Indian Antiquary Vol 57

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

Page 14

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JANUARY, 1928
.
Acta got the nuclei of some of its fanciful stories. In any case, it is not right to give these stories any greater validity than the ancient traditions of Malabar.
2. The Malabar Tradition. Leaving aside such startling assertions of your correspondent, as for instance, that nobody before him had scrutinized the South Indian tradition (Virere fortes ante Agamemnona multi !), I shall consider the more serious points raised about that tradition.
(a) Translation of the relics. In paragraph 4, it is pointed out that the Malabar tradi. tion did not take cognisance of the translation of the apostle's remains to Edessa. It is true that the extant popular versions in Malabar do not mention it ; rather they stop with the death of the apostle. But it cannot be said that Malabar did not know of it, since St. Ephraim's writings (which mention this) were known in Malabar. Possibly our forefathers might have believed that the whole of the mortal remains were not removed from Mylapore, and this belief cannot have been unfounded. The East Syrians knew that the relics were in Edessa ; and yet they venerated the tomb at Mylapore, as is well-known. This must have been the reason why the Malabar Church did not give prominence to the translation of a part of the relics.
However it is not true to say that the South Indian tradition as a whole was unaware of the translation. The Hindu version published by the present writer in the Proceedings of the Indian Historical Records Commission (1924), expressly says that a merchant from St. Thomas' country ("Western Asia'?) discovered the Apostle's body by a miraculous sign and that the bones were removed by him to his country. Apparently the Portuguese had no knowledge of it and this was due to the fact that all they knew about St. Thomas (apart from the oral tradition picked up in Malabar) was from Mediæval European writings, which show hardly any knowledge of the translation.
(6) The Dukhrana feast (Para 5). It is true that the feast of St. Thomas is kept in Malabar and by East Syrian Churches on 3rd July, and not on 21st December as in the Western Church. The writer apparently assumes, following Bishop Medlycot, that 3rd July denotes the translation of the relics to Edessa, while 21st December denotes the martyrdom. This assumption is certainly unwarranted. There is no evidence to show that the feast kept by the East Syrians, celebrates the deposition of the relics and not the martyrdom. Medlycott fell into this mistake by the misinterpretation of the Syriac word 'Dukhrana,' but Mr. Joseph apparently does not accept it and yet, strangely enough, he agrees with Medlycott's conclusion.
If, as is generally believed, St. Thomas died in India, his feast must have first originated in that country and later spread to the Eastern churches, and only subsequently to the Western church. The extant versions of the Malabar tradition claim that a feast was instituted soon after the martyrdom by the disciples assembled at Mylapore. Accordingly, the Malabar church not only keeps the feast like other Eastern churches, but has in addition'an eight day's Office following the feast. There is not a single allusion in this Octave, nor in the Office read at the feast, to the translation of the relics, whilst the martyrdom is mentioned repeatedly in those ancient documents.
The date of the feast is itself a refutation of the view that it commemorates the translation; the beginning of July is the middle of the South-West Monsoon, during which, as everyone knows, no sailing vessels dares to cross the Arabian sea. The writer may also make sure whether his translation of Syriac terms (e.g., Maranaya) is correct.
Why does the Western church keep the festival on December 21 ? It is not possible to say for certain. Nor is the example of the Western church followed by the Greeks and Copts, who keep the apostle's feact on 6th October and 26th May respectively. : The Roman Church has, in rare instances, changed the feasts of saints for the sake of the convenience of the faithful. In early times, the principal festival of Apostles Peter and Paul was not on 29th June, as subsequently it has become. In some cases, when the exact date of death was not known or when the known date was found inconvenient,a more suitable date was chosen (e.g., the feast of James the Apostle). Thus the argument from the Dukhrana feast can hardly stand.