St. Thomas in India: True or False? – N. S. Rajaram

St. Thomas

Dr N.S. RajaramHere is the substance of the St. Thomas story: First, if he existed he was a twin brother of Jesus which is unacceptable because Jesus was the Only Son of God. Next, he could not have preached Christianity in 52 AD because Christianity and the New Testament came into existence only in the fourth century, after the Council of Nicaea called by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. The first Christians came to India with the Syrian merchant Thomas in 345 AD escaping persecution in Persia. Lastly, the Namboothari Brahmins settled in Kerala only after the fourth century AD, so could not have been converted by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD using a Bible created three centuries later. – Dr N. S. Rajaram

Artist's conception of the ancient Kapaleeswara Temple on the Mylapore Beach. The temple was destroyed by the Portuguese and replaced with San Thome Cathedral.According to Christian leaders in India, the Apostle Thomas came to India in 52 A.D., founded the Syrian Christian Church, and was killed by the fanatical Brahmins in 72 A.D. His followers built the St. Thomas Church near the site of his martyrdom. Historians however say this apostle, even if he existed, never came to India. The Christian community in South India was founded by a Syrian (or Armenian) merchant Thomas Cananeus in 345 AD. He led four hundred refugees who fled persecution in Persia and were given asylum by the Hindu authorities.

This story was too commonplace to attract converts. So Christian leaders identified the merchant Thomas with Apostle Thomas and created the dramatic story of the Apostle’s persecution and death at the hands of the “wicked” Brahmins of South India. This became current in the 16th century when the Portuguese gained control of the west coast of India and forced the Syrian Christians to follow the Catholic faith. The Portuguese also destroyed the Kapaleeswara Temple that originally stood on the site now occupied by the San Thome Cathedral on the beach.

The creation of this myth and the history is told in detail by the Canadian scholar Ishwar Sharan in his famous book The Myth of St. Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple. The purpose of the myth was to create a local martyr. Christianity depends heavily on the appeal of martyrs who are projected as victims like Jesus Christ. Then as now, Church leaders liked to pose as victims to generate sympathy and propaganda. But no matter how much they tried, the Hindus of India refused to supply the Portuguese with martyrs. So they were forced to create their own. So they turned the merchant Thomas into the Apostle Thomas killed by the Hindus.

In his foreword to Ishwar Sharan’s book, the Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst wrote: “In Catholic universities in Europe, the myth of the apostle Thomas going to India is no longer taught as history, but in India it is still considered useful. Even many vocal ‘secularists’ who attack the Hindus for relying on myth in the Ayodhya affair, off-hand profess their belief in the Thomas myth. The important point is that Thomas can be upheld as a martyr and the Brahmins decried as fanatics.”

San Thome CathedralTargeting Brahmins to undermine Hinduism was a favorite tactic among missionaries. Elst gives the true picture: “In reality, the missionaries were very disgruntled that the damned Hindus refused to give them martyrs (whose blood is welcomed as ‘the seed of the faith’), so they had to invent one. Moreover, the church which they claim commemorates St. Thomas’ martyrdom at the hands of Hindu fanaticism, is in fact a monument of Hindu martyrdom at the hands of Christian fanaticism. It is a forcible replacement of two important Hindu temples (Jain and Shaiva) whose existence was insupportable to the Christian missionaries.”

Another motivation for the myth was to erase the unsavory record of the Catholic Church’s close association with the Portuguese pirates and even worse, the Goa Inquisition inspired by St. Xavier. But serious scholars including Christians have rejected this myth as we shall soon see.

Who was this Apostle Thomas and why was his name invoked? The main sources relating to Apostle Thomas are two Gnostic (non-Biblical) texts known as the Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas. According to them Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus. For this reason the Thomas myth is not accepted by the Vatican because of a doctrinal problem: Jesus as the Only Son of God cannot possibly have a twin brother. (Greek for Thomas is Didymus, which means twin brother.)

Christians in South India who identify themselves as St. Thomas Christians claim that their ancestors were blessed by Apostle Thomas in 52 A.D. who preached from the Bible. This has no historical basis as we shall see. In fact, there is no evidence that Thomas even existed. His “history” is full of contradictions as will become apparent.

Marco PoloAs just observed the Portuguese missionaries who came to India in the 16th century found that they could not do without a local martyr and created the myth of St. Thomas claiming that he was martyred in India. They gave no explanation as to how they discovered it more than 1500 years later. Marco Polo is supposed to have mentioned it but there is no authentic manuscript that can be attributed to him. Then there is the question of how he discovered it more than a thousand years later.

There is even a tomb that is supposed to contain his martyred remains in Mylapore in Chennai. But the problem is there are several such memorials spread across Persia, Acre (Israel) and a few other places dating to different times, all laying claim to be the place where Apostle Thomas was martyred and buried!

After examining all the evidence, the late Father Heras, former Director of the Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier’s College, Bombay, said in 1953 that he was convinced that the tomb of St. Thomas was not in Mylapore. He had earlier said, quite emphatically in The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagara, that the Portuguese account of their discovery of some relics was “a most barefaced imposture [with] all elements of a forgery.” Heras was himself a Jesuit father but also an eminent historian.

Henry HerasThis is not the end of the story, for while denying the myth because it challenges Jesus as the “Only Son of God” the Vatican wants to have it both ways. On September 27, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech at St. Peter’s in Rome in which he recalled an ancient tradition claiming that Thomas first evangelized Syria and Persia, then went on to Western India, from where Christianity also reached Southern India. Syrian Christians derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted Namboothiris (Brahmins), who were allegedly evangelized by St. Thomas after he allegedly landed in Kerala in AD 52.

There are serious problems with this theory: the Namboothiris started settling in Kerala only from the fourth century onwards, which means they did not exist at the time the alleged St. Thomas allegedly came to Kerala. So we have a possibly non-existent apostle preaching in the first century from a text, the New Testament, dating to the fourth century, to a people, the Namboothiris who settled in the fourth century or later. In reality the Pope’s original statement at St. Peter’s, reflected the geography of the Acts of Thomas, i.e. Syria, Parthia (Persia / Iran) and Gandhara (Afghanistan / Northwest Pakistan) — all far removed from Kerala in the southernmost tip of India.

Bleeding CrossThis is not the end to the contradictions. If Thomas landed in Kerala in 52 AD, he could not have taught from the Christian Bible (New Testament) with its four gospels which came into existence only in the fourth century. In fact Christianity did not exist at the time because there was no Christian scripture! In addition, the famous St. Thomas Cross supposedly brought by him made its appearance in Kerala only in the fourth century, about the same time as the Namboothiri Brahmins. So it is quite possible that the highly ornate St. Thomas Cross [with Hindu motifs carved in it] was borrowed from the Namboothiris, having nothing to do with St. Thomas or even Christians. The Church borrowed its cross from the Egyptians and the oldest so-called St. Thomas Cross is a pagan Persian symbol.

Prof. Francis Xavier Clooney, SJAs if this were not confusing enough, Father Francis Clooney, a theologian with the Harvard Divinity School has stated that St Thomas had preached in Brazil, no matter that Brazil as we understand today was unknown in his time. According to Clooney, one Ruiz de Montoya, writing in Peru in the mid-seventeenth century, thought that since God would not have overlooked the Americas for fifteen hundred years, and since among the twelve apostles St. Thomas was known for his mission to the “most abject people in the world, blacks and Indians,” it was only reasonable to conclude that St. Thomas had preached throughout the Americas:

“He began in Brazil – either reaching it by natural means on Roman ships, which some maintain were in communication with America from the coast of Africa, or else, as may be thought closer to the truth, being transported there by God miraculously. He passed to Paraguay and from there to the Peruvians.”

So here is the substance of the St. Thomas story. First, if he existed he was a twin brother of Jesus which is unacceptable because Jesus was the Only Son of God (born to a virgin). Next, he could not have preached Christianity in 52 AD because Christianity and the New Testament came into existence only in the fourth century, after the Council of Nicaea called by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. The first Christians came to India with the Syrian merchant Thomas in 345 AD escaping persecution in Persia. This was probably because Roman and Persian empires were great rivals. The Namboothiri Brahmins settled in Kerala only after the fourth AD, so could not have been converted by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD using the Bible from three centuries later.

Finally, the myth was created by Portuguese missionaries in the sixteenth century with the help of pirates. They destroyed also the Kapaleeswara Temple and a Jain temple building the church known as San Thome Cathedral in 1504. It acquired its present status and recognition as a cathedral (grand church) under British patronage in 1893. It was also the Portuguese who converted the Syrian Christians to the Catholic faith.

So, all these contradictions have to be reconciled before the myth of St Thomas can be taken seriously. – Folks Magazine, 7 November 2009

» Editor’s Note: Historians do not agree about the date for the coming of Namboothiri Brahmins to Kerala. Marxist historians make their arrival as late as the sixth century AD. However with the identification of the Namboothiri priest Mezhathol Agnihothri (b. 342 AD), the date can be moved back to the fourth century. Namboothiri historians themselves do not give a date for the arrival of their community in Kerala from North India.

» Dr. N.S. Rajaram has referred to the second (1995) edition of The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple for this article. The second edition is now out of print and not available on-line. However the third (2010) edition, which contains everything in the second edition, revised with corrected dates and many new references, is available on the Ishwar Sharan website.

Cover of the 3rd revised edition of The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple by Ishwar Sharan, published by Voice of India, New Delhi.

See also

12 Responses

  1. Hello,

    Knai thomas appears to be a foreign trader who appeared on the scene really in the 12th century common era, i feel so. Following him many locals converted into christianity, who later split into 2 factions – the northists and rhe southists, the latter claiming later on that they descended from knai thomas. Anyway nothing is mentioned about this division even once in the famed decrees of the synod of diamper in 1599 common era. It came later on, evidently a portuguese invention just like st thomas.



  2. History is but full of confusion and false accounts. We at least now know that it is written in the interest of colonial scoundrels. They’d succeeded in twisting facts in order to make a claim that they were much refined and cilvilised than the rest. But the truth always triumphs. “Satayam ahva jayatha” As for now it has been buried over a thousand or more years in the mud and so far as to gain an exceptance to their vested motives but all such perveration of facts often have to face the reality in the end.

    Likewise, now the date of Adi Sankara is not much clearly stated by the scholars. And no matters whether it is recorded as AD 4th or 6th cent; by the historians they doesn’t sent the message of that great thinker who has proved or claimed that ” to know god is to become a god’ and it is thorugh knowleged alone which leads to that end not the ‘scripture’/vedas.


  3. well, i would say that all of his apostles are basically fishermen and the so called ‘son of god’ himself doesn’t have a biological father to point out clearly. If that’s so then what would be the body constitute of him? Does he have a real father on earth? Or do u believe that his so-called father is in the heavens sans helll? This is purely a farce…isn’t it?


  4. Up till 4th cent; the rise of christanity in Europe was met with deep religious anger. but slowly it began to show up in shrines and chapels all over Europe though the pagans [pure people] didn’t accept them at all until the Roman emperor officailly acknowledged it as their religion and thus it had uprooted the exsiting culture and civilization therein


  5. Perhaps Namboodris’ date of arrival in Kerala is AD 4th cent but it is impossible for Thoma to come at an earlier date and convert them into christianity. Maybe the portuguese pirates and their missioniaries had made such false claims in order to serve their ‘son of god’ amongst the hindus.

    if u would like to know the true identity of ‘jesus’…plz log on to and send yr comments …


  6. Keep up the great work, I read few blog posts on this site and I believe that your website is real interesting and has bands of good info.


  7. There is no authentic historical date for Adi Shankara or for Sringeri Math. So we don’t know when he lived or when the math was actually established. Same is true for the Namboodiris in Kerala. When we say they were there in the 4th century, that is because there is a document to support the claim. When they actually came, and from where, we don’t know.


  8. As per this article the Namboodri Brhamins were settled in Kerala in 4th century A.D. But then one problem arrives,as you know that Adi Shankaracharya was borned in Namboodri Brhamin family and his time period given by Kanchi peetam & some historians as 5th century BC. As per typical marxist historians Adi Shankaracharya was in 8th century AD. So what will be the true period of Namboodris arrival in Kerala.


  9. No, an apostle didn’t need a bible to preach to the heathen. But according to the Indian legend Thomas brought a bible with him and is depicted in icons holding a bible. The point is that this was not possible as there was no bible as such until the after the 4th century.

    Yes, according to the Gospel story the apostles went everywhere. To Brazil and Paraguay too it seems!

    We are not interested in Christian mythology and legends here. We are trying to establish the known historical facts. And they are very few and far between, believe me!


  10. If Thomas is one of the twelve apostle of Jesus he does not need a bible to preach. I understand all the apostles went to many parts of the world to preach Jesus without the bible.


  11. There has been a Christian Church in India since the 4th century and there has always been trade between India and Europe by sea (and by land in the north) since ancient times. Syrian Christians who claimed St. Thomas as there patron saint were great merchants and travellers. They were in Mylapore from soon after the 4th century, as Mylapore and Mamallapuram were important trading ports. So the English king Alfred may have sent gifts to his co-religionists in Mylapore associating their Church with Thomas and Bartholomew (who by a series of misunderstands was believed to have visited Kalyan near Mumbai and left a Hebrew gospel there).

    When statements like King Alfred (849–899) sent gifts to Thomas and Bartholomew are put into context they don’t mean anything important. They only mean an English king heard some stories from travelling merchants and may have tried to contact a Church “in India” (where that “India” was). Syrian Christian bishops often carried the name Thomas or Bartholomew, so the gifts may have been sent to them. Syrian Christian hierarchs were well travelled men who were brought to India from Antioch in Syria where their patriarch lived. This is a very important point. It shows that there has never been an indigenous established Church in India with it own hierarchy and apostolic succession of bishops from Thomas such as the autonomous Churches of Alexandria or Antioch or Jerusalem had obtained from their founding apostles.

    Repeat, there has never been an indigenous autonomous Church of Muziris (India) established by Apostle Thomas, though it is accepted by scholars that he established a Church in Fars (Persia) where many Syrian Christians emigrated from to Malabar when they were threatened by the Persian ruler.

    India was synonym for Asia in ancient times. Egypt and Ethiopia were in India according to ancient geographers. So was Edessa (Syria), the very centre of the Thomas cult, in India according to some geographies. India extended up to Japan and included all countries east of the Roman Empire’s borders. So when an old text says somebody went to India, we have to ask which India and where exactly was this India. More often than not it did not refer to the subcontinent we call India today. Ancient geographers gave specific identifying marks when they referred to our India. They called it “the land east of the Indus” or “the land of the Brahmins”. In no ancient St. Thomas reference will you find a pointer to “the land of the Brahmins”. In fact the original St Thomas text, the Acts of Thomas, points to Parthia / Persia and Zoroastrian kings only. In the Acts of Thomas, the king who had Thomas executed for practising black magic and perpetrating crimes against women was called Mazdai. A Mazdai is a follower of Ahura Mazda, the Zoroastrian diety. Thomas was executed by a Zoroastrian king in Parthia, not a Hindu king in Mylapore as the Portuguese pirates declared and their Tamil Christian acolytes try to make out today.


  12. Agree with the article. But i have a doubt king alfred sent gifts to saint thomas and saint bartholomew in india meliapur(mylapore) according to British musesm copy. Is it british fabrication or in 9th century so called saint thomas church also popular in england?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: