User talk:Vena Varcas

The Wiki article Thomas the Apostle leaves a lot to be desired. If it is a Christian missionary project, then nothing more need be said here. But if it is an encyclopedia article concerned with facts and references, then many questions arise. For example, if Thomas came to India, then it is also a matter of Indian history and not just Christian tradition. This leads to the first question: Where exactly is the "India" of the Acts of Thomas located? Certainly. it is not the subcontinental India we know today. Ancient "India" included Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, and all countries east of the Roman Empire's borders up to Japan in some cases (so we still refer to Southeast Asia as Indo-China). Why isn't this observation made in the article? The Pope's statement in fact recognized this ancient geography, and following the Acts of Thomas he placed Thomas' travels in Syria (Edessa), Persia (Parthia) and Western India (Gandhara). There is no documentation anywhere to to suggest Thomas came to South India until Marco Polo wrote his book in the 13th century. Marco Polo himself never came to South India and picked up his story in Ceylon. In fact, it is now doubted that Marco Polo every left Constantinople. He concocted his stories from traveller's tales while in that city. According to T.K. Joseph, who studied the problem for years and wrote a book called Six St. Thomases of South India (Chengannur, 1955), the Vatican sent a message on Nov. 13, 1952 to the Kerala church which was planning to celibrate the 19th centenary of Thomas' landing, which said that the South Indian tradition of Thomas was "unverified". So the Pope told the truth in so far as it was known to him, and Vatican editors need not have edited as they did on the Vatican website. Next point: Why is the author of the Acts of Thomas not named. He is the Gnostic Bardesanes who lived at Edessa, b. 154 A.D., d. 233 A.D. He had travelled to India and had a deep interest in Indian philosophy. The Acts of Thomas is the original document to identify Thomas with India. All other references to Thomas in India are redactions of the Acts, therefore they are not an authority to identify Thomas with India. There are dozens of reputed historians who deny 1) that Thomas ever lived 2) that he ever went further east than Edessa and Khorasan (Parthia). Why are they not identified? Bishop Medleycott has been totally discredited as a historian, yet he is quoted as an authority. My contention is that the whole article reflects Christian tradition and lacks historical objectivity. It is misleading. So I must ask again, is this a Christian missionary propaganda project or an encyclopedic article of facts and references? Vena Varcas (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Thomas the Apostle. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My Edits

I have replied on your talk page. If doubts arise in the future, please contact me at <venavarcas@gmail.com>. I am more likely to look at the email than anywhere else. Thanks. Vena Varcas (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacks and Other Editing Issues

Rollbacks are too extreme a response to edits that offend the administrator or Wikipedia guidelines. A lot of work goes into edits and the contributor should be given an opportunity to explain or make changes himself. Rollbacks also destroy other valid edits that may have been made at the same time. Rollbacks are violent and show hostility to the contributor. There must be a better way to deal with problem edits.

I know my subject but I do not express my personal opinion. I make an effort to find a consensus of opinion among a number of scholars whenever possible. Sometimes it is not possible. When I use a direct quote, it is because that person reflects the conclusions of a number of other historians. My mistake with Tapasyananda is that I identified him with an important Hindu institution in a Christian article. I should not have done that. However, his statement does reflect the conclusions of a great many historians. That is fair, isn't it? The subject of St. Thomas is controversial and their will always be two opposing points of view. My interest is in the historical facts in so far as they can be ascertained. My objection is when tradition or religious belief are presented as history. Whatever may be the value of tradition and religious belief, it is not history. The fact of the St. Thomas legend is history, but the content of the legend is not history though it may contain bits and piece of history to validate it. It is a very interesting problem and I am working on it.

Now to some specific matters concerning future edits:

The point that Namboodri Brahims have no known history before the 7th or 8th century is because they are Syrian Christians of the second great migration who converted to Brahminical Hinduism. This has been stated by Marxist historians in Kerala. It may very well be true. The Chitpavan Brahmins of Pune, also ultra orthodox, are outsiders from Persia who landed on Maharashtra's shores in the early centuries, I do not know the date. But when Persia was Islamized in the 8th and 9th century, there was a great exodus of Christians--St. Thomas was the founder of the Church of Fars--and Zoroastrians, some of whom landed in India. Some would have maintained their old identity of Syrian or Persian Christians, and the Zoroastrians as Parsis, and some would have integrated completely into Hindu society. Because Hindu society classifies people into groups and they were outsiders, they would have been given their own special position. The problem with editing this subject is to find an accepted reference. Quoting a Marxist historian may not please many people.

The seven churches and half churches attributed to St. Thomas are dated to the 8th and 9th century. They were built by the second migration of Syrian Christians. Archaeological evidence is that all of them contain temple rubble and are built on ancient temple foundations. Again, the problem is finding references to support an edit.

The Virgin Mary was not reverenced or represented in icons until well after the 4th century and this tradition originated in France. Virgin Mary artifacts associated with St. Thomas can only have come into being after the 7th century, and more likely during the Portuguese period.

The cross was not used to represent Christianity until the 7th century, some historians say 9th century. Crosses associated with St. Thomas came into being during the second Syrian Christian migration and later. Nestorian Christians were very active missionaries and went everywhere even to China. The so-called proofs that Jesus visited Kashmir are really these 9th century Nestorian artifacts, especially the Persian crosses.

Lastly, Gundaphoras is the only historically verifiable character in the Acts of Thomas. He was Indo-Parthian and his name in the original Persian form is Vindapharma. His capital may have been Taxila, and he ruled from about 19 to 48 or 50 AD.

These are my interests at the moment and my intended edits. Vena Varcas (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Books not listed in Thomas the Apostle main article reference

(1) Ved Prakash, Indiavil Saint Thomas Kattukkadai, Madras, 1989. (2) Swami Tapasyananda Puri, "The Legend of a Slain Saint to Stain Hinduism" in The Vedanta Kesari, Madras, 1990 Vena Varcas (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)