| Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes | N° 81 – June 2009 |
|
THE TRUTH IS OURS!
Brother Thomas’ article on St. Thomas in China gave rise to a friend’s reflexions. We publish extensive excerpts. Our Father has always taught that faith and science go hand in hand: we must therefore continue to study the scientific bases of the traditions of these Apostolic Churches.
Dear Brother,
I read with enthusiasm your article on St. Thomas and the founding of the Church in China. Hoping to learn a little more about the proofs for all of this, I had my wife give me this book at the earliest opportunity. After having closed the book I was less enthusiastic, and after two or three verifications, I am no longer enthusiastic at all.
Regarding method, you were able to see, as I did, that this book does not include a scientific apparatus worthy of the name. So much is this the case that you would wonder whether Perrier read directly the works on the tomb of Xuzhou, for which he never gives references. We could overlook this if we did not soon discover that there exists an immense bibliography on his subject. We would like to know whether he scorns this scholarship or whether he is unaware of it. As a result, his unsubstantiated affirmations are legion. Are the figures of Kong Wang Shan really wearing Parthian-style dress? If he were a recognised specialist on Parthian sculpture, or if he at least demonstrated knowledge of the works on the subject, we would feel tempted to believe him. But in this case, we demand proofs, and the minuscule figure 11.4 does not resemble enough the sculptures of the cliff to serve as proof. Generally, the author has his own particular way of thrusting “obvious facts” forward in a tone that is all the more peremptory as it is less substantiated. Cf. pp. 49, 51, 79 (which is particularly grotesque), etc.
Above all, I would have much to find fault with the use that Perrier makes of traditions, and first, if I may, my dear brother, with this sentence on p. 83 that you quote with praise: « There is no reason not to base ourselves on the traditions of the ancient apostolic Churches when they are coherent and complementary among themselves, in accordance with the rule for discerning heresies that St. Irenaeus laid down and that must prevail over every doubtful result of research with a “secular” presupposition. In research on Church origins it is tantamount to depriving oneself of reliable sources, when traditions have been retained in the liturgies. »
First, this is a circular argument, for it is not only on the basis of these very traditions that the Eastern Churches claim to be apostolic. Above all, in this case, it is not a question of knowing where the true Faith lies, but of establishing historical events, for which St. Irenaeus’ rule, strictly speaking, serves no purpose.
On the other hand, what would not be pointless would be to apply to these questions the two or three commonsense principles of what is pompously called historical science, and which Catholic historians must respect as much as others. Otherwise, they make themselves ridiculous, and with them our holy religion. That would be the summit because these principles are of Catholic origin. They were decreed by the ecclesiastical historians of the XVIIth century, the French Maurists and Belgian Bollandists. What do these great ancients say about traditions? They say that sometimes, for want of something better, one can base himself on them, that some of them are even venerable, but it is advisable to establish the evidence carefully, to date them, to criticise them, to cross-check them, and to wonder whether the witnesses depend on one another or derive from a common source.
Perrier is far from observing these elementary precautions because he is imprisoned in the system of his master, Fr. Marcel Jousse (do you know him? I do not), who canonises every tradition that is reputed to be “oral”. In this respect, he is really not difficult to please. Concerning the reality (and the dating) of Mingi’s dream, he writes with the peremptory tone that he is fond of: « It is clear that, since it is a well-established tradition, we would be unable to call it into question » (p. 96). Based on what? On a chronicle written « no earlier than the III rd century » or « principally in the V th century ». We do not know very well (pp. 95 and 293). It is as if the visions of St. Joan of Arc were only known to us through an author living, according to your preference, in the time of Louis XIII or Louis-Philippe.
But the absolute limit in this respect is the unbelievable Chapter X in which the missions of St. Thomas are related to us in great detail, with a wealth of chronological and geographical facts that literally rest on nothing. Or at least on nothing other than « the traditions that I gathered in the south of India from Malabar Christians » (p. 33). I do not know if you were like me, dear brother, but when I read this passage and annexe 24, which supports it, I first believed that Perrier had gone himself to gather these precious traditions unknown to Westerners from the lips of the Christians of India. This is indeed what he wanted to suggest. Just think! The text that he quotes on p. 278 ff., without references of course, is in fact very well-known under the name of Rabban Pattu. It can be found quoted among others in all sorts of books. (One does not have to search very far: I draw my knowledge from the article “Saint Thomas” in the encyclopedia Catholicisme, Vol. XIV, with a bibliography; or also from the book of collected essays, Christians and Missionaries in India, ed. R. E. Frykenberg, p. 34 ff., which may be consulted on line through Google-Books.) It its present state, it was written in the XVIIth century, even if it is presented, perhaps rightly so, as a written version of a song that was handed down in priestly families from generation to generation. Hymns connected with St. Thomas’ Chinese mission are just as well-known and indexed. They were also put down in writing as we know them, at least sixteen centuries after the death of St. Thomas. Sixteen centuries, my brother! St. Irenaeus said that the tradition of the Church of Rome preserved entirely pure the faith of the Apostles. He did not guarantee that the poets of the Church of Kerala would never succumb to the delights of the imagination.
This is not to say that there are not more ancient traditions on St. Thomas’ missions. Perrier mentions them: « After twenty years of missionary work, he was martyred at Meliapouram, near Madras, on 3 July 72, while he was praying in a grotto. In 590, St. Gregory of Tours relates that St. Thomas’ body first reposed in a monastery at Meliapouram; then, a long while later, it was brought back to Edessa in northern Mesopotamia. St. Ephrem confirms it. At the same time, the historian Eusebius, who said that he learned it from Origen (185-254), attested the presence of St. Thomas in India. »
I have quoted this passage in full so that you can check for yourself that it is copied almost word for word from a paragraph found on various tourist blogs relating to Kerala, in particular: http://www.vassula.org/Kerala 0202.htm. Our author scarcely went any further, but the joke is on him. Eusebius of Caesarea does indeed quote Origen (Ecclesiastical History, III, 1), but he says: « Thomas, according to tradition, received as his lot the land of the Parthians. » It is in connection with St. Pantaenus that he speaks about India…
After this, what can be said about the representations of Kong Wang Shan? When reading your article, I first wondered how rock sculptures could be dated to a precise year. This is not common; talk about it to Anati. In the book, p. 31, Perrier first speaks about the Ist century in a context in which he seems to have learned this information from Chinese academics. A dating to the nearest century can still be accepted on the basis of stylistic characteristics. We would, however, like them to have arguments based on facts. Instead, he imperceptibly passes (pp. 31-33) to the date of the alleged event that is represented, which is not the same thing, you will agree. In the entire book, there is one positive element concerning the dating of the sculptures and it is on p. 106: it is necessary to « date the whole group before 70 a.d., the year when the governance of the province was withdrawn from Prince Ying ». But this criterion is only valid if these figures are witnesses to the arrival in China of a new religion (Buddhism or Christianity) that was adopted by this prince, which is precisely what must be proved. This is another fine example of a circular argument. Personally, I therefore see no solid element in this book concerning the dating of these sculptures that is independent from their interpretation, which seems to me considerably to weaken its probative value.
It was needful for us to publish this brilliant letter because it unmasks an author who abused our trust and worked for the adversary. So unscientific work as his discredits the good cause of the Apostolic origins of Christianity in China. The question remains open (Brother Bruno of Jesus).