Book 4  Continuation .....................
Page 5

13. Acts of Thecla

The Acta of St.Thecla, the Virgin, Protomartyr of her sex, have remained under a cloud for a long period, although several Fathers of the Church refer to them approvingly, and quote the story of her triumph on the chief lines of that early narrative. Among these, Basilius, bishop of Seleucia in Isauria (died a.d. 458 ), has written two books ,De vita et miraculis s. Theclae, libri. ii., Migne, P. Gr.-L., tom. lxxxv.; also Nicetas David, bishop in paphlagonia (died a.d. 890), a homily on the Saint, ibid., tom. cv. cols. 822-846. The Acta, or the saintly virgin, are mentioned by St. Methodius of Tyre,116 bishop and martyr, a.d. 312, ibid., tom. xviii.; St. Gregory of Nazianzus, ibid., tom. xxxv. col. 1105, xxxvii. cols. 593, 639, 745; St. Gregory of Nyssa, ibid., tom.xliv. col. 1067, Homil xiv. in Cantica Canticorum; St. Epiphanius, Haeres., lxxviii.n.16, and Haeres., Ixxix. n. 5; St. John Chrysostom, Homil xxv. in Actus Apostolor., tom. ix., ed. Montfaucon; St. Ambrose, De virginibus, Migne, P.L., tom. xvi. col. 385 ff; De virginitate, col. 290; and Epist. ad Vercell. eccles., tom. xvi. col. 1250.

The Acta were first published by Grabbe (Spicilegium SS.Patrum, Oxoniae, 1698,tom.i.pp.93-128; they will be found also in the second edition, Oxoniae, 1700, tom. i.pp. 81-128), with Greek text and Latin translation. Thilo, in the first half of the nineteenth century, was preparing a critical text, but did not survive to complete the task. His papers passed into the hands of C. Tischendorf, who completed and published this text in his Acta Apocrypha, 1851. As the demand for such works continued to increase, it was decided to bring out a second enlarged edition of Tischendorf's book. The editorial duties were divided between R.A. Lipsius and Max Bonnet. The first volume of this edition is by Lipsius and appeared under the title Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Pars 1a Leipzig) in 1891. In this volume are the Acta Teclae in a Greek text, taken from eleven MSS, pp. 235-272; there are yet eight or nine MSS of the text in the convent of Mount Sinai which have not been collated. The Syriac version was published by Dr. W. Wright in his Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in two volumes, text and translation, London, 1871: quotations will be given from this translation. An Armenian version of Thecla's text was published by Conybeare in The Apology and Acts of Apollonius, and other documents of early Christianity, 2nd edition, London, 1896, pp. 49 ff. The Syriac and the Armenian offer the two best texts of the Acta. Dom. H. Leclercq , Les Martyrs, vol. i. Paris, 1902, Appendix, pp. 141-177, has much that is of importance; he also gives the Patristic and later literature on the subject, and a popular reconstruction of the story.

Professor Carl Schmidt has recently published an important text of an apocryphal writing connected with the Acts of Thecla recovered from over 2000 fragments of papyrus unearthed in Egypt: this document is mentioned in the writings of some of the Fathers, but no copy of it was heretofore known—the PraxeiV, or PeriódouV of Paul. Much time and great labour were spent in reconstructing these scraps and completing a connected narrative. Only one entire sheet of the MS was recovered—this contains pp. 21-22 of the text. A better readjustment of certain passages may yet be obtained by further patient labour. The work is issued under the title, Acta Pauli, Leipsic, 1904.

The text of the Acta, besides what was invented by the writer and set down as the doings and sayings of the Apostle during his missionary excursions on the routes traced by Luke or mentioned in his Epistles, embodies what are known as the Acta Theclae, also a third apocryphal letter of Paul to the Corinthians and their reply, as also the Apostle’s Martyrdom. Of these, the text of the letters had come down in a Syriac version and was published among the works of St. Ephraem, while the two others existed as separate writings. What is new is the knowledge that the Acta Theclae formed part of this early apocryphal writing. The words of Tertullian, written at the opening of the third century, condemning Gnostics, who put forward a claim on behalf of women to baptize and preach, now bear a much fuller meaning than had hitherto been assigned to them (de Baptismo, c. xvii.): Quodsi qui Pauli perperam inscripta legunt, exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum, id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse. The brunt of the charge on which the presbyter was deposed is here assigned to his having issued his work as that of Paul. This meaning was not fully appreciated before, but the present Coptic text, reproducing the title of the Greek text, lets us know that it was k’ [kata] ton apóstolon, usurping thus the canonical heading reserved to the books of the New Testament. Tertullian probably had before him a Latin text which incorporated the Acta Theclae.

St.Jerome (De viris illustr., c.vii.) has the following passage on the subject: Igitur PeriódouV Pauli et Theclae et totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus, quale enim est ut individuus comes apostoli (i.e. Lucas) inter ceteras res hoc solum ignoraverit? sed et Tertullianus vicinus eorum temporum refert, presbyterum quendam in Asia spoudasthn apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Joannem, quod auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco excidisse. To Jerome also the PeriódpuV Pauli contained the Acta Theclae.

After carefully comparing the German translation of the Coptic text given by Schmidt with the English version of the Syriac text by Dr. Wright, we find that, with the exception of several large and small lacunae which exist, the two versions run on parallel lines as independent renderings of the same text, even to the rendering of delicate expressions of thought. While the Syriac is made more readable by connecting passages between the sentences, the Coptic is severely abrupt and generally cramped in expression. Occasionally the Syriac will add a development to the thought expressed, while the Coptic is curt. After each lacuna of the MS, when the Coptic resumed the narrative, it will be found to agree textually with the complete Syriac version: so that it can be asserted in all fairness that from the opening sentences recovered from the Coptic MS down to the two last lines of the same, also fortunately recovered, both versions, excepting lacunae, reflect the same original, of which they are independent renderings. We are thus enabled to infer that were the text of the MS complete we should find both substantially the same.

Some of the lacunae, however, have deprived us of important historical passages. The first of the larger lacunae occurring at p.7 of the text (the second of the Acts of Thecla), would have contained the narrative of the meeting of Onesiphorus with Paul; the text retains — ‘on the royal road which’ — and here the lacuna commences, omitting the important mention of Lystra. The second large lacuna, of some sixteen lines, pp.8 and 9, has dropped the teaching of Paul at the house of Onesiphorus, when in the form of a series of new Beatitudes, attributed to the Apostle, in imitation of those found in the Gospel, the first germs of Gnostic error are gradually introduced, culminating in an open assertion that wedded life is an improper state. The third lacuna, pp. 17 and 18, cuts off the entire narrative of the ordeals to which Thecla was subjected at Iconium at her first trial and condemnation; a few lines only have survived which tell us that she ascended the pile and the crowd set fire to it. The fourth consists of an entire sheet, leaving a blank of two pages. This lacuna would have contained Thecla’s second trial at Antioch on the charge proffered by Alexander, the High Priest of Syria. Because of these, the account given by the Coptic papyrus misses some of the principal details of the narrative.

The German professor contends, against the view upheld by Professor W.M. Ramsay and Corssen, that the Acts of Thecla had no separate written form apart from the work he publishes; and that Basileus of Seleucia, who, as we said, wrote two books on the life and miracles of the saint, based his information on this text. It becomes of importance, if not necessary, that we should thoroughly test the point so raised before proceeding further. The lacunae indicated above will considerably militate against the case for a separate and prior existence of Thecla’s Acts being argued fully; we shall be compelled, therefore, where the Coptic is deficient, to recur to the Syriac on the grounds stated above, and indicate what it would have contained were it unmutilated.

Schmidt attests that the Acta Pauli disclose no doctrinal feature opposed to the early teaching of the Church (except, he says, a passage on p.9 of the MS; this includes the section of the Beatitudes). Supposing the editor is right in his general appreciation of what that text assigns to Paul in other parts of the Acta, will the assumption also hold good as to that which gives us Thecla’s Acts? We are of opinion it will not. Among the Beatitudes attributed to Paul, as explained above, the Syriac has the following, which is lost in the Coptic by the second extensive lacuna: ‘Blessed are they who have wives as though they had them not, for they shall inherit the earth.’ This comes as the fifth Beatitude in the Syriac, while the first surviving in the defective Coptic corresponds to the seventh of the former. The doctrine contained in the above is opposed both to the Gospel and the Pauline teaching; read 1 Corinthians, vii. 2-5. The doctrine is suggested in what survives of the text.

At p.12 of the German translation of the papyrus text the same principle is again brought forward, but placed this time in the mouth of others. Thamyris is made to say : ‘Who is this tempter who is within, with you (referring to Paul) deceiving the souls of young men and of virgins that they be not married, but remain as they are?’ Demas and Hermogenes are made to reply : ‘This man, whence he comes, we cannot find out, but he separates the young men from their wives and the virgins from their husbands, saying there will be no resurrection for them (p.13) unless they remain holy (and) soil not their flesh, but (keep) it pure.’ This is no other than the Gnostic error taught in the second and third centuries; particulars may be found under Nos. 28 and 29.

The question now arises, Did the presbyter of Asia, author of the Acta Pauli, denounced by Tertullian, embody this feature of doctrine in his work, or did it pre-exist in the Acta Theclae? If he has shown no Gnostic leanings in the rest of the compilation, will it not be legitimate to infer that the insertions are not his, but had been previously incorporated into the writing? The case being so, we are forced to admit that the Acta of Thecla had preceded the presbyter’s work.

We may now briefly invite attention to other arguments derived from Thecla’s text set forth by Ramsay, of which we shall indicate here only two; see No. 14. (1) The Acts recite that Onesiphorus went from Iconium on the royal road which led to Lystra, and was there waiting for Paul’s arrival, who was coming from Antioch (of Pisidia). For the argument deduced from the state of the routes of communication existing about A.D. 50 between Iconium, Lystra, and Antioch correctly given in the text, but altered shortly after that date, a circumstance which a later writer would not have known, we refer the reader to Ramsay’s book quoted at No.14. (2) Another, and in our opinion the most cogent argument in support of the early existence of the Acts of the virgin-martyr, i.e. shortly after the middle of the first century, will be found in the very correct presentation of the position held by Queen Tryphaena at Thecla’s trial at Antioch, given in the same, but which was completely altered after A.D. 54; See No. 14.

Before closing this digression we will invite attention to another point given in the Coptic MS. The Greek text (Grabe, tom.i.p.108) assigns the cause of Thecla’s condemnation at the second trial to Ierosilia. The Latin version recites: ‘erat autem eulogium [causa] eius scriptum SACRILEGIUM.’ The Coptic (transl. of Schmidt) renders it thus : ‘And the cause which was written behind her was this - she had stolen from the temple.’ The rendering is simply absurd; the text mentions neither temple nor theft, but the action of Thecla who snatched the crown worn by Alexander, the High Priest, and cast it on the road. The only way of accounting for this blunder is to suppose that the Coptic language offering no equivalent for the word ‘sacrilege,’ the translator was bound to substitute its meaning; but he offers one which is not applicable to the subject. The crime of sacrilege may be committed either by theft from a temple, or by profanation; the latter, which was applicable to the text, the Coptic translator overlooks, because, perhaps, in his days sacrilege chiefly implied theft from a temple; but this discloses a low intellectual standard.

Modern students, encouraged by what they found in the writings of the Fathers referring to the story of Thecla, have begun to examine the Acta more closely; not only such parts of the narrative as would constitute its essential portion, but also some striking details contained therein, and have ascertained that many of these do belong to her age and are of undoubted historical accuracy (see No.14).

14. reconstruction of the ‘ acta’

To M. Edmond Le Blant (Les Persécuteurs et les Martyrs, Paris, 1893) is due the credit of first advancing proofs of substantial value. The chief points he brings out may be thus briefly summarised. (1) Thecla’s appeal when indecently approached by Alexander, ‘Respect the stranger,’ &c. (2) The sentence affixed to the post to which she was fastened, ‘Sacrilegium.’ (3)When so exposed, she was given a cloth or shift to cover her person and a girdle, the Cingulum, to fasten it, for Roman law severely punished any nude exposure of the person of a female under sentence. (4) Thecla’s request to the governor on her condemnation that her virginity should be respected — a request supported by usage, and promptly granted.

But for a thorough critical examination of the Acta the reader must consult Professor W.M. Ramsay, The Church and the Roman Empire before a.d. 170 (7th edit., London, 1903, chap. xvi.pp.375 ff.). We offer a condensed summary of this able treatment of the subject, which may also help the reader to form a more accurate opinion of the treatment which the Acts of Thomas require. He starts with the point that the present form the narrative assumes in the Acta is not the work of one author. He proceeds to investigate whether the component parts can be separated, and to what date they can be assigned; further, if the earlier or original parts came down as a traditional legend, or belonged to a literary composition; and follows up this investigation with an inquiry as to what historical value this early writing possesses. The cardinal feature of the inquiry turns on the historical reality of the Queen, Tryphaena, who bears a prominent part in the tale. She is there shown to have become a second mother to the Christian virgin, and to have protected her honour and eventually to have saved her life.

The historical evidence of her reality is offered by her coins.

Von Gutschmidt, says Ramsay, was the first to point out that Queen Tryphaena was probably a historical character. He appealed to certain rare coins of the kingdom of Pontus, which show on the obverse the bust of a king with the title —basiLews poLemwnos, on the reverse the bust of a queen with the title basiLisshs trufainhs, and he urged that the queen whose bust appears on Pontic coins was the Queen Tryphaena of the Acta. Obvious difficulties arose against the identification. The Tryphaena of the Acta was apparently a Roman subject residing at Antioch [of Pisidia], who complained of her isolation and friendlessness. The Polemon of the coins was a powerful king known to have reigned in Pontus from a.d. 37 to 63, and was a Greek. His wife could not, on any reasonable hypothesis, be an elderly woman in a.d. 50, as Tryphaena is represented in the tale. Further research, carried on chiefly by Von Sallet, Waddington, and Mommsen, disclosed that Tryphaena was ‘cousin once removed of the Emperor Claudius, her mother Pythodoris being his full cousin;’ the mother of Pythodoris and of Claudius were sisters and daughters of the Triumvir Marcus Antonius. Queen Tryphaena in her own right was queen of Pontus, and was married to Cotis, king of Thrace, where, being only queen-consort, her name does not appear on those coins. The coin bearing the inscription given above represents Polemon as a young man, and the lady on the reverse is a mature woman; they could not be husband and wife, but were mother and son, she reigning in her own right as Queen of Pontus, which her son Polemon was to inherit. The coin is of the year a.d. 37, when her son, aged about nineteen, was made king, and she herself was about forty-six years of age. In a.d. 50 she was, therefore, nearly sixty. This would suit the Acta perfectly. (For particulars of Queen Tryphaena’s family, see Theodor Mommsen, Ephimeris Epigraphica, 1872, vol. i. pp. 270 ff; and vol.ii.pp.259 ff.),

Mr. Ramsay (p.388) says : ‘It should be kept in mind that the Emperor Claudius died in 54 a.d. and Nero succeeded him; the new emperor rather made a point of throwing contempt and ridicule on his predecessor. After a few years he even stripped Polemon of his kingdom of Pontus, leaving him, however, a principality among the mountain districts of western Cilicia. The picture given in the Acta of Tryphaena’s situation, while true to the time in which the scene is laid, ceases to be so after a very few years had passed; after 54 she was no longer a relative of the emperor, and in all probability she lost most of her personal influence with the Roman officials.’

Mr. Ramsay points out ‘ as a striking instance of the historical value of early Christian documents, that, apart from the coins the only deep mark the dynasty has left in literature is in a Christian work,’ the Acta of Thecla. The reader should not fail to take note of the very striking historical coincidence and similarity there exists between the case of Queen Tryphaena of Pontus, mentioned in the Acta, and that of Gondophares, king of the Indians, in the Acts of Thomas. In both cases the written record of their existence was retained exclusively in ecclesiastical literature, and both again only in recent years obtained confirmation of historical value from coins discovered bearing their effigy and their legend.

It was, as has been already said, owing to the protection offered to Thecla by this queen, to whom the Roman authorities showed every deference, that the virgin’s life was saved. This can now cause no surprise, since her close relationship to the emperor Claudius and her own rank are known. This position is very faithfully reflected in the story told in the Acta, which would not be the case had they been the product of a later age, as all memory of her position would by then have been lost owing to the want of any literary record of the queen and the position she held.

The Acta contain two trials of Thecla, one at her native city of Iconium, which is said to have been presided over by a Roman governor, and where the charge laid against her was that she would not marry Thamyris to whom she had been betrothed, and was in consequence condemned to be burnt alive. The trial, in the form it bears in the present text, is rejected by Ramsay on two grounds: that Iconium at that date had not yet obtained the privilege of a governor; the other that the case was not one that could be taken into court, much less could she for such refusal be condemned to capital punishment, a sentence which no inferior magistrate could inflict but which was reserved exclusively to the governor. He ascribes all these additions to a later hand which manipulated the older text. The only way, he maintains, that Thecla’s refusal to marry Thamyris could be treated, would be restricted to the family circle. Some trace that such was once the form of this part of the tale is found in a homily of about the year 300, wrongly attributed to Chrysostom (see Homil. in S. Theclam, opera, 2nd edit. of Montfaucon, Paris, vol.ii. pp. 896-99). The author therein gives quite a different account of this portion of the story. He narrates how every effort was made to bring family influence to shake the virgin’s resolution; how, also, according to the custom of the age, the servants were introduced weeping to implore their young mistress not to reject her marriage pledge. It is possible she may have been produced before a local magistrate to intimidate her even by threats, but she must eventually have been allowed to go free. She then wandered about seeking for Paul, guided by rumours of his movements. Her lover pursued and overtook her; when on the point of becoming a victim to his violence, she prayed to heaven for help. Here the fragment ends most inappropriately. This older form of the tale must have had no presiding Roman governor, no condemnation, and consequently no sentence of punishment as is given in the first trial. This places the story on its true historical basis, and it implies as well that the Gnostic doctrinal additions, and the introduction on the scene of persons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. Paul, as Onesiphorus, Titus, Demas, and Hermogenes, are the outcome of later enlargements by an unwise admirer of the Apostle in the latter, and by heretics in the former case.

The trial, on the other hand, of Thecla at Antioch—not of Asia, as some have erroneously supposed, but of Pisidia—is upheld; the details of which, as given in the better texts, are shown to fit in admirably with the known circumstances of time and place, and reflect the prevailing social customs of that part of Asia. Alexander, whom the text represents as an important personage and a resident in the city, was going to hold games with the production of wild beasts in the arena, called by the Romans Venatio. 117 Such games were only given in large provincial capitals, and though Antioch had no resident governor, the position of Alexander justifies the surmise that the governor had accepted an invitation to grace the festivities with his presence, and the coming of the governor, the celebration of the games, and possibly an invitation, would naturally explain the presence of Queen Tryphaena at Antioch from her estates situated in the vicinity of Iconium.’

The charge laid by Alexander against the Christian virgin would be construed as one of sacrilege, since, according to Ramsay, Alexander was ‘the high priest of Syria,’ whose official dignity was considered to have been outraged when Thecla tore off the crown from his head and flung it on the ground and rent his garment.118 As to Alexander’s conduct: when the assault was committed, he was then going to the games escorted by his followers; he met Thecla entering the city, and, attracted by the charm of her beauty, he embraced and kissed her. From a Roman social point of view, it is explained, he took her for a dancing girl, whose status would not be outraged by such attention as he had paid her. That this represents the true view of the case will be found supported by what is narrated in the Acta. Thecla, at the outrage offered to her, cried out bitterly (Wright’s translation, p.131),‘Do not force the stranger! Do not force the handmaid of god [the servant of God]! I am a noble’s daughter of the city of Iconium.’

On the occasion when Thecla was going to be removed from Queen Tryphaena’s protection to be exposed to the wild beasts in the arena, the latter exclaims in grief (p.134): ‘Thy help O God (I implore); for lo, twice is there mourning in my house, and I have no one to help me; for my daughter lives not, she is dead, and there is none of my kinsmen to stand at my side, and I am a widow.’ The points here put forth admirably suit her position; she had mourned her husband and her daughter; into the latter’s place, as the tale says, she had taken Thecla, and she was, besides, away from her sons, who were kings of Thrace, Pontus, and Armenia, and on Roman territory. The latter fact is also capable of a reasonable explanation. Her lonely presence there would probably be the result of friction between herself and her son, the king of Pontus. She had reigned before him in her own right, and it is most probable that her son after a time preferred to be unfettered by her presence; on that account she may have left the kingdom, or she may have been exiled.

We will quote a passage describing what happened when Thecla was fastened to the post bearing her sentence of condemnation, ‘Sacrilegium,’ and a lion or lioness was let loose upon her (p.139): ‘Queen Tryphaena, who was standing by the door of the theatre, fainted away and fell down on the ground, because she thought that Thecla was dead. And when her slaves saw that she had fainted and fallen down, they broke out into wailing, and rent their garments and say, "The Queen is dead!" And when the hêgemôn (governor) heard them say "The Queen is dead!" (he stopped the games) and the whole city trembled. And Alexander was afraid, and he ran (and) came and said to the hêgemôn: "Have pity on me, sir, and also on this city, and release this (woman who was) doomed to be devoured by beasts, that she may go away from us, so that the city too may not perish, lest perchance, when Caesar [Claudius] hears of these things which we have done, he may destroy the city, for Queen Tryphaena is of the family of Caesar, and lo, she was standing beside the door of the theatre, and she is dead."’ The Acta state further that the governor caused criers to proclaim (p.140) to the people: ‘Thecla who is God’s [of the god], and Thecla who is righteous, I have released and given unto you.’ The Greek text says: ‘I release to you Thekla the servant of the god .’ By this it is implied, in the sense understood by pagans — as Thecla had twice asserted herself to be the handmaid of God—that she was a woman who had given herself in celibacy to a god, and her innocence under the circumstances is proclaimed. All this admirably reflects the social state and public opinion prevailing in that corner of Asia which was the scene of the events described.

It should also be noted that at this trial Thecla’s religion was not openly brought into question, therefore, it must have taken place before the edicts of Nero, who ruled a.d. 54-68, against the new faith, were published; these ordered the extreme penalty of the law for the profession of the Christian faith unless the person recanted.

Mr. Ramsay puts a new construction on the passage of Tertullian given above (we have partly reflected his opinion in our translation). He maintains that Tertullian was aware of the existence of a narrative older than that which he attributes to the presbyter of Asia; his words show that the book was not composed but constructed by him—‘eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli’—and, if any ambiguity or doubt of the right meaning yet prevails, this is entirely removed by the short formula added to the preceding words—‘de suo cumulans’— adding of his own. Ramsay, after Zahn, ascribes the known remark of St. Ignatius the martyr (a.d. 107) regarding the exposure of Christians to wild beasts, ‘as they have done to some, refusing to touch them through fear’ (Ep. ad Roman., c.v.), to what is said of Thecla’s escape when exposed to the wild beasts, whether a lion or lioness and a bear.

The details now contained in the opening section of the Acta, Ramsay assigns to a later period. They reflect, in fact, a period in the second century when persecution against the professors of the faith was thoroughly established by the new legislation introduced by Nero and extended by his successors throughout the empire. The historical allusions of this section he ascribes to two successive dates. About the year 130 the tale was enlarged by one who accepted it as true, but who wished to connect it with persons and incidents known and mentioned by St. Paul, whose names occur in the canonical books. A further reconstruction, he suggests, took place between 140-160: and this caused the introduction of the trial scene at Iconium, which had then become a chief town governed by an official of consular rank. Mr. Ramsay has purposely abstained from dealing with the doctrinal features of the story; we therefore think it right to suggest that they could not have been inserted much later than the second period mentioned above, when the second interpolator, the Gnostic scribe, deftly interjected the germs of Gnostic antipathy to wedded life; for the text of the newly recovered Acta Pauli contains them.

We should not close this section without placing before the reader the latest discovered testimony to the authenticity of the Acta Theclae borne by the lady pilgrim (Gamurrini, S.Silviae Peregrinatio, Romae, 1887). She writes in her journal (p.73): Sed quoniam de Tharso tertia mansione, id est in Hisauria est martyrium sanctae Theclae, gratum fuit satis, ut etiam illuc accederem praesertim cum tam in proximo esset. And at p. 74: ibi ergo cum venissem in nomine Dei, facta oratione martyrium, nec non etiam lectus omnis actus sanctae Theclae, gratias domino nostro egi infinitas, qui mihi dignatus est indignae et non merenti in omnibus desideria complere—‘The Martyrion of St. Thecla is situated in Isauria at a distance of three stages from Tharsus, and it was most gratifying to me to visit it; the more so since I was in the vicinity. When by God’s blessing I arrived there, I prayed at the Martyrion, read also the entire Acts of St.Thecla, and gave infinite thanks to our Lord who granted me, so unworthy, the happiness of fulfilling all my wishes.’ The visit was paid by the lady pilgrim about the year 388; she is held to be Egeria or Etheria, a Spanish lady (see Dom. M. Ferotin’s Le véritable auteur de la Peregrinatio Silviae, Paris, 1903).

15. Interpolated by Gnostics

We now pass on to consider how these early writings were manipulated by Gnostics. The quotations will be taken, as before, from Wright’s translation. From the outset, advantage is cleverly taken of Paul’s arrival at a house at Iconium—the supposed house of Onesiphorus119—to introduce Gnostic tenets attacking the propriety and sanctity of the married state. These are introduced in the discourse given, which is stated to have been on concupiscence of the flesh and on future resurrection. The fact that Thecla was betrothed to Thamyris was too good an opportunity to be overlooked, so Thecla’s home is conveniently placed adjoining that of Onesiphorus, and she becomes an assiduous listener to the Apostle’s supposed Gnostic teachings.

Her mother becomes impatient at the daughter’s conduct. She remarks to her future son-in-law, ‘I say to thee, Tamyris, he (Paul) has perverted the whole city of the Iconians, thy betrothed too, and many other women; and young men go to him and he teaches them to live purely.’ Thamyris, driven well-nigh to despair by the attitude of his bride in spite of all his remonstrances, finding two men, who had come out of the house where Paul lodged, disputing in the street, rushes out to meet them and inquires, ‘Who is this man within, with you, who leads astray the souls of young women and of virgins and commands that there should be no marriage feasts, but that they should live as they are?’ Demas and Hermogenes, who turned false to the Apostle (2 Tim. iv. 9; i. 15), are here represented to be the two companions who had come out of the house. They reply, ‘We do not know him; but he separates young men from the virgins and the virgins from the young men.’ When Paul is dragged before the hêgemôn, the cry put in the mouth of the populace is, ‘Drag him along, he is a magician, for he has corrupted all our wives.’ Paul is scourged and cast out of the city.

We learn from St. Epiphanius, Haeres. xlvii., that the sect of Gnostics was spread largely over that portion of Asia to which these Acta belong: Horum ingens est hodie numerus in Pisidia eaque Phrysiae parte, &c.—praeterea in Asiae provinciis et in Isauria, Pamphilia, Cilicia, Galatia, &c. Thecla was greatly venerated in those parts, as the homilies of the bishops of these countries attest. It was therefore a master-stroke on the part of the heretics to secure the Acta and make them an early purveyor of their doctrine.

The skeleton of this writing, skilfully reconstructed by Ramsay (end of chap.xvi), shows that the original narrative would mention her having heard Paul preaching, perhaps in the streets, and that she embraced the Christian faith and eventually decided to devote herself to God and to preserve her virginity. On this account she had to face domestic trials, which induced her to leave her home and follow Paul. On her entering Antioch of Pisidia, the incident occurred which caused her to be charged with the crime of ‘sacrilege’ against the person of the high priest of Syria, on which account she had to appear for judgment before the governor. Having upheld her conduct, she was sentenced to be exposed to wild beasts, and this occurred at the games then being held there. The account contained the intervention of Queen Tryphaena with the incidents connected with her. Her subsequent traditional history makes her lead a life of active usefulness in spreading the faith; she spent her later years in a sort of retired life with other holy virgins, on the spot where the lady pilgrim went to pray at her Martyrion, and where she found a convent of holy women, under the direction of a person whose acquaintance she had made in the Holy Land.

16. Acts of Andrew also Adopted by Them

It is singular that no mention is made by St.Epiphanius that the Acta of Thecla were utilised by the Gnostics, though he mentions her (Haeres., lxxix., n.v., and compares her to the Blessed Virgin, and again, Haeres., lxxviii., n. xvi.); the reason perhaps might be that the Acta were not read at their assemblies, as will be seen were such Acts of the Apostles as they had revised for their purposes. The Acts of an Apostle could be made to pass as Scriptural writings, but not the former. Epiphanius makes express mention that they used the Acts of Andrew as well as those of Thomas; the quotation will be found in the sequel. It would appear that the modified form of the Acts of Andrew used by them has not come down to us, for those which we possess do not disclose the peculiar tenets of the sect, while those of Thomas attest how thoroughly they had been adapted for doctrinal purposes.

Acts of Andrew consist of two sections. One reports his doings when, on a mission assigned to him by our Lord, he went to the relief of the Apostle Matthew, who was imprisoned and deprived of his sight.120 The country mentioned cannot be identified from the text, but it would appear to be in Africa, as the inhabitants are described to be cannibals. The other section treats of his doings in Greece and the Asiatic borderland, until under Aegeas he suffered martyrdom in Achaia.

Of the Acts of Andrew we have a Syriac text covering the ground of the first section in Wright’s Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. These await at the hands of a competent scholar treatment similar to that which the Acts of Thomas received from Burkitt. We are not aware of any Syriac text or translation of the Acts of Andrew covering the narrative of the second section. Greek texts or versions of these Acts were published by Tischendorf, Acta Apocrypha, 1851, pp. 105 ff.; but a much fuller second edition has been published by Hermann Mendelssohn, in Leipsic. The second volume of this series (badly numbered; the series comprises three volumes), marked Part ii. vol. i., 1898, edited by Max Bonnet, contains the following Greek texts—(1) Ex Actis Andreae, pp. 38-45; (2) two sets of Martyrium Andreae, pp. 46- 64; (3) Acta Andreae et Mathiae, pp.117-127—in Bonnet’s Supplementum Codicis Apocryphi, ii., Paris, 1895; (4) Acta Andreae cum laudatione, pp.3-44; (5) Martyrium Andreae, pp.44-64. There are two Passiones in Latin: (1) Passio Andreae, ‘quam oculis nostris vidimus omnes presbyteri et diaconi ecclesiarum Achaiae’ (in former vol.) pp. 1-37; (2) Passio Andreae, ‘Conversante et docente,’ &c. (in Suppl., ii.) pp. 66-70. We have also in Latin (3) Liber de Miraculis B. Andreae Apostoli; this has been edited by Bonnet with the critical text of the works of St.Gregory of Tours, issued by Arndt and Krusch (ut supr., pt. ii. 826-846).

17. St. Gregory of Tours, Author of ‘De Miraculis
Beati Andreae’

There can be no doubt that St. Gregory of Tours is the writer of the above book. Ruinart, the Benedictine editor of Gregory’s writings (Opera omnia, Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1699, in preface n.77) says: Librum de Miraculis sancti Andreae sub Gregorii Turonensis nomine invenimus in codice bibliothecae nostrae sancti Germani a Pratis ab annis circiter sexcentis scripto, qui liber in aliis quoque codicibus habetur sed absque Gregorii praefatione. Hanc autem praefationem sicur et brevem operis epilogum Gregorii fetum esse styli et scribendi ratio vix dubitare sinunt. The above-mentioned codex is marked by Bonnet (ut supr., pt. ii.p.823) 4b in his references; it is the ‘Parisiacus Lat. 12603 (S. Germani a Pratis) saecl. xiii.’ To the possible objection that Gregory does not include it in the list of his own works, Ruinart replies: Neque id mirandum videri debet siquidem nec librum ibi recensuit Missarum Apollinaris Sidonii cui alias[Hist. Franc., lib.ii., c. xxii.] se praefationem adjunxisse memorat; nec passionem Septem Dormientium Ephesinorum quam e Graeco in Latinum a se translatam fuisse ipsemet alibi testatur.

Bonnet supplements the above by adducing cogent evidence from the text of the book itself. The author, in chap. xxxvii. (oper. cit., p. 846) of the book, says: Nam ferunt, hoc oleum usque ad medium basilicae sanctae decurrere, sicut in primo miraculorum scripsimus libro; this is no other than his well-known work ‘in Gloria Martyrum,’ which, according to Gregory, comprises eight books, of which it is the first, while the eighth or last is‘ in Gloria Confessorum.’ See detailed list in Prologo Gl. Confessor., op.cit., p.748. Gregory continues: Passionis quoque ejus ita ordinem prosecuti non sumus, quia valde utiliter et eleganter a quodam repperimus fuisse conscriptum. The ‘a quodam’ excludes the Passio, with the letter of ‘the priests and deacons of Achaia,’ and so refers to the other Passio Andreae ‘Conversante et docente.’ From this we learn that Gregory did not re-edit the Passio he knew, as it was ‘utiliter et eleganter conscripta.’ We shall have occasion to refer to these different features of Gregory’s work.

This book, De Miraculis B. Andreae, is bodily incorporated in the Latin compilation that goes by the name of Abdias. Ruinart was then mistaken in supposing that Gregory had taken his text from that collection. Migne reproduces the same mistake in his reprint of Gregory’s works. We find it necessary to reproduce here the pro-and the epi-logue of this book, as both are wanted for comparison with a text that will follow.

The Prologue (p. 827).

Inclita sanctorum apostolorum trophea nulli credo latere fidelium, quia quaedam exinde evangelica dogmata docent, quaedam apostolici actus narrant, de quibusdam vero extant libri, in quibus propriae actiones eorum denotantur. De plerisque enim nihil aliud nisi passionum scripta suscipimus. Nam repperi librum de virtutibus sancti Andreae Apostoli qui propter nimiam verbositatem a nonnullis apocryphus dicebatur; de quo placuit, ut, retractis enucleatisque tantum virtutibus, praetermissis his quae fastidium generabant, uno tantum parvo volumine admiranda miracula clauderentur quod et legentibus praestaret gratiam et detrahentium auferret invidiam quia inviolatam fidem non exigit multitudo verbositatis, sed integritas rationis et puritas mentis.121

The preface tells us of the existence of a book, De virtutibus sancti Andreae apostoli. Bonnet (p. 821, i. 13) remarks: Quanta autem fuerit illa ‘multitudo verbositatis’ quam Gregorius a se amputatam ait, sciet qui contenderit cum c i. Acta Graeca a Tischendorfio edita (Acta Apostolor. Apocryph, p.132 seq.) It gives us also an interesting sketch of the ‘trophea’ of the Apostles, viz., of the writings which narrated their doings. For some, there were special books giving their history, but for many there only existed the acts of their martyrdom. To enable the reader to expand his ideas still further, it will be useful to know that there existed special extensive compilations known by the name ‘Passionale,’ containing the above stories. The Cod. Paris. Lat., 12603, Bonnet's 4b, is but a fragment surviving from the wreck of a large ‘Passionale,’ for the present first folio bears an old number ccc ( folio 300 = 600 pages), and after Gregory’s De Miraculis B. Andreae in the MS—sequunter tria alia scripta de sanctis—(Bonnet, ibid., p. 823 I. 2) These collections were made use of by the faithful as most acceptable narratives of the Doings and Martyrdoms of the apostles and other Saints of God; they were read at their festivals, and by pious pilgrims when visiting their shrines.

The Epilogue (p.846).

Haec sunt quae de virtutibus beati Andreae apostoli praesumpsi indignus ore, sermone rusticus, pravus conscientia, propalare, deprecans eius misericordiam, ut sicut in illius natale processi ex matris utero, ita ipsius obtentu eruar ab inferno, et sicut in die passionis eius sumpsi vitae hujus exordium, ita me sibi proprium adscire dignetur alumnum. Et quia de maioribus meritis revocat nos pars magna facinoris, hoc tantum temerarius praesumo petere, ut cum ille post iudicium dominico corpori conformatus refulget in gloria, saltem pro immensis criminibus mihi vel veniam non negandam.122

In the prologue as well as in the epilogue, Gregory styles the book, on which he based this narrative of his, containing a selection from the miracles attributed to the Apostle, ‘De virtutibus beati Andreae’; to his new work he gives the title ‘De Miraculis beati Andreae Apostoli’; so the title ‘De Miraculis’ is selected by him to differentiate between the new and the older work. There is a remark of Bonnet’s worth mentioning why the author’s name does not appear in all the codices of this work, but only in one. In his praefatum (op. cit., p. 821 l.25 ff.) he says:—

Ego ne codicem 4b adhibuerim (to prove the authorship), nam a docto et acuto alique librario Gregorii nomen e c. xxxvii. erutum, quam a reliquis omnibus omissum esse, credibilius est. Sed hoc ipsum quod sine nomine liber traditus est, maximo mihi argumento esse videtur recte eum Gregorio tribui.

The further argument is drawn from similarity, and the faulty style of Gregory’s Latin. He concludes (p.822 l.30):—

Sensibus quibusdam non satis aptis, &c., non offendentur, qui reputabunt talia inveniri etiam in ceteris libris qui secundis et tertiis curis a Gregorio pertractati sunt: hunc properante calamo conscriptum, sine nomine scriptoris emissum, minus studii poposcisse.

Briefly, the faulty nature of the composition is to Bonnet, the editor, a reason why Gregory allowed the book to go forth purposely without his name, though in the writing he incidentally admits himself to be the author, rather than that all the codices overlooked the title borne on the front of the writing, save one, the codex 4b. The aptitude of the remark will be found useful in dealing with the next question.

18. St. Gregory, probable Author of ‘De Miraculis
Beati Thomae’

Among the Acts of Thomas there is a book also bearing a title similar to the preceding, De Miraculis Beati Thomae, as we have already seen. Can this compilation as well be the work of Gregory of Tours?

Bonnet, who has given a critical edition of the text, informs us (praef., p. xviii.) that for the publication of the edition he consulted four codices, besides Nausea’s edition of the text, and four ‘correctores,’ ranging in dates from the ninth to the thirteenth century. Of these codices two also contain Gregory’s De Miraculis B. Andreae. He argues from similarity of style, of verbal expressions, and of thought between the preface of De Mir. B. Andr. given above, and that found at the opening of De Mir. B. Thomae, for identity of authorship. The latter we here reproduce to enable a comparison to be made with the two former given above:—

Beatum Thomam cum reliquis discipulis ad officium apostolatus electum, ipsumque a domino Didimum, quod interpretatur geminus, uocitatum fides euangelica narrat, qui post dominicae gloriam ascensionis Thaddaeum, unum ex septuaginta discipulis, ad Abgarum regem Edissenae ciuitatis transmisit, ut eum ab infirmitate curaret iuxta uerbum quod a domino scriptum est. Quod Thaddaeus ambienter impleuit, ita ut uniens imposito regi crucis signaculo ab omni eum languore sanaret.

Thomas autem apostolus Christi morabatur in Hierusalem, tunc diuina commonitione iussus est Indiam ingredi, ut scilicet populo qui iacebat in tenebris lumen ostenderet ueritatis.

Nam legisse me memini quendam librum in quo iter eius uel miracula quae in India gessit explanabantur. De quo libello, quia a quibusdam non recipitur, uerbositate praetermissa pauca de miraculis libuit memorare, quod et legentibus gratum fieret et ecclesiam roboraret.

We will comment separately on the sections of the prologue. Bonnet, comparing it with the previous extracts of De Mir. Andr., says (Acta Thom., praef., p. xiii.):—

Prorsus autem ad eundem modulum liber de miraculis Thomae conformatus est, eadem est sermonis cum sermone Gregoriano, eadem sententiarum similitudo; nihil deest nisi disertum testimonium quale in Andrea superest ab ipso Gregorio scriptum.

He mentions also that the similarity of style was suggested to him by R.A. Lipsius. After a close examination and analysis of terms, phrases, and ideas in the book, he says, he came to think the idea was almost his own, so thoroughly did he feel convinced of the identity of authorship. It will now be an easy task, with the help of the copious lexica appended to Arndt and Krusch’s critical edition of the works of Gregory, and Bonnet’s special work dealing with Le Latin de Grégoire de Tours, Paris 1900, to further complete the study, should any scholar feel inclined to undertake it.

In support of the above conclusions of the learned Frenchman, we invite the special attention of the reader to the title and to some additional remarks we propose to submit. In a previous work we have found Gregory sorting out the miraculous, and giving his compilation a specialised title, ‘De Miraculis,’ though his text bore the title ‘De virtutibus.’ So here, whatever text he utilised, unfortunately in this case the name is not given, he felt bound to give his book a title that would differentiate it from others, so he returns to his former specialised title used in the case of the Apostle Andrew, and styles it ‘De Miraculis B. Thomae.’ In this case the name is less appropriate, for while the former contained a continuous narrative of successive wonders worked by Andrew, in this case the miraculous is less prominent; but events are given, and, above all, it redounds in discourses, though largely curtailed, as he says, ‘verbositate praetermissa,’ compared with the Greek version of the Acts.

In this second work the omission of Gregory’s name would be called for still more imperiously by reasons of self-regard and prudence, since the style of the writing is much inferior, a great deal more rugged, and apparently left unpolished; neither would he for the same reasons disclose himself in the text.

An additional point in support of this view is supplied by the fact that, as in the case of Andrew, whose Passio though known to him was left untouched, so in the case of Thomas, the Passio, which was similarly known to him (Oper. Gregor. Tvron., ut supr., in Gl. Martyr., c. 31, p. 507): ‘Thomas apostolus secundum historiam passionis eius in Indiam passus declaratur,’ is left unutilised, and a new work is compiled from other writings, perhaps also in Latin, but now lost because, perhaps, superseded by this new work.

We have yet to return to the first portion of the introduction to the De Mir. B. Thomae. There we have evidence connecting the Apostle Thomas with his colleague Thaddeus, whom he sent to fulfil the promise given, or said to be given, by our Lord in writing to king Abgar, that after His ascension he would be cured of his disease. This does not imply that the writing was by our Lord; a verbal message to the messenger put down in writing by him would easily be styled a letter in the East, or a written message might have been given by one of the Apostles on behalf of their Master. The reader will here recall to mind what was previously said bearing on this subject under No.7. But it may be asked, Whence did Gregory derive the information he incorporates in his introduction? It is not contained in the Syriac text of the Acts of Thomas, nor in the Greek version, nor in the Latin Passio. From whence could the bishop of Tours have obtained it? The Syriac text, The Doctrine of Addai, quoted above, has it; this was never before turned into Latin, but Gregory was precisely the person who could have had access to it. It is known that this indefatigable seeker and early compiler of the acts of Martyrs and histories of Saints had left us a Latin translation of the Story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. Ruinart had informed us that it was a translation from the Greek. But Bonnet, who gives also a critical text of this ‘Passio SS. Martyrum Septem Dormientium apud Ephesum’ (Greg.Tvron., oper., pp.848-853), informs us that the codex ends with the following clause:—

Explicit Passio Sanctorum Martyrium Septem Dormientium apud Ephesum, translata in Latinum per Gregorium Episcopum interpretante Johanne Syro, quae observatur 6 kal. Augusti.123

This may then be the source whence the MS text of the Doctrine of Addai also came to be known to Gregory. However, it is just possible that Gregory may have read the story in Rufinus’ Latin translation of the Eusebian history of the Church.

It may, by way of illustrating the above, be interesting to know the continuous historical connection between early Christianity in Gaul and the churches of the East. Large colonies of Eastern Christians existed in Gaul from early ages down to the times of Gregory of Tours. The earliest mention will be found in the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons addressed to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, &c. (quoted by Eusebius in his Hist. Eccl., lib. v.c.i., seq; see Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyr., notes to this letter; also Leclercq, Les Martyrs, tom.i.pp.90 ff.). The forty-eight martyrs of Lyons suffered death c.177, probably a little earlier. Gregory himself supplies two passages which will disclose more intimately the nature of this intercourse between Syrian Christians and those of Gaul. The first quotation is from his Histor. Francor. (ed. ut supr., pt. i. lib. viii. c. i.p.326):—

Sed cum ad urbem Auriliansem venisset (rex Guntchramnus) &c., processitque in obviam eius immensa populi turba cum signis atque vexillis, canentes laudes. Et hinc lingua Syrorum hinc Latinorum, hinc etiam ipsorum Judaeorum in diversis laudibus varie concrepabat, dicens: Vivat rex regnumque eius in populis annis innumeris dilatetur.

The second passage is also from the same history (lib. x.c. xxvi., p.488):—

Ragnimodus quoque Parisiacae urbis episcopus obiit. Cumque germanus eius Faramodus presbyter pro episcopatu concurreret, Eusebius quidem negotiator genere Syrus, datis multis muneribus in locum eius subrogatus est; hisque, accepto episcopato, omnem scolam decessoris sui abiciens, Syros de genere suo ecclesiasticae domui ministros statuit.

This last quotation also shows that true Syrians bore Greek names; or, may be, living away from their own country, adopted Greek equivalents of their names, for the knowledge of Greek was very general, then and before, throughout the East.

The Acts of Thomas Discussed

19. Introduction

The discussion of preliminary questions being closed, we take up the contents of our Acts for examination. The English translation of the Syriac text by Dr. Wright will be utilised, and whenever text is referred to in the sequel without qualification the reference is to this translation.

Neither the text nor the Greek version has a preface, and the Latin Passio follows them; the reason why the Latin De Mir. has one has been explained. The introduction in the text and Greek version referring to the departure and the arrival of the Apostle appear identical. The De Mir. varies the narrative by making Thomas start from Palestine—Jerusalem is mentioned; the Latin Passio makes Caesarea the scene of preliminary negotiations. The introduction recites that our Lord admonished Thomas that he should go to India; he is disinclined to accept the mission. Our Lord is then said to have sold him to Hâbbân, a messenger or agent of the Indian king, Gudnaphar in the text, GoundafóroV and Gondophares in the versions, who had come to seek and engage the services of a qualified builder; they take ship and sail, and arrive after a rapid passage.

The text, which throughout names Thomas the Apostle Judas Thomas, makes the start from the ‘south country’; this implies a Babylonian writer, or one from the Euphrates valley. The Syriac MS of the text here drops a name unfortunately, which so far has not been supplied by the more recent Syrian copies imported from the East; but it can perhaps be supplied from Jacob of Sarug’s poem (a.d. 500-521) on the ‘Palace the Apostle built in India.’ In the poem124 Mahuza is mentioned in connection with merchants, but Schröter is unable to decide whether the start was from Mahuza, or whether only the merchants came from there. Assemani, as will be seen presently, decides that point. This may possibly be the name that has dropped out of the British Museum Codex of the Acts. As to Mahuza, Assemani (Bibl. Or., i., pp.332 f.) has the following comment on this passage of the poem:—

Alter sermo sub nomine Jacobi inscribitur de ‘Palatio quod Thomas Apostolus in excelsis aedificavit.’ Indiarum rex quum magnificas sibi aedes excitari cuperet, peritumque ad id opus artificem undequaque conquireret, Thomam Apostolum ab Haban quodam mercatore ex Mahuza Mesopotamiae regione, tanquam servum illuc adductum mercede conduxit.

If Assemani is right in his reading of the poem, of which there will probably be little doubt, ‘Mahuza’ would be the missing word and would fit our text, which reads at present, ‘a certain merchant, an Indian, happened to come into the south country from—,whose name was Hâbbân.’

Schröter first edited a text of the poem from a British Museum Codex; later, he consulted two Vatican codices (see pp. 584-626, vol. xxviiii. of above publication). The Vatican Syriac Codex 117 agrees generally with the British Museum text; but Vatican Codex 118 contains a much longer poem — Schröter considers this to be the original form of the poem — while the text has been shortened in Codex 117, and in the British Museum MS. Vatican Codex 118 gives a fuller introduction than either of the other MSS. It opens thus: ‘The tale of the Apostle Thomas is a sea unspeakably vast. Permit me, O Lord, to dive into this sea and to bring up from its depths the pearl Thomas has stolen from thy side. He who steals from the thief is sure of success. He stole being worthy, permit me to steal though unworthy,’ &c. The poem deals with the I. and II. Acts of the text, viz., the incidents of the bridal feast, and of the building of the palace. But it nowhere mentions the name of Gondophares, though his brother’s name, Gad, is mentioned; the former is always styled simply the king.

20. Thomas’s First Mission

A word or two more has to be said on the contents of the introduction. The text, after giving the names of the eleven Apostles (the Greek version repeats the same, but both Latin versions omit them) and saying that the world was divided among them, each having a country assigned to him, continues: ‘And India fell by lot and division to Judas Thomas (or the Twin) the Apostle; and he was not willing to go;’ no further mention is made of the other Apostles. Now the oldest record of the division of the world among the Apostles assigns Parthia to Thomas. This was stated by Origen (a.d.200-254) in his Commentary on Genesis, now lost, but the passage has been recovered for us by Eusebius who, before a.d. 337, incorporated it in his Hist. Eccl., lib.iii.c.i.:—

Apostoli et discipuli Domini ac Servatoris nostri per universum orbem dispersi Evangelium praedicabant. Et Thomas quidem, ut a majoribus traditum accepimus, Parthiam sortitus est.

The same is repeated by other authorities. The statement, therefore, that India fell to Thomas’s lot when the Apostles first assigned to themselves the countries they would evangelise, cannot be accepted. We feel bound to reject it as part of the work of one of the several hands that manipulated the text.

The Latin De Mir., probably Gregory’s work as has been seen, says nothing of the first division, but opens the story:—

Cum saepe a Domino commoneretur beatus Thomas ut partes citerioris Indiae uisitaret, et ille quasi Jonas a facie Domini fugiens ire differret, &c.

The older Latin Passio also commences with our Lord’s admonition to Thomas, that he wishes him to go to India with Hâbbân, the messenger of King Gondophares of India.

It becomes clear on reflection that the opposition of Thomas to go to India did not arise on the first dispersion of the Apostles. When might it have arisen? It could only have been years later, after Thomas’s first mission to the Parthians and neighbouring nations was fulfilled. It would thus have occurred on his second Apostolic tour. The reader is here referred to Chapter IV. of the book for additional information on this point.

Besides, it can by no means be accepted that our Lord was forced by Thomas’s conduct to sell him as a slave to Hâbbân. Such a thing, on the face of it, is inadmissible. This and the journey from the ‘south country’ by ship must be ascribed to facts inaccurately reported to the original writer, or to a subsequent compiler of the present form of the narrative. The same should be held in regard to the mixing up of King Gondophares’ name with the building of the palace. For the rejection of this latter point sufficient grounds will be produced in the sequel.

21. Story of the Dream-Vision

But it is possible, nay probable — under the circumstances of the case — considering the obstinate and self-opinionated character the Apostle displayed during his apprenticeship in the apostolic school, and specially at the last stage, that he may have objected to proceed to India.

His objection, it may be incidentally observed, would be grounded on some knowledge of the difficulties he would have to meet in this future field of labour. ‘Whithersoever Thou wilt, O Lord,’ he says, ‘send me; only to India I will not go.’ All barbarous nations must have stood much on the same level to the Jew of Palestine. May not this special objection to proceed to India be based on what Thomas had learnt regarding India proper when, during his first mission, he visited the country over which Gondophares ruled?

The conduct of Thomas brings us to the vision-admonitions he received of his future destination to India.125 Intimations of the Divine will were received by Peter in a similar manner. The visions of Thomas disclosed to him that he was to erect a palatial building in India, and that his work would redound to the honour of God and the good of souls.

When Peter was similarly to undertake a new sphere of work, quite different from what his own national ideas would have suggested, he had a vision just before the messenger sent by the centurion Cornelius knocked at the door and reported his object. It was only then that Peter caught the meaning of the dream-vision he had just had (read Acts chap. x. from 1 to 23 verse; and verses 26 to 43, as also 44 to 48). If close attention is again paid to what is written of Peter (Acts xii.9-11) on his delivery from prison at Jerusalem, ‘And going out he followed him (the angel), and he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision;’ and again, ‘Peter coming to himself said, Now I know in very deed that the Lord hath sent His angel,’&c., it must strike the reader that Peter had become so accustomed to communications through such a channel that it took him some time to realise that what had passed was a reality and not a dream-vision. The Scriptural incident is here introduced to point to the line adopted by Divine Providence in communicating its will even to the chosen leader of the Twelve.

The book mentioned above written by St. Gregory of Tours, De Miraculis B. Andreae, offers two similar instances in the case of that Apostle. In a night-vision (c.xx.p.837, op.cit.) which the Apostle had, mentioned therein, it is said that Peter and John intervened; the latter said to Andrew, ‘Andreas poculum Petri bibiturus es.’ Next morning Andrew informed his disciples of his passion and death now imminent; he prayed for them and took leave of them. Again in cap. xxii.-xxiii., p. 838, the following occurrence is narrated:—

Duodecimo die Patras Achaiae civitatem adpulsi sunt, &c., cum eum multi rogarent, ut in domibus eorum ingrederetur, dixit (Andreas) vivit Dominus quia non vadam nisi quo praeceperit Deus meus. Et nocte dormiens nihil revelationis accepit. Altera vero nocte, cum esset ex hoc tristis, audivit vocem dicentem sibi, Andreas ego semper tecum sum et non te derelinquo, &c.

This also, although of far lesser weight than the quotation in Peter’s case, will go somewhat to confirm what has been said. Such intimation, when given, required of course active co-operation, but left the will a free agent to acquire merit by following up the suggestion made, or the command conveyed. In such cases what is true of one Apostle would be true also in the case of another. This appears to be the one rational explanation to give of the message to Thomas that he was required, under the image of a stately palace which he was to build, to establish the Church of Christ in the souls and among the people of India.

With the rejection of the story that Thomas was sold as a slave by Christ, the whole of the introduction and the journey by sea from the ‘south country’ entirely collapse, the vision-admonition alone surviving. As the Acts of Thomas do not embrace his whole apostolic career but deal only with some incidents of his mission to India, the vision story had naturally to precede this narrative. The bungling and the addition of inaccurate and erroneous statements can thus be also explained in part. The contact of the Apostle with King Gondophares must remain based on its own historical grounds, but its place belongs to the omitted portion of the Apostle’s history concerning his mission to the Parthians, of which unfortunately no details have survived. It was during that Apostolic tour that Thomas had the easiest opportunity of entering the kingdom of Gondophares, and it probably formed part, or was an offshoot, of the great Parthian domination which overshadowed the whole of Central Asia during the first century of the Christian era. A trace of this journey of the Apostle survives in the Acta Maris, from which a quotation has been given in Chapter II., pp.36-37.

Though we reject the introduction as having any historical basis, its origin is susceptible of some explanation. It may be based on a traveller’s report, who, when asked how Thomas got to India, may have suggested the incident, basing it on his knowledge of the vision-admonition, and of Thomas’s reluctance to proceed to India; all this he might also have heard. The thought of the ‘south country’ would naturally arise from personal experience, as the traveller would have made the journey thence to India by sea. Any narrative, besides, must have a suitable introduction, and if the original be lost, another is usually found substituted by Orientals. This has occurred, as a matter of fact, to the narrative of the Arab travellers of the ninth century, published by Reinaud. A bare narrative concerning a stranger to India and of his doings there could not well be put forward without introducing him to the country. The events that follow would be related orally, but the prologue, for want of correct information, was devised to answer the purposes of an introduction.

22. Syriac Text often Altered

The doctrinal development given to the Acts is probably not the work of one hand, but rather of three successive revisers. A comparison with the Acta Theclae will show how the first interpolator was careful to follow closely on the lines of his predecessor in similar work, and he probably limited his work to a few aptly inserted passages. The comparison of the two texts which we give in No. 29 will show similar passages yet retained in the story. But these have been followed up by set speeches and much additional doctrinal matter quite irrelevant to the subject and circumstances treated. In more than one place there are as many as three speeches put in the mouth of the Apostle or other person, very often two; these may fairly be taken to be the work of successive hands, who have endeavoured to embellish or strengthen the narrative with their own thoughts. Our Western readers most probably are unaware that a Syrian transcriber, if at all educated, considers himself fully entitled to enlarge the subject he is copying wherever it suits his taste, ‘de suo cumulans,’ to adopt Tertullian’s phrase.

From the high praise bestowed on the composition of the present Syriac text by professor Burkitt for its literary excellence, it would be fair to conclude that the final polish must have been given while the Syriac language was yet in its best age; this would bring us to the fourth century, and from the connotating name, Mygdonia, given to the most prominent female character in the story, we may further infer that the work, at least of final revision, was done in the vicinity of Edessa, Mygdonia representing the Seleucian form of the name of the district in which Edessa was situated. M. Duval (Litt. syr., ut supra, p. 100) says that Noeldeke holds that the Acts were written at Edessa by the school of Bardaisan. Find quotation from St. Ephraem bearing on the subject at the end of No.28.

We add the following historical data in support of the former statement.

The name Edessa, borne by the ancient town of Mesopotamia (known to the Aramaei as Orrhai, to the then Arabs as or-Roha, now as Urpha or Orfa), was given to it by seleucus Nicator, b.c. 303, when he rebuilt the city in remembrance of the ancient capital of Macedonia. This latter name they pronounced Mygdonia, hence the district in which Edessa was situated was called Mygdonia. See article ‘Edessa,’ in La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, 1892, tom. xv.pp.552-53; and Rubens Duval, Histoire politique religieuse, et littéraire d’ Edesse, Paris 1892, ch.ii. pp. 22-23. The district was called also Osrhoe and Osrhoena by Greek and Latin writers. Edessa, once the capital, remained the chief town of the whole province under the Romans—and Nisibis the next important city— till Constantius in 349 divided it into two; Amida, which he rebuilt, becoming the capital of the second province. But proof is forthcoming that the province of Edessa, even after this, continued to retain the name of Mygdonia126: ‘Urbs autem Nisibis, quae eadem est Antiochia Mygdoniae, et ab hortis et pomariis quae ibi sunt nomen ducit.’

23. Acts Dramatised — Act I

‘Act I. Judas Thomas the Apostle, when [Our Lord] sold him to the merchant Hâbbân that he might go down and convert India.’

It includes the introduction already dealt with. The story then proceeds to what occurred on the landing at Sandaruk (or Sanadruk), the Greek has Andrapolis instead; both Latin versions omit the name. Gutschmidt thought he found here an allusion to the Andhra race. This race, according to Caldwell, formed the western branch of the Telegu race, but between it and the sea lay the Konkani on the western shores of India (see the excellent map of ancient India by Reinaud, Mémoire sur l’Inde). The change of Sandaruk into AndrapoliV, Andrapolis, comes about by dropping the sibilant letter and adding the termination poliV. But the town referred to in the text ought not to be in India, for in two succeeding passages we are led to know that it was later the Apostle entered ‘in the realm of India’: the passages are at the close of this and the beginning of the next Act. The poem of Jacob of Sarug, which, as we said, incorporates the first two Acts of the story, also supports the interpretation that the wedding feast which comes after the landing occurred before the Apostle had entered India, based no doubt on the Acts.

If the reader follows us, we can, perhaps, place a different construction on the whole of the narrative given at the Apostle’s first landing. Above we pointed out, No. 21, that the Introduction and the sea voyage from the ‘south country’ should be rejected as inaccurate. The Apostle on this, his second mission, would be approaching India from the island of Socotra and not from the ‘south country’ (the estuary of the Euphrates), he would then land on the western shores of India. Hence the contents of Act. I., whatever the present form of the text may say, should refer to India, as well as those of Act II.

The narrative recites that on arrival the townspeople were found keeping the bridal of the King’s daughter; the newcomers were made to take part in the rejoicings, and a Hebrew flute girl is brought on the scene. She attracts Thomas’s attention, and she makes the discovery of a countryman in him. An attendant at the feast strikes Thomas, and he foretells his imminent punishment: the man, who is a cup-bearer, is killed by a wild beast—a lion(?) prowling in the neighbourhood— when he went to fetch water; dogs tore the body to pieces, and one of these brought into the banquet place the right arm which had struck the Apostle. All were amazed at the occurrence: the king urged Thomas to come in to the bridal chamber and bless the new couple. The opportunity is here promptly seized to insert the first dose of Gnostic poison into the tale. The young couple in the sequel vow chastity; on hearing this, the king is indignant, and orders Thomas ‘the sorcerer’ to be arrested, &c.

The story of the cup-bearer and Thomas’s part in the same is commented upon by St. Augustine in three passages of his writings.127 We have these passages before us, and from their perusal it appears that the Manichaean version of the event agrees with what the text offers. The great Doctor of the Church considers the part attributed to the Apostle unbecoming and savouring of revenge; we may therefore dismiss the detail in the form it is presented by the text. But suppose the Apostle, when smitten on the cheek, in place of resenting it with a tinge of revenge, offered the other meekly to his assailant, not forgetful of his Master’s counsel, would this not as well have promoted a general movement in his favour among the assembly? As the wedding incident might be true, the more so as the text says that at a subsequent stage the young converts joined the apostle in his field of labour in India, and since it would not have occurred, according to the present form of the text, at any great distance from Mesopotamia where the writing to all appearances originated, there is a greater probability it was not a pure fiction. This Act closes with the statement that Thomas had left, and ‘news was heard of his being in the realm of India.’ The Latin De Mir. confirms the narrative and the latter statement; yet most inconsistently says at the opening of that narrative, ‘Exeuntes de navi ingressi sunt primam Indiae civitatem,’&c. According to what has been shown above, the account of the bridal should belong to India.

Page to be continued............
(Please click for next portion)

  Book 1| Book 2 | Book 3| Book 4