Skip to main content

Was the Gospel of Thomas Considered Scripture?



A Closer Examination

It is not uncommon to hear confident assertions that the Gospel of Thomas was once considered Scripture by early Christians en par, or even superior to, the four canonical gospels found in the New Testament. There are some who even hold this view to be “incontrovertible,”—a proven fact of history. But when making such a claim it is necessary to provide evidence, otherwise, it is nothing more than a statement of faith. Presumably, if the Gospel of Thomas was valued as Scripture among early Christians, we should be able to demonstrate this fact from manuscript evidence, early Christian citations, and a reflection of at least somewhat “Thomasine” theology in canonical and early non-canonical works composed during the most formative period of the church.

Early Christian Writers on the Gospel of Thomas

It is often difficult to verify citations made by Christian writers of the first few centuries as they are notoriously periphrastic in their quotations and often do not directly attribute their quotations to any given work. Although this is particularly true when dealing with works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the writings of two third-century theologians, Hippolytus and Origen, are generally sighted as containing references from this text.

Hippolytus of Rome

In his work, The Refutation of all Heresies, Hippolytus of Rome quotes a saying from a “Gospel inscribed according to Thomas,” which was being used by a heretical sect to put promote a certain, rather obscure, teaching1.

“He who seeks me, will find me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest.”

Having delivered this quotation, Hippolytus then proceeds to explain that this is not, in fact, a saying delivered by Jesus Christ, but rather was drawn from Hippocrates. His focus is not on the Gospel of Thomas itself, and so Hippolytus offers no further thoughts on the text other than to expound on the Greek origin of the saying. However, Hippolytus’ rejection of this saying constitutes an explicit denial of the authority of the Gospel of Thomas as he knows it.

It should be noted however that the passage quoted only passingly resembles saying 4 in the 4th century Coptic Gospel of Thomas2. This could be evidence that Hippolytus was referencing a different Gospel of Thomas, but more likely it is the result of Hippolytus paraphrasing and the fact that the Gospel of Thomas underwent an extremely loose transmission process from the end of the second century to the middle of the fourth (to be discussed later).

Origen of Alexandria

Origen’s citations are by far the more positive of references to the Gospel of Thomas. Indeed, he even seems to draw from the Gospel of Thomas for information concerning the Apostle Thomas himself, which would seem to indicate he either accepted Thomasine authorship or that of someone close to the apostle3.

Origen however explicitly denies that the Gospel of Thomas should be considered scripture. In his Homily of Luke, Origen sights Luke’s reference to those who “tried” to write scripture as referring to texts such as the Gospel of Thomas. “Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not try to write; they wrote their Gospels when they were filled with the Holy Spirit.” Other gospels, he states, were written rashly and without the guidance of the Spirit. Shortly afterward, in the very context in which he then names the Gospel of Thomas, among others, he says, “The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have very many.”

Although willing to use the Gospel of Thomas under certain circumstances, he was also known to reject certain passages3, demonstrating further that he did not reject the whole of the Gospel of Thomas as a heretical or gnostic text intrinsically, but considered it far from Holy Writ.

Later Christian writers of the 4th and 5th centuries would warn against reading the Gospel of Thomas, considering it to be written by heretics and laced with heresies itself. Although there could be various reasons for this difference between Origen and these later writers, the extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas and the textual history they reveal may provide the best answer.

Manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas and Their Texts

There are currently only four known manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas, three Greek fragments the earliest of which are dated to around 200 A.D., and a mid-4th century Coptic version which constitutes our only “complete” manuscript.

The Greek Manuscripts

The three 3rd-century Greek fragments contain only about 14 partial or whole sayings. Although they have been incontrovertibly identified as Gospel of Thomas fragments, the Greek texts can only be said to roughly correspond with their Coptic counterparts. The text contains a great number of variants and the order of the sayings differs from the later Coptic version. More interestingly, in the Greek fragments, the saying which should correspond to Nag Hammadi's saying 33 is an altogether different saying+! In another fragment, one rather long saying in the Greek manuscripts has been dramatically shortened to a single line in the Coptic4. These factors, combined with the notable differences in patristic citations, demonstrate that the Gospel of Thomas underwent an extremely loose transmission process. Indeed, it could even be said that the end version of the Gospel of Thomas as we know it was the product of an extensive evolution at least from the end of the second century to the middle of the fourth5.

Although the evidence of four manuscripts is rather limited to make any grand claims, it is very possible that the Gospel of Thomas Origen knew and referenced was not particularly similar to the later Coptic version, which would explain his cautious acceptance of portions of Thomas against the more wholesale rejection of later writers (although even those later writers warned that the Thomasine text they referenced was flavored with some reminiscence of apostolic teachings).

The Nag Hammadi Codex

The fourth-century Coptic manuscript was found as a part of a collection of primarily gnostic works collectively known as the “Nag-Hammadi Library.6” It contains 114 sayings, one of which appears to have been added sometime after the initial Codex was written7.

Although some scholars argue that portions of the Gospel of Thomas date to the mid-1st century, the text of this Coptic version cannot date any earlier than the latter half of the second century. It puts forward a form of “pure Gnosticism” which had not evolved until well into the second century and is reflective of the Valentinian Gnostic texts with which it was found. What is more, this text shows a reliance on the synoptic gospels and perhaps even Paul’s epistles8. The writer of this particular Nag Hammadi Codex seems to have drawn from multiple gospels and, when two gospels present a different wording, he deliberately chose the parallel that could most easily be understood in a Gnostic sense5.

Those who advocate a first-century origin for the Gospel of Thomas do so by first removing material from the text that is demonstrably from the second century or later; what is left can theoretically stem from an earlier date. What physical evidence is there to demonstrate that these passages are indeed drawn from the same source(s) as the synoptic gospels? How can we know that they have escaped the textual corruption—both accidental and theological—that so taints the rest of the text? The answers to these and other questions remain among the greatest mysteries surrounding the Gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas fragment P.Oxy 655

Gospel of Thomas fragment P.Oxy 655

The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas

As mentioned before, the Gospel of Thomas deeply reflects the theology of the collection in which it was found. Just as the Valentinian Exposition presents itself as a mystery only for the enlightened few, the Gospel of Thomas opens with a claim to containing the “secret sayings,” of a Jesus who announces, "I disclose my mysteries to those [worthy] of [my] mysteries.*” This characteristic trait of a secret knowledge— gnosis—has lent its name to a diverse group of sects collectively known as the Gnostics.

Although “Christian Gnostic” sects varied greatly in their teachings, emphasizing an esoteric wisdom over objective truths, they did possess certain similarities; secret revelation, esoteric wisdom as a means of salvation, and a rejection of the Old Testament God as a lesser, if not evil, deity9.

The Gnosis of Thomas Compared to Other Christian Writings

The Gospel of Thomas exhibits a theology of salvation by gnosis from the very first saying, claiming “[Jesus] said, ‘Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.’” The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas speaks in vagaries, asserting that, “The kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.”

This desire for a secret revelation and knowledge within one’s self that saves contrast vividly with the early teachings of the Christian church which often appealed to the public nature of Jesus’ life, death, and even resurrection** and rests its testimony on the objectivity of God’s revelation to many, not on the secret revelation of one**. When reading through the Gospel of Thomas as presented in the Nag Hammadi codex, it is difficult to imagine its adherents preaching, “that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.10

Writing at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the church at Ephesus in which he commended them for not allowing teachings from outside the church to be admitted. He compared their path to salvation to the building of God’s temple, with each member of the church being a stone,

“You are being hoisted up by Jesus Christ, as with a crane (that is the cross!), while the rope you use is the Holy Spirit. Your faith is what lifts you up, while love is the way you ascend to God.11

The Old Testament in Thomas Compared to Other Christian Writings

In further contrast to the writings of the early Church, the Gospel of Thomas continues in the vein of second-century Gnosticism by dismissing the testimony of the Old Testament as irrelevant. Although the Gospel of Thomas is less vitriolic than other Gnostic works in this regard, in saying 52 of the Nag Hammadi Thomas, Jesus rebukes the disciples for calling on the testimony of the prophets to prove Jesus as the Messiah. In the following saying, he teaches that circumcision is not useful2.

Before there was a New Testament canon, the early church held the Old Testament as scripture, and even Jesus himself constantly called on the witness of the Old Testament to support his teachings and claims. One of the first events recorded in Jesus’ ministry was his reading from the book of Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth, and having done so he rolled up the scroll and declared, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing!12

Toward the end of the first century, the church of Rome sent a letter to the church at Corinth, known as Clement’s Epistle, which cites generously from the Old Testament, demonstrating the high esteem the church held for all the Old Testament scriptures13.

As for circumcision, even Paul, the most vehement opponent of Judaizing in the first-century church, would never have declared circumcision as having no value. Indeed, he held that though there was now no distinction between Jew and Gentile in regards to salvation, there was still much benefit in being a Jew.

“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracle of God.14

It must be conceded that whatever the Gospel of Thomas may have looked like before it became the famed Nag Hammadi sayings gospel, the theology of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas is reflective of a distinct Gnostic sect (or sects) with no meaningful connection to early Christian writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Final Thoughts

There is much more that could be said concerning the Gospel of Thomas, and for those interested, a more comprehensive study of the extant manuscripts and their unique characteristics can be reviewed here.

Early Christian citations of the text are rare, and those that are known invariably deny the Gospel of Thomas any scriptural standing. Of course, someone must have written it, and whoever did so may well have presented it as such, but without more and earlier manuscript evidence there is no way of knowing who it was that composed the Gospel of Thomas, why, or when.

The theology of the late Coptic version is not reflected in any Christian writings of the first and second century and demonstrates a deep allegiance to Gnostic texts stemming no earlier than the latter half of the 2nd century. Furthermore, no evidence for the Gospel of Thomas appears prior to the end of the 2nd, whether that be manuscripts or citations, and due to the evolving nature of the text, it is impossible to say for certain what the text looked like prior to that time—if indeed it even existed before the mid-2nd century, which is uncertain at best.

When studying the manuscripts, citations, and theology of the Gospel of Thomas, there is no evidence to suggest that the Gospel of Thomas was ever held as scripture inside the Christian Church.


* All Gospel of Thomas Quotations are from the Meyer’s and Patterson translation (bibliography 2), all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version

** See 1 Corinthian 15, 2 Peter 2:16-21

+ Compare:

Coptic (Nag Hammadi) - Jesus said, "Preach from your housetops that which you will hear in your ear {(and) in the other ear}. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light."

Greek (P.Oxy1) - Jesus said: "Thou hearest with one ear, [but the other thou has closed].

Note how the latter Coptic text has a bare echo recalling the earlier Greek version, and yet the two sayings are utterly different in content, length, and meaning.

1. Hippolytus of Rome, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 5, chapter 2, Macmahon Translation,

2. The Gospel of Thomas, Meyer and Patterson translation,

3. Carlson, Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas

4. Hurtado, Gospel of Thomas Greek Fragments,

5. Janssens, Clarmont Coptic encyclopedia vol 4 -

6. Emmel, Clarmont Coptic Encyclopedia Vol 6 -

7. The Gospel of Thomas, Meyer and Patterson translation,

8. Evans, interviews -

9. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1

10. 2 Peter 1:20

11. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 9:1, Richardson translation, Early Christian Fathers, Vol. 1

12. Luke 4:16-21

13. I Clement, Richardson translation, Early Christian Fathers, Vol. 1

14. Romans 3:1-2


Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on February 01, 2018:

I was just having some fun reading about the historical understanding of Christ's and Paul's journeys.

And when trying to pick up Thomas's journeys for no good reason it hit me that if I read Thomas as I have a few times. And it felt like the Holy Spirit decides what is what, and I moved reading Thomas. Certainly not by proof but by faith.

B A Johnson (author) on January 28, 2018:

Thank you very much (my) Angry Theist!

Your Angry Theist from United States on January 28, 2018:

Wonderful article!

B A Johnson (author) on January 27, 2018:

Haha why thank you! I admire any man who can juggle pastoring a flock and raising a seven year old!

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on January 27, 2018:

Sorry but dealing with my Sunday Sermon and crazy little 7 year old makes me pause but I will come back as you are quite brilliant.

B A Johnson (author) on January 27, 2018:

Well, patron saints are a relatively late development in general, and the earliest evidence of a tradition of Thomas bringing the gospel to India only stems back to the late second century at the earliest (the Acts of Thomas). That being said, it is interesting that some figures mentioned in the Acts of Thomas have recently been discovered to have truly existed (Gondaphares and Gad) so it is possible, just not very certain.

Its important to remember that the Gospel and Christian manuscripts followed the trade routes as most Christians could not afford to dedicate all their time to preaching and missions. Most of the first missionaries were merchants, sailors, and slaves.

Christian manuscripts traveled very quickly in the Roman Era, so having one so isolated that it was never even referenced as a Scripture seems unlikely.

It would be great to go and see it, I love the beauty and history of Cathedrals!

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on January 27, 2018:

Why and who made Thomas the Saint of India? Your trade route answer might be the best. But is a Greek trader wanted it how much would pay or give a whoot.

San Thome Basilic and relics? Wouldn't be a blast to go there?

B A Johnson (author) on January 27, 2018:

Well played, I have always been sympathetic to poor doubting Thomas personally!

Of course, and Indian origin for the Gospel of Thomas hinges on Thomas actually having gone to India (which is uncertain), but there was actually a large amount of commercial interaction between India and the near east in the first and second centuries. It would be surprising if a text from one of the apostles took so long to circulate and left no evidence of its existence prior to the end of the second century.

But, as my articles indicate, there is more that we do not know about the Gospel of Thomas than we know!

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on January 27, 2018:

Mainly that is being so far from the mainstream Christian folks it explains most of the reason for doubting it's authenticity Like taking 150 years to be brought to our traditional area. Like it being written a little more in the flavor of the east. I understand that he was there for 50 or so years. And I will bet you not many of those folks spoke Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. So he would be immersed.

But to be sure that is just a leaning of mine. And about Thomas -- doesn't it make theological sense that his work would be "doubted"?

B A Johnson (author) on January 27, 2018:

Interesting, but what would lead you to accept the Apostle Thomas was actually the author?

Eric Dierker from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A. on January 27, 2018:

Always interesting to read about Thomas. His work in India gives me just enough of a push to accept the conclusion it is a Gospel.