PREFACE

Before commencing the perusal of these pages, the reader may find it useful to be put in possession of some of its principal features. A close inspection of the List of Contents would no doubt outline the information; yet it may not be inappropriate for the general reader to have the chief lines briefly traced, and the aim the writer had in view indicated.

The book will fall into the hands of at least two classes of readers : those who, accepting in a general way the ecclesiastical tradition that Thomas the Apostle had preached the Gospel in India, desiderate that the subject should be threshed out and placed on a solid historical basis; others-and these may be the more numerous-who look upon such traditions as legendary and void of foundation, and therefore give no further thought to the subject.

The writer, who held the former opinion, ventures to offer the result of his researches on the question; he hopes the treatment of the Apostle's connection with India here submitted may be of interest to both classes of readers, and helpful to the formation of a correct opinion.

The inquiry opens with the earlier contact of St. Thomas with India; this would fall within the period that may be termed the first tour of his apostolate, when he conveyed the glad tidings of the Gospel to the Parthians, as the oldest written record attests. It would have been then that he came in contact with Gondophares, the Parthian, who, during the middle of the first century a.d., ruled over Afghanistan and the borderland of India.

The subject is, next, more fully discussed in a close examination of all available records supplied by the East and the West having reference to the Apostle and his mission to India.

It is confidently hoped that the evidence adduced will uphold the truth of the tradition that Thomas suffered martyrdom in India: thence it will follow that his tomb ought to be found in India. In fact a long chain of witnesses will be produced extending from the sixth century to the landing of the Portuguese on the shores of India, attesting that the tomb was really in Mylapore.

The subsequent history of the Remains of the Apostle will show that, at an early period, these had been removed from India to Edessa; evidence from the writings of the Fathers will attest that they were known to repose in that city during the fourth century; and that, in fact, they remained there until the city was sacked and destroyed by the rising Moslem power.

To remove all doubt as to whether the Apostle Thomas was the first to evangelise India, the claims brought forward on behalf of certain alleged Apostles of India are likewise submitted to a close scrutiny.

This closes the historical part of the Inquiry. The reader will find what is historical and what is traditional regarding the Apostle classified in the Index under the word "Thomas."

In the course of the previous discussion mention had to be made more than once of the story which has come to us regarding the Apostle named the "Acts of Thomas." These form part of a class of writings known as the "Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles." It had not been the writer's original intention to handle this subject separately; but, later, it appeared advisable to undertake it in order to ascertain what further historical data it might yield beyond that of St. Thomas's contact with King Gondophares; and also because this class of literature has of late years claimed the attention of several scholars both in England and in Germany.

As Professor Carl Schmidt has made a special study of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, it will be interesting to learn the outcome of his special researches in this line. He deals¹ with a group of the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas; those of Paul he reserves, but has since treated them very fully in a new work.² He commences by making it clear that Lipsius had wrongly assigned an heretical origin to the above writings, and he blames him for adducing the authority of Philastrius in support of that view, which, he says, Lipsius had done by giving a wrong punctuation to the words of Philastrius and by interpolating words of his own into the text of the former. For

this statement the authority of Zahn is cited in support. The Professor next gives his own views on the original texts; he admits that some had been manipulated, but maintains that such additions and corrections as were made did not so alter the writings as not to allow the primitive text to be clearly discerned-in fact, remained transparent, is his expression; further, the matter introduced was not so extensive as to change the substance of the writings. He then goes on to say that he has the greatest confidence and is very optimistic in regard to the faithful transmission of the ancient texts so far as they have come down at present. He draws also a comparison between the present state of the text of these Acts and that of those of the Martyrs, and concludes to the effect that no deliberate corrections or alterations had been made with a view to change the nature of the texts, but that what was done was due to the arbitrary act of individuals, or to the personal taste of amanuenses, or of translators.

After a full discussion of the Acts of Peter, he passes to review those of John (of all writings of this class these are held by some as of undoubted Gnostic origin) ; he then formulates his general opinion (p. 129): "My discussion has been longer than I expected; but I have full confidence that more accurate researches will support my thesis for the catholic character of the Acts of John, provided we keep in view the peculiarities of their ideas, their age, and their origin. However, before all else, I wish to insist that we should not work with general Gnostic ideas [in our minds], nor should we forget the deep and radical differences which, at bottom, separate the writings of a Gnostic mind from those of a catholic. A Gnostic romance of the Apostles is to me a phantom."

It would not be a difficult task to compile a long list of ancient documents which had once been rejected as apocryphal and legendary, but have since been acknowledged as reliable and historical documents. We submit, on this subject, the opinion of another modern scholar of great research and erudition, the Rev. Dom H. Leclercq : ³ "II n'y a presque pas de document hagiographique de l'antiquité chrétienne dont on n'ait mis en question l'authenticité. De cette suspicion générale il est sorti un groupe compact d'écrits sur la valeur desquels nous sommes pleinement assurés."⁴

The ground for a critical handling of the Acts of Thomas was, in a way, quite prepared; critical editions of the early Greek and Latin versions had been issued, as also an edition of the original Syriac text with an English translation by the late Dr. Wright.

This portion of the book, as a whole, may perhaps not sufficiently interest the general reader - it should, besides, be read with a copy of the Acts in hand; but even the ordinary reader will, it is hoped, find certain sections attractive. He will realise that the Acts of Thomas were, at an early date, extensively interpolated and adapted for doctrinal purposes by certain sects; and that this manipulation of the text was carried out according to the system employed in the case of an earlier writing, the Acts of the Virgin-Protomartyr, Thecla, tending to prove that the Acts of Thomas had an early and independent position.

Following on this the reader will be prepared to accept the fact that, besides the historical incident mentioned previously, they embody in a portion of the narrative, which has all the appearance of offering an historical account of events, the mention of usages and customs which are found to be purely Indian and Hindu. This would naturally suggest that they cannot be considered as merely legendary; further, that they yet retain portions of an original narrative which must have come from India, though this earliest text now bears marks of gross disfigurement as it appears in the text and versions.

The writer assumes all responsibility for the English renderings of quotations given in the book, unless they are assigned to others.

A coin-plate and a sketch-map of Mylapore and its environs accompany the Illustrations; these will help to place before the reader such memories of the Apostle as survive.

The writer's best thanks are offered to Mr. W. R. Philipps for continuous help during the several years occupied in collecting the material for the evidence here produced: it is, however, a matter of some regret to him to feel bound to express in the book dissent on two points from opinions published by his friend. He has also to express his acknowledgments to the Rev. Dom H.N. Birt, O.S.B., for most useful assistance while reading the last proof-sheets.The Author desires to record his great appreciation of the liberality of the Marchioness Dowager of Bute in enabling him to go to press with his work.

Nice, 24th May 1905.

CHAPTER 1
THE APOSTLE THOMAS AND GONDOPHARES THE 
INDIAN KING—CONNECTION PROVED 
FROM COINS AND INSCRIPTION

CHAPTER II
THOMAS, THE APOSTLE OF INDIA
1.—The Witness of St. Ephraem and Others

CHAPTER III
SAINT THOMAS’S TOMB IN INDIA

CHAPTER IV
FURTHER HISTORICAL AND TRADITIONAL 
RECORDS OF THE APOSTLE

CHAPTER V
THE ALLEGED APOSTLES OF INDIA

CHAPTER VI
DID THOMAS, A DISCIPLE OF MANES, GO TO 
INDIA?

Download this book