Twelve apostles and St Thomas

[Fabio Lins]

Hello all!

One of the things that called my attention when I was in the process of getting converted was the representation of St. Thomas in icons with the Twelve apostles as a boy nearly the age of St. John. I even thought that maybe the "dydimus" that was attributed to him, meaning "twin" could be related to him actually being a twin brother of St. John, and therefore of St. James as well. But I never heard anything about that, so I guess I'm really just wrong.

Anyway, seeing St. Thomas a boy probably in his 17s or something really puts in perspective his attitude in face of the Resurrection. The "rebel" teenager not accepting the word of the adults and pridfully stating that he will believe only if it is his way.

Also, all the apostles have very distinguishable age periods. We can see adolescents, young adults, mature men, elders. Is there any tradition on the representantion of the Apostles concerning their age? And how and when St. Paul is shown among the Apostles?

[Fabio Lins]

In fact, just looking again at the icons on the net now, I've noticed that in the Mystical Supper there are *four* unbearded figures: St. John, lying on Our Lord's breast, and the youngest of them. Two at the far right and left of the table and... Judas!

That is also another poingnant piece of information: that Judas was not old enough to have a beard also explains *a lot* his behaviour. His selfrighteousness with the perfume, his changes of mood now betraying, then throwing the money at the pharisees and finally commiting suicide.

Interestingly, is that in some icons Judas sits next to the other unbearded figure and in none he is the only young one at one side of the table as happens to the figure to the right of Jesus. Judas is always at the left (certainly a reference to the prophecies about the division to the right and to the left) but with the fourth unbearded boy. Considering that St. Thomas is always named "The Twin" but we are never told who his twin was, would it be too farfetched to consider that his twin was Judas himself? The evidence would be:

1) They are depicted always at the same side of the table, in some icons next to each other, maybe to demonstrate a family relation (just like St. Andrew and St. Peter). That holds water only if the figure at the same side is indeed St. Thomas;

2) St. Thomas might be disturbed and away from the other Apostles afte the Crucifiction precisely because of the direct involvement of his brother;

3) That could also be one of the reasons St. Thomas chose to go the fartherst away from Jerusalem amongst the Apostles, to India, since being the twin of the betrayor would certainly not be very confortable amongst the less forgiving of the Christians;

4) That would also explain why it is referred that St. Thomas was twin, but never the name of his brother. Usually, where family relations were irrelevant, the writers of the Gospel simply did not mention the matter altogether.

[Olga]

I cannot comment on whether Apostle Thomas and Judas were indeed twin brothers, perhaps others could provide more information? The absence of Judas in icons of the Mystical Supper is more the norm, though, on occasion, he does feature.

Apart from Judas, the three apostles who are traditionally shown beardless because of their youth are John, Philip and Thomas.

Apostle Paul, though he was not one of the Twelve, but was called to be an apostle after the Resurrection and Ascension, can be found in icons which feature the assembly of the apostles, such as those of the Ascension, of Pentecost, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and, of course, the Assembly of the Twelve Apostles. His presence is a good example of the property of icons to not be bound by earthly time.

[Eric Peterson]

I think it's possible to try to infer too much from iconography, in that one over-infers. Iconography has changed over time, varies from place to place, and is based on unwritten rules. While similarities and symbolism are remarkable and often consistent through the ages, getting information solely from iconography does not seem to me to be a good idea, since iconography is only part of the Orthodox teaching. Other things, in this case things like the lives of the Apostles, would also need to be taken into account. There is also the fact that 2,000 years separate us from the time of the Holy Apostles and that a lot of information simply is not known.

[Vasiliki D.]

That is also another poingnant piece of information: that Judas was not old enough to have a beard also explains *a lot* his behaviour.

Hi Fabio, I found it a bit concerning that you associate *youth* with *behavioural response* ... I do agree that to some degree the more we grow the more we mature ...however, I do not believe that Judas acted the way he did as a consequence of being young! There is an underlying implication that age and sin are correlated and they clearly are not ... sinful action occurs at any age ... perhaps you didnt mean this and I have misunderstood.

[Paul Cowan]

I think it's possible to try to infer too much from iconography, in that one over-infers. Iconography has changed over time, varies from place to place, and is based on unwritten rules. While similarities and symbolism are remarkable and often consistent through the ages, getting information solely from iconography does not seem to me to be a good idea, since iconography is only part of the Orthodox teaching. Other things, in this case things like the lives of the Apostles, would also need to be taken into account. There is also the fact that 2,000 years separate us from the time of the Holy Apostles and that a lot of information simply is not known.

Yeah but...Iconographers are under strict obedience to portray icons as their original was written. They are not allowed to improvise. Those that do are pretty obvious and "blackballed" as not authentic. If I draw a picture today and those after me draw it the exact same way, it should be within very close margins the same drawing.

Judas could not have been his twin. This from Orthodox wiki.


Judas Iscariot was originally one of the twelve apostles, but is known for his betrayal of Jesus Christ. The Wednesday fast commemorates the sorrow at this betrayal, and it is one of the events commemorated in the services of Holy Thursday. His place among the apostles was taken by Matthias after a vote. He was the son of Simon Iscariot; Iscariot refers to his place of birth, Judea. The other apostles were all from Galilee. He is not to be confused with the Apostle Jude, brother of James.

[Anthony]

I have read somewhere that St Thomas' personal name was actually Judas (while "Thomas" comes from the Aramaic for "twin", translated Didymos). If correct, this would make it unlikely, I would think, that he had a brother also called Judas. Just a thought.

[Father David Moser]

Hi Fabio, I found it a bit concerning that you associate *youth* with *behavioural response* ... There is an underlying implication that age and sin are correlated and they clearly are not ... sinful action occurs at any age ...

While we can sin at any age, the monastic literature especially is full of descriptions of how age affects the kinds of temptations to which we fall prey. Thus it is certainly conceivable that if Judas Iscariot were a young man, he might be more likely to fall prey to certain passions more easily than someone older (OTOH, he would be more likely immune to various other temptations that would torment someone older than he).

Fr David Moser

[Vasiliki D.]

While we can sin at any age, the monastic literature especially is full of descriptions of how age affects the kinds of temptations to which we fall prey. Thus it is certainly conceivable that if Judas Iscariot were a young man, he might be more likely to fall prey to certain passions more easily than someone older (OTOH, he would be more likely immune to various other temptations that would torment someone older than he).

Fr David Moser

Normally, I would agree with this statement but in this particular instance I am inclined to go the other way. I dont think that the actions of Judas, mentioned in the bible, were specified by the Evangelissts for us to conclude that his actions had to do with the age that he was. I believe that they hold a different purpose.

[Kusanagi]

I understand that the "twin" means that he had the same way of thinking as the Lord. Since he was in agreement with what the Lord teaches.

i could be wrong.

[Fabio Lins]

In view of the points brought I see my theory of St Thomas and Judas being related does not hold.

As for Judas age, I apologize if I suggested that he might have betrayed Our Lord *because* he was young. St John is the proof that one thing is not related to the other.

What I meant is that it explains his general behaviour. He is very self-righteous (criticizing the spending of money with expensive ointments instead of buying food for the poor), he is over-ambitious (one of the criticisms the Evangelists make about him is that he was a "thief", too keen of money), gullible (by the Jewish authority), moody (betrays cynically, changes minds[but does not repent],finally gets so depressed that commits suicide).

Not that an adult could not show this kind of behaviour, but this combination certainly spells out "imature". A betraying adult possibly would be even more cynical and not even change his mind about his acts "Well, that's life, some must suffer, some must get lucky and I want to be on the lucky side".

Obviously his age does not change the spiritual significance of the betrayal. It is just because now and then I think how a movie or theatre play based on Orthodox tradition (including icons) would depict the Apostles. If I were to do that, I would cast actors about the age the Apostles look in the icons, and that would affect their portrayal of course. A 17-19 year old betrayer would obviously have very different motivations from the about 30-40 year old betrayer we are used to see.

Another curious thing about their age is that icons that show the Apostles after the Resurrection, have only two beardless Apostles that I would infer were St John and St Philip then. That would mean they were *really* young during the Incarnation of Our Lord, possibly around 13-16.St Thomas would have been about the age of Judas, so that a few years after he already had a beard.

For modern standards and all the cinematic and theatrical depictions of the Gospel having the disciples varying from early adolescents to elders would be a real innovation and certainly would widen the scope of identification of the public with the Apostles.

Just to demonstrate how that is important, just think of the Virgin Mary. A *young* adolescent pregnant girl who had made a vow of virginity in a traditional family *and* was betothred to an elder who had certainly not been with her, in a region where she could be stoned for that. Do we really think that the people in her village really believed the story of the angel? Even after Our Lord Himself, after having done so many miracles, return there, they still show despise. One can only imagine the humiliations, the prejudice, the cruelty, the accusations, the calling of names she had to endure during that period (one just has to look at the OT to see how easily "prostitute" and "adulterous" was shout at people), she the Most Pure Ever. And also St Joseph. Man who are cheatted are not respected as well and he surely was seen as such, plus the looks people would give to an elder who got betothred to a 14-year-old girl. Even today most of us would look down on him! And yet he accepted the burden of this inevitable misunderstanding to protect the Virgin and the Youth of Our Lord. All this is sufficient to understand why the previous children of St Joseph looked down at Jesus (with the exception St Jude and St James), as his hometown. To them, He was the bastard-child of an (almost) single teenager, a promiscuous girl who was using and cheatting an older man, a protegee of the good contatcs of her family in the temple, a spoiled girl.

So, knowing the age, although not being essential, does bring some ground for compassion. I think that one of the things important in reading the life of saints is to not only look at them as "theoretical" models, just like they were manikins of sanctity, but also with true compassion for their human conditions. It is not so much their crowns that are important, but their hearts, because we still do not share the crown, but we do share having a heart. Not to look at them as people God allowed to suffer so we could have good examples today, but look at their sufferings just as we would to a person next to us. It is comforting to know that people like us were victorious and see their deified nature in the icons. But for that, we must first really see and feel they were people like us. Thus my interest in these more mundane things like age, motivations, etc. They aid in our identifying with the saints when they were still struggling like we are now, making it easier to "jump into the wagon" while it is where we can catch it. Actualized sainthood is too far ahead, at least for me. I feel the need of seeing their most basic first struggles than anything else. Demons don't come in visible form to tempt me, my fasting is not so advanced that I could live on bread and wine only, well, I don't even know if would deny Christ if under torture! God forbid, but I don't trust myself that much.

Anyway, the rant was just to make a case for knowing "mundane" aspects of the life of the saints. Their ages, their jobs (what did St Basil do for a living? And St Gregory and St Symeon the theologian? Did they have families? I know their writings, but what about their daily life? I know some were bureaucrats of the Empire. How can one balance being an employee of a dictatorship and being a true Christian [and let's make no mistake, even the Christian Empire would be an unbearable dictatorship for any of us here today]? How did those people *actually* lived and not only the general aspects we see in the Menologion? St. John Chrysostom paid the full price of facing injustice, but apparently some others were very confortable with the status quo.).

In the case of the Apostles, this question is even more instigating. These are the men who had the privilige to have a kind of contact with Christ that *some* of us will have only after the Final Judgement. Despite the greed of Judas, they actually had to make money. I have the impression that most of them, after the Pentecost, lived by donations of other Christians, and only St Paul had a "lay job". Did they all abandon their families? Did their wives and children help anyway? What kind of painful dillemas did they go through even after the Resurrection between friends, family, job and following Christ? From the Acts, we see that one of the most accute suffering was that of their identity as Jews. We see St Peter reverting to Jewish practice in the presence of Jews. This is all more important to me than an angel opening his cell. I am not good enough so angels come visibly take me out of trouble because Christ has a mission for me so important that the troubles of men cannot hinder me. In fact, a lot of the miseries they throw at me "stick" and I am not different from other people in that. As a teenager I was self-righteous like Judas. Not long ago I was doubting like Thomas. I am scared to death of saying that I will be always loyal to Christ just to hear Him say to me: "Before this dawn you will betray Me three times". Maybe one day I will be holy like they were later. For now, I am more like a human debris in need of mercy. My age influences me, my social environment influences me, my finances influence me, my coworkers influence me, my sex influences me, my moods influence me, my country influences me, my family influences me, my friends influence me, my need of happiness influences me, my need of security influences me, my need of love influences me; I am entirely passive in the patristic sense. I need to see how they got out of it, more than contemplate how beautiful they got after they did it.

[Olga]

Another curious thing about their age is that icons that show the Apostles after the Resurrection, have only two beardless Apostles that I would infer were St John and St Philip then.


On the contrary, Fabio. There are always three beardless apostles: Philip, Thomas and John. These are always shown beardless in any icon of theirs, either in assembly with other apostles, or by themselves. The exception to this is John, when he is shown as an old man in icons of him as an evangelist, or as the writer of the book of Revelation.



All this is sufficient to understand why the previous children of St Joseph looked down at Jesus (with the exception St Jude and St James), as his hometown. To them, He was the bastard-child of an (almost) single teenager, a promiscuous girl who was using and cheatting an older man, a protegee of the good contatcs of her family in the temple, a spoiled girl.



Where do these ideas come from?



Anyway, the rant was just to make a case for knowing "mundane" aspects of the life of the saints. Their ages, their jobs (what did St Basil do for a living? And St Gregory and St Symeon the theologian? Did they have families? I know their writings, but what about their daily life?


Many of the Lives of Saints indeed make mention of the earthly occupations of saints.



But for that, we must first really see and feel they were people like us. Thus my interest in these more mundane things like age, motivations, etc. They aid in our identifying with the saints when they were still struggling like we are now, making it easier to "jump into the wagon" while it is where we can catch it. Actualized sainthood is too far ahead, at least for me. I feel the need of seeing their most basic first struggles than anything else.


Same thing. Read the lives of the saints. Their struggles are often well-documented.



For modern standards and all the cinematic and theatrical depictions of the Gospel having the disciples varying from early adolescents to elders would be a real innovation and certainly would widen the scope of identification of the public with the Apostles.



I am unsure of the purpose of this statement. Could you elaborate?

[Fabio Lins]

On the contrary, Fabio. There are always three beardless apostles: Philip, Thomas and John. These are always shown beardless in any icon of theirs, either in assembly with other apostles, or by themselves. The exception to this is John, when he is shown as an old man in icons of him as an evangelist, or as the writer of the book of Revelation.

It is probably my mistake since most icons I have contact with are on the internet. All these have two beardless apostles:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/187257853_7956c8400f.jpg
http://www.atheavensgate.com/The%20Twelve%20Apostles/icon_HolyApostles.jpg
http://www.melkite.org.au/images/users/2/ICONS/Icons%20of%20St.%20John%20Church/Holy%20and%20Glorious%20Twelve%20Apostles.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2624496414_2e6782a50e.jpg?v=0



All this is sufficient to understand why the previous children of St Joseph looked down at Jesus (with the exception St Jude and St James), as his hometown. To them, He was the bastard-child of an (almost) single teenager, a promiscuous girl who was using and cheatting an older man, a protegee of the good contatcs of her family in the temple, a spoiled girl.

Where do these ideas come from?

Which ideas? About how the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were seen by the people in their villages?


Same thing. Read the lives of the saints. Their struggles are often well-documented.

There is not much of this material from Orthodox sources available in Portuguese or at an affordable price (at least for me) from abroad. Plus even the occasional $2 booklets I see on the net are out of question since I do not have an international credit card. So I am not ungrateful to God's grace I must admit that I found, amazingly, an old book in Portuguese in the City Public Library about the life of St. Seraphim of Sarov that was detailed. Besides that the only source is this website, which has helped me a lot as well as many other Brazilians: http://www.fatheralexander.org/page27.htm

But, considering that that book can only rarely be found in libraries and used book shops, it means that the website is the only native language source for lives of saints for this country.



For modern standards and all the cinematic and theatrical depictions of the Gospel having the disciples varying from early adolescents to elders would be a real innovation and certainly would widen the scope of identification of the public with the Apostles.

I am unsure of the purpose of this statement. Could you elaborate?

It is just part of a dream about a movie or animated movie on the life of Jesus Christ based on an Orthodox perspective. Not only the movie would emphasize Orthodox theology, but it would depict the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, Our Lord and even the devil, with the colors and images of the icons. Thus Our Lord would wear robes of blue and red during His pre-Cross life, and after the Resurrection we would see Him in white and gold. We would see Him, freeing Adam and Eve from Hades. The Apostles would be played by actors more or less in the age they appear in the icons. We would see the devil, as an old man, by St Joseph tempting him and also as an old man tempting Jesus in the desert. If it were a series and we moved on to see St Paul, he would be half-bald with a long beard. That's the generic idea. :)

[Olga]

Which ideas? About how the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were seen by the people in their villages?



No, the idea of ... the previous children of St Joseph looked down at Jesus (with the exception St Jude and St James) ... From which part of Orthodox tradition does this come?