Stories about Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, have their starting point in the Gospels: in the Synoptics, his presence is limited to the mention of his name in the lists of all twelve apostles, while in the Gospel of John his presence is more strongly felt, especially through his reaction to the news of the Lord’s resurrection. Additions to and expansions of these Thomas stories can be observed in the so-called apocryphal literature, where mainly his missionary effort and the associated martyrdom come to the fore. Patristic exegetical and homiletic discussions about Thomas—which likewise adopted, combined, and passed on pre-existing material—were linked to the aforementioned stories. A similar—and quite dynamic—narrative process can also be observed in the context of liturgical hagiography, developed in connection with the ecclesiastical feasts dedicated to Thomas. Christian Høgel speaks of a threefold hierarchy of influencing factors within the liturgy (Bible - Church Fathers - Hagiography) and appropriately describes its last element using the following words:
Hagiography, the third category, was granted a place in liturgy too, but no guarantee reigned as to the fixity of the text. Hagiography shared, in the official system, the status of apocryphal literature in the unofficial; it was subject to continuous adaptation, either adjustments of syntax and vocabulary, expansion and abridgement, or even complete rewritings. As hagiographical texts were often anonymous, they did not have the brand of an author to prevent people from redacting upon it.[1]
With this in mind, it is easy to postulate that the hagiographic-liturgical texts reflecting the Thomas stories would have had their own complicated career—one that has not yet been adequately investigated—and that, as with the many Thomas traditions that preceded them, there is a corresponding diversity and interweaving of information from different sources, which, of course, makes any investigation all the more difficult. It is clear, however, that an important part of the palette of sources taken up in the liturgical texts concerning Thomas is the apocryphal Acts of Thomas.
Some necessary clarifications must be made at this point. First of all, it should be said that the framework of the aforementioned retelling of the Thomas stories relates to texts used within liturgical feasts of the Eastern Church or of the Church of Byzantine tradition. Second, these liturgical-hagiographic texts can be divided into two categories: on the one hand Synaxarion and on the other hand hymnography.[2] As Taft and Ševčenko have written, the term “Synaxarion” refers to “a specific collection of brief notices, mostly hagiographical” that were “usually read after the sixth ode of the kanon at Orthros” (that is, the early morning services).[3] Both text categories represent indispensable components of every daily liturgical feast or service, and can be found in the so-called Menaea or monthly books.[4] Third, it is important to explain which Thomas-Feast will be discussed in this short essay. Within the liturgical calendar of the Byzantine tradition, there are two moments when Thomas is particularly remembered. The first moment happens on the first Sunday after Easter (which bears the corresponding title Thomas-Sunday). The texts read or sung on this day and during the following week (Synaxarion and hymns) refer exclusively to the text of John 20:24-29. The second liturgical feast of Thomas takes place on October 6th; this is the actual Thomas-Feast. Albert Ehrhardt identified the Thomas-Feast celebrated on October 6th in the uncial manuscript Cod. 2 of the Skete of St. Andrew on Mount Athos (9th century). It is this October feast that incorporates information from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas.
As noted above, Synaxarion refers to brief hagiographical notices to be read at Orthros, which are to be found in Menaea (or monthly books). On the basis of some of the oldest surviving specimens of Menaea, it could be assumed that the Synaxarion for Thomas was not originally included. For example, according to the uncial manuscripts Sinai gr. 556 [6] , Sinai gr. 562 [7] and Sinai gr. 580 [8] (all from 10th -11th centuries), the divine service for Thomas's feast in the respective October Menaea does not include a Synaxarion. This absence would perhaps speak in favor of the later integration of the Synaxarion into the Menaea (in approximately the 13th century), as Andrea Luzzi has proposed.[9] Whether this later incorporation presupposes a completely separate development of Synaxarion and Menaea remains to be seen. On the other hand, Alexandra Nikiforova, Antonia Giannouli, and Egon Wellesz, share the opinion that the hymnography from the Menaea should be regarded as the result of the processing and expansion of the Synaxarion material and thus as its supplement.[10] In any case, the liturgical Synaxarion is based on hagiographic sources, which in turn take information from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas. These sources are:
Niketas David Paphlagon, Laudatio Thomae[11]
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae[12]
The Menologion of the Emperor Basil II[13]
The Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes[14]
Common to all these hagiographic collections is the fact that they take the same information from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, from the beginning and from the end of acts. From the beginning is taken information about the Thomasine mission in Andrapolis (Act 1) and then India (exclusively the time spend by Thomas at the court of King Gundaphar and the task of building a palace, Act 2). From the end of the acts is taken information about the mission of Thomas at the court of King Misdai, the conversion of his family, the imprisonment of the apostle and finally his death (Acts 10–13 and Martyrdom).
In this context, the manuscript Panagios Tafos 22 from the 11th century deserves greater attention.[15] Although its content was described as the October Menaeum, a closer look reveals that in this case we are not dealing with a typical Menaeum, but most likely with a Menologion. One can find correspondences with the Menologion of Symeon Metaphrastes. A particularly interesting aspect concerns the addition of supplementary material under the title: Θάυματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου Θωμᾶ. This material is, in fact, an almost literal reproduction of deeds from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, starting with Act 8 (concerning the wild donkeys), continuing with Act 9 (about the wife of Charîs, but without the Hymn of the Pearl) and finally with the first four sections (to §122) from Act 10 (on the baptism of Mygdonia). Such a fact confirms the incorporation of the Acts of Thomas, into the (earlier) development of the hagiographic and liturgical process concerning the figure of Thomas.
As already indicated, it is difficult to postulate an exact point in time for the integration of the hagiographic material in the Menaea, especially in the form of the Synaxarion. Roman Krivko informs us that the earliest examples come from the 11th or 12th century (the manuscripts Laur Δ 45 and Reg. Gr. 58 ).[16] In any case, it seems that the Thomas-Synaxarion from the October-Menaea is developed upon the matrix of the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. This is the case both for the manuscript Menaea (such as for example Sinai gr. 2102 [17]) and for the first printed edition of the Greek Menaea.[18] Later editions (Constantinople 1843 [19] , Venice 1852 [20], and 1873 [21] ), including today’s editions (Athens 1960 [22]), are following the same pattern.
The indisputable presence of information from the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas in the Synaxarion of the Thomas-Feast (concerning especially the beginning of the Thomasine mission in India and his martyrdom there) proves the liturgical functionality of the reception of this apocryphal text. At the same time, it reveals the fact that this complex process (which is to be understood also as retelling stories) continued not only beyond the canon of New Testament writings, but also beyond the canon of what we typically think of as apocryphal literature.
[1] C. Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes. Rewriting and Canonization (Copenhagen, 2002), 46.
[2] Art. HYMNOGRAPHY, in A.P. Kazhdan et al. (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 2 (New York and Oxford, 1991), 960-961.
[3] Art. SYNAXARION, in Kazhdan, ODB 3, 1991.
[4] Art. MENAION, in Kazhdan, ODB 2, 1338.
[5] A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, Band 1 (Leipzig, 1937), 28-29.
[6] Greek Manuscripts 556. Menaion Sept-Oct. 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material.
[7] Greek Manuscripts 562. Menaion Sept-Oct. 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material.
[8] Greek Manuscripts 580. Menaion Sept-Oct. 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material.
[9] A. Luzzi, “Synaxaria and the Synaxarion of Constantinople,” in S. Efthymiadis (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. Vol. II: Genres and Contexts (Burlington, 2014), 197-198.
[10] A. Nikiforova, “Byzantine Menaea Hymns: History and Interpretation,” 5; A. Giannouli, “Byzantine Hagiography and Hymnography: An Interrelationship,” in Efthymiadis, The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography. Vol. II, 287; E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1962), 135.
[11] Νικητα Δαυιδ του Παφλαγονος, ΛΟΓΟΣ Ζ. Εἰς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ πανεύφημον ἀπόστολον Θωμᾶν (PG 105, 127-146). See also Art. NIKETAS DAVID PAPHLAGON, in Kazhdan, ODB 3, 1480.
[12] Hippolyti Delehaye (Hg.), Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi. Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum (Bruxelles, 1902).
[13] Basilius Porphyrogenitus, Menologium Graecorum. Pars Prima. A Mense Septembri ad Novembrem. ΜΗΝΙ ΤΩ ΑΥΤΩ ζ (PG 117, 92).
[14] Symeon Metaphrastes, Vitae Sanctorum. Mensis December. Commentarius Rerum Gestarum Sancti et Gloriosi Apostoli Thomae (PG 116, 559-566).
[15] Panagios Taphos 22. Menaion Oct. 11th cent. 301 f. Pg. 51 ft. 11th Cent, 1000. Manuscript/Mixed Material.
[16] R. Krivko, “A Typology of Byzantine Office Menaia of the Ninth – Fourteenth Centuries,” Scrinium 7-8 (2011-2012), 52.
[17] Greek Manuscripts. Menaion Oct. 1400. Manuscript/Mixed Material.
[18] ΜΗΝ ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΣ (Εν Βενετία, 1551).
[19] ΜΗΝΑΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΥ. Περιέχον τὴν πρέπουσαν αὐτῷ ἅπασαν ἀκολουθίαν μετὰ καὶ τοῦ Τυπικοῦ, Εν Κωνσταντινουπολει, 1843.
[20] ΜΗΝΑΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΥ. Περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν αὐτῷ Ἀκολουθίαν, Διορθωθέν τὸ πρίν ὑπό Βαρθολομαιου Κουτλουμουσιανου του Ιμβριου (Εν Βενετία, 1852), 28-29.
[21] ΜΗΝΑΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΥ. Περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν αὐτῷ Ἀκολουθίαν, μετὰ καὶ τῆς προσθήκης του Τιπικου (Εν Βενετία, 1873), 33-36.
[22] ΜΗΝΑΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΟΚΤΩΒΡΙΟΥ. Περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν αὐτῷ Ἀκολουθίαν (Eν Ἀθήναις, 1960), 33.
Cosmin Pricop is an Assistant Professor in the Department for Orthodox Theology at the University of Bucharest.