Indian Antiquary Vol 57

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 13

JANUARY, 1928)
ST. THOMAS IN SOUTH INDIA
ST. THOMAS IN SOUTH INDIA.
BY P. J. THOMAS, M.A., B. LITT. (Oxox.), PH.D. Even as your correspondent, Mr.T. K. Joseph (I.A., December 1926), I am a St. Thomas Christian, and I may also claim that I have long endeavoured to study our traditional accounts about St. Thomas' connection with South India. I cannot, however, agree with his conclusions on the historical value of the Malabar tradition. I am far from saying that the South Indian aposto. late of St. Thomas is an established historical fact, but I hold that no conclusive proof has so far been adduced to disprove, or even to discredit, the hoary tradition that St. Thomas preached and died in South India. Nor has your correspondent brought forward anything to shake this view.
In the present article, I propose to examine the various statements made by your correspond. ent; in my next I shall give my own conclusions on the South Indian tradition about St. Thomas.
1. The Acta Thomæ. In paragraphs 1 to 3 and 9, Mr. Joseph brings out the divergence between the Acts of Thomas and the South Indian tradition. After many decades of careful research scholars have come to the conclusion, which is now well established, that the Acta, although a valuable literary work, is not strictly an historical document. As Professor F.C. Burkitt has put it (Journal of Theological Studies, 1900, pages 280-290). "It is an elaborate romance told with much skill in the delineation of character." Besides, it was written with the object of propagating certain Gnostic doctrines which the Edessan School of Bardaisan clung to and preached with greater zeal. No wonder that this work does not seem to have been accepted by the orthodox East Syrians. St. Ephraim, who lived not long after the Acta was written (died 373 A.D.), accuses the disciples of Bardaigan of propagating their master's heresies by forged Acts of the Apostles. According to Burkitt, this very likely refers to the Acta as well as other similar gnostic works. Such was the view of the East Syrian church on the Acta, and this explains why the Malabar Syrians, too, do not seem to have had copies of it in 1599 (as is evident from the list of books given by historians of the Synod of Diamper).
The Acta purports to be based on incidents that took place in India, but the names used and the customs portrayed are either West-Asian (Syrian or allied); most certainly, they are not Indian, however much Medlycott might try to interpret them as such. Only one name, Gødnaphar, has some verbal similarity to the name of a known Parthian king called Gadaphara (or Gudapharasa) known by certain coins found in the Kabul region. This similarity may as well be due to the fact that the author of the romance knew at least one real name which he thought was Indian. But India is not Parthia. As will be shown in another connection, the boundaries of India and Parthia were better known in Western Asia at that time than is assumed by many modern writers, Nor is this the only confusion in which the author has landed us.
Again, we have to bear in mind that the author of the Acta cannot have had any first hand information on the doings of St. Thomas. The Acta was written in Edessa, but no serious historian has ever claimed that St. Thomas preached in that region. Nor does it seem that Christianity was professed there in apostolic times. The information must have therefore come by hearsay, possibly from Indian traders or Roman ambassadors who passed by Edessa. (Evidence of such embassies are numerous ; e.g., Priauls, JRAS., in XVIII, p. 309. Also, 1861, p. 345.)
It is therefore unreasonable to criticise the South Indian tradition because it does not follow the Acta. And the logic employed is certainly suspicious. Mr. Joseph discredits certain points in the tradition because they do not tally with the Acta ; and he discredi.s. other points (e.g., para. 10) because they tally too well with it. From what I have said above, it is clear that whatever value the South Indian Tradition may possess is altogether independent of the Acta. That tradition might as well have been the source from which the
The name of the king differs in the different versions of the Aca: in Syriao, Gradnaphar: in Greek, Gondhaphoros. The Ethiopio versions give quito a different name: one of them speaks of a king of Gòna,"
count, il " Gone" is interpreted as "Chola, which is not unthinkable. Another version gives the name of the king as "Kanta Koros." It is evident from these that it is not entirely safe to identify the king of the Acts with the "Cadaphara" of the Indo-Parthian " coins.