We do not have much direct evidence as to the early life of Thomas. His name raises many curious questions. Was it a name given by his parents after his birth, as it was usual among the Jewish families? Or did it develop in the course of time based on some of his characteristics? The latter idea may be more favoured considering the etymology behind the name. The synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles merely present him as Thomas (Mt10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13). But the Gospel of John, the last to be written, projects Thomas four times and in three of these Thomas is presented with an additional surname “the Twin” or in Greek “Didymus” (Jn 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). The very name Thomas which is apparently a transliteration of the Aramaic te’oma or the Hebrew te’om means ‘twin’.
But how did Thomas get this additional name? Did Thomas have a twin? Who was it then? John’s Gospel is silent on this issue. It is only the third century apocalyptic book Acts of Thomas which suggests that Thomas was Jesus’ twin! And another apocryphal writing, namely the Gospel of Thomas suggests that his real name was Judas and calls him Judas Thomas. It is possible that his real name was Judas and the name Thomas was a later development.
But why such a development? The only explanation for this nomenclature is a legendary tradition which has come down to us.
We had mentioned that it was the apocryphal book Acts of Thomas which speaks of Jesus as the twin of Thomas. This is a strange sort of revelation! The only plausible tradition seems to be that Thomas looked like Jesus Christ in external appearance and hence possibly he was jokingly called the twin of Jesus Christ1. And possibly this legend grew among the Christians towards the end of the first century, and hence found its place in the fourth Gospel written around this time. And the narratives of John’s Gospel in which Thomas figures prominently do bring out the notion of Thomas showing a strong emotional closeness to Jesus. His readiness to die with him, and his distressed question about where he was going, his haunting sorrow over the crucified Jesus which refuses to admit his glorious resurrection are some evidences of Thomas’ affective relationship with Jesus. The apocryphal writings featuring Thomas could not have come to existence if the early Christianity did not have this tradition of Thomas having been close to the person of Jesus.
ii. His Socio-cultural Background
We may only surmise as to the birthplace of Thomas. It was probably Tiberias. That is where we find Thomas along with Peter and other disciples after they had sadly returned from Jerusalem unable to accept the tragedy that befell Jesus. They wished to resume their normal existence and hence the evangelist presents them with their traditional profession of fishing. It is only at this time that the risen Jesus appeared to them (Jn 21:1).
The town of Tiberias also figures in the fourth Gospel as a place around which Jesus did involve himself with his ministry. It was probably around here that Jesus worked his miracle of loaves (Jn6:23). John considers the sea of Tiberias so important for him, that he makes an explicit reference to it as another name for the more popular sea of Galilee (Jn 6:1). In all probability several of Jesus’ disciples including Peter, James and John could have hailed from Tiberias.
What could have been a simple fishing hamlet in the western coast of the lake of Galilee known as Rakkath earlier (Josh 19:35), became the city of Tiberias. It was founded around the year 20 AD 13
by Herod Antipas. It was named after Tiberius Caesar, emperor of Rome (14-37 AD). It is said that during its construction as a city several tombs were discovered rendering the site unclean for Jews.
Hence Herod could have tried to fill the palace with a large gentile population. The Herodian, Roman as well as the Gentile character of the city has much to do with the character of Thomas and other disciples who could have hailed from Tiberias. They were indeed fully averse to the political domination of the Herodian dynasty as well as the colonial rule of Rome. They could have just tolerated the presence of the Gentiles that is the non-Jews among them, and did continue to cherish their marginalized status.
How about the early upbringing of Thomas? As it was the custom among the Jews, Thomas would have received his primary lessons about religion within the family itself, first from the mother and later from the father (cf. Pr 31:1; Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9). The whip and the rod seemed to have played their part in the training of boys in Jewish families (Pr 13:24; 22:15; Dt 8:5). It is quite possible that Thomas did not learn to read at this time, as writing and reading was the luxury enjoyed by the families of the professional Scribes.
Thomas could have learnt many passages from the Old Testament through the oral repetitions from the elders. He could have also learnt some trade during his youth besides his own hereditary profession that is, fishing. It is possible that he learnt some carpentry too, as a side profession. The Jewish history reveals that the first century Jewish religion and culture witnessed an extreme form of Jewish nationalism. Many a Jew was disillusioned by the blasphemous situation of foreign political domination in their land.
And added to it were their sufferings due to the exorbitant taxation by these powers. Matters came to a piquant situation when Quirinius the Roman governor announced a new census with a view to increase their coffers with fresh taxation around the time of the birth of Jesus. And this was the occasion when some of the extremists indulged in a revolt against the Roman rule. They were chiefly responsible for the outbreak of the rebellion against Roman rule in 66 AD. Although the actual members of the Zealot movement were not numerous, yet considering their terrorist activities against the foreign domination of their land, a lot of sympathy seems to have been gained by them from many a honest citizen of Palestine.
What would have been the attitude of Jesus towards the Zealots?
Although Jesus was certainly not in favour of the oppressive foreign regimes in Palestine, yet he would not have advocated violence against them. He was sympathetic to their cause, but not
agreeable to their method of agitation. There is an instance of Pilate violently dealing against some Galileans, possibly of Zealots (Lk13:1-2). And Jesus’ response to such an event is one of total compassion for them. He asks, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they are worse sinners than all other Galileans?”
We may safely construe that quite a number of Jesus’ own disciples would have been in sympathy with the Zealots. As mentioned earlier perhaps some of them could have been members of the group earlier. One of the disciples is even known as Simon the Zealot. And there are scholars who maintain that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was due to his unfulfilled aspiration to make Jesus take to a political role in suppressing the Romans. And Peter openly expresses his disagreement with Jesus when he declares service and suffering to be his messianic mission (Mk 8: 31-33).
The disciples whose origin was Tiberias could have really cultivated a spirit of the Zealots considering the Herodian and Roman infiltrations in their own town. The sons of Zebedee were even known as “sons of thunder” due to their harshness towards the foreigners. At one time they even wished to command fire to come down from above and consume some Samaritans for not accepting Jesus (Lk 9:54). And how about Thomas? Some of his outbursts like, “let us go and die with him”, or “unless I see....I will not believe” do surely have the harshness of a Zealot and betray a spirit of rebellion so characteristic of this movement. Like his friends Peter, James and John, Thomas too could have been groomed in a spirit of protest against anything that was alien to them. And their discipleship with Jesus goes through several snags thanks to their earlier formation of sympathy with the Zealot cause.
