Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Gospel of Thomas is a second-century apocryphal text composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. It was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945, and has since become a focal point for radical critics who seek to elevate it to the same or greater status as the canonical Gospels. Many of these critics, including members of the Jesus Seminar, claim that the Gospel of Thomas represents an earlier and more authentic version of Jesus’ teachings, untainted by the theological interpretations that allegedly developed later in Christian history.

This article will delve into a comprehensive evaluation of the Gospel of Thomas, critically examining its authenticity, its content, and its significance compared to the New Testament Gospels. Through a thorough comparison, we will demonstrate that the Gospel of Thomas does not hold the same credibility, nor does it offer any challenge to the historical and theological reliability of the canonical Gospels.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

How Does the Dating of the Gospel of Thomas Affect Its Credibility?

One of the most significant factors in evaluating the credibility of an ancient document is its dating. The closer a document is to the events it describes, the more reliable it is likely to be. In the case of the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—there is substantial evidence that they were written between 60 and 100 C.E. This proximity to Jesus’ life and ministry is crucial for their historical reliability.

In contrast, the Gospel of Thomas is reliably dated to the mid-to-late second century, around 140-170 C.E. This places it nearly a century after the events it purports to describe, meaning it was written long after the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry had passed away. The Gospel of Thomas, therefore, does not reflect the firsthand testimony of those who knew Jesus, as the canonical Gospels do. The apostle Peter emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony in 2 Peter 1:16, where he writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas emerges during a period when Gnosticism was flourishing. Gnosticism, a heretical movement that emphasized secret knowledge (gnosis) as the means to salvation, significantly influenced the content and theology of the Gospel of Thomas. This late dating, coupled with the influence of Gnostic thought, further undermines the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas as an authentic reflection of Jesus’ teachings.

Is the Gospel of Thomas Dependent on the Canonical Gospels?

Another key issue when evaluating the Gospel of Thomas is the question of its dependence on the canonical Gospels. Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas bear striking similarities to sayings found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, leading scholars to debate whether the Gospel of Thomas represents an independent tradition or whether it borrowed heavily from the canonical Gospels.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that the Gospel of Thomas is indeed dependent on the canonical Gospels. Several sayings in the Gospel of Thomas closely mirror those found in Matthew and Luke, sometimes in identical or nearly identical wording. For instance, the parable of the sower (Thomas 9) closely resembles the same parable in Matthew 13:3-9, Mark 4:3-9, and Luke 8:5-8. Such similarities indicate that the Gospel of Thomas likely drew from the canonical Gospels rather than representing an earlier, independent source of Jesus’ sayings.

Moreover, there is no convincing case to be made that any of the sayings in the canonical Gospels depend on the Gospel of Thomas. As Gregory Boyd points out, “No convincing case has been made that any given saying of Jesus in the Gospels depends on a saying in the Gospel of Thomas” (Boyd, 118). Instead, it is much more plausible that the Gospel of Thomas is a later work that borrowed from the well-established traditions found in the New Testament.

How Does the Gnosticism in the Gospel of Thomas Undermine Its Authenticity?

One of the most significant theological differences between the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels is the influence of Gnosticism. Gnosticism, which was prevalent in the second century, taught that the material world was inherently evil and that salvation came through secret knowledge, or gnosis, rather than through faith in Christ’s atoning work on the cross.

The Gospel of Thomas reflects these Gnostic influences, particularly in its portrayal of Jesus and its views on the material world. One of the most striking examples of Gnosticism in the Gospel of Thomas is found in saying 114, where Jesus allegedly says, “Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” This statement reflects the Gnostic disdain for the material world and the physical body, as well as a belief in a higher, spiritual reality that transcends the physical.

In contrast, the canonical Gospels affirm the goodness of God’s creation (Genesis 1:31) and the reality of the bodily resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection was not a symbolic or spiritual event, but a literal, physical rising from the dead. Luke 24:39 records Jesus’ words to His disciples after His resurrection: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” The bodily resurrection is central to the Christian faith, as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 15:17: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

The Gnostic elements in the Gospel of Thomas, therefore, stand in stark contrast to the biblical teaching on creation, the incarnation, and the resurrection. This Gnostic influence further undermines the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas as a legitimate account of Jesus’ teachings.

Why Does the Lack of Narrative in the Gospel of Thomas Not Undermine Jesus’ Miracles?

One of the criticisms raised by proponents of the Gospel of Thomas is that it does not contain narratives of Jesus’ miracles or His resurrection, leading some to argue that the early followers of Jesus did not believe in these supernatural events. However, the absence of narratives in the Gospel of Thomas does not prove that Jesus did not perform miracles or rise from the dead.

The Gospel of Thomas is primarily a collection of sayings rather than a narrative account of Jesus’ life and ministry. As such, its focus is on presenting teachings attributed to Jesus rather than recounting specific events or miracles. This does not mean, however, that its authors or readers disbelieved in Jesus’ miracles. The canonical Gospels, written much earlier and by those closer to the events, provide ample evidence of Jesus’ miracles, including healings, exorcisms, and the raising of the dead (Matthew 11:4-5, Luke 7:22, John 11:43-44).

The lack of miracle narratives in the Gospel of Thomas, therefore, does not carry the same weight as the detailed, eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ miracles found in the canonical Gospels. These accounts are not only historically reliable but also essential to understanding who Jesus is. As the apostle John writes in John 20:30-31, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

How Does the Early Formation of the New Testament Canon Support the Canonical Gospels?

Contrary to the claims of critics who promote the Gospel of Thomas, the basic canon of the New Testament was already forming during the first century, long before the Gospel of Thomas was written. The apostle Peter, writing in the mid-first century, acknowledges Paul’s letters as “Scripture” and places them on the same level as the Old Testament writings: “Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him… There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16). This shows that the early church recognized certain writings as inspired and authoritative very early on.

Furthermore, Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he writes, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” The latter quote is a direct citation of Luke 10:7, indicating that Luke’s Gospel was already considered Scripture by the time Paul wrote his letter in the 60s C.E.

The early church’s recognition of the canonical Gospels and Paul’s letters as authoritative Scripture stands in contrast to the later emergence of apocryphal texts like the Gospel of Thomas. While the New Testament books were widely accepted and circulated among the early Christian communities, the Gospel of Thomas did not gain significant recognition until its discovery in the 20th century. The early formation of the New Testament canon further undermines the claims of those who seek to elevate the Gospel of Thomas to the same level as the canonical Gospels.

How Did the Early Church Fathers Affirm the Canonical Gospels?

The writings of the early church fathers provide further evidence for the early and widespread acceptance of the canonical Gospels. These early Christian leaders, some of whom had direct contact with the apostles or their disciples, consistently affirmed the authority of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, while showing no knowledge or recognition of the Gospel of Thomas.

Clement of Rome, writing around 95 C.E., cites the Gospels in his letter to the Corinthians. Ignatius of Antioch, writing between 110-115 C.E., references the Gospel of Luke in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, where he affirms the physical resurrection of Jesus (Luke 24:39). Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, quotes from the Synoptic Gospels in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 2:7). These early citations show that the canonical Gospels were widely accepted and used by the early church, long before the Gospel of Thomas was written.

Furthermore, the Didache, an early Christian text dated to the late first or early second century, frequently cites the teachings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels. This early use of the canonical Gospels by the church fathers further supports their historical reliability and authority, while the Gospel of Thomas, which does not appear in these early writings, was clearly not part of the accepted Christian tradition.

What Is the Theological Importance of the Resurrection in the Canonical Gospels?

One of the most critical differences between the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas is their treatment of the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is central to the Christian faith, as Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15:17, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” The canonical Gospels provide detailed accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, emphasizing its physical and historical reality (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-18).

In contrast, the Gospel of Thomas does not contain a narrative of the resurrection, though it does include references to Jesus as the “living” one. Some scholars argue that this lack of emphasis on the resurrection reflects a Gnostic worldview that downplays the importance of the physical body and focuses instead on spiritual enlightenment. However, this theological bias against the material world undermines the fundamental Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, as attested by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament.

The resurrection is not merely a spiritual metaphor; it is a historical event that validates Jesus’ claims to divinity and provides the basis for the Christian hope of eternal life. As Paul writes in Romans 6:4, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, and any attempt to downplay or deny it, as seen in the Gospel of Thomas, is a departure from the true gospel.

What Role Does Apostolic Authority Play in Validating the Canonical Gospels?

The authority of the canonical Gospels is further reinforced by their apostolic origins. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by apostles who were direct witnesses to Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection. Mark’s Gospel is traditionally associated with the apostle Peter, as Mark was Peter’s close companion and interpreter. Luke, while not an apostle, was a careful historian who investigated the accounts of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4).

This apostolic connection is crucial because the apostles were uniquely commissioned by Jesus to be His authoritative witnesses (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8). Their testimony is reliable not only because they were eyewitnesses but also because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to accurately record the events of Jesus’ life and the teachings He imparted (John 14:26). The apostolic authority of the canonical Gospels sets them apart from later apocryphal works like the Gospel of Thomas, which lacks any direct connection to the apostles or the early Christian community.

The apostle Paul also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the true gospel as preached by the apostles, warning against any deviation from the message they received from Christ. In Galatians 1:8-9, he writes, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” This strong warning underscores the importance of apostolic teaching as the foundation of the Christian faith.

How Does the Gospel of Thomas Compare in Terms of Historical Reliability?

When comparing the historical reliability of the Gospel of Thomas to that of the canonical Gospels, it is clear that the latter are far more credible. The canonical Gospels were written within a generation of Jesus’ life, based on the firsthand testimony of the apostles and other eyewitnesses. Luke’s Gospel, in particular, is noted for its careful historical research, as Luke states in his prologue: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

In contrast, the Gospel of Thomas lacks any indication of such historical rigor. Its focus on secret sayings rather than a coherent narrative of Jesus’ life suggests that it was more concerned with promoting a particular theological agenda—namely, Gnosticism—than with accurately recording historical events. Additionally, the late date of the Gospel of Thomas, coupled with its lack of eyewitness testimony, further undermines its historical reliability.

The canonical Gospels have been subjected to centuries of scrutiny and have consistently been shown to be reliable accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. Their early dating, connection to the apostles, and coherence with the broader historical and cultural context of first-century Judea make them trustworthy sources of information about Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, fails to meet these criteria and should not be regarded as an authoritative source on the life and teachings of Jesus.

The Canonical Gospels as the True Witnesses of Christ

In conclusion, the Gospel of Thomas, while of interest to scholars studying early Christian and Gnostic writings, does not compare to the canonical Gospels in terms of historical reliability, theological coherence, or apostolic authority. The New Testament Gospels were written by those who either witnessed the events firsthand or closely investigated the testimonies of those who did. They provide a consistent, reliable account of Jesus’ life, miracles, death, and resurrection, all of which are central to the Christian faith.

The Gospel of Thomas, written much later and heavily influenced by Gnostic thought, lacks the historical and theological grounding that is found in the canonical Gospels. Its focus on secret knowledge and its disregard for the bodily resurrection of Jesus place it outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. As believers, we can confidently affirm that the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are the true witnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, preserved by the Holy Spirit for the edification of the church and the proclamation of the gospel to the world.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).