THEONAS, the-o'nas (THEON): Arian bishop of Marmarica, in the Egyptian province of Cyrenaica, in the fourth century. He is- mentioned in the synodal letter of Bishop Alexander (given in Athanasius, Select Works and Letters, in NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 69 sqq.) as an adherent of Arius. He and Secundus of Ptolemais were the only two Egyptian bishops who sided with Arius; and it is probable that their line of conduct was regulated by political rather than by theological reasons. At all events, they absolutely refused at the Council of Nimes, (325) to condemn Arius, and were consequently deposed and banished.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Theodoret, Hid. eccl., i. 7, Eng. tranal.

in NPNF, 2 eer., iii. 438; Socrates, Hid. eccl.; i. ix., Eng. transl., ut sup., ii. 12-17; Epiphaniua, Hor., lma. 8: Tillemont, Mftoirea, vi. 2.

THEOPASCHITES, the-o-pns'koita: A term designating in its widest sense all Christians who recognize as correct the formula " God has suffered " or " God has been crucified." In very early, times (Ignatius, Ad Eph., i. 1, Ad Rom., vi. 3; Tertullian, De carne Christi, v.) naive expressions like the " blood of God," the " suffering of God " were used. Then came Modalism (q.v.) and Patripassianism (see CHRIBTOLOOY, IL, §§ 1-2; MONARCAIANIaM), and finally theopaschitic terms became suspicious to pious ears since they could be used in a Sabellian sense. They had some attractiveness, however, for those who spoke of Mary as theotokos; if God could be born, why could he not die? What from the standpoint of the Trinity was unendurable was not so from a christological point of view. As an ecclesiastical matter occasion for controversy came from Peter the Fuller's (see MONOPHYBITEB, §§ 4 aqq.) addition to the Trisagion (q.v.), making it read " Holy God, Holy the Mighty One, Holy the Immortal One who was crucified for us." The Patriarch Calandion attempted to relieve the baldness of the expression by preceding it with the words " O Christ the King." Of the preceding events in Antioch no reports have come down, since the letters of Felix from Rome, of Acazius from Constantinople, and of other bishops, to Peter are falsified, though they have value as showing how in certain circles the new expression was decided; the situation both with reference to the Trinity and to incarnation was missed. The history of the Monophysitic controversy shows that the unionists decided otherwise, and they are justified from the point of view of the Henoticon (q.v.). But Harnack is right in asserting (Dogma, iv. 231) " That attempt (to extend the Trisagion in a theopaschitic sense) was rejected because it involved an innovation in worship and because it could be interpreted in a Sabellian sense."

After the death of Anastasius the theopaschitic controversy broke out again. At the beginning of the year 519 there appeared in the capital many monks (called in the sources Scythic monks, who in the great schism between Rome and Constantinople had held with Rome) with the motto " one of the Trinity has suffered in the flesh," which seems to have called forth opposition. But they found support for their formula in the sentences of the Henoticon. At Constantinople at that time all

403

[Page 403]

404

[Page 404]

405

[Page 405]

406

[Page 406]

407

[Page 407]

408

[Page 408]

409

[Page 409]

410

[Page 410]

411

[Page 411]

412

[Page 412]

413

[Page 413]

414

[Page 414]

415

[Page 415]

416

[Page 416]

417

[Page 417]

418

[Page 418]

419

[Page 419]

420

[Page 420]

421

[Page 421]

422

like Peter's, but with contrary leanings, since Peter was optimistic and Thomas pessimistic. He is noted for his desire for certain and experiential knowledge, without which he was uncertain and undetermined (cf. John xiv. 5), as when he wished personal and irrefutable experience of the fact of Jesus' resurrection (John xx. 25-28).

All extra-Biblical reports are untrustworthy, including those which identify him with other Biblical personages especially in the Syrian Church. The Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac furnish examples of identification with Judas in John xiv. 22, others are in the Syriac Didache, Abulfaraj (Chron. eccl., iii. 2), Ephraem Syrus (cf. Burkitt, in TS, vii. 2, 4), Eusebius (Hist. eccl., i., xiii., Syriac text). The defense of this identification by Resch (TU., x. 3, pp. 824 sqq.), who explains Judas-James as brother of James and sees the other twin in James-Alpheus and distinguishes Lebbaeus-Thaddeus from Judas-James, has no foundation. Still more startling is the identification of Thomas with Judas son of Joseph and brother of Jesus, which makes him the twin brother of Jesus; this occurs first in the Acts of Thomas [§ 31], at the basis of which is probably a Syriac original, but outside the Syrian Church is found only in Priscillian, who in this twin brother sees the apostle (John xx. 26 sqq.) and the author of I John (cf. Zahn, Forschungere, v.116, 123, vi. 346 sqq.). As untrustworthy as these suppositions is the statement that Thomas was a native of Paneas in Galilee (cf. R. A. Lipsius. Apokryphen, Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, i. 246, Brunswick, 1883). Similarly the reports of ecclesiastical tradition are pure fiction. The earliest form of this sends him to work in Parthia (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. Ill., i., and often elsewhere), and his grave was sought in Edessa (S. J. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, i. 49, Rome, 1719) and his death naturally was located there (Clement of Alexandria, Strom., IV., ix. 73), while this report brings him into connection also with the Abgar legend (see Abgar). A later development in the beginning of the fourth century sends him to India, where he suffers a martyr death. This is brought into relation with the Edessa story by reporting the carrying of his body back to Edessa, a story without historical foundation (in spite of W. Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen, pp. 20 sqq., Gutersloh, 1877). The source of these later stories is the Gnostic Acts of Thomas (ed. M. Bonnet, Supplementum codicis apocrypha, vol. i., Leipsic, 1883). A later redaction of this legend dates from the seventh century, affirming that Thomas converted Parthians, Medes, Persians, and Indians and died a martyr in Calamine in India (J. J. Grynaus, Monumenta patrum orthodoxagrapha, ii. 589, Basel, 1569). The Thomas Christians (see NESTORIANS) have a tradition, conditioned by the Gnostic Acts of Thomas, which makes him a martyr in Mailapur.

(E. SIEFFERT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The sources are quite fully indicated in the text. The reader is referred to the Bible dictionaries, notably: DB, iv. 753-754; EB, iv. 5057-59; DCG, ii. 728-729. McGiffert discusses the early accounts in his trawl- of Euaebius, Hist. eccl., in NPNF, 1 ser., i. 100, 101, 104. 132, 156. 171. The fullest account of the legends concerning Thomas are in the work of Lipsiua named in the text, i. 225-347. Consult further W. Wright,

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, London, 1871; T. Sehermann; Propheten and Apostellegenden, L eipaie, 1907; F. Wilhelm, Deutsche Legenden and Legendare, i b. 1907. The apocryphal Gospel according to Thomas was edited by C. Tischendorf in Evangelic Apocrypha, Leipaie, 1853, 2d ed.. 1876, and an Eng. trawl. is furnished by B. H. Cowper, The Apocryphal Gospels, pp. 118-170, London, 1887; and by A. Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, pp . 78-99, ib. 1873, who gives also trawl. of the Acts of Thomas, pp. 389-422. The text of the Acts of Thomas are in C. Tischendorf, Acts Apostolorum apoC rUPha, pp. 190-234, cf. pp. lxiii.-Ixix., 235-242. For Eng. trawl. of the " Preaching " and " Martyrdom of St. Thomas " cf. Agnes Smith Lewis, Horn; Semitica, iv. 80 99, London, 1904. B. Pick, in Apocryphal Acts, pp. 222362, Chicago, 1909, gives Eng. trawl. of the Acts of Thomas. Consult also A. E. Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas: an Inquiry: wills a critical Analysis of the Acts Thomee, London, 1905.