User talk:Vena Varcas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wiki article Thomas the Apostle leaves a lot to be desired. If it is a Christian missionary project, then nothing more need be said here. But if it is an encyclopedia article concerned with facts and references, then many questions arise. For example, if Thomas came to India, then it is also a matter of Indian history and not just Christian tradition. This leads to the first question: Where exactly is the "India" of the Acts of Thomas located? Certainly. it is not the subcontinental India we know today. Ancient "India" included Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, and all countries east of the Roman Empire's borders up to Japan in some cases (so we still refer to Southeast Asia as Indo-China). Why isn't this observation made in the article? The Pope's statement in fact recognized this ancient geography, and following the Acts of Thomas he placed Thomas' travels in Syria (Edessa), Persia (Parthia) and Western India (Gandhara). There is no documentation anywhere to to suggest Thomas came to South India until Marco Polo wrote his book in the 13th century. Marco Polo himself never came to South India and picked up his story in Ceylon. In fact, it is now doubted that Marco Polo every left Constantinople. He concocted his stories from traveller's tales while in that city. According to T.K. Joseph, who studied the problem for years and wrote a book called Six St. Thomases of South India (Chengannur, 1955), the Vatican sent a message on Nov. 13, 1952 to the Kerala church which was planning to celibrate the 19th centenary of Thomas' landing, which said that the South Indian tradition of Thomas was "unverified". So the Pope told the truth in so far as it was known to him, and Vatican editors need not have edited as they did on the Vatican website. Next point: Why is the author of the Acts of Thomas not named. He is the Gnostic Bardesanes who lived at Edessa, b. 154 A.D., d. 233 A.D. He had travelled to India and had a deep interest in Indian philosophy. The Acts of Thomas is the original document to identify Thomas with India. All other references to Thomas in India are redactions of the Acts, therefore they are not an authority to identify Thomas with India. There are dozens of reputed historians who deny 1) that Thomas ever lived 2) that he ever went further east than Edessa and Khorasan (Parthia). Why are they not identified? Bishop Medleycott has been totally discredited as a historian, yet he is quoted as an authority. My contention is that the whole article reflects Christian tradition and lacks historical objectivity. It is misleading. So I must ask again, is this a Christian missionary propaganda project or an encyclopedic article of facts and references? Vena Varcas (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)