduction from the addressee concerning “your son and our dear Southgate.” The letter
then proceeds as follows:

We also wish to inform you of our need from you to exert every
possible effort to help us, for we have in these times been
experiencing hardship from enemies of our Orthodox faith, the
followers of the Pope. They have caused us considerable anguish
and pain. Dwellers in Mosul have bribed the wazir in order to
divide our churches, monasteries and other endowment properties.
When we realized this we, the poor, went to Islambul976 [sic] and
obtained from him of blessed soul, Sultan Mahmoud, six firmans,
one to each town, to secure back our churches and monasteries
from the hands of the enemies, and to prevent them from entry to
these churches and monasteries. When we returned to Mosul, we
presented the ownership certificates to the respected wasir, who
immediately ordered the demolition of the walls that they had
erected between us and them, and our churches were thus handed
over to us. “After that, their bishop left for Islambul. When I heard
of his trip I too sent a bishop. When he (they) reached the Blessed
(Islambul) they found that Sultan Mahmud had passed away and
had been succeeded by his son Sultan Abdul Majid.977 The bishop
belonging to the Pope secretly went to the French Ambassador,
pleaded with him and succeeded in having a firman issued again
for dividing the churches. Thus our churches were once again
divided by walls they erected in them, and up to this date they are
under the control of those belonging to the Pope. In Aleppo and
Damascus, too, they have confiscated our churches entirely such
that our people are without churches or monasteries.” After the
return of the referred bishop from Islambul, our bishop wrote a
plea to the Sublime Porte. In consequence, our lord and Sultan,
974
The Jerusalem Archive of St. Marks Monastery, No. J- DSC_0026.
975
The Jerusalem Archive of St. Marks Monastery, No. J- DSC_0027.
976
Islambul (Lots of Islam) was in common usage at the time of writing this letter.
977
This would be Sultan Abdul Majid I (1839-1861)

325
 ordered that they [the two sides] adjudicate before the Patriarch of
the Rum. Thus our bishop and the bishop under the Pope each
presented his case before the Patriarch of the Rum, who
adjudicated that the Syrians are an old taifa and all the old
churches and monasteries belong to them. The Rum Patriarch’s
report was submitted to Sultan Abdul Majid. Accordingly, the
Sublime Porte ordered that the churches and monasteries be
handed back to the Old Syrians. However, this has not been
implemented. We keep being promised day after day and month
after month, that a firman would be issued, while our bishop still
awaits this in Islambul. They keep promising that matters would be
restored in good order. However, in spite of how these matters
would end, we request that you may place our request before the
State of the English, may God protect it and keep it blessed, so that
it would advise its ambassador in Islambul to speak with Sultan
Abdul Majid, to ensure that after issuing of the firman, a bishop
under the Pope would not issue a subsequent firman for again
dividing our churches and [to impress] that the Syrian taifa is
under England’s protection just as the Papists are defended by the
King of France…

The letter ended with “Our Father who art in Heaven, etcetera978,” followed by the Patriarchal
insignia and signature. The letter is dated July 2, 1841.979

978
Only patriarchs may end their letters with this statement opening sentence of the Lord’s prayer. While an
Arabic translation of this sentence is given in this case, most other cases, as evidenced from the numerous archival
documents I have reviewed, show a Syriac text only.
979
Southgate states the date as being July 14, 1841. There is no discrepancy in this as the first date is likely in
accordance with the Julian Calendar, while that used by Southgate would be in accordance with the Gregorian
Calendar, with the characteristic difference of 12 days between the two calendars in the nineteenth century.

326
 APPENDIX A 3.1
Encyclical from Gregorius ‘Adul Jalil al-Mosuli to the Churches in Malabar,
dated February 5, 1668980
The following is my translation of the Encyclical, preceded by a preamble published by
Tuma.981 The preamble states:
In the Name of the Father the begetter, and the Son the begotten,
and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, One true God in
Three Persons, to Him be glory and upon us His mercy forever.

Following the preamble, the text reads as follows:

News have reached me of the persecution that you have endured
with patience at the hands of the blinded [misguided] men who
departed from the correct laws of the Syrian Church and joined
those who strayed under the influence of the evil kings of Portugal.
They have convened for themselves an illegal synod in which they
manipulated the Orthodox Faith, the faith of the venerable
Apostles of our church, the established canons of the synod of
Nicea, replaced the precious liturgy and laws of the early
generations with new alien deviant laws. They have fallen into
heresy and are attempting to draw others also to fall in their heresy.
The heresies of the Catholics are so many, that time does not
permit to enumerate them in detail, but we hope that we may talk
about them verbally. I ask you, therefore, to jealously guard the
canons of the Syrian Church, remembering that suffering and pain
in this worthless world brings forth eternal life, happiness and
comfort. The Lord says: “whoever perseveres to the end is saved
and that the kingdom of God is acquired by forceful action.” In his
epistle, St. Peter wrote: “For to this you have been called, because
Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you
should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). St. Paul, tongue of the
Holy Church, wrote in the Epistle to the Philippians: “I hear about
you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit striving
side by side with one mind for the faith of the Gospel.”
(Philippians 1:27).

And the venerable St. James says: “As an example of suffering and
patience, beloved, take the prophets who spoke the name of the

980
Document P1070660, 661.
981
Tuma (later Patriarch Ignatius Yacob III), History of the Church of India, tras. Matti Moosa, Gorgias 2010, p.
56. Tuma provides excerpts of the letter that were extracted from a copy of the letter he had and notes that an
other copy existed with the Edavazhikal family in Malabar. Tuma, p. 58, includes a summary of a second letter
Mar Gregorius Abdul Jalil al- Mosulli wrote to the Syrians of Mylapore in 1669 in which he expresses sadness at
the division in the Indian Church as a result of the Portuguese rule.

327
 Lord. Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You
have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose
of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.” (James
5;10,11). St. Ephrem the Syrian says: Bear the burdens without
deviating from truth, welcome death with zeal for the sake of your
fathers’ faith.”

And, in liturgical books we read in the service for the martyrs on

Thursdays: “As for us, we do not deny him or his son; we are the
offspring of Abraham and the heirs of Isaac: we die for the sake of
the God of our fathers,” thus we die so that we may inherit eternal
life. So take heed from the martyrs and for what they did, for with
pleasure they agreed to devote their lives for the love of their
fathers’ faith, whereas the liars among Indian Christians neglected
the canons of the Syrians and accepted new canons, more than
1600 years after the arrival of St. Thomas. The men of the Roman
church had no authority over this diocese for 1600 years, and a
large number, [how many is only] known to God, of bishops,
priests, deacons and Christian men and women lived and died in
this diocese over the past 1600 years. Do you think that this entire
huge crowd was judged to perish in hell? No. Only a blasphemer
with the devil in him would say that.

Until now the priests have been permitted to marry according to

the law, whereas the Roman Latins have banned the marriage of
priests and deacons to the extent that many fell into the filth of
debauchery. It was because of this that God punished the world
with the Flood, saving only Noah, his wife, his sons and their
wives. The said sin was the cause of the devastation of Sodom and
Gomorrah, as He rained fire and sulphur upon them. These filthy
people blasphemed holy matrimony and loved adultery. Thus serve
them with the tiding that the punishment of God will be severe, so
let it be known to you that matrimony is holy and its bed pure, and
that God will punish the adulterers and the debaucherers…

The letter ended with the following signature format:

The wretched Gregorius ‘Abd al-Jalil, servant of Jesus Christ, by

the Grace of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem, to the
beloved sons the priest Gurgis, Periodeutes [visiting priest] of the
church of Parur, priest Jacob, Periodeutes of the Church of
Mulanthuruthi and the faithful of that church, priest Matta and
priest Zechariah together with the Syrian deacons, and notable men
and women and the young women, rich and poor in the two towns
of Mulanthuruthi and Kandand.

328
 APPENDIX A 3.2

The Account by Abdullah Sattuf (Saddadi) of Patriarch Peter’s Concerns On the

Eve of their Journey to England and India982
We983 found him to be very sad and deeply worried because of the
affairs of the millet [referring to the Syrian Orthodox community
as a whole] were encountering serious obstructions. Our millet
found has been under the pressure of the Armenians who have
always been attempting to confiscate our endowment properties
and churches. We have, thus, attempted to disengage from them in
respect of our affairs in Istanbul and with the Sublime Porte. In
return, they have been actively hindering all efforts and activities
relating to our lord [referring to the Patriarch] and millet. He
[referring to Patriarch Peter] has spent nearly one year and has paid
300 liras, before he was able to receive the Firman confirming his
Patriarchate. He also submitted a request to renovate the church in
Bak Ohgly, which had burnt down, but here too the Armenians
continued to obstruct this project right to the end. In addition, they
took over Saint Ephrem’s Church in Edessa and the churches in
Jerusalem and in other places, always acting to do us harm. We
also had a conflict with the Catholics with regard to the lands in
Fayrousa [in Syria]. Letters from India showed that Metropolitan
Matthew has changed the liturgy of our church and has confiscated
churches and parishes from other Bishops. Further our lord, the
Patriarch sent official letters to Diyarbakir, Mardin, Mosul, and
Sham; but the valis were bribed by the Armenians and by the
Catholics and did not work with fairness and justice. He applied
for a Firman for ownership of the properties in Jerusalem, but the
Armenians hindered that. He also sent letters to India [to resolve
the issues there] but to no avail. Thus, when he saw that affairs had
reached a crisis point from all directions, he sought help of the
Rum, but to no avail. At that point he approached Priest Curtis,
who served at the Church of Ghaltta in Istanbul, and informed him
of the stress he been under. Consequently, the said priest made
immediate communications with the Anglican Church in London.
After a while, a response arrived stating that if the Syrian Patriarch
were to come [to London], his presence here should yield positive
outcome. A house accommodation has been arranged for him and
one more person for a period of one month. Further, the said priest
encouraged our lord [referring to the Patriarch] to proceed. We
stayed in Istanbul a period of 3 ½ months.

982
Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah, No. 42, February 1985, pp. 75-78.
983
It is customary, in Arabic, to express the first person in the plural.

329
 APPENDIX A 3.3
The Case of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Fairly Stated, London, January, 1875,
compiled from official documents and authentic papers 984

In the year 1873, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a letter

to the most Venerable Petros, Patriarch of the Syrians Church, at
Mardin, in Mesopotamia, with the object of eliciting from his
Highness, if he felt disposed, full information on the subject of the
rival claims of Mar Athanasius and Mar Dionysius to become
Metran (Metropolitan) of the Syrian Church in Malabar. The
Primate has consulted the Bishops in India, and has heard in reply,
that they conceive that preference should be given to Mar
Athanasius. This is not the opinion of the Patriarch himself; and it
is because his people in India have appealed to him for aid that he
has paid a visit to this country, a visit which he was encouraged to
make by the friendly tone of the Archbishop’s letter, which
reached him in Constantinople.

It may be gathered from the Archbishop’s letter that it is

acknowledged on all hands that the rightfulness of the claim to be
Metran turns upon the question whether, admitting the
consecration of each in his turn, Athanasius, the first appointed,
has been deposed by lawful authority.

It is the object of this paper, by a statement of facts, to settle this

question. The history of the matter is briefly this. The Christians on
the coast of Malabar, numbering over 100,000, and called Syrians,
because their ancestors were converted from Syria at least as far
back as the sixth century, have continued under the authority of the
Patriarch of Antioch since 1685; have been governed by Bishops
appointed by him; and, in the conduct of the Divine Offices, have
been accustomed to the rite and the language of the church in
Syria. But for several years past this Church has been in a state of
much confusion, owing to the following circumstances.
Athanasius (also called Matthew)* was consecrated about 31 years
ago by Ignatius Elias II, the then Patriarch of Antioch, who,
however, very speedily found occasion to regret the appointment.
He was charged with various and grave offences; as, e.g. he was
charged with having consecrated a bishop in defiance of the canons

984
The Case of the Syrian Patriarch Fairly Stated -Compiled From Official Documents and Authentic Papers,
(London, January 1875), Tait vol. 214. ff. 19-28.

330
 of the church +; with permitting men who have been twice married
to be ordained; with simony; with altering the ancient liturgy; with
alienating church property; with irregular celebration of the Holy
Communion, permitting only one element to be given in some
cases, and in several instances using unconsecrated wine, etc. etc.,
against the laws ecclesiastical; and the Patriarch summoned him to
Mardin to answer for himself. He refused to appear, was
excommunicated, and finally deposed in 1846.

* Note: Syrian Bishops have always two names: one baptismal, the
other official. Hence the frequency with which Athanasius,
Dioynasius, etc., occur.985
+ These charges are vouched for by chorepiscopus Philipos986

A successor was appointed, but Athanasius bid defiance and has

not only kept his post until now, but he has contrived to get the
Maharajah to make him Metropolitan, and has exercised
jurisdiction as such; and this, in spite of the utmost efforts of the
Syrian Church in Malabar, backed by three successive Patriarchs at
Antioch, who have severally excommunicated Athanasius, and
have sent out first Mar Korillos to supersede him, and
subsequently, on the health of Korillos giving way, Mar Dionysius,
a native of India, was elected and consecrated.

The last four pages of the report summarize the intrigue practiced by the schismatic side,
resorting to deceit, all with collusion by the British authority in India.

The reader may there find recorded, inter alia, an alleged

settlement of a dispute by the votes of certain representatives of the
Syrians, given before Mr. Ballard, the British Resident, a sum of
money, claimed by the Syrian community, had for some time been
locked up in the treasury at Trevandrum. Athanasius was bent on
obtaining it, and a meeting was invited to assemble, ostensibly to
consult about the best method of using the money. But when it is
understood that this meeting was known beforehand to Athanasius;
that it consisted of his friends and partisans, together with others
who came through fear, and against their will; that few eminent
among their priests or laity sanctioned it by their presence; that it
was held in the compound of Mr. Baker, the leading missionary, at
Cottayam, the very headquarters of the Church Missionary
Society; that the Dewan, attended by armed soldiers, was present:-
When these facts, vouched for by Philipos, the Cathanar of the
church there, are considered, it will not require much reasoning to

985
This is a footnote in the original document.
986
This is a footnote in the original document.

331
 cast doubts upon the freedom of this assembly (much analogous to
an Ecumenical Council held by the Pope in the Vatican), or to
make it appear that we are, probably, not far wrong in tracing to
the Missionaries the misrepresentations which have prevailed so
long, and so disastrously for the peace of this poor community of
Syrian Christians.

The report then summarises the motives of the perpetrators as follows:

But [it will be asked] what conceivable motive can they have? The
motive is none other than the desire, springing from a very
mistaken religious zeal, and fostered by plausible assurances of the
wily Athanasius, to see the Syrian Church ‘reformed’ [as they
would call it] and Protestanized.

The report then makes an insightful scathing attack on the narrow-mindedness of many
clergy, thus:
We all know the blindness with which religious men sometimes
mistake the means, and bid us “come and see their Zeal for the
Lord;” and we are no strangers [certainly not in England at this
moment] to the narrowness of party spirit, which regards as
damnable error all worship which is not ruled by our square and
compass. Something, perhaps, of this spirit oozes out in a letter*
written by the present Bishop of Madras, on the 4th November,
1870; in which speaking of the rival Metrans, he says: Mar
Dionysius is tenacious of the existing state of things in the Malabar
Church, not willing even to part with prayers to the Virgin”.
Bishop Gell, accordingly, when consulted by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, expressed himself as inclining to Mar Athanasius
rather than Mar Dionysius. Yet it was not always so [as that letter
of his lordship’s proves].+ And if a candid man, such as therein
appears, has so changed his opinion; if he and his brother Bishops
in India have come- as a result of their recent examination into the
matter- to a conclusion adverse to Mar Dionysius, and thus
opposed to facts when looked at in candour; it must be that these
prelates have relied upon the statements of men deceived, and
therefore [unconsciously] deceiving.

* Quoted in The Western Star (of India) of November 14h, 1874.987

+ “Still if the Patriarch had the right to depose Mar Athanasius and did depose him, it would
seem to be the duty of the British Government to secure the recognition of the rightful Metran by
the Travancore Government, and the duty of the Church of England, in such intercourse as we
have with the Syrian Church, to recognise the same person.”- Bishop Gell, ibid.988

987
This is a footnote in the original document.
988
This is a footnote in the original document.

332
 The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked for proofs, our
Government have required information. We trust that both the one
and the other will now be satisfied.

The fact of the deposition is manifest. The right of the Patriarch of

Antioch to depose is also unquestioned*. The inquiry with which
the subject has been ingeniously mystified, as to how long the
Malabar Christians have received their bishops from Antioch-this
is wholly irrelevant to the contention. For not only [as is
unquestionably true] have they for more than two centuries
voluntarily adhered to Antioch; but it was thither that the very man
who is causing all this schism, it was to Antioch that Athanasius
himself went for consecration in 1843; and is upon the credentials
[revoked in 1846] given by the Patriarch of Antioch, that this man
bases his claims!

* The late Archdeacon Robinson in a remarkable letter to the then

Patriarch of Antioch, fully acknowledges him as spiritual head of
the Malabar Church, and testifies that Bishop Heber treated him as
the authoritative spiritual ruler.989

The last section of the report is as unequivocal as the rest of it in denouncing the very
thought and the practice in which the British ecclesiastic and civil authorities in India were
engaged throughout the matter. It ends with this damming statement:

But the British Government [ever bound to promote peace among

its subjects], has interfered already, and to some purpose, through
its representative, the Resident of Travancore: for not only has he
lent himself to the settlement at a packed meeting of a disputed
monetary claim; but the supreme Government has, by its persistent
refusal to utter the one word asked for, virtually taken sides, and
thrown its weight into the scale in favour of schism, robbery and
wrong.990

989
This is a footnote in the original document.
990
Ibid., ff. 26-28.

333
 APPENDIX A 4.1

A Letter to Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Deir al-Za‘faran and Mardin, from
Khouri Hanna Shamoun, Azikh, dated December 30, 328 Rumi (December 30, 1912,
Julian; January 13, 1912, Gregorian)991

To our gracious brother Mutran [Bishop] Jirjis Efendi992, esteemed

Monk Ibrahim Efendi, and respected leaders of our community:
After wishing you peace and enquiring about your honourable
wellbeing, I wrote to you last week in detail about what transpired
concerning Patriarch Abdul Masih and informed you that you need
to emphasize, in a second petition what you had stated in the
previous petitions you submitted, listing the negative qualities of
the Patriarch and the repulsion all feel due to his poor
administration, his preoccupation with his own pleasures, and his
abuse of the Waqf [endowment] of the millet [community] and,
thus, the need to depose him from this holy patriarchal position
that he fills, and to replace him with someone capable of managing
the affairs of the community and, finally, your refusal to accept
him on any condition.

I have come to you now with this letter to re-emphasize what I

stated in my previous letter, requesting you, a second time, to
cooperate with each other and to help each other accomplish this
task relentlessly, without any neglect. I beseech you in the name of
the rights that are due to our dear millet not to delay for even one
hour what I have written about, for were you not to do that, and
you became complacent in emphasizing the content of these
petitions, the Patriarch would remain in his position and you would
be the ones who would be negligent in protecting the rights of our
millet by overlooking the bad acts of the Patriarch and their
detrimental effects that would continue to lead to our decline. As
for us [me], all that remains for me to do is to shed light on a path
that you should follow, as I am unable to achieve anything before
receiving these petitions. On the other hand, if you prepare the
necessary petitions and submit them to the respective higher
authorities, I would seek ratification by the Porte and by the
esteemed Ministry of Justice. I will emphasize here that this time
we would, with the grace of the Creator and with the Sultanic
justice achieve our aspired result, for when discussing the issue,
the Ministry of Justice answered, that the unseating of the Patriarch
depends on his rejection by the millet. Thus, if you categorically
refuse to accept him. Also it is important to note is that what the

991
40M-24/46 – 0452
992
Turkish title of respect following a name

334
 referenced authority wrote to the Vali was based on an order from
the Grand Vazir in which he had inferred from an earlier reply by
the Vali to his enquiry, that it was possible to reform the Patriarch
to your approval. That this [the enquiry] was only for the sake of
testing the matter. Thus, if you now emphasize that you would
never accept Abdul Masih as Patriarch, they would no doubt
replace him. As you well know that I have already commenced this
matter with you for the love of protecting the right of our millet, its
Waqf, and its standing, and in recognition of respect of your
esteemed selves. My hope is profound that you would confirm the
petitions as noted above and in doing so not overlook the need to
gather many signatures with no difference between elites and
rayah. Concluding this with the hope and with the request that you
would keep me informed expeditiously as to what transpires.

May the Lord extend your honorable life.

By the prayers of your holiness your brother, Timotheus Faulus

Urhoyo [Paulus of Urhoy (Syriac) or Ruha (Arabic)], the weak,
Patriarchal Vicar of Constantinople, March 27, 1903.993

993
Document 40M-24/26- 0122.

335
 APPENDIX A 4.2

From the Letter by Syrian Catholic Patriarch Ephrem Rahmani to

the Deposed Abdul Masih dated June 16, 1914

May the Divine Grace that Descended on the Apostles in the

Upper Room of Zion, Descend upon the Forehead of His
Respected Beatitude Ignatius Abdul Masih Patriarch of the
Antiochian Syrians, the Thrice Blessed, may God grant Him long
life.

We offer you our good wishes, heart-felt greetings, love-filled

desires and inform your beatitude that in today’s mail we received
a letter from his Holiness Pope Pius X in which he informs us that
you have sent him a letter dated April 28 ultimo in which you
explained to him what had happened to you, particularly the theft
of the cross and the two rings that he had bestowed on your
respectful beatitude. He was greatly saddened by that, and he has
written to us that he will send by the next post a gold cross and a
fine ring [inscribed] with the name of your beatitude, together with
a gold chain. His Holiness and Lord the Pope reminded us to
provide you every now and then with all your needs to cover your
expenses. As you well know we have not and will not detract from
providing you with all that which brings to you comfort and peace
of mind, for all that matters to us is your good health, which we
hold dear to our heart, as your good conscience would attest.

Further, our Lord the Pope commands us to remind you with what
you promised him, namely that you would exert yourself to re-
claim our separated beloved brethren to the fold of one Catholic
Church, and no doubt you are paying attention to this matter. As
we promised you, we will, upon our receipt of the next mail, God
willing, forward to you the cross and ring and a sum for your
pocket expense.

In conclusion we send to your esteemed beatitude our sincere and

heart-felt good wishes, and we hope that you will write to us from
time to time the good news of your health, may God prolong your
blessed brotherhood.994

From Beirut- June 16, 1914

Signed, Ignatius Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch.
994
Bab Tuma- Document- No. P1100296

336
 APPENDIX A 4.3

A Letter to Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Deir al-Za‘faran and Mardin, from
Khouri Hanna Shamoun, Azikh, dated December 30, 328 Rumi (December 30, 1912,
Julian; January 13, 1912, Gregorian)

The esteemed gentleman, the notable shepherd of all shepherds,

the gentleman with all honour, Mor Qorilos Mutran Jirjis the
Patriarchal Vicar of the Old Syrians, may his prayers be with us.
After kissing your hands and begging for your prayers, which are
always answered, we put forward to your elevated dignity that over
the past year we have not received from you any letters or news.
We are unhappy, because we do not know what has happened to
our Syrian Taifa and we have no news about his Beatitude. We
have become embarrassed towards other twa’if.995 They embarrass
us when they find out that we receive no directions or follow-ups
from you. All that is left for us is to climb the top of the mountains
and other high places and scream with tears [cry out tearfully] with
Jeremiah in his lamentations. Who will give water to my head and
to my eyes so that I may cry day and night for the killing of my
people’s daughter,996 that is, on the tragedy of our Syrian taifa,
which has become food stock for lies and pasture to feed for all the
tawa’if…We request you to inform us of his Beatitude’s condition
and his whereabouts and why he has left the Antiochean seat and
has unnecessarily stayed away so far elsewhere…

Your spiritual son, Khouri Hanna Shamoun.997

995
Plural of taifa.
996
This is a variant of verse 3:48 in the Lamentations of Jeremiah.
997
40M-24/46 – 0452.

337
 APPENDIX A 4.4

A letter from the Bishopric Board of Diyarbakir to Patriarch Abdullah, dated May 10,
1913.

After a usual celebratory address the letter starts as follows:

We were honoured with your written communication dated March

30, 1913, which we read out today, thanking the Lord on your
good health. Further, whatever you ordered became clear to us.

To you, the most esteemed father:

We, the members of the Board, have agreed to write this letter to
inform you about the dysfunctional state of our milla (taifa) which
is losing enormously, materially and morally. All these losses have
been incurred through mismanagement and because of ignoring the
calls of the milla for your return to the Seat [Patriarchal Seat].
Being away from this Seat has caused our milla to abdicate its
rights and to lose its opportunities for progress. If you are thinking
of abandoning your duties, as has been the case for such a long
period of time, then how unfortunate is this poor milla! Who will
answer for that before Almighty God on the Day of Reckoning for
this neglect and for not asking about the rights of the milla, while
the other milal [plural of milla] are devouring us from every side?
Who is the shepherd, who is the head and who is the one who is
responsible before God and before the living conscience? You may
ask what has been the loss incurred? Then, to answer, we will now
dip our pen into the sea of our tears and write to you, to indeed
show you the loss…

When will the leaders of the milla concern themselves with the
interests of this milla? Is it when the milla commits a suicide and
thereby loses all its rights? Is there no heart that is abound with
zeal and mercy to look after the affairs of this milla?...All these
losses have been incurred as a result of your being away from the
Seat for such a long time. We have written many times requesting
your return, and each time you say that our call is unnecessary.
Yet, although it has been two and half years since your return from
India, yet you are still moving between Syria and Jerusalem…

Our esteemed head, whatever we have written is also felt in our

broken hearts about our poor milla, which has reached a state about
which it is no longer possible to remain quiet, and all this has been
the result of your absence from the Seat. There are several issues

338
 with regard to the previous patriarch, the affairs of India, bishopric
reform and others that require your presence…In Tur-Abdin and in
other places rumours thrive among simple people about what
might soon happen, in particular with regard to the rumour that,
with a group of Catholic priests, the previous patriarch will tour
Tur-Abdin to convert and devastate the milla…

We will await, hour by hour, a telegram from you to notify us of

your return. Otherwise results would be dire, and this is our last
letter to your Beatitude.

Signed: Suriyani Qadim Millet Majlis of Diyarbakir, on May10, 1913.998

998
P1090669- p1090671

339
 APPENDIX A 4.5

A letter from Mutran Jirjis, the Patriarchal Vicar in Mardin, and 12 Priests and
Laymen of the Millet Board, dated March 6, 1913

After the celebratory greeting, the letter states:

We are honoured with receiving the words of your Apostolic

blessing dated February 23, 1913. What you stated therein has
been noted clearly. We informed your Eminence in previous letters
of the decline in the entire milla. We no longer know which matter
we should address first and which we should postpone. Two days
ago we expressed the sad conditions in Kharput. The conditions in
Midyat are several times worse. We still receive, daily, telegrams
from the various bishoprics expressing their grievances with each
other and the infighting that is going on, no doubt with dire
consequences, while your Beatitude continues to postpone
resolution of the issues from month to month. Additionally, most
matters cannot be resolved by correspondence. We, on our part
have no intent other than to express our fear of the eventual
dissolution of the whole milla. Accordingly, we hereby express our
proposal for you to appoint a deputy with the authority to resolve
the affairs of the milla…

If you desire the diminution of the milla, we are acting to remove

the blame that might be placed on us, and you would have to
answer to what is happening. There is no value in repeated
correspondence, for the condition of the milla no longer allows
delay. We therefore repeat our request for a speedy positive
resolution.

Mutran Jirgis, the Patriarchal – Vicar, Mardin and twelve lay

members of the Milla Board,

Dated March 6, 1913.999

999
P1090656.

340
 APPENDIX A 4.6

A letter from an individual signing as: “the one who is sad about the affairs of the
Milla, Elias Shamoun,” dated August 1, 1913

The writer, after offering the usual respects introduces himself and offers his
observations concerning the Syrian Orthodox Church and community from his travels
and personal experience states:
I, your son, am a member from the Syrian community in Jazirah.
When the school [Ecclesiastic School] was opened in Deir al-
Za‘faran by the efforts of the late Mar Dionysius Mutran of Mosul,
I attended that school. I then went to a government school in
Aleppo… last year I attended secondary school in Mosul vilayet.
This year I went to Diyarbakir to complete my studies in the sixth
and seventh years [of study stage].

Through my travels from Aleppo to Urfa, Viren Shahir, Nisibis,

Mardin, Jazireh and Mosul, then upon my return to Jazirah, Tur-
Abdin and to Diyarbakir, I became well acquainted with the
conditions of the Syrian nation, in three lands and vilayets. Driven
by my love of my ethnic roots, my zeal towards my milla, I have
penned these words of slavery1000 to your Beatitude, I am in a state
of great sorrow concerning the current conditions of the Syrian
nation, and on the incurable wounds with which this poor taifa has
been inflicted…

Dear Sir, the decline in the taifa, coupled with non-concern during
your time has never been witnessed at any other by our fathers and
grandfathers…These matters will mark a black blot on the history
of your Patriarchate, that will never be removed by coming
generations. Suffice it to say that since your return from your tour
of India four of your Bishops have moved to other churches…

If you did not ask about your flock, who is then to ask about them?
Would it be the chiefs of the Pappist? Or would it be the Probates
[Protestants]? who are both ready to snatch our milla to
themselves? So, if you are a true father, a decent shepherd, it is
your duty to return to the Seat [Patriarchal Seat] and to enquire
about your sheep. Otherwise the milla would disintegrate and then
you know you would answer to that before the throne of God. I am

1000
A standard form of address that was particularly common during Peter’s Patriarchate

341
 not in the position to threaten nor do I intend to disobey; however,
the burning in my heart and the pain in my chest call me to write as
a son would write to his father and grandfather.

Signed: “the one who is worried about his milla, Elia Shamoun,” on August 1,
1913.1001

1001
Bab Tuma P109157-P1090660.

342
 APPENDIX A 4.7

A letter from Altoune Abdelnour, Mosul, dated December 12, 1913

After the usual introduction, the letter reviews the position of the people of Mardin and of
other regions with respect to current issues. He noted that the general trend in the thinking was
towards the formation of a combined delegation from Mosul, Mardin, Diyarbakir and
including bishops, priests and lay dignitaries and others, to have an audience with him in
Jerusalem. During such an audience, each representative would report on conditions in their
respective towns, followed by a general discussion on what is needed to manage the affairs of
the milla everywhere:
At that time there was a request for Mosul to participate with a
delegation, but Mosul declined to join the proposed plan in
deference to your feelings. Subsequently the others made known
their intentions known to you and you responded by expressing
your intention to return to your Seat [Patriarchal Seat], at which
point all were happy. However, now they found that your promise
has not been fulfilled; that you have stayed where you are. This has
resulted in a disturbance, whereby they have blamed Mosul for this
matter. Thus, based on our mutual love and respect, we dare
express what is our duty in accordance with our conscience and
state that it is not permissible by the tenets of Church law and the
tenets of proper administration that you abandon the milla with no
caretaker while you stay in Jerusalem as if the matter is of no
concern to you. We do not believe that the Creator who entrusted
you with the flock would accept this from you, in accordance with
the promises you made on your installation on the Antiochian See.
Now we have received some blame for that [your negligence]
which we feel is justified…

With regards the diocese of Siirt, which you consider to be the

diocese of Mar Quryaqos’ Monastery, according to confirmed
information Mar Addai, the Chaldean Bishop of Siirt, has gone to
Qadha of Bsheiriya to lure them [the Syrian Orthodox] to become
Catholic. He convinced them, and wrote a letter on their behalf to
Rome to open a school in every village to be supplied with
teachers from Rome, as they are 4000 and do not wish to join
Patriarch Rahmani, but wish to be under the administration of the
Latins. When Rahmani heard this he was upset as they decided not
to join him. He immediately instructed his deputy Mutran Gabriel
Tapouni in Mardin to head out to them, with priest Gorgias [who is
originally from our milla but joined he Catholics, returned to us

343
 then rejoined the Catholics], to convince them to remain under
Rahmani’s administration and not under the Latins. We obtained
this information from our common friend Priest Yousuf Khayyat
al-Musilli in confidence, as there is bad feeling between him and
Rahmani and does not wish Rahmani to succeed at all, for
Rahmani does these things in order to get money from Rome. The
said priest (Khayyat), who is well regarded, has a French report
that discusses the above issue, as well as issues relating to Tur
Mountain (Tur Abdin), Zaz, Hah and other locations. I have
acquired the report from Khayyat and will now post to you. From
it (the report) you will see to what state our milla has descended,
and what the enemies have done to it from all sides, with no one to
raise concern. Is it permissible that the sheep are left to be
devoured by the wolves while the chief of its shepherds remains
unaware of all this? Some write to say that His Beatitude’s actions
are deliberate, proving Tarazi right1002 and others said about him. I
am exceptionally surprised, and I have fallen sick as a result, and
have been under the attention of a doctor1003…It is out of our [my]
extreme anguish that we [I] have written this request so that you
would exercise your full determination and effort to repair the
affairs of the milla, if you were to return to your Seat in order to
end this deteriorated state of being under the mercy of wolves, and
not to give cause to prove what the others have said [about you]. It
is out of our [my] that we [I] have written this concerning
Bsheriyah. In the mean time I request that you issue orders to
Mutran Tuma, Priest Ibrahim in Siirt, and the Milla Board in
Mardin to be vigilant, as Mutran Jirjis1004 is unable to act...1005

Signed: Altoune Abdelnour, Mosul

Dated: December 12, 1913.

1002
Referring to Terazi’s statement in Al-Salasil al-Tarikhiyah, p.352, in which he expressed confidence that
Abdullah, as patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox, would continue to work for the Catholic Church.
1003
Altoune Abdelnor, the author of this letter, died less than two months later, on February 4, 1914, as per Al-
Hikmat, 1913/1914 No. 14, p. 210.
1004
The aged Patriarchal Vicar in Mardin, who had on a previous ocassion requested retirement.
1005
Archival Document Bab Tuma P1090694.

344
 APPENDIX A 5.1

MEMORANDUM PRESENTED TO THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE BY

Archbishop Aphram Barsoum, Representing the Syrian Orthodox Church

ARCHEVECHE SYRIEN
DE SYRIE
DAMAS, HOMS
No. 23 February/1920
MEMORANDUM1006
==============
We have the honour of bringing before the PEACE CONFERENCE in
information that H.B. the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch has intrusted me with the
task of laying before the conference the sufferings and the wishes of our ancient
Assyrian nation who reside mostly in the upper valleys of Tirgris and Euphrates
in Mesopotamia our chief points are the following:

1. It is to be noted that our nation apart from the persecutions inflicted

upon it in the by-gone days of the Red-Sultan Abdul-hamid in 1895, has
proportionately to its number suffered more than any other nation whose fate was
the cruel sword of the Turks and the dagger of their brothers in barbarism the
Kurds, as it will be seen by the enclosed list, which indicates the number of our
massacred people amounts to 90,000, Syriens and 90,000 Nestorions and
Chaldeans.
2. We regret bitterly that this ancient and glorious race which has rendered
so many valuable services to civilization should be so neglected and even ignored
by the European press and diplomatic correspondence, in which all Turkish
massacres are called “Armenian Massacres” while the right name should have
been “The Christian Massacres” since all Christians have suffered in the same
degree.
3. We beseech the Peace Conference in it’s dealing with Criminal Turkey
not to forget to extend it’s solitude to the innocent Syro-Caldeans whom no one
can indite the plea of revolutionary movements, consequently we ask for the
emancipation of the villoyet of Diarbekir, Bitlis, Kharpout, and Ourfa from the
Turkish Yoke.
4. We protest against the projected establishment of a Kurdish authority, a
so-called delegation is endavouring to promote it’s influence and renew the
horrible scenes of the recent Kurdish barbarism.
5. We ask for indemnities in compensation of our damages.
6. We ask for the assurance of our National and Religious future.

1006
Reproduced here from images of an original document given in Atto pp. 541, 542. No attempt has been made
here to correct spelling or to rephrase in parenthesis.

345
 We count on the justice of the Peace Conference to listen to our Nation which
sighs for a tolerable future in which she can play her ancient role of Assyio -
Chaldean civilization.

Barsoum’s signature

346
 APPENDIX A 5.2

Letter from French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Visit by Aphram Barsoum

Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a visit from Mgr. Barsaum

Note from Mr. Goût, November 26, 1919.
Republic of France
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dept. of Political and Commercial Affairs
November 26, 1919

I received a visit from Mgr. Aphrem Barsaum. He made great protestations of his love for
France to me, but he mostly left me with the impression that he was just another of the
intriguing priests the East abounds in. That is why I asked Mr. Defrance if he was indeed,
as he claimed, his patriarch’s delegate, and what his mandate was.

The Syrian Orthodox form a small community that comes under neither the Greek
Ecumenical Patriarch’s, nor the Roman Pope’s jurisdiction. They use Syriac as their
liturgical language and are more or less connected to the ancient Syro-Phoenician race.
A large number of Syrian Orthodox broke away from their original church in the 18th
century and formed the Syrian Catholic community, whose Patriarch is Mgr. Rahmani,
who recognizes the Pope’s supremacy.

The two groups are naturally great rivals. They particularly fight over a monastery near
Homs: Mar Elian. This monastery was awarded in 1835 by Ibrahim of Egypt to our clients
the Syrian Catholics. Despite measures that the Syrian Orthodox have taken at the Sublime
Porte, we kept our clients at the monastery. In 1914, because of their persistent attachment
to France, the Ottomans took the monastery away from the Syrian Catholics and gave it to
the Orthodox.

Mgr. Aphrem, seeing that the French influence will soon be preponderant in Syria, now
rushes over to us, forgetful of the flattery with which he showered the Turks and the
Germans.

In exchange for his protestations of love, he wants us to abandon the Syrian Catholics,
who demand the monastery back and who have had Mr. Picot’s support to this end before
Turkish authorities.

It does not seem possible that we should take up position against our protégés, and the
only thing to do is to recommend to General Gouraud that he stay out of the affair, at least
for now.

Like every intriguer from Syria, Mgr. Aphrem is very agitated, he speaks loudly all the
time, believing that this will impose his will. There is no need for concern, for it is certain

347
that he will have to begin behaving again, and his patriarchy and community are of no real
consequence. Even if he goes elsewhere with his list of grievances, there is no danger. He
will try to come to an understanding with Faisal, that is fairly certain, but it is of no
importance: between the Syrian Orthodox and us, when the agreement guaranteeing him
his personal role is reached, Faisal will fail to show his disdain for this small group of
Christians. When that day comes, they will be very happy with the protection that we will
agree to accord them.

348
 APPENDIX A 5.3

A Confidential Report on Archbishop Aphram Barsoum

Requested by French Diplomatic Services

Confidential report on Mgr. Barsaum requested by the French diplomatic services,

December 20, 1919.
Paris, Place St. François-Xavier, VII
December 20, 1919.
Sir,

Here is the information I was able to gather concerning the bishop of the Syrian
Jacobite faith (not united to Rome) who is presently in Paris, Mgr. Severius Aphrem
Barsaum.

He studied at the school and at the seminary of the Dominican Fathers at Mosul; at
that time, he became a Catholic. When he left the Mosul seminary, he went to the
Jacobite monastery of Deir al-Za’faran, renounced his Catholicism, and became a
monk with the aim of becoming a bishop. The bishopric was a long time in coming:
Mgr. Severius was in fact not promoted until last year.

Residing in Homs, then in Damascus, Mgr. Severius has proven an ardent supporter
of Emir Faisal. His Patriarch brought him with him to Constantinople, for unless I
am mistaken, Mgr. Severius is the only Jacobite prelate to speak French.

I would be pleased if this information proved to be of any use to you. In any case,
please be assured of the pleasure I had in taking the steps to procure the information,
and please accept my respectful and devoted sentiments.

Louis [illegible]

349
 APPENDIX A 5.4

Telegram Announcing Archbishop’s Barsoum’s Arrival in Paris

Telegram from Charles Roux, November 7, 1919, announcing Mgr. Barsoum’s arrival in
France

Foreign Affairs
Decryption of Telegram #2470
Rome, November 7, 1919, 9:00 pm
Received November 7, 11:35 pm
Confidential

Yesterday Monsignor Severius Aphram Barsaum, a Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) bishop,

must have left for Paris. Traveling with a French passport as a “special protégé” and with
recommendations from our High Commissary in Beirut and our High Commissary in
Constantinople, this prelate presented himself at the Embassy, made great protestations to
me of his love for France, and asked me for a letter of introduction to the Quai d’Orsay,
which I did not think I should refuse him.

[The] French High Commissary at Beirut provided him, and his Patriarch, with the passport
allowing them to travel freely to Constantinople. This favor, and the others that he received
from our authorities in the East, were aimed at winning him, and his community, over to our
interests.

I have learned from a sure source that this Orthodox prelate was fairly closely connected
with Emir Faisal in Damascus, and that he tried very hard to woo the Arabs, even in his
public speeches. Moreover he has a marked tendency of riding the fence with everyone, and
he asked the Italians for a recommendation for Mr. Tittoni. He intends to go to London after
Paris. Under these circumstances, I think we should take care not to offend him, but that we
[must] be wary of him.

Charles Roux

350
 APPENDIX A 5.5

Aphram Barsoum’s Nationalist Position at the Paris Peace Conference

(Statement by Barsoum when Interviewed by Paulus Behnan)

Son, I entered the Conference hall with a feeling of pain and hope.
I saw men with heads covered with white, with eyes that had been
coloured with the sight of blood and I imagined that their hands
were soaked with the blood of the innocent that they spilled
through that devastating war. Others were with the blood of youth
still flowing through their veins, their eyes twinkling with
imagination. So eyes were directed towards me wearing my
oriental ecclesiastic attire. Looks of surprise and inquiry remained
focused on me until I settled in the seat that had been allocated for
people of my religious ecclesiastic position. After I heard many of
the speeches that exposed the savagery of humans towards their
human brothers, it was then my turn to speak. As I stood to make
my speech, which was in French, the language of the conference,
looks were directed at me , some as piercing arrows others as
flowers emitting sense, I opened my address with a verse from the
Gospel “Blessed are the peace makers, for they will be called the
children of God.”1007 I voiced my support to the notion of World
peace and I spoke about basis for World Peace. I then delved into
the subject for which I had attended. I laid out the state of misery
and need that surrounded the Orientals as a result of the War and I
described in detail the tragedies that befell us. I drew a vivid
graphic picture of the innocent dead and the remains of those who
perished out of hunger and need and other calamities. I did not see
a tear flowing on any cheek, nor did I find a look of mercy for the
calamity of the Orientals, I felt I was addressing rigid statues of
dead stones. No sooner than I ended my speech I became certain
that all twinkling hopes have dwindled and died. All that remained
within me was pain and ache. This was what transpired in the first
meeting that I attended in what was called ‘a Peace Conference.’

As for the second meeting, this was convened following a meeting

of a number of Free Arabs [Arabs seeking freedom], where,
together, we laid down the points to address before the Conference.
On the fourth day, after the first meeting, I entered the Conference
accompanied by a number of the Free Arabs. Looks were directed
towards us. Those present were surprised at the entry of a Bishop
1007
St. Matthew: 5.9.

351
 surrounded by Arab Muslim warriors. No sooner than we settled
down, that my colleagues requested me to speak. So I raised my
hand requesting permission to speak and stood up. At the start of
my speech I emphasized that the Arabs are Arabs whether they are
Muslims or Christians. I then laid out the struggle of the Arabs
alongside that of the victorious allies and I praised the spirit of
their heroism and recited some of the stories of this heroism in
Syria and elsewhere in the Arab land. I referred to the ruthless
executions that were enacted onto those freedom fighters in
Damascus and in Beirut as well as at the tragedies that befell the
Arab lands. I stated that the Arabs have a holy right to freedom,
independence and the life of honour for theirs is a great nation with
an enduring historic heritage and a vast contribution to human
civilization from the oldest of times.

No sooner than I came to the end of my speech, my Arab

colleagues shouted “you are the ‘Bishop of Arabism,’ indeed you
are the ‘Priest of Time.’ I recall those moments with a feeling of
sadness and sorrow for all the labour and pain, which have gone
with the wind.1008

1008
Paulus Behnam, Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām, Mosul, 1959, pp. 26-27.

352
 APPENDIX A 6.1
Name as ‘Syrian Orthodox’ - A Historical Perspective1009
The following is a sample of what the Syrian Orthodox called themselves from the sixth to the
thirteenth centuries:

1. The earliest available reference is the letter of the Synod of Bishops during the
Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch (512-538) to the Abbots of the monasteries of
Mesopotamia stating: “We, dear brothers and members of the body of our blessed
Orthodox church, thus, adhere to the faith as we received it from Mar Severus, our great
patriarch and teacher.”1010
2. The encyclical by Patriarch Athanasius I of Antioch (595-631) addressed to the monks of
Mar Mattai Monastery near Mosul. In this he states “We grant your monastery the honour
of leadership among all Orthodox monasteries in the Persian Kingdom.”1011 Also
addressing the bishop of Amid, the same patriarch says “I reflect deeply on the hardships
that our church, we the Orthodox, has endured, but these have been beneficial.”1012
3. Jacob of Edessa (+708) writes in the opening sentence of his formulation of the creed
reads: “We the Christians of sound belief, the Orthodox, believe ...”1013. Further, his
formulation of the Canon of the Living Fathers of the Church, which is currently still
recited during Divine Liturgy in the Syrian Orthodox Church(,) includes: “We pray to
God for the sake of our leaders “Mar… the Patriarch of Antioch… as well as all our
Orthodox bishops.” Also, the Canon remembering the fathers of the Church includes “Let
us remember our Patriarch Severus, the crown of the Syrians.”
4. Patriarch Dionysius of Tel Mahre (818-845): states in his Chronicle: “some claim that no
king ever descended from among the Syrians. We reply to them that the Aramean kings
of Damascus are called Syrian Kings in the Septuagint.”1014
5. Moshe bar Kepha: (+903) Bishop of Beth-Raman, Beth-kiona and Mosul and an
exegetical and liturgical scholar. In one of his exegetic commentaries he states: “the early
Orthodox priests did not consume the remains that stayed in the chalice … a beautiful
custom that the Chalcedonians follow… but not the Nestorians.”1015
6. Dionysius bar Salibi, Bishop of Amid (+1171).
a) In his discourse against the Chalcedonian belief he states: “We the Syrian Orthodox
believe…”1016.
b) In his book “the Ten Chapters”, he states: “we the Syrians with the Copts and
Armenians…”1017

1009
Khalid Dinno, “The Syrian Orthodox Church: Mane as a Marker of Identity,” in Parole de l’ Oriente 38
(2013): 193-211.
1010
Ephrem RAHMANI, Al-Muqtaṭafāt al-Suryāniya, Part I, 1904.
1011
Jean-Baptiste CHABOT, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199) (4 vols.;
Paris, 1899-1924), p. 412.
1012
Ibid., p. 392.
1013
Ibid.
1014
Jean-Baptiste CHABOT, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199) (4 vols.;
Paris, 1899-1924), p. 523.
1015
His Exegesis on the Holy Qurbon (The Divine Sacrament), Chapter 3.
1016
His book on Discourses, preserved in Dinno/Denno’s private collection, Folio 10, p. 388.

353
7. In his Chronicle, Patriarch/historian Michael the Syrian (1166-1199) refers to the Syrian
Orthodox at times as “Syrians” and at others as “Orthodox.” The following are two of ten
examples Denno presented:
a) “When Mar Severus left this temporal life the Orthodox chose Sergius in his
place…”1018
b) Referring to Mar Ahudeme (559-75) he states: “he prevailed upon the Catholicos…
and the king Cyrus ordered the counting of both sides and the number of the
Orthodox was five times the number of the Nestorians”1019.
8. The Anonymous Edessan, in his Chronicle 1234, uses the term Syrian or Orthodox in
reference to the Syrian Orthodox. The following are two of a large number of references
found on pages 153, 159, 160, 190, 253, 309, 320, 327 and 328 of the chronicle.
b) “At this time Peter, the Patriarch of the Orthodox, died and Julian I (591-595) was
consecrated in his place”. He then adds: King Heraclius (610-41) confiscated our
church of Edessa and dismissed Isaiah as its bishop and thus “the church of the
Orthodox was confiscated”1020.
c) Elsewhere he states “around the year 1144 many gold and silver liturgical artifacts
were discovered, which had been hidden in our church, we the Syrians.”1021
1. Severus Jacob (bar Shakko) al Bartilli, bishop of the Monastery of Mar Mattai (1241):
in a letter addressed to his patriarch writes: “To the one who is endowed with the most
glorious of virtues..., the Patriarch of the Orthodox people in all countries”1022. Many
other references to “the Orthodox Church” and “the Orthodox people/nation” appear in
his writings.1023
2. Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286).
There are numerous references in his Ecclesiastic History referring to his people as
Orthodox or Syrian. Below are few examples of the fourteen references made by
Denno:
a) Writing on the life of Patriarch Nūḥ the Lebanese (1493-1509), when he abdicated
the patriarchate in Tur Abdin he announced that: “the Syrians have one patriarch
only.”1024 Elsewhere he also states: “Qassim Beh, the Sultan of Mardin granted
Patriarch Nūḥ an acknowledgement that he was Patriarch on all the Syrians.”1025
On the use of the term “Orthodox”, by Bar Hebraeus the following are few examples:
b) “At that time Baradaeus was consecrated as a Metropolitan of all the Orthodox in
the East and in the West.”1026
c) On the life of Patriarch Sergius he states: “when the venerable Mar Severus died,
the Orthodox instated Sergius as Patriarch for the Antiochan See.”1027
d) “The physician of King Cyrus was an Orthodox from Sinjar.”1028

1017
Ibid.
1018
Ibid., p. 308.
1019
Ibid., p. 313.
1020
Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens (CSCO Syr. 36, 37, 56),
Paris, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 218, 237.
1021
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 146.
1022
Severus Jacob Bartilli, The Dialogue, Second article, Dinno/Denno’s private collection.
1023
Ibid.
1024
Ibid., vol. 2, p. 557.
1025
Ibid., vol. 1, p. 561.
1026
Ibid.
1027
Ibid., p. 213.
1028
Ibid, vol. 2, p. 109.

354
 e) Referring to Marutha of Tikrit he says “The bishops elected Marutha, declared him
the most senior bishop and assigned to him the leadership of the Orthodox Church
in the East.”1029
f) In The Ethicon, Bar Hebraeus states: “the Syrians celebrate five famous fasts…”. In
the same book a chapter is titled “When were the hymns introduced in the Syrian
Church and who introduced them?”1030

1029
Ibid.
1030
Bar Hebraeus, The Ethicon, Bedjan (Ed.), Paris, 1890, p. 65.

355
 APPENDIX A 6.2
Philoxenus Yuhanna/Yuhanon Dolabani
The following is an abridged list of his main publications, which shows the diversity of his
scholarship and his devotion to rekindling Syriac culture.1031
Books he edited and published in Syriac:
 The Book of the Dove by Bar Hebraeus, in Syriac.
 Selection of Poems of Bar Hebraeus with comments and explanations, Jerusalem in
1929.
 Poems by Ibin al-Ma‘dani in Syriac, Jerusalem, 1929.
 Exegetic works by Moshe Bar Kepha.
 Letters by Daoud Poulos Beth Raban.
 Poems by Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Noah the Lebanese, 1956.
 An abridged version of Beth Gaz (Church music), 1913.
 Hikmat Aḥiqar (the Wisdom of Ahiqar).

Books he authored or translated:

 A Pedagogical Syriac Grammar, 1915.
 Novel Levi Bin Amos in Arabic, 1927.
 Arabic translation of Hidayat by Bar Hebraeus, 1929.
 A series of 15 liturgical and pastoral books in Arabic and Syriac aimed at educating the
young for a better understanding of the liturgy and the principles of the faith.
 History of Dier Mar Gabriel in Arabic and in Syriac.
 The life of Jacob Baradaeus in Arabic and in Syriac.
 Translations of the catechism by Patriarch Aphram Barsoum to Syriac.
 Translation of Patriarch Barsoum’s renowned book al-Lu’a al-Manthur to Syriac, 1967.
 A large number of articles he wrote in literary journals, especially Al-Hikmat, which he
helped issue in Jerusalem, and subsequently in the Patriarchal Journal.

In addition, he left behind many works in manuscript form.1032

1031
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language).,Second edition. Beirut:
Dar al-Mashriq, pp. 563-569; Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, pp. 129-130.
1032
These include: A manuscript on theology in 446 page; Sermons in Arabic and in Syriac; History of Mardin in
Arabic, Syriac and Turkish in three volumes; Primer in learning Syriac; translation of the book Theodora by
Poulous Behnam from Arabic to Syriac; translation of the book al-Tariq a l-mumahad (the Paved Road) from
Arabic to Syriac; supplement of the book Al-lu’lu’ al-manṯūr, including the contribution of the East Syriac, the
Maronite, and the Melkite scholars, as well as various poems.

356
 APPENDIX A 6.3

An article by Patriarch Zakka I Iwas published in the Patriarchal Journal in

1982 under the title “The Learned Archdeacon Ni‘matallah Denno.”1033

I met him for the first time in 1949 during the celebration of Holy
Communion in Mar Toma Cathedral in Mosul. At that time I was
16 years old, studying in the Mar Ephrem Seminary. I had already
heard a lot about Archdeacon Ne’matallah Denno, but I hadn’t had
the pleasure up till then of seeing this handsome man or of hearing
his mellow voice. His reputation had spread afar; he was already
renowned, especially in religious circles, and particularly in our
Seminary, where we were learning about the Syriac scholars, past
and present, and accumulating knowledge of what constituted ‘a
man of learning.’

We considered Archdeacon Denno to be first after the Most

Learned of blessed memory1034 Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum and
the Most Learned of blessed memory Bishop Yuhanna Dolabani.
And we knew that our teachers, the monks Paulus Behnam
(subsequently Bishop of Mosul then of Baghdad) and Abdulahad
Toma (later Patriarch Yaqoub III) used to consult him about
difficult issues on Syriac heritage: linguistic, historical and
theological…

In his essays and in his poetry, he inspired the reader and the
student with a spirit of enthusiasm for the church and for the
homeland, and the singing of her glories, and the following of the
example of the fathers of faith. Through the studies of his Syriac
books and the reading of his Arabic essays, theological, historical,
literary, and especially apologetic, we joined in the fervour of our
dear Archdeacon Denno in the defence of the honour of the Church
and in the upholding of her holy truth, and we felt a responsibility
with him for engaging with our opponents on the battlefield, seeing
in him David triumphing over Goliath in the name of the Lord
God.

He was also foremost among the founders of a charitable society

(Jamiyat al-Ihsan) in Mosul in 1926, an organization that
accomplished many noble things, for it met the need of the poor,
paved the way for the stranger, helped the orphan and the widow,

1033
Zakka I Iwas, “Al-‘allāma al-arḵiḏyāqūn Ni‘matallah Denno” (The Most Learned Archdeacon Ni‘matallah
Denno), The Patriarchal Journal, No. 11, 1982, pp. 36-42.
1034
The term used in Arabic, which is based on Syriac may be translated as “Thrice Blessed”

357
and supported large numbers of those hardworking needy students
to complete their higher studies…
In a letter Archdeacon Denno, of blessed memory, wrote to the
great literary scholar Ruphael Butti (of blessed memory) in
Baghdad on April 30, 1926, in which he stated:

‘We have been distressed by the tragedy of our brothers in Azikh

and Nisibin these days. Those of wretched fate did not only suffer
the misery of the past years, the Turks have since early last month
turned their latest measure of vengeance against them. They took
Azikh’s men and youth to an unknown location, and set their
soldiers loose to ransack the town, which caused the women and
children to flee under fear of abuse and hunger. They [the soldiers]
beat and tortured their aged bishop Mar Yulius. In the Nisibin
district, the soldiers who went to take revenge against the Kurdish
Agha Haja, torched several inhabited Syrian villages. They
destroyed the famous Monasteries of Mar Malke and Mar Dodo
and killed their monks for refusing to leave their monastery. The
aged Bishop Mar Samuel died en route while fleeing on foot with
others in heavy rain. Nearly 500 of those who survived the journey
on foot arrived in Mosul in extreme misery. Our society Jamiyal-
al-Ihsan is working hard to accommodate the waves of refugees
that arrive daily. Our society will call upon various organizations
to provide help. If you think it appropriate you might see fit to
publish something in the “Al Iraq” newspaper provided that this
would not arouse a negative reaction from the Turkish
Government, for fear of reprisal against the Syrians who are still
living in Diyarbakir, Mardin and Midyat.’

From a review of the above we sense the wisdom with which God
endowed Archdeacon Denno. He was truly like Stephanos, the first
head of the deacons: ‘full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom’ (Acts
6:3) to fulfill the word of the Lord ‘I was a stranger, but you gave
me shelter’ while at the same time he was endowed by the Spirit to
act with wisdom such that while, defending the rights of the
persecuted, he thought of the safety of others who could be subject
to the same fate…

358
 Ni‘matallah Denno’s Literary Legacy1035

 Syriac reading and grammar school text books

 Mabadi’al-Iman (Principles of faith)
 Church liturgy in two parts
 Palm Sunday Hymns for children
 Al- Tarn īmat al-Rouhiyya (The Spiritual Hymns),1036 in addition to articles on Syriac
music.1037
 Iqamat al Daleel ala Istimrar al-Ism al-Aseel wa Istinkar al-Na‘t al-Dakleel
(Establishing the Proof for the Continuation of the Original Name and Refuting the
Spurious Epithet) (1949).
 Jalal al-ḵafag fi tārīḵ naṣara al-‘Iraq (Elucidation of the failure in the History of the
Christians of Iraq), published over several instalments in the journal of Lisan al-
Mashriq’ Mosul (1949-1950).
 Mashahīr al-Suryan fe al-‘uloom wa al-Bayan (The Renowned Syrians in Sciences and
Logic).1038
 Various articles he published in literary journals, especially Al-Hikmat (in Jerusalem),
the Patriarchal Journal (the al-Nashra al-Suryaniyya (Aleppo)

1035
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language).,Second edition. Beirut:
Dar al-Mashriq, pp. 560-562; Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, p. 125.
1036
Ni‘matallah Denno, Altarnīmant al-rouḥiyya (the Spiritual Hymns), Seventh Edition, Jerusalem, 2007.
1037
Ni‘matallah Denno, “Al-Museeqa al-Suryaniyya (The Syriac Music),” Lisan al-Mashriq, First Year, No.1,
September 1, 1948, pp. 24-28; “al-Alḥan al-Suryaniyya (The Syriac Melodies),” Lisan al-Mashriq, First Year,
No. 2, 1, October, 1948, pp. 32-37 and Al-Museeqa al-Suryaniyya (The Syriac Music),” Lisan al-Mashriq, First
Year, Nos.3 and 4, November and December, 1948, pp. 34-38.
1038
Ni‘matallah Denno, “Mashahīr al-Suryan fe al-‘uloom wa al-Bayan (The Renowned Syrians in the Sciences
and Logic),” Lisan al-Mashriq, Fourth Year, November, 1951, pp. 54-61 and December, 1951, pp. 85-92.

359
 APPENDIX A 6.4
Summary of Publications by Ignatius Jacob (Yacoub) III1039

 Ttāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-hindiyya (History of the Syriac Church in India),

published in 1951 under Tuma, Severus Abdul Ahad, the later Patriarch Ignatius Jacob
III ;
 Ttāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch) 2
Vols. (Beirut 1953 and 1957);
 Dafaqāt al-Ṭīb fī tārīḵ dayr al-qiddīs Mār Matta al-‘ajīb (The Surges of Aroma, or, the
History of the Monastery of the Amazing Mar Mattai), 1961;
 Al-šuhadā’ al-ḥimyariyyūn al-‘arab fī al-waṯā’iq al-suryāniyya (The Himiariye Arab
Martyrs in the Sriac Documents), 1966;
 Kitāb al-mahrajānāt (The Book of Festivities), 2 Vols. (1966-1969);
 Šada al-manābir (The Echo of the Pulpits-Homilies), 1969;
 Al-la’āli’ al-manṯūra fī al-aqwāl al-ma’ṯūra (The Scattered Pearls in Famous Sayings)
2 Vols. (1967-1969);
 Nafaḥāt al-‘abīr aw sīrat al-baṭriyark Mār Siwīriyūs al-kabīr (The Aromas of Flowers,
or, the Biography of Mar Severus the Great), 1970;
 al-Barahin al-Hissiyya ala Tagarid al Suryaniyya wa al-Arabia (The Tangible Proofs
on the Relationship Between Syriac and Arabic), 1969;
 Al-aḥājī fī jihād al-qiddīs Mār Filiksīnūs al-Manbajī (The Riddles Around the
Struggles of St. Philoxenus of Mabbug), 1970;
 Hibat al-īmān aw al-malfān Mār Ya‘qūb al-sarūjī usquf Baṭnān (The Virtue of Faith,
or, The Scholar Mar Ya‘cob of Sarugh, Bishop of Batnan),1971;
 Ujbat al-zamān aw Mār Afrām nabiyy al-sūriān (The Wonder of Time, or, Mar
Ephrem, the Prophet of the Syrians), 1970;
 Al-ḥaqā’iq al-jalīla fī al-abḥāṯ al-tārīḵiyya wa-al-adabiyya wa-al-falsafiyya (The
Historical Facts in the Literary and Philosophical Historical Researches), 1972; and
 Al-mujāhid al-rasūlī al-akbar Mār Ya‘qūb al-barādi‘ī (The Great Apostolic Warrior
Mar Ja‘qub Burd‘oyo), 1978.

1039
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language), second edition. Beirut:
Dar al-Mashriq, pp. 570-572; Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, p. 208. Also see
Bibliography.

360
 APPENDIX A 6.5
A Summary of the Published Work of Patriarch Zakka I Iwas1040

 Al-markat fi amal Ra‛i al- ru‘at Mar Ignatius Yacoub III (The Ascent- Works of Mor
Ignatius Yaqoub III, the Shepherd of Shepherds), a biography of the Late Patriarch
Yacoub III, 1958;
 Ḥusn al-shahāda wa- al-adā’ fī sirray al-tajassud wa-al-fidā’ aww ‘aqīdat al-
tajassud al-ilāhī (Perfection of Witness and deeds in the Sacraments of incarnation),
a treatise on the theme of Incarnation and Redemption from theological, doctrinal and
historical points of view, 1959;
 Silsital Al Tahtheeb Al- Maseehi (Series of Christian Ethics), 4 vols., Mosul, 1967;
 Al-asrār al-sab‘a (The Seven Sacraments). A theological and liturgical treatise, with
priest Ishaq Saka, 1970;
 Sirat Mar Aphram Al-Suryani (Biography of St. Ephrem the Syrian) Baghdad, 1974;
 Al-Ḥamāma (The Dove), summary of the austere life of ascetics and biographies of
anchorites by Bar Hebraeus;
 Kinīsat Anṭākiya al-sūryāniyya al-ūrṯūdūksiyya ‘ibr al-‘uṣūr (The Syrian Orthodox
Church through the Ages), 1980;
 Qiṣṣat al-kahf fī al-maṣādir al-sūryāniyya (the Story of the People pf the Cave
according to Syriac sources);
 Ḥaṣād al-mawā‘iẓ (Harvest of Homilies) 2 Vols., a collection of homilies delivered
by His Holiness at the St. George Cathedral in Damascus at Christmas and Easter and
on other religious occasions, patriarchal encyclicals, spiritual discourses and
biographies of some celebrated personalities. Vol. 1, 1984 and Vol 2, 1988;
 Maṣābīḥ ‘ala al-ṭarīq (Lanterns on the Road), a collection of treatises including
religious literature, ecclesiastic history and biographies of saints;
 Nujūm ṣāṭi‘a fī samā’ al-kanīsa (Luminous Stars in the Church), includes biographies
of celebrated Syrian Fathers: Philoxinos of Mabbug (+523), Mar Gregory I, Patriarch
of Antioch (+790), Jacob of Edessa (+708) and Dionesius Tell Mehri (+ 845); and
 Numerous articles in the Patriarchal Journal.

1040
Albeer Abouna, Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language), second edition. Beirut:
Dar al-Mashriq, p. 581.

361
 APPENDIX B

Photographs of Documents from the Syrian Orthodox Archives Referenced in this Thesis

Note: all codes in the lists that follow correspond to those on the electronic copies deposited at
the institutions that keep the documents.

1. Damascus – Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate - Bab Tuma, Damascus

P1070660
P1070661
P1080718
P1090952
P1090957
P1090606
P1090656
P1090658-P1090660
P1090664
P1090669-P1090671
P1090689
P1090692
P1090694
P1090925
P1090943
P1100029-P1100037
P1100039
P1100043
P1100127
P1100296
P1100370
P1100421
P1100422
P1100467
P1100475
P1100476
P1100481
P1100482
P1100484
P1100485

362
P1100486
P1100490
P1100508
P1100510
P1100532

2. Deir al-Za‘faran (Dayro d-Kurkmo) Monastery, near Mardin: K denotes the Syriac
name of the monastery)
K05-0035
K05-0046
K05-0049
K05-0325
K05-1300, 1301
K05 -1450, 1451
K07-B24-Part1-0106
K10- 01-36-0235
K10- B2-0262, 0263
K10-B02-0542
K10-B20-0749
K10-B20-0753
K10-B20-0813
K10-B45-0015
K10-B45-0022
K10-B45-0027
K10-B86-0808

3. Mardin - Church of the 40 Martyrs

40M-24/36-122
40M-24/38-181
40M-24/40-057.
40M-24/40-098
40M-24/40-172
40M-24/40-171
40M-24/41-196
40M-24/44-212
40M-24/45-052
40M-24/45-051
40M 24/45-406
40M-24/45-458
40M-24/45-391
40M 24/45-518
40M-24/45-094
40M-24/45-093
40M-24/46-322
40M-24/46-337
40M-24/46-452

363
40M-24/47-249
40M-24/47-255
40M 24/48-003
40M 24/48-175
40M-24/48-141 and 127
40M-24/48-417

4. Jerusalem - St. Marks Syrian Orthodox Convent (Monastery)

J- DSC_0026.
J- DSC_0027.
J- 0348.
J- 0349
J- 0353
J- 0363
J- 0364

364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

The Holy Bible (The New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition). Toronto: Canadian
Bible Society, 1990.

The Holy Qurbono: The Divine Liturgy of Saint Jacob Bar Salibi, According to the Rite of the
Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. Beth Antioch Press/ Gorgias Press, 2009.

The Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Archives

Note: all codes below correspond to those on the electronic copies deposited at the institutions
that keep the documents.

1. Damascus – Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate - Bab Tuma, Damascus

P1070660
P1070661
P1080718
P1090952
P1090957
P1090606
P1090656
P1090658-P1090660
P1090664
P1090669-P1090671
P1090689
P1090692
P1090694
P1090925
P1090943
P1100029-P1100037
P1100039
P1100043
P1100127
P1100296
P1100370
P1100421
P1100422
P1100467
P1100475
P1100476
P1100481P1100482
P1100484
P1100485

465
P1100486
P1100490
P1100508
P1100510
P1100532

2. Deir al-Za‘faran (Dayro d-Kurkmo) Monastery, near Mardin: K denotes the Syriac
name of the monastery)
K05-0035
K05-0046
K05-0049
K05-0325
K05-1300, 1301
K05 -1450, 1451
K07-B24-Part1-0106
K10- 01-36-0235
K10- B2-0262, 0263
K10-B02-0542
K10-B20-0749
K10-B20-0753
K10-B20-0813
K10-B45-0015
K10-B45-0022
K10-B45-0027
K10-B86-0808

3. Mardin - Church of the 40 Martyrs

40M-24/36-122
40M-24/38-181
40M-24/40-057.
40M-24/40-098
40M-24/40-172
40M-24/40-171
40M-24/41-196
40M-24/44-212
40M-24/45-052
40M-24/45-051
40M 24/45-406
40M-24/45-458
40M-24/45-391
40M 24/45-518
40M-24/45-094
40M-24/45-093
40M-24/46-322
40M-24/46-337
40M-24/46-452

466
40M-24/47-249
40M-24/47-255
40M 24/48-003
40M 24/48-175
40M-24/48-141 and 127
40M-24/48-417

4. Jerusalem - St. Marks Syrian Orthodox Convent (Monastery)

J- DSC_0026.
J- DSC_0027.
J- 0348.
J- 0349
J- 0353
J- 0363
J- 0364

The National Archives, Kew- London

FO.78/2367, dated October 12, 1874.

FO. 424/184/641, dated October 2, 1895.
FO. 424/186/34, dated January 6, 1896.
FO. 424/186/ No.1, dated January 1, 1896.
FO. 424-Inclusure No. 106, dated December 4, 1905.

Lambeth Palace Library, London

Tait 202. f. 210, July 16, 1874. Benson 103. f. 58, dated June 11, 1891.
Tait 202.f. 218, dated, September 7, 1874 (Julian).
Tait 202. f. 221, dated September 1874.
Tait 202. f. 225, dated October 31, 1874.
Tait 202. f. 227, dated November 4, 1874.
Tait 202. ff. 242-3, dated December 28, 1874.
Tait 202. ff. 250-1, dated January 5, 1875.
Tait 214. ff. 19-28, dated January 1875.
Tait 214. f. 32-34, dated February 2, 1875.
Tait 214. f. 62, dated February 15, 1875.
Tait 214. f. 70, dated February 18, 1875.

467
Tait 214.f 17, dated January 28, 1875.
Tait 214. f. 87, dated March 8, 1875.
Benson 11.f.2, dated January 15, 1883.
Davidson 83. f. 434, dated August 1, 1903.
Davidson 299. f. 89, dated August 6, 1909.
Davidson 199. f. 124, dated February 16, 1921.

The Missionary Herald, Containing the Proceedings of the American Board of

Commissioners.

The Missionary Herald, April 1871, 64, 4.

The Missionary Herald, 1859,55,6.
The Missionary Herald, 54 (1858): 255.
The Missionary Herald, Jan 1895; 91,1.
The Missionary Herald 76 (1880): 68.
The Missionary Herald 44 (1844): 369.
The Missionary Herald Nov. 1895: 91, 10.
The Missionary Herald November, 1896; 92, 11.
The Missionary Herald of January 1902; 98,1,p.43,
The Missionary Herald of November, 1896; 92,11,
The Missionary Herald of September

Battraqkhana Nizamnana ‘Mumi 1330, scribed by Bishop Yuhannon Dolabani. Mardin.

Contemporary Published Syrian Orthodox Sources:

Al-Hikmat, First Year 1913/1914.

Al-Hikmat, Second Year Year 1927/1928.
Al-Hikmat, Third Year 1929.
Al-Hikmat, FourthYear 1930.
Al-Hikmat, FifthYear 1931.

Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), First Year, 1933.
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Second Year,
1934.
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Third Year, 1935,
1936.

468
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Fourth Year,
1937.
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Fifth Year, 1938.
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Sixth Year, 1939.
Al Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya (The Syrian Patriarchal Journal), Seventh Year,
1940.

Hanna Sirri 1925 Chiqi Calendar, Damascus

Secondary Sources:

Abouna, Albeer. Adab al-luġā al-ārāmiyya (The Literature of the Aramaic Language),
second edition. Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq, 1996.

Ahmad, Feroz. The Young Turks -The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics,
1908-1914. London: Hurst Company, 2010.

Ahmad, Ibrahim Khalil. “Al-Mawṣil wa-al-ḥaraka al-‘arabiyya al-qawmiyya fī maṭla‘ al-qarn

al-‘īšrīn (Mosul and the Arab Nationalist Movement at the Turn of the Twentieth
Century)”. In the Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol. 4, 129-144. Mosul: University
of Mosul Press, 1992.

Ahmad, Ibrahim Khalil. “Ḥarakat al-tarbiya wal-al-ta‘līm (The Educational Movement)”. In

The Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol. 4, 333-343. Mosul: University of Mosul
Press, 1992.

Ahmad, Ibrahim Khalil. “Al-našr wal-al-ṣaḥāfa fī al-Mawṣil (Publication and Journalism in

Mosul)”. In The Cultural Encyclopedia of Mosul: Vol. 4, 363-377. Mosul: University
of Mosul Press, 1992.

Masters, Bruce. “Capitulations.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Agoston, Gabor and
Bruce Masters, (eds.), p.118. Facts on File, 2009.

Ainsworth, William Francis. A Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition. London:

Kegan Paul, 1888.

Akgunduz, Emrulla. “Some Notes on the Syriac Christians of Diyarbekir in the late nineteenth
century, a Preliminary Investigation of some Primary Sources.” In Jongerden, Joost &
Jelle Verheij, (Eds.), Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915, 217-240.
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012.

Akyuz, Gabriyel. Osmanli Devletinde Suryani Kilisesi. Mardin, 2002.

469
Al-‘Alaf, Ibrahim Khalil. “Al-duktūr Da’ūd Qaṣīr awwal ‘amīd kuliyyat al-handasa al-
‘irāqiyya (Dr. Daoud Kassir the First Dean of the Iraqi College of Engineering)”. Al-
Hadba’ Daily, No. 1388, January 28, 2012,

Al-Jamil, Sayar Kawkabi Ali. “Ṭabī‘at al-ḥayāt al-ṯaqāfiyya wa-al-‘ilmiyya fī al-Mawṣil

(The Nature of the Cultural and Scientific life in Mosul).” In The Cultural
Encyclopedia of Mosul, Vol. 4, 318-332. Mosul:University of Mosul Press, 1992.

Al-Qass, Yousif Gibrail and Hedaya, Elias. Āziḵ: Aḥdāṯ wa-rijāl (Azikh, Events and Men).
Aleppo, 1991.

Anderson, Rufus. History of Missions of the American Board of Commissioners For Foreign
Missions to the Oriental Churches. Boston: Congressional Publishing Society, 1872.

Aprim, Frederick A. Assyrians: From Bedr Khan to Saddam Hussein, Driving into Extinction
the Last Aramaic Speakers. Xlibris, 2006.

Arfa, Hassan. The Kurds, an Historical and Political Study. London: Oxford University Press,
1966.

Argyriou, Asterios. “Christianity in the First Ottoman Era (1516-1650).” In Christianity: a

History in the Middle East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 605-30. Beirut: MECC, 2005.

Armala, Ishak. Al-quṣāra fī nakabāt al-Naṣāra (The Tragedy in the History of the Christians).
Beirut: Deir al-Sharfa, 1910.

Artinian, Vartan H. “The Formation of Catholic and Protestant Millets in the Ottoman
Empire”. The Armenian Review Vol. 28, 1-109, spring 1975, 1-15.

Atiya, Aziz. History of Eastern Christianity. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press
1968, reprinted-Kraus Reprint, 1991.

Atto, Naures. Hostages in the Homeland, Orphans in the Diaspora, Identity Discourses among
the Assyrian/Syriac Elites in the European Diaspora. Leiden: University Press, 2011.

Badger, George Percy. The Nestorians and Baali, Fuad. “Social Factors in Iraqi Rural-Urban
Migration.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 4, (Oct.
1966): 359-364.

470
Audo, Thomas. Treasure of the Syriac Language, (Urmia, 1896; repr., Holland, 1985).
Their Rituals, 2 vols. London: Joseph Masters, 1852.

Badr, Habib. “Evangelical Missions and Churches in the Middle East: Introduction:
I - Lebanon, Syria and Turkey,” pp. 713-726; IV- Iraq and the Gulf,” 747-755. In
Christianity: A History in the Middle East. (Habib Badr, chief ed.) Beirut: MECC,
2005.

Balicka-Witakowski, Ewa and Sebastian P. Brock, David G. B. Taylor and Witold

Witakowski, The Hidden Pearl Vol. II, The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage.
Rome: Trans World Film Italia, 2001.

Bar Hebraeus, The Ethicon, Bedjan (Ed.). Paris, 1890

Bardakjian, Kevork B. “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople.” In

Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. eds. Braude, Benjamin and Bernard
Lewis, Vol. I, 93-94. London: Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Barkey, Karen. Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge

University Press, 2008.

______.After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building, The Soviet Union and
Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires, ed. Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.

Barnaba, Malateus. Al‘that al-Thahabiya fe al-Manshourat al-Batriarkiy, (The Golden

Sermons in the Patriarchal Encyclicals). Syria, 1964.

Barsoum, Athanasius Aphram. Batarikat al-Surian fe al-Qarn al-‘Shreen. Beirut, 2001.

Barsoum, Ignatius Aphram I. Al-lu’lu’ al-manṯūr (The Scattered Pearls) published originally
in Arabic in 1943, and translated by Matti Mousa. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003.

_______. Manārat Anṭākiya al-suryāniyya (The Syrian Minaret of Antioch). Pub. Ibrahim,
Gregorius Yuhanna, Aleppo: Dar al Ruha, 1992.

_______. Tārīḵ Ṭūr ‘Abdīn (History of Tur Abdin), trans from the Syriac version dated 1924
to Arabic by Gregorius Boulus Behnam, Lebanon, 1963.

_______. History of Tur Abdin, trans. M. Moosa. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008.

471
________ History of the Za‘faran Monastery, trans. M. Moosa. (from the original Arabic
version; Nuzhat al-aḏhān fī tārīḵ dayr al-Za‘farān-(The Excursion of the Mind in the
History of Dayr al-Za‘faran )dated 1912) Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010.

_______.History of the Syriac Dioceses, trans. Matti Moosa, Vols 1 and 2 (from several
Arabic texts appearing in the al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al Suryaniyya). Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2009.

________. The Collected Historical Essays of Aphram I Barsoum, trans. M. Moosa.

Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010.

_______. “Baḥṯ tārīḵī fī liwā’ al-Iskandarūna (A historical Research on the Province of

Alexandretta).” Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al-Suryaniyya, Fifth Year, No. 5,
November and December, 1938, pp.256-269.

_______. “Nuḵba fī tārīḵ al-abrašiyyāt al-suryāniyya-Dionysius Michael Mutran Halab, 1766-

1775 (A Selection from the History of the Syrian Dioceses-Dionysius Michael, Bishop
of Aleppo 1766-1775).” Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al-Suryaniyya, Seventh Year, No.
4, September and October, 1940, pp.191-200.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 1, 1981, pp. 21-26.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 2, 1981, pp. 73-81.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 3, 1981, pp.145-151.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 4, 1981, pp. 208-221.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 6, 1981, pp. 269-282.

472
______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 9, 1981, pp. 333-346.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 10, 1981, pp. 407-413.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 12, 1982, pp. 16-24.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 13, 1982, pp. 4-19.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 17, 1982, pp. 8-14.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 23, 1983, pp. 21-28.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 24, 1983, pp. 24-32.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 25, 1983, pp. 27-34.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 27, 1983, pp. 26-33.

______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. (28, 29), 1983, pp. 37-42.

473
______, published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I. “Min kitāb al-aḥādīṯ (From the Book of Oral
History).” The Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and
All the East. No. 30, 1983, pp. 18-20.

Barsoumian, Hagop. “The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class within the Ottoman
Government and the Armenian Millet (1750-1850). In Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire. eds. Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, Vol. I, 178-184. London:
Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Barton, James L., compiled. “Turkish Atrocities” Statements of American Missionaries on the
Destruction of Christian Communities in Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917. Ann Arbor:
Gomidas Institute, 1998.

Batatu, Hanna. The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1978.

Bartilli, Severus Jacob. The Dialogue, Second article, Dinno/Denno’s private collection.

Bcheiry, Iskandar. “A List of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs Between 16th and 17th century-A
historical supplement to Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle in a MS. Of Sadad.” Parole de
l’Orient 29 (2004): 211-261.

______.The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Register of Dues of 1870, - An Unpublished

Historical Document from the late Ottoman period. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.

______. A List of Syriac Orthodox Ecclesiastic Ordination from the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
centuries, the Syriac Manuscript of Hunt 444 (Syr 68) in Bodleian Library, Oxford).
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010.

______. Collection of Historical Documents in Relation with the Syriac Orthodox Community
in the Late Period of the Ottoman Empire –The Register of Mardin, MS1006.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010.

Behnam, Poulus. Nafāḥāt al-ḵuzām aw ḥayāt al-baṭriyark Afrām (The Aromas of Lavender, or
the Life of the Patriarch Aphram). Mosul, 1959.

Bell, Gertrude. Amurath to Amurath. London: Macmillan and Co., 1924. Facsimile reprint by
Gorgias Press, 2004.

_______. The Churches and Monasteries of Tur ‘Abdin. Translated by M. Moosa. Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2008.

474
Braude, Benjamin. “Introduction.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The
Functioning of a Plural Society. In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The
Functioning of a Plural Society eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. II. 1-5.
London: Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Braude, Benjamin. “Foundation Myths of the Millet System.” In Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society eds. Benjamin Braude and
Bernard Lewis, Vol. I. 141-169. London: Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard, eds. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire,
Vol.1, The Central Lands. London: Holmes & Meir, 1982.

Brande, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard eds. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Vol.2,
The Arabic Speaking Lands. London: Holmes & Meir, London, 1982.

Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Culture.” In The Cambridge Ancient History 13,

The Late Empire, A.D. 337-425, Averil Cameron and P. Garnsey
(Eds.), 708-719. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

______. “The Syriac Orient: a third ‘lung” for the Church?” in OCP 7, (2005):
5-20.

_______. “Tur ‘Abdin-a Homeland of Ancient Syro-Aramaean Culture.” In Hans Hollerweger,

Tur ‘Abdin, 22. Linz: Freunde des Turabdin, 1999.

_______. and David Taylor, eds. The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox
Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage. 3 vols. Rome: Trans World
Film Italia, 2001.

_______. and Witakowski, Witold. Hidden Pearls Vol III: At the Turn of the
Third Millenium, The Syrian Orthodox Witness. Tras World Film, Italia,
2001.

_______, “Sayfo.” In The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac

Heritage, Butts, Aaron; Kiraz, George and Van Rumpay, Lucas (edits),
360. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011.
_______. “Malankara Catholic Church-Syrio-Malankara Catholic Church.” In The Gorgias
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Butts, Aaron; Kiraz, George and Van
Rumpay, Lucas (edits), 256. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011

475
_______. “Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.” In The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the
Syriac Heritage, Butts, Aaron; Kiraz, George and Van Rumpay, Lucas (edits), 254-255.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011

_______. “Chaldean Syrian Church.” In The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage, Butts, Aaron; Kiraz, George and Van Rumpay, Lucas (edits), 92-93.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011

Buchanon, Claudius. Christian Researches in Asia: with notes on the Translation of the
Scriptures into Oriental Languages. New York: Richard Scott, 1812.

Carter, B. L. The Copts in Egyptian Politics. Routledge, 1986,

Cetinsaya, Gokhan. Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1890-1908. London and New York:
Routledge, 2006.

Chabot, Jean-Baptiste. Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens (CSCO
Syr. 36, 37, 56), vol. 1,. 218, 237. Paris: 1920.

______. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199) (4 vols.)

Paris: 1899-1924.

Chaillot, Christine. The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East. Inter-Orthodox
Dialogue, 1998.

Chiqi, Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Fātḥia (Opening).” Al-Hikmat, First Year, No. 1, August 1 and
14, 1913, pp.1-3.

______. Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Ḥawl rujū‘ al-sayyid ‘Abd-al-Masīḥ ila aḥḍān al-kanīsa
(On the return of Mr. Abdul Masih to the Bosom of the Church).” Al-Hikmat, First
Year, No. 22, June 20-July 3, 1914, p. 336-337.

______. Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Rujū‘ al-ḥabr al-jalīl Iġnāṭiyūs al-baṭriyark ‘Abd-al-Masīḥ
al-ṯānī ila aḥḍān al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-’ūrṯūdūksiyya (Return of His Noble
Beatitude Ignatius Patrirach Abdul Masih II to the Bosom of the Syrian Orthodox
Church).” Al-Hikmat, First Year, No. 20, May 19-June 1, 1914, p. 314-315.

______. Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Niẓam al-baṭriyark (The Patriarchal By-Lay).” Al-Hikmat,
First Year, No. 22, June 20-July 3, 1914, p. 336.

476
______. Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Ḵaṭbun jalal (Very Sab News).” Al-Hikmat, First Year, No.
14, February 15 and 28, 1914, p. 210.

______. Michael Hikmat (edit.). “Lamḥa miliyya (A Galance at the Milla ).” Al-Hikmat, First
Year, No. 22, June 20-July 3, 1914, p. 341.

Chiqi, Murad Foaad (edit.). “Lamḥa tārīḵiyya lil-ṭā’ifa al-suryāniyya fī ‘ašr sanawāt (A
Historical Glance at the Syrian Church in Ten Years).” Al-Hikmat, Third Year, Vol. III,
Nos. 2, February 1929, pp. 66-72.

______. Murad Foaad (edit.). “Lamḥa tārīḵiyya lil-ṭā’ifa al-suryāniyya fī ‘ašr sanawāt (A
Historical Glance at the Syrian Church in Ten Years).” Al-Hikmat, Third Year, Vol. III,
Nos. 3 and 4, March and April 1929, pp. 113-122.

______. Murad Foaad (edit.). “Rijāl al-birr wa-al-‘amal: qadāsat Mār Iġnāṭiyūs al-ṯāliṯ al-
baṭriyark al-anṭākī lil-suryān al-’ūrṯūdūks al-kulliyy al-ṭūba (Men of Virtue and
Action- His Holiness Ignatius[Elias] the Third- the Antiochan Patriarch of the Syrian
Orthodox Church, of All Beatitude).” Al-Hikmat, Second Year, Vol. II, No. 1, October
1927, pp. 37-46.

______. Murad Foaad (edit.). “Riḥlat al-baṭriyark al-mu‘aẓẓam lil-‘Irāq (The Journey of His
Beatitude the Patriarch to Iraq).” Al-Hikmat, Second Year, Vol. II, No. 3, December
1927, pp. 155-162, and 211.

______. Murad Foaad (edit.). “Manšūr baṭriyarkī: Ḵulāṣat muqarrarāt majma‘ Mār Matta al-
muqaddas fī al-Mawṣil (A Patriarchal Encyclical and a Summary of the Resolutions of
the Synod of the Holy Mar Mattai Monastery in Mosul).” Al-Hikmat, Fourth Year,
Vol. IV, No. 9, November 1930, pp. 513-530.

Chiqqi, M.F. Na‘um Fa’iq: Dhikra wa Takhlid, Damascus, 1937.

Clogg, Richard. “The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire” in Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. 1, 185-186. London:
Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Cragg, Kenneth. The Arab Christian: A History of the Middle East. Westminster: John Knox
Press, 1991.

Daccache, Salim. “Catholic Missions in the Middle East.” In Christianity- A History in the
Middle East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 687-712. Beirut: MECC, 2005.

477
Dakin, Douglas. The Unification of Greece, 1770-1923, London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1972.

Davison, Roderic H . Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History 1774-1923. London: Saqi Books,
1990.

_______. “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth

Century.” American Historical Review 59 (1954): 864.

Denno, Ni‘mmat Allah. Iqāmat al-dalīl fī istimrār al-ism al-aṣīl wa-istinkār al-na‘t al-daḵīl
(Establishing the Proof on the Original Name and Negating the Alien Adjective).
Mosul, 1949.

______. Altarnīmant al-rouḥiyya (the Spiritual Hymns), Seventh Edition, Jerusalem, 2007.

______. published by Ignatius Iwas, Zakka I in the Patriarchal Journal of the Syrian Orthodox
Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East: “al-ālām al-muḥyiyya (The Live Promoting
Pains),” No. (65,66), 1987, pp. 238-250.

______.“ Quwwat al-iltizām bi-qarārāt al-baṭriyarkiyya (The Enforcability of Patriarchal

Decisions)”, No. (94, 95, 96), 1990, pp. 154-155; “Qaseeda Suryaniyya (A Syriac
Poem),” No. (133, 134), 1994, pp.158-159.

______.“ Taqaṣṣī ba‘ḍ al-ḥaqā’iq ( Investigating Certain Facts)”, No. (191, 192, 193), 2000,
pp. 24-29; “Namathij al-Af‘al al-Suryaniyya),”No. (221, 222, 223), 2003, pp. 29-60.

_______.“ Fi wujūb munāwalat al-aṭfāl (On the Need to Give Communion to Children),” No.
(221, 222, 223), 2003, pp. 27-28;

_______.“ Irtidād jamā‘a babawiyya fī Mardīn ila al-ḥaḍira al-’ūrṯūdūksiyya (Return of a

Pappist Group in Mardin to the Orthodox Flok),” No. (224, 225, 226), 2003, pp. 239-
240.

______.“ Jadwal silsilat baṭarikat Anṭākiya (Table of the Patriarchs of Antioch),” No.(241,
242, 243), 2004, pp. 17-26.

______.“ Al-Mūsīqa al-suryāniyya (The Syriac Music).” Lisan al-Mashriq, First Year, No.1,
September 1, 1948, pp. 24-28 and First Year, Nos.3 and 4, November and December,
1948, pp. 34-38.

478
______. “Al-alḥān al-suryāniyya (The Syriac Melodies).” Lisan al-Mashriq, First Year, No. 2,
1, October, 1948, pp. 32-37

_______.“ Mašāhīr al-sūriān fī al-‘ulūm wa al-bayān (The Renowned Syrians in the Sciences
and Logic).” Lisan al-Mashriq, Fourth Year, November, 1951, pp. 54-61 and
December, 1951, pp. 85-92.

de Courtois, Sebastian. The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans.
Translated by Vincent Aurora. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004.

Deringil, Selim The Well-Protected Domains-Ideology and Legitimation of Power in the

Ottoman Empire 1876-1909. London and New York: Tauris, 2011.

Dinno, Khalid. “The Deir al-Za‘faran and Mardin Garshuni Archives.” in Hugoye: Journal of
Syriac Studies, Vol. 17.2, 195-213, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias
Press, 2014.

_______. The Syrian Orthodox Church: Name as a Marker of Identity.” Parole de l’ Oriente
38 (2013): 193-211.

_______. “Arabic Hymnology in the Syriac Orthodox Church in Iraq in the Early 20th
Century.” Parole de l’Oriente 35, (2010) 169-179.

_______. Jacob of Serugh, the Man Behind the Mimre. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011.

_______. “The Physical World in Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron.” In Studies on Jacob of

Edessa, eds. Gregorius Yohanna Ibrahim and George Anton Kiraz, Gorgias Eastern
Christian Studies 25, 29-40. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2010.

_______. and Amir Harrak. “Six Letters from Paul Bedjan to Aphram Barsoum.” Journal of
the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 9, (2009) 55-73.

________. “Accessing the Archival Heritage of the Syrian Orthodox Church.” Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 13, (2013) 88-94.

Dolabani, Yuhanon. Phatriarkho d-Antiokhya (Patriarchs of Antioch), in Syriac. Holland:

Bar-Hebraeus Verlag,1990.

________. Al-aqṭāb fī šahīrāt al-kitāb (Women in the Bible). Piscataway: Gorgias Press, LLC,
1987.

479
________. Mush‛hotho (the Poetry of Bar Hebraeus, in Syriac). Piscataway: Gorgias Press,
LLC, 1983.

________. Derr el-Umar Tarihi (History of the Monastery of Qartmin, in Turkish).

Piscataway: Gorgias Press, LLC, 1991.

________ and Clement Kaplan. A Commentary on the Mysteries. Piscataway: Gorgias Press,
2010.

_______. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Za‛faran Monastery. Piscataway: Gorgias Press,

LLC, 2009.

_______ and Gregorios Ibrahim. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in St. Mark’s
Monastery. Gorgias Press, 2004.

_______ and Gregorios Ibrahim. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in Syrian Churches and
Monasteries. Gorgias Press, 2009.

Dumont, Paul. “Jewish Communities in Turkey during the last Decades of the Nineteenth
Century in Light of the Archives of the Alliance Israelite.” In Christians and Jews in
the Ottoman Empire. eds. Braude. and Bernard Lewis, Vol. I, 209-242. London:
Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Eusebius. The Ecclesiastic History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. London, 1929-1932.

Fenwick, J. R. K. “Malabar Independent Syrian Church.” In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary

of Syriac Heritage, 265-266.

Fenwick , J. R. K.“St. Thomas Evangelical Church,” In The

GorgiasEncyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Butts, Aaron;
Kiraz, George and Van Rumpay, Lucas (edits), 255-256. Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, 2011.

_______.“Malabar Independent Syrian Church.” In The GorgiasEncyclopedic

Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, Butts, Aaron; Kiraz, George and Van
Rumpay, Lucas (edits), 265-266. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011.

Findley, Carter Vaughn. Ottoman Civil Officialdom, a Social History. Princeton: Princeton
University Press,1989.

480
Fortescue, Adrian. The Lesser Eastern Churches. London: Catholic Trust Society, 1913 - re-
published Gorgias Press, 2001.

Frazee, Charles. Catholics and Sultans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Gaunt, David. Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian relations in Eastern

Anatolia during World War I. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006.

_______. “Relations between Kurds and Syriacs and Assyrians in late Ottoman Diyarbekir.” In
Jongerden, Joost & Jelle Verheij (Eds.), Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-
1915, 241-266. Brill; Leiden. Boston, 2012.

Giwargis, Ashur and Arsan, Matay. “Brief History of (Taw Meem Simkat) T.M.S., Assyrian
National Schools.” Assyrian Star Magazine, September, 2006.

Haddad, Abboud . Deir Mar Mussa al Habashy-Nebek-Syria. Edited by Gregorios Yohanna

Ibrahim: Aleppo,1999.

Haddad, Robert M. Syrian Christians in Muslim Society, an interpretation. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1970.

_______. “ On the Melkite Passage to the Unia: The Case of Patriarch Cyril al-Za`im (1672-
1720).” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The functioning of a Plural
Society, (Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, eds),Vol. II: The Arab –Speaking
Lands, 67-90.

Hamilton, Alistair. The Copts and the West, 1439-1822: The Discovery of the Egyptian
Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hanioglu, M. Sukru. A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2008.

Harrak, A. “L’influence du Syriaque Sur l’onomastique arabe chretie’nne.” Parole de l’Orient

18(1993), 275-289.

Harris, J. R. and B. H. Letters from the Scenes of the Recent massacres in Armenian. London:
J. Nesbit and Co., 1897.

481
Helmreich, Paul C. From Paris to Sevres, the Portion of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace
Conference of 1919-1920. Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1974.

Henno, Suleyman. Schicksalschlage der syrischen Christen im Tur ‘Abdin 1915 (The incidents
of fate among Syrian Christians in Tur Abdin 1915). Hengelo: Bar Hebraeus Verlag,
1987.

Heyberger, Bernard. “The Development of Catholicism in the Middle East (16th to 19th
centuries).” In Christianity: a History in the Middle East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 631-
54. Beirut: MECC, 2005.

Hollenweger, Hans. Tur ‘Abdin. Linz: Freunde des Tur ‘Abdin, 1999.

Kiraz, George. “Abrohom Nuro (1923-2009).” In Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol.
12.1, 3-4 (2009).

Hurani, Albert. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983.

Ibrahim, Gregorios Yohanna. The Glory of the Syrians, Mar Ignatios Ephrem Barsaum,
Biography and Bibliography. Damascus: Sidawi Printing House, 1996.

______. Rafīq al-Mu’min: Khidmat al-quddās wa-al-tarānīm al-rūḥiyya (The Companion of

the Faithful- The Holy Liturgy and Spiritual Hymns). Aleppo: Mardin- al-Ruha, 1996.

_______. Beth Gazo according to the School of Edessa- Music of the Syrian Orthodox Church
of Antioch. Damascus, 2003.

Inalcik, Halil. “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.” Turkiaca,
21-23, (1991), 407-436.

Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650-The structure of Power. Palgrave: Macmillan,
2003.

Iwas, Severus Zakka and Saka, Ishak. Al-asrār al-sab‘a (The Seven Sacraments). Baghdad,
1970.

_______. Al-Ḥamāma (The Dove, by Bar Hebraeus). Baghdad, 1974.

482
Iwas, Ignatius Zakka I. “Al-‘allāma al-arḵiḏyāqūn Ni‘matallah Denno” (The Most Learned
Archdeacon Ni‘matallah Denno). The Patriarchal Journal, No. 11, 1982, pp. 36-42.

_______. Maṣābīḥ ‘ala al-ṭarīq (Lanterns on the Road, a collection of treatises on religious
iterature, ecclesiastic history and biography of saints). Damascus, 1984.

_______. Ḥaṣād al-mawā‘iẓ (Harvest of Homilies). Vol. I, Damascus, 1984; Vol. II,
Damascus, 1988.

_______. Buḥūṯ tārīḵiyya wa-diniyya wa-adabiyya (Historical, Religous and Literary

Treatises). Vols. I and II, Damascus, 1988; Vol. III, Damascus, 2000.

_______. Buḥūṯ lāhūtiyya wa-‘aqā’idiyya wa-ṭarīḵiyya wa-rūḥāniyya ṭaqṣiyya (Theological,

Historical and Liturgical Treatises), Vol. I, Damascus 1998; Vol. II. Damascus, 2009.

_______. Ṣafaḥāt mušriqa min tārīḵ al-kanīsa fī al-qarnayn al-ṯānī wa-al-ṯāliṯ (Illustrious
Pages of the History of the Church in the Second and Third Centuries). Damascus,
1997.

_______. Kinīsat Anṭākiya al-sūryāniyya al-ūrṯūdūksiyya ‘ibr al-‘uṣūr (The Syrian Orthodox
Church through the Ages), 1980.

_______. Nujūm ṣāṭi‘a fī samā’ al-kanīsa: Filiksīnūs al-Minbajī, Ġrīġūriyūs al-awwal, wa-
Diyūnūsiyūs al-Talmaḥrī (Luminous Stars in the Church), includes biographies of
celebrated Syrian Fathers: Philoxinos of Mabbug (+523), Mar Gregory I, Patriarch of
Antioch (+790), Jacob of Edessa (+708) and Dionesius Tell Mehri (+ 845). Damascus,

Jongerden, Joost & Jelle Verheij (Eds.), Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir, 1870-1915.
Leiden. Boston: Brill, 2012.

Joseph, John. The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbours: A study of Western Influence on
their Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

_______. Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the
Jacobites in an Age of Transition. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.

_______. The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East: Encounters with Western Christians
Missions, Archaeologists and Colonial Powers. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000.

483
Joseph, T. “Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church - Jacobite Syrian Christian Church.” In
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage, Butt, Aron; Kiraz George and
Van Rompay, Lucas (edits.), 258-260, Piscataway: Gorgias Press (2011).

Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, or Antiquity of the Jews, in Complete Works (Project
Gutenberg e-Text, William Whiston trans., (2006), p. 926.

Karpat, Kemal H. “Millets and Nationality: The Roots of Incongruity of Nation & State in the
Post-Ottoman Era.” In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of
a Plural Society eds. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, Vol. I, 141-169. London:
Holmes and Meier, 1982.

Kassir, Maria. The Paediatrican, a Pioneer in the Garden of Eden. Ireland: Thorn Island
Publishing, 2013.

Keyder, Caglar. “The Ottoman Empire,” in After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-
Building, The Soviet Union and Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires, ed. Karen
Barkey and Mark von Hagen, 30-45. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.

Khoury, Dina Rizk. State and provincial society in the Ottoman Empire; Mosul, 1540-1834.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Kia, Mehrdad, Daily Life in The Ottoman Empire. Greenwood, 2011.

Kiraz, G. A. “ Dolabani, Philoxenos Yuhanon.” In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the

Syriac Heritage, eds. Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, Lucas Van
Rompay, pp. 129-130. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011.
______. Kiraz, G. A.. “Maphrian.” In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac
Heritage, p. 264. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2011.

Klein, Janet. The Margins of Empire-Kurdish Militias in the Ottoman Tribal Zone. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2011.

Laurie, Thomas. Dr. Grand and the Mountain Nestorians. Boston, 1874.

Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

______.Cultures in Conflict, Christians, Muslims and Jews, in the Age of Discovery, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

484
Luke, Harry Charles. Old Turkey and the New: From Byzantium to Ankara. London: Geoffrey
Bles, 1955.

Lynch, H. Armenia Travels and Studies. 2 vols. Beirut: 1965.

MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919, Six Months that Changed the World. London: Random
House, 2003.

Makdisi, Ussama. Artillery of Heaven: American Missionaries and the Failed Conversion of
the Middle East. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008.

_______. with E. Davis, J. Peteet, S. Joseph, in “How Useful has the Concept of
Sectarianism been for Understanding the History, Society and Politics of the Middle
East?” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 40/4, (2008): 550-600.

Bell, Gertrude and Manga, Marila Mundell. The Churches and Monasteries of Tur Abdin.
London: The Pindar Press, 1982.

Masters, Bruce. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism.
Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001.

______. Masters, Bruce. “millet.” In Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, Encyclopedia of the
Ottoman Empire, p. 384. Facts On File, 2009,

Mayeur-Jaoun, Catherine. “The Renaissance of Churches at the end of the Ottoman Era
(Excluding Egypt) -18th and 19th Centuries.” In Christianity: a History in the Middle
East, (Habib Badr, chief ed.), 757-774. Beirut: MECC, 2005.

McCallum, Fiona. Christian Religious Leadership in the Middle East: the Role of the
Patriarch. Edwin Mellen Press, 2010.

Miller, William. The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1927.

Mouawad, Ray Jabre. “The Kurds and their Christian neighbours: the Case of the Orthodox
Syriacs,.” Parole de l’Orient XVII (1992): 127-141.

Murre-Van den Berg, Heleen. New Faith in Ancient Lands: Western Missions in the Middle
East in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2006.

485
Nalbandian, Louise .The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development of Armenian
Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University
of California Press, 1963.

Namiq, Yusus. Al Qafila al-Akhira. Aleppo: Dar al-Ruha, 1991

Orat, Baskin. “The Minority Concepts and Rights in Turkey: The Lausanne Peace Treaty and
Current Issues.” In Human Rights in Turkey. Zehra Kabasakal Art, ed. Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Ozcosar, Ibrahim. “Osmanli Devlet``Millet Sistemi ve Suryani Kadimler.” In Suryaniler ve

Suryanilik, vol.2, edited by Canan Seyfeli, Eyyup Tanriverdi and Ahmet Tasgin.
Ankara: Orient Yayinlari, 2005.

______. Merkesleşme Sürecinde Bir Taşra Kenti Mardin (1800-1900). Mardin: Mardin
Artuklu Universitesi Yayinlari, 2009.

______. Bir Yüzyil, Bir Sancak, Bir Cemaat: Yuzyilda Mardin Süryanileri. Istanbul: Beyan,
2008.

______. “Separations and Conflicts: Syriac Jacobites and Syriac Catholics in Mardin in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. ” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol 38, 2
(2014) : 201-207.

Palmer, Andrew. “The 1600-Year History of the Monastery of Qartmin (Mor Gabriyel).” In
Hollweger, Hans, Turabdin, Where Jesus’ Language was Spoken, 37-46. Linz, 1999.

______. Book Review on Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church
of England, 1895-1914, in International Journal for the Christian Church, published
online: 07 February, 2014.

Parry, Oswald. Six Months in a Syrian Monastery. London: Horace Cox, 1895. Reprint by
Gorgias Press, 2001.

Philipp, Thomas. The Syrians in Egypt 1725-197. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 1985.
Poggi, Vincenzo. “The Christians in the Second Ottoman Era (17th century).” In Christianity A
History in the Middle East. ( Habib Badr, chief ed), 655-673. Beirut: MECC, 2005.

486
Poulton, Hugh. Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crescent: Turkish Nationalism and Turkish Republic.
New York: New York University Press, 1997.

Qarabaschi, ‘Abed Mschiho Na’man. D’mo Zliho, Ausburg: ADO, 1997.

Al Dam al-Masfook, trans, Theophilus George Saliba. Lebanon 2005.

Qasha, Suhail. Tārīḵ Dayr Mar Behnam fi Miat Sana, 1900-2000 (History of the Monastery of
Mar Behnam in One Hundred Years 1900-2000). Lebanon, 2013.

Quataert, Donald. The Ottoman Empire 1700-1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006.

Rabo (the Great), Michael. The Syriac Chronicle, trans. Matti Moosa New Jersy: Beth Antioch
Press, 2014.

Rahmani, Ephrem. Al-Muqtaṭafāt al-Suryāniya. Part I, 1904.

Rhétoré, Jacques. Les chrétiens aux betes. Paris: Cerf, 2005.

Robson, Laura. “Recent Perspectives on Christianity in the Modern Arab World.” History
Compass 9/4 (2011): 312-325.

Romeny, Bas ter Haar et al. “The Formation of a Communal Identity among West Syrian
Christians: Results and Conclusions of the Leiden Project.” In Bas ter Romeny (ed).
Religious Origins of Nations? The Christian Communities of the Middle East. In
Church History and Religious Culture, (special issue), 89 (1-3), 1-52. Leiden: Brill,
2009.

Rustum, Asaad. History of the city of Antioch, Vol 1, 14. Beirut: 1958.

Sachau, Eduard . Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien, Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1883.

Sadadi, 'Abdallah, Al-Majalah al-Batriarkah., vol. 23, No. 45/46: 277.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books,1979.

Saigh, Suleiman. Tarikh Al-Mosul (History of Mosul),Vol..I. Cairo:The Salafi Press,1923.

487
Saka, Ishak. Kanīsatī al-suryāniya (My Syrian Church). Aleppo: The Syrian Bookshop, 2006.

______. Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. I. Aleppo:
Syrian Orthodox Bishopric, 1983.

______. Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. II. Aleppo:
Syrian Orthodox Bishopric, 1983.

______. Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. III. Aleppo:
Syrian Orthodox Bishopric, 1983.

______. Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. IV. Aleppo:
Syrian Orthodox Bishopric, 1983.

______. Al-suryān īmān wa-ḥaẓāra (The Syrians: Faith and Civilization),Vol. V. Aleppo:
Syrian Orthodox Bishopric, 1983.

______. Sawṭ Naynawā wa-Ārām aw al-muṭrān Buluṣ Bihnām (The Voice of Ninevah and
Aram, that is Mutran Paulus Behnam). Aleppo: Ruha Publications, 1988.

______. Tafseer al-Qidas Bihasab Taqs al-Kaneesa al-Suryaniyya al-Orthodoxiyya

(Understanding the Holy Sacrament According to the Syrian Orthodox Liturgy).
Damascus, 1986.

Salibi, Kamal S. “The Two Worlds of Assaad Y. Kayat.” In Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire The functioning of a Plural Society, Vol. II, The Arab –Speaking
Lands, (Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis, eds), 135-158. New York: Holmes &
Meier Publishers, Inc, 1982.

Salt, Jeremy. “Britain, the Armenian Question, and the Cause of Ottoman Reform, 1894-96.”
Middle Eastern Studies 26 (3): 308-325, 1990.

Sanjian, Avedis. The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Domination. Cambridge
, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Sato, Noriko. “Selective Amnesia: Memory and History of the Urfalli Syrian Orthodox
Christians.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 12:3, 315-333. Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

488
Shaw, Standard J. From Empire to Republic: The Turkish War on National Liberation, 1918-
1923, Vol. I. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 2000.

Sedra, Paul . From Mission to Modernity: Evangelicals, Reformers and Education in

Nineteenth-Century Egypt. Tauris Academic Studies, 2011.

Segal, J.B. The Blessed City. Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1970.

Shaheen, Gregorius Jirjis, Kašf al-niqāb ‘an wujūh al-mu’allifīn wa-al-mu’arriḵīn al-kaḏaba
(Unveiling the Faces of Lying Authors and Historians), 1911.

Sham‘un, Saliba. Tāriḵ abrašiyyat al-Mawṣil al-suryāniyya (History of the Syrian Diocese of
Mosul). Mosul: Shafiq Press, 1984.

_______. Fann al-faṣāḥa (Art of Linguistic Eloquence). Duhook, 2014.

Shaw and Shaw. History of Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol II: Reform, Revolution,
and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1977.

Shim‘un, E. The Assyrian Tragedy. Xlibris, 2010.

Silbernagl, Isidor. Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand samtlicher Kirchen des Orients.
Regensburg, 1904.

Simpich, Fredrick and Margaret. “Where Adam and Eve Lived.” in The National Geographic
Magazine (December 1914): 563.

Southgate, Horatio. Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian (Jacobite) Church of Mesopotamia. New
York: Dana and Company, 1856. Facsimile Reprint by Gorgias Press, 2003.

_______. Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia, and Mesopotamia. 2 vols.
New York: Appleton, 1840.

Stafford, Ronald Sempill. The Tragedy of the Assyrians. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2006.

Sykes, Mark. Through the Five Turkish Provinces. London: Bickers and Son, 1900.

Taylor, William Henry. Antioch and Canterbury-The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church
of England 1874-1928. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005.

489
_______. Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England
1895-1914. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013.

Teule, Herman. “Reflections on Identity: The Suryoye of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries:
Bar Salibi, Bar Shakko, and Bar Hebraeus. In Bas ter Romeny (Ed.) Religious Origins
of Nations? The Christian Communities in the Middle East, in Church History and
Religious Culture, (Special Issue), 89 (1-3), 179-189. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Theobold, Robin and Sa‘ad Jawad. “Problems of Rural Development in an Oil-Rich Economy:
Iraq 1958-1957.” In Iraq: The Contemporary State, Ed. Tim Niblock, 1982.

Theodori, Qustantin(edit.). “Tarjamut Muthalath al-Rahma Mar Ighnatios Alias al-Thalith al-
Batriark al-Antaki (The Life of the Thrice Blessed Mar Ignatius Elias III, the Antiochan
Patriarch).” Al-Majallah al-Batriarkiyya al-Suryaniyya, First Year, No. 1, April 1933,
pp.3-6.

Thomas, Daniel. The Orthodox Church of India – History. New Delhi, 1972.

Tibawi, A. L. American Interests in Syria 1800-190. Oxford University Press, 1966.

Tuma, Severus Yacoub (later Patriarch Ignatius Yacoub III). Ttāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya
al-hindiyya (History of the Syriac Church in India), Beirut, 1951.

_______. Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. I. Beirut 1953.

_______. Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. II. Beirut 1957.

Toynbee, A.J. Survey of International Affairs, 1931. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Travis, Hannibal. “’Native Christians Massacared’: The Ottoman Genocide of the Assyrians
during World War I.” in Genocide Studies and Prevention, 1:3 (2006), pp. 327-371.

Trigona-Harany, Benjamin. The Ottoman Suryani from 1908 to 1914. Piscataway: Gorgias
Press, 2009.

Vacalopoulos, Apostolos. The Greek Nation, 1453-1669, trans Ian and Phania Moles. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1976.

490
Van Rompay, Lucas. "Society and Community in the Christian East." In The Cambridge
Companion to the Age of Justinian. ed. Michael Maas, 251. Cambridge University
Press, 2005.

Varghese, V. “Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.” In Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of

Syriac Heritage, Butt, Aron; Kiraz George and Van Rompay, Lucas (edits.), 257-258,
Piscataway: Gorgias Press (2011).

Warriner, Doreen. Land Reform and Development in the Middle East: A Study of Egypt, Syria
and Iraq. 1962.

Wigram, W. A. The Assyrians and Their Neighbours. Bell and Sons: London, 1929, re-
published by Gorgias Press, 2002.

Yacoub III, Ignatius. Dafaqāt al-Ṭīb fī tārīḵ dayr al-qiddīs Mār Matta al-‘ajīb (The Surges of
Aroma, or, the History of the Monastery of the Amazing Mar Mattai). Damascus, 1961.

_______. Al-‘uṣāra al-naqiyya fī tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-hindiyya (The Pure Essence
of the History of the Syrian Church in India). Damascus, 1973.

_______. History of the Syrian Church of India, trans. Moosa, Matti. NJ: Beth Antioch,
Gorgias Press, 2010.

_______. Al-‘uṣāra fī tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya al-hindiyya (A Digest of the History of the
Syrian Church in India). Beirut, 1973.

_______. Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. I. Beirut 1953.

_______. Tāriḵ al-kanīsa al-suryāniyya Anṭakiyya (History of the Syrian Church of Antioch),
Vol. II. Beirut 1957.

_______. Al-šuhadā’ al-ḥimyariyyūn al-‘arab fī al-waṯā’iq al-suryāniyya (The Himiariye Arab

Martyrs in the Sriac Documents). Damascus, 1966.

_______. Kitāb al-mahrajānāt (The Book of Festivities), 2 Vols. Damascus, 1966,1969.

_______,Šada al-manābir (The Echo of the Pulpits-Homilies). Damascus, 1969.

491
_______. Al-la’āli’ al-manṯūra fī al-aqwāl al-ma’ṯūra (The Scattered Pearls in Famous
Sayings) 2 Vols. Damascus, 1967,1969.

_______. Nafaḥāt al-‘abīr aw sīrat al-baṭriyark Mār Siwīriyūs al-kabīr (The Aromas of
Flowers, or, the Biography of Mar Severus the Great), Damascus,1970.

_______. Al-barāhīn al-ḥissiyya ‘ala taqāruḍ al-sūryāniyya wa-al-‘arabiyya (The Tangible

Proofs on the Relationship Between Syriac and Arabic). Damascus1969.

_______. Al-aḥājī fī jihād al-qiddīs Mār Filiksīnūs al-Manbajī (The Riddles Around the
Struggles of St. Philoxenus of Mabbug). Damascus, 1970.

_______. Hibat al-īmān aw al-malfān Mār Ya‘qūb al-sarūjī usquf Baṭnān (The Virtue of Faith,
or, The Scholar Mar Ya‘cob of Sarugh, Bishop of Batnan). Damascus, 1971.

_______. Ujbat al-zamān aw Mār Afrām nabiyy al-sūriān (The Wonder of Time, or, Mar
Ephrem, the Prophet of the Syrians). Damascus, 1970.

_______. Al-ḥaqā’iq al-jalīla fī al-abḥāṯ al-tārīḵiyya wa-al-adabiyya wa-al-falsafiyya (The

Historical Facts in the Literary and Philosophical Historical Researches).
Damascus,1972.

_______. Al-mujāhid al-rasūlī al-akbar Mār Ya‘qūb al-barādi‘ī (The Great Apostolic Warrior
Mar Ja‘qub Burd‘oyo). Damascus, 1978.

Yonan, Gabriele. Ein vergessener Holocaust. Augsburg: ADO, 1989.

Young, Wilkie.“Mosul in 1909”, Notes on the City of Mosul enclosed with Dispatch, No.4,
Mosul 28, 1909, British Foreign Office 1951, 230-8, p. 231.

_______. and Khadourie, E. “Mosul in 1909.” Middle Eastern Studies 7: 234, 1971.

Websites:
Vatican website: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-
docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19711025_syrian-church_en.html.

Vatican website: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-

docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html.

www.en.uobaghdad.edu.iq/Uni_Presidents_en/index.html.

492
http:/www.geni.com/people/Abdullah-Kassir/6000000008007806499

sor.cua.edc/BethGazo/PY3RecordHistory.html

493