Talk:Thomas the Apostle

Flavian Origin

The Flavian Origin thesis sees "Thomas the Twin" as a stand-in for the Legio XIII "Gemina" which initially doubted Vespasian's claim to the throne, but turned out crucial through their eventual support in the battle of Bedriacum. Thomas' eventual acknowledgement of Jesus is literally the formula that Vespasian and Domitian wished to be adressed with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:1BE:7200:DCEB:9187:CBF2:48B4 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Aramaic Vocalization

I have recently edited the aramaic version of the name, and I wanted to provide some background.

There seem to be two common vocalizations in syriac-script texts: ܬܐܘܿܡܵܐ, used here and here , which would be pronounced [tʔomɑ]; and ܬ݁ܳܐܘܡܰܐ, used here , which would be [tɑʔwma]. In square script, תָּאוֹמָא, [tɑʔomɑ] which is used on behindthename, seems to give the most web results, but תְּאוֹמָא [təʔomɑ] is used here for example.

Because תְּאוֹמָא, ܬܐܘܿܡܵܐ and the greek Θωμᾶς seem to match each other best, I have used them for this page, but any of the other variants could replace them if needed.

ΟυώρντΑρτ

References

This article is highly irritating

This article confuses church traditions with actual evidence established by historians and archaeologists. It uses theologians and their writings as if they were reliable sources, and there is no clear distinction between primary and secondary sources. The article does not demonstrate historicity, nor does it describe the identity of Thomas within the narrative properly. It does not elaborate on the story that he could be the twin brother of Jesus, as in Christmas being about Mary's supposed divine pregnancy producing two children, which would redefine all of Christianity. It does not describe the origins and progression of the entire India connection. The article is overall very superficial and convoluted. It does not contain references to extrabiblical, contemporary primary sources and no secondary sources properly dealing with those. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There is way too much of otherwise unsupported direct citation from primary religious texts, primary texts and online religious sources, such as church websites. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. Historicity and religious belief are muddled together in this article. There is not a single objective historical source that states that St Thomas actually landed in Kerala that I could find referenced here. Chronikhiles (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The same could be said of any Christian article; where is the state birth certificate for Thomas or Jesus? Trying to put a wedge between Scripture and Tradition is fatuous and points to a lack of understanding of the period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Names and etymologies

"(…) Aramaic תְּאוֹמָא Tʾōmā (Syriac ܬܐܘܿܡܵܐ/ܬ݁ܳܐܘܡܰܐ Tʾōmā/Tāʾwma) (…) Hebrew תְּאוֹם tʾóm." -- what is the significance of "ʾ" here? The t's aren't emphatic in these words. 195.187.108.130 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ruiz de Montoya reference?

The article says,

"Almost 150 years prior to Dobrizhoffer's arrival in Paraguay, another Jesuit Missionary, F. J. Antonio Ruiz de Montoya recollected the same oral traditions from the Paraguayan tribes. He wrote:

...The paraguayan tribes they have this very curious tradition. They claim that a very holy man (Thomas the Apostle himself), whom they call "Paí Thome", lived amongst them and preached to them the Holy Truth, wandering and carrying a wooden cross on his back.

— Ruiz de Montoya 1639, Ch XVIII

"

But if you look into the provided link, there is nothing resembling this passage in chapter XVIII, and you don't even need to know Spanish to see that, just look through the text? What gives?.. Strecosaurus (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I do see something related in chapter XXI, but it's hard to navigate and understand - I don't speak Spanish, someone who does, please fix this.Strecosaurus (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)