I’ve always felt Thomas was unfairly maligned in this account of his doubt over Jesus’s resurrection, and so, as I did with Martha in the story that contrasts her pragmatic nature with her sister’s romanticism, I let him answer back in this play. The crux of my argument in his defense is that it was perfectly reasonable to demand proof, especially in light of the very odd testimony of the other disciples, who almost uniformly didn’t recognize Jesus upon first (and in some cases, second and third and fiftieth) glance.
If you were Thomas, wouldn’t you at least want to get to the bottom of this strange phenomenon before committing yourself to belief?
And so I have him going from person to person, weighing their accounts and trying to find his way back into being a part of the group. (His commitment to the *group*, as opposed to their beliefs, has been the one unshakable article of his faith so far.) At the end, I stage a conflict that’s definitely not in the original story, but which amplifies the basic struggle in Thomas’ mind between reason and irrationality. His friends’ attempt to physically force him to believe is the ultimate manifestation of their belief that depends on *just knowing* that this person they didn’t even recognize at first was Jesus was indeed Jesus.
And then, after I make my bold statement in support of Thomas and Reason, Jesus appears, Thomas believes at first sight, and Jesus ends the play by praising the irrationality of blind faith!