________________
182
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[Juxe, 1875.
and Pantanus. Thanks to Dr. Wright, we now mentions Syriac documents; it is to be regretted possess the Acts of Judas Thomas in an old Syriac that he did not quote them with precision, and text which cannot be very far from the original say by whom they were written and whence they form of the myth. Dr. Wright (vol. i. p. xiv.) attri- come. When he does so it will be time enough butes this text to some time not later than the to consider their value. 4th century, and Dr. Haug connects the original As I have said, Mr. Collins has a strong imtext of this palpably Gnostic book with Bardesanes, pression that St. Thomas was the apostle both of who lived about the end of the socond century. Edessa and Malabar. He grounds this, apparently, But this historically worthless composition (for it on a notion that the "Pahlavi language, according was written more than a hundred years after the to Max Müller, originated in an Aramean dialect ovents it relates), and which is the production of of Assyria." I was much astonished at this, for I Somo ignorant and credulous man, even if it could felt sure that thas illustrious philologist could not be received as evidence, would only connect St. have said anything of the kind. What he does say Thomas with the extreme north-west of India. Prof. (Science of Language, 1st Series, 5th ed. p. 235) Whitney and Dr. Haug," with many others, look is as follows :-"We trace the subsequent history upon the pretended apostolic labours of St. Thomast of the Persian language from Zend to the inscripin India or China as a pious fiction, and, as there tions of the Achæmenian dynasty; from thence is no better evidence than what I have mentioned to what is called Pehlevi or Huzvaresh (better Huabove, it is impossible to do otherwise than assent zaresh), the language of the Sassanian dynasty to the conclusion at which they have arrived. (226-651) .... this is considerably mixed with Nobody nowadays believes in the visit of Brutus Semitic elements, probably imported from Syria." to Britain, yet it rests on as good evidence as the I might refer to the researches of Dr. Haug and mission of St. Thomas to South India, or even to others, and the views of the Parsi scholars, headIndia at all. Mr. Collins also refers to the story of ed by their very learned Dastur Peshutun BehPantanus in support of his "strong impression" | ramji Sanjana, as regards the nature of this that St. Thomas was "the apostle both of Edessa Semitic element (which was written but not and Malabar." He says.: " Pantanus speaks in spoken), but Prof. Max Müller's actual words the second century of a gospel of St. Matthew show how utterly wrong Mr. Collins is. Even if being in India, and of the visit of an apostle." It be were right, what he assumes (as above) would would be difficult to misrepresent more completely not support his "strong impression." the story of Pantanus, which we know only by tho From whatever point of view the question be late hearsay recorded by Eusebius and St. Jerome, considered, the result is the same, there is no and not directly. Both expressly give the story evidence at all that St. Thomas ever preached in as hearsay: "It is said " tliat Pantanus reached India proper, and the story has every mark of being India, and found there a Gospel of St. Matthew a vague fiction originally, but afterwards made (written in Hebrew characters) with some people more precise and retailed by interested parties. "to whom the apostle Bartholemew had preached." This being the case, the only safe conclusion is Mr. Collins makes out that we have the words of that asserted-that the earliest Christian mission Pantænus, and that "an apostle" (the italics are his to India was probably Gnostio or Manichean. own!) had preached in India,-thus leaving the Leaving aside the first, I will only again point out reader to infer that it might have been St. Thomas, that the account of Al Nadim is an historical as no particular person is mentioned. The story document based on original sources. Perhaps I is late hearsay, and therefore valueless for proof. carried too far my doubts about Manes having But even if this could be got over, it says nothing preached in India ; the word for preach' is about St. Thomas, and, as I have already men. ambiguous, but I see Spiegel (Eran. Alter. tioned in my paper), India was in the early thumsk. II. p. 204) accepts his journey there as a centuries A. D. the name of nearly the whole East, fact. At all events, Manes was a most zealous including China, and thus the mention of India missionary, and certainly sent disciples to India. proves nothing. Probably Southern Arabia was As to the meaning of India, there can be no intended. It is not till after several centuries doubt in this case. The Arabs used it in a permore had passed that we again come to legends fectly defined sense. Thus the Manichæan mission which connect St. Thomas with South India, and to India in the 3rd century A.D. is the only it is obviously useless to refer to these. Mr. Collins historical fact that we know of in relation to
• In his review of my monograph (as originally printed) in the Augsburg Gazette.
Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic Studies, vol. II.
As the author of Supernatural Religion (4th edition), vol. I. p. 471. understands it. Where I am I can refer but to few books, 80 I tako his extracts from Eusebius and St. Jerome.
