The Synoptic Gospels provide no details about Thomas except his name, which means “twin.”1 He appears only in the lists of disciples (Matt 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13). Yet in the Gospel of John, Thomas emerges as an important figure in three passages.
Thomas first appears as a bold disciple, willing to go to his death for Jesus (John 11:16). Jesus had just received word of his beloved friend Lazarus’s falling ill (11:3). When Jesus announced to his disciples that he was going to Judea, they tried to stop him (11:8). But Thomas is not dissuaded. He boldly proclaims: “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (11:16). These actions paint a different picture of Thomas than the typical “doubting” motif. Rather than wavering in his commitment, Thomas was willing to face death for his master. Thomas certainly initially doubted the resurrection of Jesus (20:25), but in this earlier passage he shows greater devotion to Jesus than do the rest of the disciples. Thomas also appears as the spokesman for the disciples in this passage—a role typically reserved for Peter in the Synoptic Gospels.
Thomas appears again in the Gospel of John, in the upper room. After Jesus has addressed his disciples (John 14:1–4), Thomas immediately asks Jesus how they can know where he is going (14:5). Rather than complying, Jesus responds that he is the only way to get eternal life (11:6). Even though Jesus had just said that the disciples knew the way to where he was going (14:4), Thomas still seemed lost. Clearly he did not understand the spiritual point Jesus was making. These first two passages indicate that Thomas had remarkable love and devotion to Jesus, but did not understand his message—until after his resurrection.
The third time Thomas is mentioned in the Gospel of John involves his absence at the appearance of Jesus to his disciples (20:24–25). When they tell Thomas, he still refuses to believe (20:25). After eight days, when all the disciples are together, this time including Thomas, Jesus appears among them, and after seeing the risen Jesus, Thomas proclaims: “My Lord and my God!” (20:27–28). Thomas had always been a devoted follower of Christ. But now his devotion would be grounded in an accurate understanding of who Jesus really was (and is).
The Gospel of John makes it clear that Thomas personally saw Jesus after his death and believed that he was the Lord. Jesus appeared a second time to the disciples as they gathered indoors for the sole purpose of persuading Thomas; no other instance occurs in the Gospels where Jesus appears for the sake of convincing one person. Thus, Thomas not only has a special place in the Gospel of John, but also seemingly in relationship to Jesus.
This passage reveals another critical point: Thomas’s convictions were not developed secondhand, but by coming face-to-face with the risen Jesus. Like the rest of the apostles, he was willing to suffer and face death for this belief. He was thrown in jail for preaching publicly about Jesus (Acts 5:17–25). And when threatened by the religious authorities, Thomas refused to stop preaching because he was a witness of the risen Christ (Acts 5:29–32).
Along with playing a significant role in the Gospel of John, Thomas went on to become a prominent figure in the Gnostic and apocryphal texts of the early church. Thomas is the central figure in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (c. AD 140–170), the Gospel of Thomas (c. AD 150), the Book of Thomas the Contender (c. AD 150–225), the Acts of Thomas (c. AD 200–220), and the Apocalypse of Thomas (c. sixth century). Thomas’s prominent appearance in the apocryphal tradition is noteworthy. Most observes: “No other character figures as the protagonist or putative author mentioned in them by name as frequently as Thomas is, with the sole exceptions of Jesus himself and the disciples Peter and John.”2 Thomas was such a significant figure in the early church that some have suggested there was a Thomas School, with some degree of organization, that may have produced some of the early Gnostic texts that feature Thomas.3
While Peter and Paul are believed by the Western church to have evangelized and died in Rome, the Eastern church has consistently held that Thomas founded the church in India before his martyrdom. Alphonse Mingana explains:
It is the constant tradition of the Eastern Church that the Apostle Thomas evangelised India, and there is no historian, no poet, no breviary, no liturgy, and no writer of any kind who, having the opportunity of speaking of Thomas, does not associate his name with India. Some writers mention also Parthia and Persia among the lands evangelised by him, but all of them are unanimous in the matter of India. The name of Thomas can never be dissociated from that of India.4
While scholars hold widely divergent views on the historicity of the Thomas tradition, they seem to agree that the evidence is not demonstrative either way.
One difficulty in assessing the Thomas tradition is that the historical record of India is unconventional by Western standards. No written history of India exists until the arrival of the Portuguese in the sixteenth century.5 Thus, it has often been claimed that since India lacked historical writing, it also lacked a sense of history. Only recently has this assumption been challenged. While early India may have lacked extensive historical writings, it does not follow that it also lacked a historical consciousness.6 History was simply preserved in a manner different from in the West. Frykenberg explains:
Each community, from out of its own store of cultural and material resources, sought to preserve its own oral tradition, its own epic historical narratives (itihasa-puranas), and its own narrative genealogies or lineages (vamshāvalis). Family members told and retold their own stories—about how their own family and their own community first came into being; how much adversity they suffered or how great the good fortune that came to them or brought them honour and status; how their own people first settled onto special lands or gained special distinction; and, among other things, how they first developed their own unique institutions. From generation to generation, children listened: during evenings after the sun went down and in times before lights were abundant, enthralled by stories that told about their own ancestral origins. Embedded in what was heard, in the form of bardic songs and oral traditions—and in what eyes beheld, in epigraphic copper and stone inscriptions, as well as on palm-leaf manuscripts—were hallowed sources of narratives that were ritually celebrated, danced, and sung.7
The Thomas Christians, for instance, still strongly hold to oral traditions that claim they were founded by the apostle Thomas. In place of written documentation are songs and poems, such as the Thomma Parvam, which was not written down until the early seventeenth century. This is not a good reason to glibly dismiss their historical value.8 In fact, Gillman and Klimkeit note a double standard among Western scholars who dismiss apostolic roots in India because the tradition is deemed too late and legend-filled, and yet are ready to overlook the fact that the earliest record of Patrick of Ireland comes from the late eighth century, roughly three centuries after his death.9
Undoubtedly, the tradition of Thomas in India is filled with legend and myth. Nevertheless, Indian scholars tend to approach the intersection of tradition and truth quite differently. For instance, in India, tradition is a significant source for preserving historical truth. F.E. Pargiter writes:
Tradition therefore becomes all-important. It is the only resource, since historical works are wanting, and is not an untrustworthy guide. In ancient times men knew perfectly well the difference between truth and falsehood, as abundant proverbs and sayings show. It was natural therefore that they should discriminate what was true and preserve it; and historical tradition must be considered in this light.10
While it is uncritical to simply accept tradition, it is overly critical to glibly dismiss it. The key is to separate fact from fiction, remembering that myths and legends do not arise in a vacuum. The place to begin is to consider the practicability of Thomas traveling to India and ministering during the first century AD. Was such a trip even possible?
In the first century, an apostolic mission from Jerusalem to India was entirely physically possible. India may have been more open to direct communication with the West during the first two hundred years of the Common Era than during any other period before the coming of the Portuguese in the seventeenth century.11 Trade relations were just as close with southern India as with the north. And while this period experienced a boom in trade and communication, there had already been extensive contact between the Mediterranean world and India for a long time.12
Trade between Rome and India flourished in the first and second centuries, at least from the time of Claudius (c. AD 45) to the time of Hadrian (d. AD 138). Significant routes and gaps through the mountains could be traversed quite efficiently.13 Romans had an insatiable desire for Indian pearls, spices, pepper, silk, ivory, and cotton goods, and Indians imported tin, lead, gold, silver coins, wine, coral, beryl, and glass from the West. Many Roman coins dating from the time of Tiberius (AD 14–37) to Nero (AD 54–68) have been found in southern India, proving that Rome trade relations were as common in southern India as in the north.14 In addition, archaeological evidence bolsters the case for trade relations in the first century. Most notably, many Roman artifacts were found at the “Indo-Roman trading station” at Arikamedu, near Pondichéry. Based on the nature of the artifacts, including pottery, beads, glass, and terracotta, it seems likely the Romans were using Arikamedu between the first century BC and the early second century AD.15
Perhaps the most intriguing evidence for trade between India and Rome comes from a surviving first-century document, a mariner’s manual by an unknown merchant, called The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, also commonly known as, “Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean by a Merchant of the First Century.” Written roughly around the time of Thomas’s mission and the first great missionary expansion of the Christian church, the Periplus is the first record of organized trading between Rome, Parthia, India, China, and many other smaller nations of the time. The report contains details about various ports, cities, articles of trade, as well as navigational and commercial details on the Indian Ocean, many of which have been confirmed to be accurate.16 Strabo’s Geography, along with the writings of Pliny the Elder (Natural History) and Ptolemy (Geography), confirm that a journey from Rome to India would not have been unusual in the first century.17 These works also contain fairly detailed references to India.18 Thus, independent of the destination and fate of the apostle Thomas, it seems likely Middle Eastern Christians followed Roman trade routes to northern and southern India in the first century, and certainly by the second, with the desire to be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20).
Given the textual, archaeological, and geographical evidence for trade and communication between India and the Roman Empire in the first century, we have no reason to doubt that a trip by the apostle Thomas to India was entirely possible.
While it is surely possible that Thomas could have gone to India—is it probable? An important line of evidence in examining this question is to consider the witness of the early church fathers. Outside the New Testament, there are no known references to Thomas in the first century. The various “Thomas” books of the second century focus on the life and ministry of Jesus rather than Thomas’s ministry endeavors. While the record of the sojourn for Thomas is not as early as the corresponding records for some of the other apostles (for example, Peter and Paul), there is a substantial testimony that he was the apostle to the East. Early church writings consistently link Thomas to ministry in India and Parthia.19 Many later writings continue this tradition as well.20
There are two distinct lines of tradition for the apostle Thomas, linking him to both Parthia and to India. Despite what some writers suggest,21 these traditions are not necessarily in conflict. Thomas may have embarked on his missionary journey by the mid-40s at the earliest, and the traditional dating places his death in AD 72. Clearly, then, he had plenty of time for multiple missions in the East. Another factor recognizes the flexibility of the name “India” in the first century AD. Moffett explains: “If Gundaphar was a Parthian Suren, as seems possible, a mission to India might loosely but not incorrectly be referred to as a mission to Parthians.”22 There is no good reason to discount this tradition as contradictory, especially since Parthia and India are both East of Jerusalem and proximate to one another. If Thomas really did go to the East, it may help explain why there is a silence in the first two centuries of the church regarding his ministry and fate.23
Three points stand out from the early church fathers regarding their witness to Thomas. First, the testimony that he went to India is unanimous, consistent, and reasonably early. Second, we have no contradictory evidence stating Thomas did not go to India or Parthia or that he went elsewhere. Third, fathers both in the East and in the West confirm the tradition. Since the beginning of the third century it has become an almost undisputable tradition that Thomas ministered in India. While the case for Thomas in India is more provisional than for Peter and Paul in Rome, it does seem more probable than not.
The case may be slightly strengthened by evidence for the existence of early Christians in India. Eusebius claims that Pantaenus, the great Egyptian scholar in charge of the Alexandrian School, traveled to preach the Gospel of Christ to people in the East and went as far as India. When Pantaenus arrived in India (AD 189), he found that Bartholomew had already ministered there and left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.24 Jerome confirms this tradition, adding that Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, sent Pantaenus at the request of the people.25
There should be nothing surprising about Pantaenus finding Christians in India if Thomas, and possibly Bartholomew, had already preached there. Mingana rejects this story, claiming that the India Eusebius referred to “is without doubt Arabia Felix.”26 Yet according to Stephen Neill, a missionary in India who studied the expansion of Christianity in India for four decades: “When ships in hundreds were going from Egypt to South India, it is unlikely that anyone in Alexandria would be the victim of such a confusion …. It must be taken as probable that South India is the India of Pantaenus.”27
Another early missionary to India is Theophilos the Indian (AD 354–425), sent by Constantius, the Arian emperor, as an ambassador to the Yemen, in hopes of getting permission to build churches for locals as well as Roman travelers. It is believed that he traveled to his native island Divus, as well as many other Indian districts. While it may be impossible to know whether he made it to India itself, he likely encountered an indigenous Indian church. He discovered resident congregants, regular church services where the Gospel was read in Syriac, a ministering clergy, and uniquely Indian customs, such as listening to the Gospel in a sitting posture.28 This is an unmistakably Indian form of listening that is unlikely to have come from another place.29 There is good reason to believe Theophilus encountered a uniquely Indian congregation in the mid-fourth century.
Another line of support comes from the Book of Fate (AD 196) by Bardaisan. In one section, he compares the customs of Christians with those of various pagan groups. While he mentions pagan customs in Parthia, he does not refer to any Christians living there. But he does mention Christians living in the midst of the Kushans, an empire that extended into Western India from the beginning of the second century to the end of the fourth.30 If this evidence is considered in lieu of the claim by Eusebius that Pantaenus came to India in 189, there is considerable reason to accept the presence of Christians in India in the late second century.
We also know that bishops were in India at the end of the third and the early fourth centuries. The first identified bishop of India is David (Dūdi), who left Basrah by ship around AD 295. Though the location in India cannot be identified for sure, it was likely in southern India.31 The second reference to a bishop is John, bishop of Persia and Great India (AD 325). Some have suggested that this solitary bishop from the East is an invention to emphasize the genuinely ecumenical nature of the council. But such skepticism is unwarranted. Eusebius, who was present at the council, noted that a Persian bishop was a participant.32 This may suggest that the Indian church was well established before the Council of Nicea.33
If we combine the aforementioned evidence with the literary evidence of the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Acts of Thomas, traditions such as the Thomma Parvom, and with the Taxila Cross that may date to the second century,34 then we have no good reason to doubt the existence of a Christian community in India by the late second century at the latest.35 The next step is to consider the reliability of the earliest literary evidence that Thomas preached and died in India—the Acts of Thomas.
The Acts of Thomas, the earliest literary account of the preaching ministry and martyrdom of Thomas in India, was likely composed in the early third century (c. AD 200–220), but may have originated as early as the second century.36 The Acts of Thomas is the only ancient apocryphal Act that has survived in its entirety, although not in its original form.37 It was likely written in Syriac and then translated into Greek.38
The Acts of Thomas begins with the apostles in Jerusalem dividing up the world for missions. According to lot, Thomas was assigned to go to India, but he reluctantly objected, even though Jesus appears to him at night. Shortly thereafter, a merchant named Abban came from India looking for a carpenter to work for King Gondophares. Jesus offers to sell him Thomas as a slave, and this time Thomas enthusiastically agrees. Once he arrives in the city, Gondophares assigns Thomas to build him a palace outside the city gates. Thomas agrees, but instead of using the money to build the palace, he gives it away to the poor and afflicted. Gondophares, furious when he hears how Thomas has used the money, casts him in prison, contemplating how he will kill him. That very night, the king’s brother Gad dies and is taken by an angel to see the palace Thomas has built in heaven. Gad is allowed to return to life the next day and tell his brother all he had seen. As a result, both Gondophares and Gad seek the forgiveness of Thomas, and decide also to follow the Lord. Thomas travels to another land, and after preaching, casting out demons, and performing miracles, he is eventually thrown in prison by King Misdaeus (Mizdai). Thomas prays as he is escorted to his death by four guards, who kill him with spears.
There are two general positions regarding the historicity of the Acts of Thomas, largely determined by whether the apostolate of Thomas in India is accepted or rejected. The first position is to write it off as entirely fictional. The second position recognizes the legendary nature of the Acts of Thomas, but admits that it contains a historical core. According to McGrath, it is a tendency in Western scholarship to assume the legendary character of the Acts of Thomas, rather than to argue for it.
Some scholars have pointed to certain incidental details in the narrative that imply an Indian origin. For instance, Medlycott has argued that the practice of bathing or washing before meals was a uniquely Hindu custom that traced to southern India.39 While this custom was Indian by nature, there is at least some evidence a similar custom was practiced in the Greco-Roman world, and thus it was not uniquely Indian.40
Part of the difficulty in ascertaining the truth about the Thomas tradition is that our earliest source (Acts of Thomas) is roughly 130–150 years removed from the events. Historically speaking, it must be admitted that this provides a significant challenge to the evidence. Even Benedict Vadakkekara, who strongly defends the apostolic roots of the St. Thomas Christians, recognizes that the lack of contemporary written accounts poses a challenge for the tradition.41 He proceeds to suggest various reasons for the lack of written historical record, including the fact that for the first three thousand years of Indian history, there are many volumes on philosophy, religion, and poetry, but very few contemporary written historical accounts.42 Whether or not his reasons are adequate, the reality still remains that the earliest written documents are at least two full generations removed from his death (AD 72). What value can it provide for this investigation?
It would be premature—simply because it was written in the early third century, at least two to three generations removed from the events—to dismiss the Acts of Thomas as lacking any historical value. While earlier sources are certainly preferred, later sources often provide valuable historical information. A helpful example comes from comparing the Acts of Thomas with the writings of Plutarch. In his Lives, Plutarch wrote over sixty biographies, fifty of which have survived. For several subjects in the Lives, Plutarch is treated as seriously as earlier sources. He is the main source for a number of ancient figures, many of whom lived hundreds of years before his writing (for example, Pelopidas, Timoleon, Dion, Eumenes, Agis, Cleomenes). Donald Russell writes: “The Lives, despite the pitfalls for the historian which have sometimes led to despair about their value as source-material, have been the main source of understanding of the ancient world for many readers from the Renaissance to the present day.”43 Later sources can provide valuable historical information, and must not simply be dismissed. The Acts of Thomas must be examined on its own merits to see if it contains any discernible historical information.
One way to approach this question is to consider the genre of the Acts of Thomas. Christine Thomas has suggested that the various Acts of this period, and other similar novels, are best categorized as historical fiction.44 The mere fact that the Acts of Thomas contains known historical figures such as Thomas, Gondophares, Gad, and possibly even Habban and Xanthippe,45 Mazdai,46 and the city of Andrapolis,47 indicates that it is not entirely divorced from a historical memory. Rather than inventing a narrative for the apostle, the authors of the Acts would elaborate upon a known historical tradition. In the romance novels of this time, focus was placed on retelling the most significant and well-known events from the public life of the individual, even though legendary material was clearly added. Christine Thomas provides a helpful comparison: “The Alexander romance provides the best generic parallel among the novelistic products of the Roman Empire. Alongside of the imaginative and improbable occurrences that form the fabric of the narrative, the romance also narrates all the best-known events of Alexander’s life.”48
The content of the Acts of Thomas can be compared with the other four ancient Acts—Peter, Paul, John, and Andrew.49 When it comes to the Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, and the Acts of John, even though they contain clear embellishment, external evidence indicates that they reliably convey the travels, preaching, and fate of each apostle. If there were no external corroboration for the post-Jerusalem lives of these apostles, many scholars would likely reject them as entirely fictional. And yet external evidence indicates they retain a historical nucleus. The Acts of Thomas is of the same genre and time period as the other aforementioned Acts. Even though we have no similar early external corroboration for Acts of Thomas, its reliability—on the core facts of the narrative, including the travels, preaching, and death of the apostle Thomas—seems at least more probable than not.50 Kurikilamkatt asks an important question:
If the story did not have a historical background and if the readers of the book knew Thomas had gone to some places other than those mentioned in the Ath [Acts of Thomas], how could the author of the Ath believe that any credibility would be given to his story?51
Later tradition, as well as the lack of any competing tradition for his journeys and fate, helps confirm this conclusion.
The most significant find convincing many scholars of the historical core of Acts of Thomas was the discovery in 1834 of a collection of ancient coins in the Kabul Valley of Afghanistan. Ancient coins often provide similar information to modern coins, including the names of various rulers and kings. Among the many forgotten kings whose images christened these coins was the name “Gondophares” in a variety of spellings, including “Gundaphar,” “Gundaphara,” “Gondophernes,” and “Gondapharasa.” Many other coins were soon found in different regions, confirming the existence of Gondophares, and his family as well.52 In addition, ruins have been discovered that many consider his former palace.53 Subsequent research dated the coins to the first century AD. More specific dating became possible with the discovery of a stone tablet among the ruins of a Buddhist city near Peshawar that contained six lines of text in an Indo-Bactrian language. Moffett concludes: “Deciphered, the inscription not only named King Gundaphar, it dated him squarely in the early first century A.D., making him a contemporary of the apostle Thomas just as the maligned Acts of Thomas had described him.”54
King Gondophares was not the creative imagination of an early third-century Edessan Christian, but a real king who ruled the north Indian region from the early to mid-first century, right during the time it is believed Thomas traveled to India. As valuable as this finding is, it does not prove that Thomas went beyond Parthia to India, especially since trade relations made knowledge of Gondophares and his kingdom readily available.55 Even so, this remarkable finding does demonstrate the possibility that Thomas visited the court of Gondophares. The story is not necessarily a fictional tale about distant lands.
An additional point strengthens the credibility of the account. The Acts of Thomas mentions Gad, the brother of Gondophares. As many scholars have observed, Gad may also match the name “Gudana” that was found on some coins alongside Gondophares. While Gondophares may have been “specially memorable” outside northwest India, the same would not have been true for his brother Gad, of which there is no corroborative evidence beyond the Acts of Thomas and the coins.
Lourens van den Bosch objects to the significance of this find, proposing that the expression “Gudana” is an adjective derived from Gad. He claims that the coins marked with “Gudana” merely refer to one king, namely Gondophares. Thus, he concludes that Gad is a historical invention.56 While this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, McGrath provides two helpful objections to the assertion.57 First, the majority of scholars of Indian history understand “Gudana” as a proper name, rather than an adjective. If Indian scholars accept Gad as a historical person, says McGrath, Western scholars should not express an inordinate amount of skepticism. Second, if this line of reasoning were pressed even further, Gondophares might also be considered an adjective, since it is an alternative pronunciation of the Persian name Vindapharna, which means “The Winner of Glory.” In addition, what strengthens the credibility of the encounter about Thomas and Gondophares is that it is one of the few narratives in the Acts of Thomas that is not focused on sexual abstinence.58
Yet if Thomas made it to northwest India, as the Acts of Thomas suggests, why is there no remnant of his labors in that particular locale? Why does no contemporary Christian community in northwest India claim descent from Thomas? Scholars have proposed various reasons for the absence of such a tradition.59 Yet when it comes to southern India, there is an unmistakable community that claims to have apostolic roots.
Perhaps the most accurate rendition of the tradition surrounding Thomas in southern India is that of The St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia of India:
According to Indian tradition, St. Thomas came by sea, and first landed at Cranganore about the year 52 A.D.; converted high case Hindu families in Cranganore, Palayur, Quilon and some other places; visited the Coromandel coast, making conversions; crossed over to China and preached the Gospel; returned to India and organized the Christians of Malabar under some guides (priests) from among the leading families he had converted, and erected a few public places of worship. Then he moved to the Coromandel, and suffered martyrdom on or near the Little Mount. His body was brought to the town of Mylapore and was buried in a holy shrine he had built. Christians, goes the tradition, from Malabar, the Near East and even from China used to go on pilgrimage to Mylapore and venerate the tomb.60
Rather than being preserved in written text, the tradition of the St. Thomas Christians has been transmitted through songs, stories, legends, customs, and celebrations of the people. These various forms of oral tradition were how Indians at this time recorded their history. The St. Thomas Christians are utterly convinced that their heritage traces back to the apostle Thomas himself, including introduction of the Syriac or Chaldaic (East Syriac) language. The community has preserved many ancient antiquities that testify to their traditions.61 Some of the names of the converts of Thomas have been preserved as part of this tradition, and are still remembered today in Kerala.62 When the Portuguese landed in Malabar around 1500, they found an indigenous community of Christians who had already held for centuries that Thomas was their founder. Like the tradition contained in the Acts of Thomas, the southern tradition contains numerous legends, exaggerations, and conflicting episodes. But the core of the tradition remains: that Thomas travelled to southern India, preached to the people, established a community, and was martyred and buried at Mylapore.
This southern tradition is not necessarily in conflict with the northern tradition. There was political turmoil in the northern kingdom of Gondophares around AD 50, which provides a convenient explanation for why Thomas, according to tradition, arrived in the south around AD 52. The traditions, then, may be complementary rather than contradictory.
Indian scholar Benedict Vadakkekara provides five supporting reasons for the credibility of the tradition.63 First, the mere existence of a community claiming apostolic roots speaks to the genuineness of the tradition. There must have been some significant reason, says Vadakkekara, why the Indian Christians chose Thomas. Second, the St. Thomas Christians are unique in claiming Thomas as their founding apostle. The lack of competing traditions is a sign of the reliability of the St. Thomas tradition. Third, the community has passed down the tradition with consistency. Marco Polo notes (1288–98) the pilgrimages that Christians were making to the tomb of the apostle Thomas at Mylapore.64 Fourth, the tradition has been unanimous among both Christians and non-Christians sources. There have been some denominational splits among the St. Thomas Christians, but they unanimously share the conviction that their community has apostolic roots. Fifth, while there are undeniable embellishments, the tradition has retained its pristine simplicity.
While these points are noteworthy, they are certainly not conclusive. Perhaps the most significant detail for many Indian scholars in helping to establish the voyage and fate of Thomas in India is that the tradition of the St. Thomas Christians shows some signs of being independent of the Acts of Thomas. The Acts of Thomas tells nothing of a south India mission, although it does indicate that he preached “the word of God in all India.” The southern tradition contains vague hints of a northern mission, mentioning the land of Kusaya, but in the St. Thomas tradition we find not even a slight echo of the Gnostic and encratic theology of the Acts of Thomas. And perhaps most interesting is that the Acts of Thomas refers to Thomas as “Judas” or “Judas Thomas,” the name by which he was known in the Syriac tradition. On the other hand, the south Indian tradition knows the apostle only as Thomas. This is significant, since the entire tradition rests upon the name and person of the apostle Thomas. Although he notes that there may have been an awareness of the Acts of Thomas in the south Indian tradition, Kurikilamkatt highlights the differences between the two:
There is not a single story in the South Indian tradition that is borrowed from the Ath [Acts of Thomas]. Nor is there one in the Ath which is taken from the South. But the ones in the Ath are embellished with great amount of romantic descriptions and catechetical homilies. The missionary methods of the apostle also is quite differently characterised in the two traditions. No king is converted in the South, while in the Ath the conversion begins with royal folk. In the Ath the apostle is often found in the company of the royal personages. He is involved in intrigues, rivalries and festivities, all centered around royal palaces and the royalty. But, in the South, it is the Brahmins who have the leading role in the narratives.65
While the historical data tracing either Indian tradition all the way back to Thomas is elusive, the existence of two traditions that show signs of being independent weighs in favor of the basic details they share in common—that Thomas was a missionary, preacher, and martyr in India.66
While the evidence is not conclusive, a few reasons seem to indicate that it is at least probable that Thomas was martyred in India. First, we have no doubt a mission from Jerusalem to Rome was physically possible in the first century. Second, Thomas had seen the risen Jesus (John 20:26–29), was zealous in his willingness to suffer and die for him (John 11:16), had received the missionary call from Jesus (Matt 28:19–20; Acts 1:8), and, given all we know of him, fits the profile of someone who would take part in such an endeavor. Third, while the earliest written record in the Acts of Thomas clearly contains embellishment, it likely preserves a historical core of the apostle’s journey and fate. Fourth, both the written tradition (Acts of Thomas, early church fathers) and the oral tradition agree on the general mode of how Thomas was killed.67 Fifth, no other more compelling narrative exists for the travels and fate of Thomas. These points are far from conclusive, but they do move the critical scholar to the following observations:
1. Thomas traveled to India—more probable than not (Acts of Thomas 1; Didascalia Apostolorum 24; Hippolytus on the Twelve; Origen, Commentary on Genesis vol. 3; Clementine, Recognitions 9.29; St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 33.11; physical possibility of travel; lack of competing tradition; evidence for early Christians in India; St. Thomas Christians tradition).
2. Thomas experienced martyrdom—more probable than not (Acts of Thomas; early church fathers beginning in the third century; lack of competing tradition; St. Thomas Christians tradition).
1 “Thomas” is Hebrew for “twin,” and “Didymus” means the same in Greek. Some scholars believe Matthew was a twin to Thomas, since they appear next to each other in the Synoptic lists of the disciples. Others argue that he was a twin to Jesus, since that is how he appears in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas. In reality, the identity of the twin is unknown.
2 Glenn W. Most, Doubting Thomas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 90.
3 For an analysis and critique of the idea of a Thomas School, see Philip Sellew, “Thomas Christianity: Scholars in Quest of a Community,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2001), 11–35.
4 Alphonse Mingana, The Early Spread of Christianity in India (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1926), 15–16.
5 Nectarias McLees, “Witness for an Apostle: The Evidence for St. Thomas in India,” Road to Emmaus 6 (2005): 60.
6 Romila Thapar, “Historical Traditions in Early India: c. 1000 B.C. to c. AD 600,” The Oxford History of Historical Writing, ed. Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 553–58.
7 Eric Frykenberg, Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 92.
8 Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia Before 1500 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 163–64.
9 Ibid., 166.
10 F.E. Pargiter, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition (London: Oxford University Press, 1922), 3.
11 Samuel Hugh Moffett, Beginnings to 1500, A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. 1 (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 31.
12 For a detailed description of the ancient evidence for relations between India and the West, see Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1:479–99
13 L.W. Brown, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 59–60.
14 Gillman and Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500, 157.
15 Romila Thapar, A History of India (New York: Penguin, 1966), 1:115.
16 John Keay, India: A History (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2000), 121.
17 Klaus Karttunen, “On the Contacts of South India with the Western World in Ancient Times, and the Mission of the Apostle Thomas,” in South Asian Religion and Society, ed. Asko Parpola and Bent Smidt Hansen (London: Riverdale, 1986), 189–91.
18 Natural History 5.9.47; 6.21.56–26.106; Ptolemy, Geography 7.1
19 Acts of Thomas 1 (c. AD 200–220); Teachings of the Apostles 3 (third century); Hippolytus on the Twelve (c. third century); Origen, Commentary on Genesis, vol. 3 (d. c. 254); Clementine Recognitions 9.29 (c. AD 350); St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 33.11 (c. AD 325–390).
20 Some of these later writers include St. Ephrem (c. AD 373), Gaudentius (387), Gregory of Nyssa (389), St. Ambrose of Milan (397), and Jerome (340–420).
21 John N. Farquhar, “The Apostle Thomas in South India,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1926), 11:41.
22 Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, 33.
23 For a response to the claim that Thomas simply disappeared altogether, see James F. McGrath, “History and Fiction in the Acts of Thomas: The State of the Question,” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 17 (2008): 297–311.
24 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.10.3.
25 Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men, trans. Thomas P. Halton (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 36.
26 Mingana, The Early Spread of Christianity, 17.
27 Stephen Neill, A History of Christianity in India: The Beginning to AD 1707 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 40.
28 A.E. Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas (London: Ballantyne, 1905), 197–201.
29 Brown, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, 67.
30 Edward James Rapson, The Cambridge History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 1:585.
31 Neill, A History of Christianity in India, 41.
32 Mingana, The Early Spread of Christianity, 63.
33 James Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage of the Apostle Thomas to India (Bangalore, India: Asian Trading Corporation, 2005), 135.
34 In 1935, a small cross on black stone was found outside the city of Sirkap, where the palace of king Gondophares once stood. The precise date is unknown, but it is commonly dated to the second century AD. Of course, if it is an early Christian cross it reveals nothing about a sojourn of Thomas to India. At best, it would reveal the existence of a Christian community in India in the second century. See John Rooney, Shadows in the Dark: A History of Christianity in Pakistan Up to the 10th Century (Rawalpindi, Pakistan: Christian Study Centre, 1984), 42–43.
35 Aziz S. Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), 363.
36 Frykenberg, Christianity in India, 93.
37 Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, trans. Brian McNeil (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 141.
38 Jan N. Bremmer, “The Acts of Thomas: Place, Date, and Women,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2001), 76.
39 Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas, 277–79.
40 McGrath, “History and Fiction,” x.
41 Benedict Vadakkekara, Origin of India’s St. Thomas Christians: A Historiographical Critique (Delhi, India: Media House, 1995), 327.
42 Vadakkekara notes that Indians commonly wrote on palm leaves, which do not preserve well. Heavy rainfall and humid climate also dampen the preservation of written texts. He also speculates that the Europeans may have destroyed many ancient documents. See ibid., 327–36.
43 Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), s.v. “Plutarch,” by Donald A. Russell.
44 Christine Thomas, The Acts of Peter: Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 88–89.
45 John N. Farquhar, “The Apostle Thomas in North India,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 11:9; Farquhar, “The Apostle Thomas in South India,” 11:46.
46 F.A. D’Cruz suggests that king Mazdai may be identified with Mahadeva, a common name among kings of south India. F.A. D’Cruz, St. Thomas, the Apostle in India: An Investigation on the Latest Researches in Connection with the Time-Honored Tradition Regarding the Martyrdom of St. Thomas in Southern India (Madras, India: Hoe & Co., 1922), 50–51.
47 Kurikilamkatt argues that the city of Andrapolis (Syriac calls it Sandruk Mahosa) is likely the city of Barygaza. He argues that there is etymological, linguistic, geographical, and historical evidence in favor of this conclusion. He even argues there was likely a Jewish presence in the first century. See Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage, 44–53.
48 Thomas, The Acts of Peter, 88–89.
49 A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, rev. ed. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2003), 4.
50 C.B. Firth, An Introduction to Indian Church History (Delhi, India: ISPCK, 2012), 12.
51 Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage, 86.
52 Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas, 14.
53 Rooney, Shadows in the Dark, 38.
54 Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, 29.
55 George Huxley, “Geography in the Acts of Thomas,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 24 (1983): 75.
56 Lourens P. van den Bosch, “India and the Apostolate of St. Thomas,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, ed. Jan N. Bremmer (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2001), 134.
57 McGrath, “History and Fiction,” x.
58 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1:883.
59 Vadakkekara, Origin of India’s St. Thomas Christians, 309; Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage, 179–206.
60 George Menachery, ed., The St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia of India (Madras, India: BNK Press, 1982), 1:5.
61 For a detailed study of early Christian antiquities in India, see H. Hosten, Antiquities from San Thomé and Mylapore (Mylapore, India: The Diocese of Mylapore, 1936).
62 Placid J. Podipara, Thomas Christians (Bombay, India: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 18–20.
63 Vadakkekara, Origin of India’s St. Thomas Christians, 125–43.
64 The possibility of the existence of the tomb at Mylapore would not prove his martyrdom, since there is no debate that Thomas eventually died and must have been buried somewhere. But it would help support the reliability of the southern Indian tradition. There is no evidence the St. Thomas Christians ever venerated another site for his remains. For an analysis of the evidence the tomb of Mylapore offers for the Thomas tradition, see A. Mathias Mundadan, From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century up to 1542, History of Christianity in India, vol. 1 (Bangalore, India: Theological Publications in India, 1984), 49–60.
65 Kurikilamkatt, First Voyage, 178.
66 Indian scholars consistently note that the two traditions regarding Thomas are independent. Yet it must be recognized that local traditions, such as the Thomma Parvam, share common stories with the Acts of Thomas. Thus, questions of dependency may not be as simple as Kurikilamkatt and Vadakkekara suggest. See Brown, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, 48–52.
67 The St. Thomas tradition claims that Brahmans killed Thomas with a single spear. According to the Acts of Thomas, the king ordered four soldiers to pierce him with spears. They differ over who killed Thomas, and the number of spears that were used, but they both agree on the manner of his death. The death of Thomas by a single spear is preserved in the Edessene, Nestorian, and Monophysite traditions, as well as the records of Assemani, the eighteenth-century scholar from the East. There is one popular exception that seems to contradict this. When Marco Polo landed in India (AD 1293), he reported that a stray arrow meant for a peacock accidentally killed Thomas. Nevertheless, a close inspection of his description of India reveals that Marco Polo regularly confused fact and fiction, and relied heavily on hearsay. See Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas, 20–42; and van den Bosch, “India and the Apostolate of St. Thomas,” 147.