Introduction
“Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:25b).[1] This phrase is credited to the Apostle Thomas after the other apostles had just reported to him what that they had just been with the risen Lord. The first three and the final four words in this quote do well to describe the prevalent view within the Church of the Apostle Thomas – a doubter -someone who failed in his faith; hence, the name, “doubting Thomas”. Many a sermon illustration has fed off of this view, “Don’t be like Thomas”, the pastor will call from the pulpit, “God deserves our trust”. This view, however, is, not only deceptive, but just plain inaccurate.
This biographical “portrait”, if you will, of the Apostle Thomas will show him to be a man quite similar to his counterparts, who have been looked up to in matters of faith. Thomas, as the reader will see, was an honest man of profound faith. Such was his faith and trust in the truth of Jesus that he died a death of great pain due to his faithful service to the Lord Jesus. He was the founder of , as well as, the Apostle to the Churches in the East. Christians of antiquity throughout Syria, Parthia (similar in geography to ancient Babylon), and, especially, India all owe much to this man.
To paint this portrait, the reader will be taken on a journey through the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and the fourth Gospel (John) – all with the aid of Bible commentaries. After this, the journey will shift to what is known as oral tradition in the form of recorded histories from sources, such as: Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianus. As well as the following ancient document collections: Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers. Also, various forms of archaeological data will be used to support the data derived from the oral traditions and the Ante- and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Synoptic Gospels
All three Synoptic Gospels explicitly mention Thomas as being one the original twelve apostles chosen by Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16).
Matthew 10:1-4
“And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”
Matthew records that, after Jesus called the twelve to him, he gives them authority to be his messengers and sends them out to preach, to heal, and to exorcise “unclean spirits”. The theme through this section of Matthew is the authority of Jesus, which is passed on to his apostles so that they succeed in their mission[2]; in other words, Thomas would have been witness to and a participant in the power of God at work among his people. This event could be connected to 9:38, in which, Jesus tells his disciples to, “pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest”. The contention is that the apostles are becoming these laborers – they prayed that God would send workers out, and now Jesus (the Son of God) is doing just that.[3] Although Matthew mentions Jesus calling specific individuals to be his disciples prior to this (4:18-22), this is the first time in the Bible that we learn the number of his closest disciples and his apostles. In verse 3, the apostles appear to be divided up into three groups of four with a leader in each group.[4] If this is true, Thomas would be in the second group under Philip. Bruce comments that the verb, proskalesamenos (Gr.), used to denote “called” refers to Jesus calling them to a special mission, as they were already “called” to be his disciples[5]; this could reference the beginning of the apostolic age. Let it be recognized, the text refers to Jesus choosing these twelve, which means that Jesus, by his own will, chose Thomas to be his apostolic representative – one who would carry his authority to preach, heal disease, and cast out demons.
Mark 3:13-19
“And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”
Stein contrasts the way in which Jesus obtained his disciples versus his contemporaries – the rabbis. Rabbis didn’t chose their disciples, nor did they call them to themselves, as Jesus did in verse 13. First century rabbis were chosen by their disciples because they liked their teaching(s) on the Torah.[6] How did Jesus chose these particular disciples, and, further, to be his apostles? The intensive autos (v. 13),”himself”, and the verb epoiesen (v. 14), “appointed”, place the basis of this decision upon Jesus’ sovereign choice; this may be Mark’s way of drawing a parallel to God’s calling His prophets on the basis of His sovereignty in the OT.[7] There is great significance in the number of the apostles that he chose. This number, obviously, coincides with the number of tribes that the original nation of Israel contained. However, Jesus was not restoring national Israel; through the Twelve, Jesus was symbolizing the coming of the kingdom of God.[8] Evidence for this view is seen in the significance of the authority that Jesus passed on (3:14-15; 6:13) to this Twelve – it enabled them to perform messianic-like signs (healing the sick and exorcising demons).[9] Being that they represented Jesus, it would have drawn the focus back to him.
We can draw the same basic conclusions in Mark, as we did in Matthew. Thomas, by virtue of being chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve, would have witnessed and participated in the power of God acting upon a fallen world. Thomas was part of the group that was being used to usher in the kingdom of God. There is nothing in these verses (or, in Matthew) to indicate that Thomas was a lesser apostle than the others that Jesus sovereignly chose to himself.
Luke 6:12-16
“In these days he went out to the mountain to pray, and all night he continued in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”
In the previous two Synoptics, the account of Jesus choosing his Twelve occurs on a mountain. Luke’s version of this account also occurs on a mountain. There are two differences in Luke’s account, though. The first, is an omission of Jesus endowing the apostles with the authority to preach, cast out demons or unclean spirits, or to heal the sick and infirmed (Luke does discuss this in 9:1-6). The second difference, is not an omission, but an inclusion. Luke alludes to Jesus choosing his Twelve apostles from a larger group of disciples. It was established in our examination of Mark that Jesus chose his disciples (contra his contemporary rabbis). If this is indeed the case then the selecting of the apostles from the disciples would have been a special event for the Twelve, as it placed them in an, obviously, special group that would have been with their master all of the time. Per Hughes, eleven of these men were from Galilee (Judas Iscariot was not), four of them were fishermen, all were uneducated (Acts 4:13) as well as poor.[10] Outside of being called by Jesus as an apostle, there was nothing unique or notable about any of them – they were all the same.
Gospel of John
We know more about Thomas from John’s Gospel than from any other biblical text. He appears in five different areas of this Gospel (we will only be discussing four of these five, however, due to pertinence). Things that we’ll see in John include: apostles accompanying Jesus to raise Lazarus from the dead; apostles speaking with Jesus at the third, and final, Passover meal; Thomas refusing to believe the apostle’s account of the resurrection; and, Thomas seeing the risen Lord. Due to all of these events occurring in John concerning Thomas, this Gospel warrants its own section in this paper.
John 11:5-16
“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. Then after this he said to the disciples, ‘Let us go to Judea again.’ The disciples said to him, ‘Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?’ Jesus answered, ‘Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.’ After saying these things, he said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.’ The disciples said to him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’ Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.’ So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him.'”
From the opening verse, it becomes obvious that Jesus loved this family. So, if you had never read this verse, you might expect to see Jesus leave for Judea immediately after hearing the news that Lazarus was sick. However, this is not what happened. It’s uncertain whether the disciples were surprised at Jesus’ handling of this (staying put for two days). However, what is certain is that they seemed surprised that Jesus would even think of entering, again, into Judea due to past experiences with the Jews there (v. 8). Many commentators have remarked that Thomas’ statement, in verse 16, was anything but one of devotion to Jesus. Calvin comments that this is not a position of courage, in that he would be willing to courageously die with Jesus, but, instead, is a statement of despair.[11] Dods makes a similar, but variant claim. He believes that Thomas, while being pessimistic, is also courageous enough to follow Jesus to the lowest depths of his experience out his love and devotion to Jesus.[12] Whichever view one holds to, it seems obvious that at least Thomas, but more than likely, the rest of the disciples, believed that Jesus was going to be stoned and killed in Judea.
John 14:3-5
“‘And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?'”
Here, Thomas seems confused; but, he may be speaking for the entire crowd of apostles. Evidence for this is contained in a similar incident that takes place between Jesus and Peter in John 13:33-36. In these verses, Jesus refers to leaving to a place where no one else can come. Peter counters with a question of confusion, “Lord, where are you going?” (Jn. 13:36). Peter, at the arrest of Jesus (Mt. 26:51; Jn. 18:10) displays more confusion, as his actions make it apparent that he believed Jesus was going to restore the kingdom of Israel militarily and politically. This view is culturally relevant, as the majority view of the Messiah in 1st century Judaism was one that involved the Messiah in this very role – a military-political king. Scott maintains that this was due to the external crises of the Roman Empire faced by the Jews during this time.[13] This Messianic hope that identified the Messiah coming as one of great might and power (not that Jesus does not have great might and power) is seen in a response that Trypho the Jew sent to Justin (c. A.D. 130) while discussing Daniel 7, in Dialogue with Trypho,
“And when I had ceased, Trypho said, ‘These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of Days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified. These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of Days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified.'”[14]
The point that Trypho is attempting to make reflects the 1st century view of the Messiah within Judaism – he was to come in great power and destroy the enemies of Israel. Skarsaune goes into this idea in more detail, as he discusses the primary criterion for Messiah-ship – “Does he bring about the messianic age?”, which is defined as, “The recovery of independence and power, and era of peace and prosperity, of fidelity to God and his law, of justice and fair-dealing and brotherly love among men, and of personal rectitude and piety”.[15]
The possibility that the whole group of Jesus’ apostles were confused about – 1.) the nature of the Messiah; 2.) the task(s) of the Messiah; 3.) where Jesus was going (especially, in light of points 1-2) – should be clear. Yes, Thomas was expressing confusion with, “Where are you going?” (v. 5), but this may be because he was the only one to openly profess this confusion.
John 20:24-25
“Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.’”
This statement shows the depth of Thomas’ confusion concerning the prominent messianic hope of his day. Prior to this, Thomas had just spent the better part of three years with this group of men. Thus, he had no reason to distrust them. Could it be, however, that Thomas carried the same sentiment toward the “son of man” in Daniel 7 as Trypho did? Again, considering the prominent idea of Messiah, this is reasonable to assume. Thus, we see this played out in Thomas’ statement of disbelief at his brother’s testimony. However, there’s reason to believe that his position was not unique to him. I’ve already discussed Peter asking Jesus where he was going in John 13:36; however, in John 16:16-18, we see the whole body of the Twelve asking amongst themselves what Jesus meant by, “A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me, because I am going to the Father” (Jn. 16:17). There’s other evidences, scattered throughout John, as well as the other gospels, that gives credence to the idea that none of the apostles expected of Jesus what we now know about Jesus.
Peter’s exclamation in the space of Matthew 16 leads us to believe that he had no expectation that Jesus was to be crucified. In v. 21, Jesus attempted to teach his apostles that he was to be arrested, tortured, executed, and resurrected. In the following verse, we can see Peter take a stand, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you”. Where does this statement come from, if not the 1st century Messianic hope, which would have been in the consciousness of the apostles? The idea that their Messiah was to be hung upon a tree would have been abhorrent to any 1st century Jew who was placing his hope upon the Messiah.[16]
Luke 24:1-11 provides additional details about the Jesus’ resurrection narrative, which continues exactly where chapter 23 left off concerning “the woman who had followed him from Galilee” (Lk. 23:49). Chapter 24 records that the women returned to the tomb and were “perplexed” (v. 4) at seeing the, now, empty tomb with the large entrance stone rolled away. They encountered two beings, that can only be viewed as angels, who reminded them that Jesus had told them that these things were to come to pass (vv. 5-7). The women went to the apostles to tell them of what they had seen and heard. From our perspective, we would expect that the apostles would have been excited after hearing their report. However, Luke reports that the apostles considered their report to be, “idle talk, and they did not believe them” (v. 11). In verse 12, were told that Peter went to the tomb and, as he returned home, he was “marveling at what had happened”. All of the apostles had no expectation of any of these details actually coming about.
From John 20:19-23, we can see that the apostles failed to understand that Jesus was to resurrect himself. In v. 19, John records that the disciples were essentially hiding from the Jews for fear that what happened to Jesus would also fall upon them – “…the doors being locked…for fear of the Jews”. This action does not display to the reader that these men expected Jesus was going to be resurrected – and they would have no reason, in their experience, to believe this, as, no one survived crucifixion. Two times in this section (v. 19, 21) John records Jesus telling these ten, “Peace be with you”. Dods contends that Jesus said this to assure them that it was really him.[17] In this same line of thought, it can be contended that Jesus was, essentially, telling them to calm down, as, they may have been a bit surprised at seeing the risen Lord off of the cross, out of the grave, and alive (or, as with Mary Magdalene, v.13, they didn’t recognize him). If they were surprised, as the biblical data suggests, then it is reasonable to assume, again, that they had no expectation that he would resurrect himself.
As can be seen through this whole discussion, Jesus’ select, rag-tag, group of uneducated and unschooled apostles were completely confused and misinformed about the nature of Jesus, as Messiah. What all them seemed to expect did not line-up with the reality of Jesus’ first earthly appearance, which was to ring in the coming of the kingdom of God. This, it can be contended, should help us to see that Thomas was not so negatively unique, in that, he was confused and doubted as much as the other apostles. What changed their view – in other words, what caused them to drop the 1st century Jewish Messianic hope? It was a personal encounter with the risen Lord. Prior to this encounter, they all made statements, actions, and deeds that stood in stark contrast to the kinds of men that they were transformed into by the power of God. We can see this transformational power acting in Thomas in the next set of verses.
John 20:26-28
“ Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!'”
Here, Jesus is granting Thomas’ wish, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put our your hand, and place it in my side” (v. 27). Jesus was providing to Thomas the very thing that he needed in order to restore his faith[18]; Calvin comments, “we learn from this how desirous he was to promote our faith and that of Thomas.”[19] Thomas’ response is the most forceful statement of Jesus’ divinity within the Gospels (v. 28). The double use of the pronoun mou, “my”, displays how emphatic this phrase was – “My Lord and my God!”.[20] This displays how important and powerful it is for one to encounter Jesus at a personal level – much as Thomas did. Those that do, find, just as Thomas did, that Jesus provides for us that which is necessary to trust in him as, “My Lord and my God!”.
Oral Tradition
This section will discuss the connection between Thomas and Christianity in 1st century Syria and India, as well as, the modern churches, there. Also, the death of Thomas will be addressed. These things will show how Thomas lived a life of faithful obedience to his Lord and, thus, was not a man who was a thorough doubter.
According to tradition[21], soon after the ascension of the Lord Jesus back to the Father, the apostles gathered together and cast lots in order to determine where each apostle should go into the world. The goal, obviously, was to fulfill the command of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). Thomas was portioned out lands to the east, specifically, to India.
Syrian Christianity
What we know about the origins of Syrian Christianity is quite scant, as we are left with more questions than answers. Some of the background information that is known is that Syrian Antioch, as well as, Edessa were important urban centers (polis) in which Christianity was spread into the population. Although the Christians in this branch of the faith spoke Syriac (Semitic language) later in their history, it has been noted that the earliest churches in this region were Greek speaking and that it grew, quickly, during the time of the apostles.[22] From the city of Edessa, the faith moved east through Osrhoene (east of Edessa), Adiabene (east of Osrhoene), Armenia (larger territory of land that, at times, included Osrhoene and Adiabene), and Persia (modern-day Iraq and Iran).[23] Christianity was also known to have spread into India (modern-day Mar Thoma Church, southwest India, claims Thomas as founder[24]) from this branch (that is, Syrian Christianity), and was thriving by the end of the 2nd century.[25]
Although we know that Christianity has existed in these areas for centuries (in many cases, there’s still a Christian presence), how it spread into these areas isn’t totally clear. As Sunquist notes, the early history of it is marred in legend, however, there is some historical development that can be tracked.[26]
In Acts 2, Luke records that various people groups were present in Jerusalem at the Pentecost event, in which Peter gave his famous sermon. Luke counts Parthians (Persians; Parthian lands enveloped much of ancient Babylon), Medes (western Iraq), Elemites (from Persian lands), and residents of Mesopotamia (v. 9) as being present on this day. Sunquist remarks that there is no data that suggests that they returned to their own lands and started churches; however, we do know that by the end of the 2nd century, all of these areas had thriving Christian communities, primarily, along the trade route, which is known as, the Silk Road.[27] At this point, the historical trail dries up considerably, and we’re left with oral traditions, which seem to include legend and myth.
Church Fathers and Apocryphal Documents
From Eusebius we learn that there is a strong tradition that links Thomas, through Thaddeus, to the spread of Christianity into the city of Edessa, which was under the rule of King Abgarus.[28] Eusebius also credits Thomas, not Thaddeus, with the introduction of Christianity into these lands.[29] This seems inconsistent until we consider that Paul, as a missionary, worked with others (see examples from Paul: Rom. 16:21-23; Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 6:21-22; Phil 4:21; Col. 1:1; 4:7-14; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1) and, at times, sent them into cities and lands to evangelize, on his behalf, in the name of Jesus.[30] Otherwise, Paul would not have been able to have the geographical reach that he’s known as having. It’s been noted that Paul likely used this method, especially, in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis.[31] There’s no question that Paul would have received credit, as being the apostle, for the founding of these churches. Thus, if Thomas, did send Thaddeus, there’s reason to believe that Thomas would have received, at least, partial credit as the founding apostle of this area.
Eusebius also gives us information about the spread of Christianity into Parthia; which, during this time, would have been an independent kingdom stretching from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.[32] Eusebius records the following concerning Thomas,
“Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor…”
It must be noted that this distinction wouldn’t necessarily contradict the above comments of Thomas’ involvement in Edessa, as Parthia bordered Syria, just to the east. Thus, it’s plausible, if, in fact, Thomas did send Thaddeus, that he could have sent him to Edessa, either on his way to Parthia or while he was in Parthia.
Gregory of Nazianus, one of the three, so-called, “Cappadocian Fathers” contributes toward the tradition of Thomas in two ways. He seems to have held the traditional view that Thomas traveled through lands in and east of Syria[33], establishing churches along his way; and, that Christ sent him all the way to India to establish churches there.[34]
The earliest oral tradition concerning Thomas’ supposed evangelistic endeavors through lands east of Palestine is, Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas. Gonzalez comments on this apocryphal text. He claims that it may have been written either earlier than or near the end of the 2nd century.[35] When one reads this document, it becomes obvious that it is a mix of myth and, possibly, historical narrative; which has made it difficult for historians to take it as an accurate account of events.
In summary, Acts of Thomas reports the following about Thomas[36]. By way of lot, India fell to him. He was selected to help design and construct a new palace for Gondophares, the local king. Thomas gave much of the monies supplied to build the palace to the local poor. Thomas developed a reputation for preaching Christ, healing the sick, and exorcising demons. Gondophares, became enraged at Thomas, due to his lack of building efforts and at his giving palace monies to the poor; thus, Thomas was imprisoned. Gondophares had a brother that he trusted, named Gad, who became sick and died. Angels took Gad’s soul to heaven and showed him a large and opulent palace that was built upon Thomas’ gifts to the poor (which, of course, were via Gondophares’ palace funds). Gad’s soul was allowed to return to his body. Gad reported to Gondophares all that he had seen and heard while he was in the accompaniment of the angels. Thomas is released; Gondophares and Gad are converted as Christians and follow Thomas’ example of giving to the poor. Thomas was allowed to travel throughout India.
A related document, Consummation of Thomas the Apostle, also an apocryphal text, details the traditional martyrdom of Thomas. A summary of pertinent details will follow.[37] Thomas brought the gospel into the territory of king Misdeus (or Misdai) in India. Juzanes, the king’s son, Tertia, the king’s wife, and others had converted to Christianity. Some men presented themselves before Misdeus and accused Thomas of being a sorcerer.[38] Either out of anger against Thomas, due to his family converting, or due to the accusation of sorcery (or both), Misdeus imprisons Thomas. Thomas testifies of Christ before Misdeus. Misdeus accuses Thomas of sorcery and determines to put him to death. Thomas is led to a hill, outside of the city, where, after he prays, is run through with four spears. Thomas’ body is cleaned, clothed, and buried. Misdeus begins persecuting some of Thomas’ converts; Thomas appears, in a vision, to them, encouraging them to forget their former lives. Thomas’ remains are removed and transported to the city of Edessa, in Syria.[39]
Archaeological Data
While much of what has just been discussed, in the previous section, is legend, there has been a body of archaeological data that tends to corroborate some of what it discusses. In this section, topics, such as: first-century trade routes, “Gondophares coins”, and antique, as well as, modern-day Christianity in India will be briefly discussed.
First-Century Trade Routes into the East
According to Glover, the “Silk Road”, which was a trade route that stretched from Northern China, Central Asia into Iran, through India, Southern Russia, and west into Syria, was extremely active during the first-century[40], when Thomas is supposed to have traveled east, in order to establish Christianity. Historically speaking, we know that Christianity “got its legs” via two methods: sea travel and Roman roads (through Palestine, Asia Minor, and Europe). If there was an active trade route (roads) traveling into the Eastern lands, it’s reasonable to assume that missionaries may have used them in order to take Christianity into these lands. As, traveling on roads, as well as, in caravans with others, would have allowed for a certain level of safety that was difficult to establish during this time (see Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, “he fell among robbers” while traveling from Jericho to Jerusalem, Lk. 10:30). Therefore, the fact that active trade routes were established supports the idea that Christianity did, indeed, spread to the east.
Gondophares Coins
Gondophares was a king, who Thomas converted, in the narrative of the apocryphal document, Acts of Thomas. For many years, historians found it difficult, at best, to make sense of the information within this narrative. As, for many years, there was zero data to suggest that such a king existed. However, coins have since been discovered that indicate that, not only did, Gondophares exist, but that, he had a brother named, Gad.[41] Taking this further, the coins are believed to place the reign of this king to within A.D. 21 – A.D. 60, in territories of India and, modern-day, Pakistan. However, this information does not prove that Thomas encountered Gondophares or Gad. But, it does, in the words of Gonzalez, “makes it more difficult to reject categorically that Thomas may have visited that land, and that later the story may have been embellished with all kinds of legendary accounts”.[42]
Christianity in India: Antique and Modern
Two regions in southwestern India, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, are known to have had Christianity existing in them since the time of the apostles. It is believed that missionaries traveling along trade routes, from the west, arrived in Myalapore, in southeast India; then, under motivation from persecution, travelled west into these lands.[43] Going back to the tradition of Thomas’ martyrdom, this is supposed to have taken place in the modern-day area of Myalapore; as, modern Christians in India have marked this area as the original grave of the Apostle Thomas.[44]
Furthermore, Chidester maintains that when Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese explorer of the 15th-16th century, arrived with his men on the western coast of India, he encountered a flourishing Christian community there.[45] This community had still maintained its Syrian roots and, also, claimed, as their founder, the Apostle Thomas.[46] To this very day, the churches in India all claim this very same apostle as their historical founder, in that, he was the first to introduce Christianity to the subcontinent of India.[47]
Conclusion
From the testimony of the Synoptics and John, a few things were pointed out concerning Thomas: like the other apostles, he was chosen, based upon Jesus’ own sovereign will, to be a disciple and an apostle of Jesus; he was a witness to and a participant, with the other apostles, in the authority and power of God; like the other apostles, there was nothing unique or notable about his background. In other words, the apostles were, essentially, of the same caliber, and were privy to the same divine privileges, as each other.
From the discussion about the relevant passages about Thomas, it should be clear that: all of the apostles had an incorrect view of Jesus as Messiah; this incorrect view of Jesus led to one instance of displayed confusion after the other with all of the apostles; Thomas, as well as the other apostles, did not believe that Jesus was going to be resurrected, until they all encountered him, personally; for each apostle, their personal encounter with Jesus was a transformational event.
The conclusion that can be ascertained about the Apostle Thomas from the corpus of the Gospel evidence was that he was very much like the other apostles – flawed, confused, incomplete without Christ, and was completely transformed by Christ. One should not, at this point, still have the view that Thomas was, somehow, a lesser apostle; as any doubts that would have existed in his mind would have been natural and expected considering the details highlighted in this study.
If we are able to combine what was highlighted in the sections on oral history with that of archaeological data then we begin to develop a clearer (yet, not perfectly clear) portrait of the obedience and faith of the Apostle Thomas. As it was, likely, through the efforts of Thomas, in which, Christianity was spread into some of the lands of: Syria, Parthia, and India. This view is assumed from the oral traditions, passed down from the Apostolic Fathers to us. This is corroborated with current archaeological data – Gondophores coins; modern Syrian churches, as well as, churches in India (data establishes their existence from the time of the apostles, through the time of Vasco da Gama, to modern-times) all claiming Thomas as their apostle.
Therefore, my final conclusion is that Thomas was an apostle equal to his counterparts, as evidenced by the clear testimony of the Gospel writers, as well as, evidence that was derived via oral tradition and supported by known archaeological data. Nothing about this study should suggest to anyone that Thomas was truly, as his nickname suggests, a doubter. As someone who doubts the faithfulness, provision, and truth of who Christ is would not so willingly enter into the mission field, leave their known home, and attempt to settle Christian communities amongst peoples that he does not know.
Footnotes
[1] Unless otherwise stated, all biblical references are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007).
[2] Grant R. Osborne, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, vol. I, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 370-371.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Michael J. Wilkens, The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 386-387.
[5] Alexander B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels, vol. I”, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976), 158.
[6] Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 168.
[7] Ibid., 169.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Bruce, Ibid, 358.
[10] R. Kent Hughes, Luke, vol I (Wheaton: Crossway. 1998), 208.
[11] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries: John, Vol XVII (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 432.
[12] Marcus Dods, “The Gospel of St. John, vol. II”, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 798.
[13] J. Julius Scott, Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995), 310.
[14] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I: Justine Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 32.1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 210.
[15] Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2002), 302.
[16] John R. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 30.
[17] Dods, Ibid., 865.
[18] Ibid. 866.
[19] Calvin, Commentaries, Vol II, 275.
[20] Dods, Ibid.
[21] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII: Apocrypha of the New Testament, Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 210. According to Justo Gonzalez, this is a very early document, possibly written by the end of the 2nd century; The Story of Christianity, vol I (New York: HarperCollins: 1984), 29.
[22] Scott W. Sundquist, “Syrian Christianity,” Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 1150.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, Vol I (New York: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 880-895.
[25]Sundquist, ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol I: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, XII. 10-20 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 101-102. Eusebius claims that this is the same Thaddeus that is in the list of the 12 apostles in Mt. 10:3 & Mk. 3:18; although, Luke has his name as, “Judas the son of James” (Lk. 6:16).
[29] Eusebius, Ibid., 3.1.
[30] John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 99.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Eusebius, Ibid., 132n2.
[33] Martha Vinson, The Fathers of the Church: St. Gregory of Nazianus (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003),Gregory of Nazianus, Oration 25.
[34] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol VII: Gregory of Nazianus, Oration 33.11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 332.
[35] Gonzalez, ibid.
[36] Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII: Acts of Thomas, ibid., 535-549.
[37] Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol VIII: Consummation of Thomas the Apostle, ibid., 550-552.
[38] Ibid., 550, n1.
[39] Ibid., 552, n2.
[40] Ian C. Glover, “The Southern Silk Road,” Vadime Elisseeff, The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce (New York: Burghahn Books, 2000), 93-117.
[41] Gonzalez, ibid., 30. M. A. Stein, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (Cambridge University Press, 1900) , p. 389; www. jstor.org/stable/25208187 (accessed: June 29, 2014).
[42] Gonzalez, ibid.
[43] Sundquist, ibid.
[44] Ibid.
[45] David Chidester, Christianity: A Global History (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000), 343.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Schnabel, ibid.
Bibliography
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Bruce, Alexander. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. I: The Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries: John, Vol XVII and XVIII. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.
Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2000.
Dods, Marcus. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. II: The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Glover, Ian C. “The Southern Silk Road.” The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce, 2000: 93-117.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Vol 1. New York: HarperCollins, 1984.
Hughes, Kent R. Luke, Vol 1 & 2. Wheaton: Crossway, 1998.
J. Julius Scott, Jr. Jewish Background of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995.
Osbourne, Grant R. Matthew, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Polhill, John. Paul & His Letters. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission, Vol I. New York: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Stein, M.A. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, 1900, June 29, 2014.
Stein, Robert H. Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Sundquist, S. “Syria, Syrian Christianity.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Develpments, by Ralph P. Martin adn Peter H. Davids, 1151-1153. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Vinson, Martha. The Fathers of the Church: St. Gregory of Nazianus. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.
Wilkens, Michael J. The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.