________________
APRIL, 1903.] THE CONNECTION OF ST. THOMAS WITH INDIA.
We have no evidence whatever of Christianity in Southern India or Ceylon till we come to Cosmas (about 535). And it seems to me that, by locating St. Thomas' tomb at Mylapore, we go out of our way to create difficulties. We have more or less to explain away or improve upon early Christian evidence, or to assume miracles of which there is no record.
151
Even what we learn from early sources about the relics of St. Thomas, seems out of harmony with the notion that the tomb of St. Thomas was in Southern India. The Acts, or some versions of them, tell us that the relics were carried away to the "West," an expression which would have been inappropriate if the starting-point had been Mylapore. The constant tradition of the Church seems to have been that the body was taken to Edessa. St. Ephraem (end of the 4th century), as quoted above, seems to imply that part of the body had been left in India; but that in no way implies Southern India. It is interesting, here, to note that the territory of which Edessa was the capital was in some sort of dependence on the Parthian empire till 216 A. D.; and so the Parthian connection of St. Thomas seems to run through everything. In the long account from an eyewitness, which St. Gregory of Tours (end of the 6th century) gives of a famous church in India at the unnamed place where St. Thomas was first buried, there is no suggestion of Southern India, and his description of the depth of the wells could hardly apply to Mylapore. We may note, also, that he says nothing about a part of the body being still there. The omission of so important a fact would be impossible in such a narrative, if we are to take it seriously. So, even if we assume him to mean Mylapore, we must conclude that the tomb was empty and that no relies were there.
The opinion of Asseman, mentioned by Bickell, as quoted above, is of great weight in such a matter as this. Asseman, who wrote at Rome early in the 18th century, was perfectly well informed; and no one could be more competent to pass judgment on the facts. He deemed these Indian relics of St. Thomas a Nestorian fabrication.
V.- General Conclusions.
The Right Rev. A. E. Medlycott, Bishop of Tricomia, formerly Vicar Apostolic of Trichur, has, I understand, a monograph on St. Thomas in preparation. It will, we may hope, afford us some fresh information, especially from recently explored Syriac sources. Meanwhile, the results at which we have here arrived regarding St. Thomas, may be summed up as follows:
(1) There is good early evidence that St. Thomas was the apostle of the Parthian empire; and also evidence that he was the apostle of "India" in some limited sense,-probably of an "India" which included the Indus valley, but nothing to the east or south of it,
(2) According to the Acts, the scene of the martyrdom of St. Thomas was in the territory of a king named, according to the Syriac version, Mazdai, to which he had proceeded after a visit to the city of a king named, according to the same version, Gudnaphar or Gundaphar.
(3) There is no evidence at all that the place where St. Thomas was martyred was in Southern India; and all the indications point in another direction.
(4) We have no indication whatever, earlier than that given by Marco Polo, who died 1324, that there ever was even a tradition that St. Thomas was buried in Southern India.
VI. -
Some remarks about Gondophares, and about the proposed identification of certain persons mentioned in connection with him.
It does not come within the scope of this paper to discuss what is known from other sources than the Acts of St. Thomas, about the Gondophares whose name has been mentioned in some of the preceding pages. The following statements, however, may be made:
At Kâbal and Kandahar in Afghanistan, and at various places in the Pañjûb, in Sindh, and in Seistân, there are obtained certain coins which have an Indian legend on one side and a Greek legend on the other. The Indian legend gives the name of a king in two forms, Gudaphara and
