LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE SKEPTICS
The expression “Doubting Thomas” is traditionally used to heap scorn on those who question some aspect of faith. I want to suggest that this is not just a disservice to Thomas but even a disservice to those who want to question and learn what is important about Jesus and the way his teaching should be applied today.
Thomas gets hardly a mention in the four New Testament gospels, but before we get to his famous doubts, we might also remember that earlier when the disciples are trying to talk Jesus out of visiting Lazarus who was understood to have just died. The problem here was that of a dead Lazarus in the very area where villagers had previously attempted to stone Jesus. It was Thomas who reportedly said: “Let us also go, that we may die with him”. He may later have expressed doubts about Jesus coming back to life, but in the Lazarus episode he was showing clear signs of courage.
Tradition makes the further claim that Thomas subsequently made his way as a missionary, first to Persia and then on to South India where he was eventually martyred. If true this was hardly the mark of someone perpetually paralyzed by doubt.
As John tells it surely Thomas was entitled to his doubts in that unlike the other disciples he had not already seen the risen Christ.
While doubts can be corrosive, here Thomas used his doubts in a constructive manner. His requirement of not believing in the risen Christ unless he met Jesus in the flesh was portrayed by John as a test by a doubter, and yet if John has the detail of the meeting between them as correct we are left to wonder how what Thomas discovered was enough to inspire him to become a missionary. If anything his doubts appeared to lead to a firmer faith.
Why despise Thomas for his initial doubts? If we put ourselves in Thomas’s place, doubting even seems more rational than credulity. The equivalent for us today might be watching a good friend die – then later going to the funeral home to pay our respects, only to be met by a stranger telling us “Sorry, he’s gone. He came back to life and he is out there somewhere.” Be honest. Would you accept that without question? And even more to the point, would Thomas have been wise to accept such an outrageous claim without question?
Don’t forget that in one sense those claims are still outrageous. Since the Bible is a curious amalgam of patchy history, poetry, culture, inspiration, parable, myth and praise, it is always hard to be certain which narrative parts are being recorded as accurate history and which parts are closer to parable to encourage us in faith. Even if we are of a mind to see faith in terms of a catechism in which the thinking is left to Church leaders who instruct us as to the acceptable answers to all the tricky questions, it seems to me that the most satisfying answers come from squarely facing one’s own honest doubts.
Certainly it is true that Thomas’ doubts do not seem to have been remembered with affection by Christians through the centuries, yet we might wonder if this had its root in the gospel writers’ respective theological differences. Thomas, whose gospel was claimed to predate the other New Testament gospels, had Gnostic traditions interwoven with teachings of Jesus used by the other gospel writers. This may help explain why his gospel got voted out of the final collection of books chosen for the most commonly accepted version of the New Testament.
In terms of objectivity the gospel attributed to Thomas was mainly of sayings of Jesus and was clearly less mystical and more down to earth than a good part of the Gospel of John. Some scholars have even suggested John’s version of Thomas as a doubter was added later to undermine Thomas’s credentials as a rival gospel author.
For those who find it hard to countenance a Bible where editorial policy has helped shape the narrative just remember that the four gospels already differ in detail when they report the same events.(See for example my article “Shaping God”). To take one example some verses, were added some years later by an unknown author to flesh out Mark’s version of the death of Jesus at the end of Mark’s gospel. We know from earlier versions these verses were missing and they did not appear till well after the original author had died. Other changes have also been noted in other of the New Testament books, so it is reasonable to at least acknowledge later editing as a possibility.
One set of traditions claim Thomas was not only sometimes known as Didymus = the twin ( ie the Aramaic for Thomas gives us Tau’ma or T’oma also meaning twin) but within the traditions some have gone further and claimed he was no less than the twin of Jesus. If this was actually the case it goes without saying that this would have serious consequences for anyone insisting on the literal truth in the story of the Virgin Birth.
However the notion of Thomas being the Twin of Jesus is also thought to lend a little credence to the implication in one of the Nag Hammadi texts (the Book of Thomas the Contender), in which Jesus himself is quoted as saying: “Now since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion…….” If there was this family connection, this may even have been why another book “The Infancy Gospel of Jesus” purporting to tell the story of Jesus early childhood is also attributed to Thomas.
Traditions are always worth consideration. The Catholic Church also highly values the Thomas traditions and one of their major teachings, the assumption of Mary to heaven, lists Thomas as the only witness to this event.
It is always possible that traditional stories of Thomas are based on fanciful recollections by his later admirers.
My personal favourite Thomas story is one which has Thomas as architect and builder in South India getting the commission to build King Gundaphorus (sp?) a lavish palace. Thomas allegedly decided to teach the King a lesson by giving the large sum of money for the project away to the poor. According to the story, when the outraged King got wind of this trick, Thomas’s defense was that he was building the king a Palace in heaven with this act of charity. My own cynicism has me wondering if in fact Thomas would have been able to avoid death if he had actually tried that on any autocratic ruler of the age in that part of the world, but I still like the story.
Please don’t hear me saying that my doubts about the literal truth of some of the events and stories associated with Thomas mean the stories have no value. All significant figures in history have a degree of accompanying mythology and, like Jesus’ parables, the values that emerge from the stories are where their real worth may lie.
I guess I am also implying that some dimensions of faith require a healthy skepticism, but in the same way that Thomas could express his doubts in an open and honest way without abandoning his faith altogether, I suspect that ultimately we must be free to ask our questions and do our own thinking before we settle on the main directions for our lives.
There are some forms of doubts which lead to progress. I would like to suggest that the natural skepticism towards current scientific understanding shown by most of the now famous scientists was actually the key to their progress. Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science used to say that it is only when you try to disprove an accepted theory that science moves forward. I suspect that has been the same for the prophets and theologians through the centuries.
The first believers in primitive Judaism were satisfied that their limited tribal notions of a localized and partisan God were quite sufficient and it took first the prophets and finally Jesus himself to show why this notion of faith deserved to be doubted. And historically this process did not stop with Jesus. Christian ethics have been continually doubted, questioned and reshaped to deal with the needs of a changing society.
Slavery and blind nationalism, at one time cornerstones of a local insular tribal society, have gradually given way to understanding that neighbours do not have to share our own religion or status level in the community. The assumption that all disease and disaster had religious cause has been modified as science has informed us about the causes of disease. In the same way our growing understanding about the universe and the laws of nature has caused us to question previous superstitions about the night skies.
Since conditions for the World’s communities have continued to change we now have a whole raft of new problems to face. Now we can produce more food by mass food production techniques, a whole series of issues relating to the fair distribution of this food are currently being debated.
We need those who can express their doubts about traditional trade practice and resource management regardless of what may have worked in the past. “Love your neighbour” needs new expression in changed circumstances.
In early Christian age where physical strength was valued, it made sense to have a male dominated society. In a modern society where education rather than physical strength is the basis of leadership, it makes sense to re-evaluate the respective roles of males and females. To doubt the aspects of faith designed to retain the old values of male domination is not automatically anti-Christian. Since biblical statements about role were designed for a now out-dated culture, the ethics that came from that culture also need rethinking.
Advances in medicine mean we now have the problem of euthanasia to consider for those being kept artificially alive long past the expected life span. Advances in weapons research mean we now have to reassess when war is morally acceptable.
There are those who object to all advances of thinking on the grounds that today’s understandings confront us with ideas incompatible with what the forefathers in religion used to believe. And a flat earth society still exists! Remember it was the orthodox Church who took Galileo to task for questioning that the Earth was the centre of the universe, just as their predecessors had done earlier when “heretics” had first suggested that the Earth was not flat nor supported on pillars as the Psalmist had asserted.
Some Bible literalists still object to the science of geology, which to them challenges a six thousand year old Earth, and what of those who dare not question lest they find that their comfortable certainties are threatened.
Because we are blessed with those who continue to use their doubts to help sort out their thinking and those who insist that all unreasonable assumptions are tested, we can be certain that transforming knowledge will continue to grow. Whether or not we are brave enough to do our own testing, and allow it to extend the horizons of our own faith is a question for our own individual life stories.