Among the more important non-canonical Christian documents we have, is the Gospel of Thomas. It’s not like the four gospels in the Christian Bible, and isn’t canon, but it reveals a bit about Christian history. It also sheds some light, though only indirectly, on the possible origins of the synoptic gospels.
It was discovered in 1945 as part of a cache of varied Christian codices in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. These had been shoved into a sealed jar and buried, in antiquity. In the environment of Upper Egypt, they were in remarkably good shape for their age (although they weren’t totally unaffected by the passage of centuries).
The Gospel of Thomas that was found, was written in Coptic sometime during the 4th century CE. Its content matches up with a few manuscript fragments that had been found earlier, which are older (dating possibly to the 2nd century) and were in Greek.
For this and other reasons, scholars believe Thomas had originally been composed in Greek, also during the 2nd century, or possibly earlier. The copy found at Nag Hammadi was a Coptic translation of that original work. A date sometime in the early 2nd century is the one most commonly held by scholars, with a minority placing it in the 1st century and a small number placing it as late as the early 3rd century.
The majority assessment of the document’s age are further bolstered by comments made by Church Fathers (Origen and Hippolytus of Rome). Both wrote in the early 3rd century, so — assuming the document they referred to was, in fact, Thomas — it must have existed and been trafficked widely enough to have reached both of them prior to their own times.
An early 2nd century origin of Thomas is bolstered in scholars’ assessments by the fact that there are some remarkable differences in content, between what’s found in this gospel as opposed to other Christian documents that overlap with it. I’ll address one of those changes of themes shortly.
At the start of this gospel, Thomas is given two names: Thomas Didymus. The former is Aramaic (𐡕𐡀𐡌𐡀 or taoma) while the latter is Greek (διδυμυς or didymus), but both mean “twin.” This may reflect the gospel’s audience, a community in which both languages were spoken. That, of course, potentially describes many early Christian movements.
That said, assuming Thomas was a biological twin, it’s not clear who his twin may have been. A common interpretation is that he was the twin of none other than Jesus, but there’s nothing really within the gospel suggesting that, beyond his (obvious) closeness, as a character, to Jesus. Other Christian works more overtly claim Thomas as Jesus’ twin (e.g. the apocryphal and Gnostic Book of Thomas the Contender), but no suggestion to that effect is found here.
This gospel is unlike the four canonical gospels, and for that matter, many non-canonical ones. It’s a list of sayings delivered by Jesus, not a narrative of his life and career. As such, it reflects the so-called “Lost Gospel of Q” which was a likely source for Matthew and Luke, two of the synoptic gospels.
Despite that, Thomas is definitely not Q, since only about half of the teachings in it match up with what’s found in the synoptics, but it’s clearly similar in structure, and its discovery proved that — even if only for a while — Christians did compose and traffick documents of this type.
As for Thomas’s relationship with Q, that’s an open question. Both of these documents might have followed from an earlier document or oral tradition — in other words, the two may have had a source in common. Alternatively, one of them may have been based directly on the other but with contents purposely altered. There’s also a chance they were composed independently of one another.
It’s widely said that Thomas is Gnostic in nature, largely because it was found in a cache of other Gnostic documents. However, the content of Thomas’ teachings doesn’t appear specifically Gnostic. They certainly can be interpreted in Gnostic fashion, and have been, but there isn’t anything about them that locks them into Gnosticism. The only aspect of Thomas which shows some relation to Gnosticism is its opening sentence, which refers to the gospel’s teachings as “hidden,” or secret. It was the practice of many Gnostic sects to keep their teachings secret, not unlike some of the “mystery religions” of the Greco-Roman world.
Also, there’s a point in Thomas where Jesus draws the apostle aside and delivers special, secret instruction; “three words” he presumably never told to anyone else (see saying 13). When the other apostles asked what they were, Thomas told them, “If I tell you one of the words he said to me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me, and fire will come out of the stones (and) burn you up.”
That has a strong Gnostic flavor. Still, there’s nothing specifically Gnostic about the teachings in Thomas, themselves.
Another aspect of the teachings in Thomas that suggests Gnosticism is that they’re predicated on a dualistic philosophy, according to which human beings have a double nature, both divine and earthly. Even so, dualism by itself is not Gnosticism. Marcionism is an example of a profoundly dualistic Christian sect which is also not Gnostic.
Despite these appearances, nothing in Thomas evinces any of the mythological or cosmological elements one sees in other Gnostic texts. There aren’t even indirect or oblique references to them. Some scholars speculate Thomas was the product of a proto-Gnostic Christian movement, one which leaned on secrecy but hadn’t yet developed any of the mythology that would, later, be hallmarks of the various Gnostic sects.
Despite the majority view that Thomas’s content isn’t specifically Gnostic, there are some ways to view it in that context. One of them is to count it as proto-Gnostic, as already mentioned, which aligns somewhat with an early 2nd composition date.
Another way of resolving it is the suggestion that Thomas represents its own unique form of Gnosticism. That is, it may be a relic of a “Thomasine Gnostic” sect as opposed to other forms of Gnosticism such as Valentinianism, Sethian Gnosticism, etc. This might be viewed as a stretch, however, since this gospel would be the only piece of evidence for such a movement. Even so, it remains a possibility, if only in theory.
Astute readers of Thomas will notice, right off, that it contains no apocalyptic content. This is unusual among documents that relate Jesus’ teachings, since nearly all of them include one or more (usually more) of his apocalyptic pronouncements.
Unlike the others, Thomas claims the kingdom of heaven was already present on earth: “Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it” (from saying 113). It was up to his followers to perceive it, and participate in it. It was not something that would — later — be imposed on the earth, typically as part of some massive catastrophe.
As it turns out, “the kingdom of heaven” or “the kingdom of the Father” is a repeated theme within Thomas. So, although I stated (and the vast majority of scholars agree) that Thomas has no apocalyptic content, it’s not because it doesn’t address the topic of God’s kingdom. It absolutely does, many times over. What it doesn’t do, is portray it as something that’s coming on some future date that will be both sudden and seen by all. Thomas is clear that God’s kingdom is already on earth, and readily available, but only to some (presumably, a tiny proportion of believers).
As noted above, Thomas is dated by most scholars to some time in the early 2nd century. Its approach to “the kingdom of heaven” is one of the reasons for this. Christian writings from the 1st century that discuss God’s kingdom universally treat it as a future event. (In nearly all cases this future event was presumed to be coming very soon, as in during the next couple of years, well within the lifetimes of the author and his initial readers.) Thomas’s approach appears to be an innovation that wasn’t present in Christendom, as far as is known, in the 1st century. A 1st century origin appears unlikely, given this.
Within the canonical gospels, the apostle Thomas is a noted character only within a brief passage in the gospel according to John, the so-called “Doubting Thomas” story (i.e. Jn 20:24-29). This relates that Thomas hadn’t met Jesus during his original post-resurrection meeting with the apostles. When told about Jesus’ return, he’d doubted what he was told.
When Thomas did meet Jesus eight days later, the apostle expressed skepticism. Thomas was convinced Jesus himself had returned only after probing his crucifixion wounds. Famously, Jesus told him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
It’s a compelling lesson, but a brief one. On the other hand, the apostle Thomas is the narrator and second-to-most-important character in the gospel that bears his name. What’s more, the gospel of John also names Thomas as Didymus.
Scholars — and others who’ve read Thomas — have wondered if there’s a relationship between these works. While a few scholars have discerned thematic and structural similarities between them, Elaine Pagels among them, and they’ve posited that John was something of a point-by-point refutation of Thomas, the consensus of scholars (by a wide margin) is that there isn’t any meaningful relationship between them. In all likelihood, these two gospels were composed in ignorance of each other.
Clearly, this document enjoyed at least a small amount of popularity, enough that it was translated at least once (from its original Greek to Coptic) and was being copied up to two centuries after its initial composition. As noted, it also may have been known to some of the Church Fathers.
But this aside, it doesn’t appear to have had much effect on Christendom overall, at least not within the era of early Christianity. It does, however, have a legacy in our own time. It added insight into the development of early Christianity, and more specifically, the composition of early Christian documents (such as the synoptic gospels).
You can find the Gospel of Thomas at several places on the Internet.
↵ Go back up to Early Christian History menu.