Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?

Why do so many people assume the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic? Is it?

This question is addressed indirectly by two prominent scholars in the field of early Christian and Gnostic literature, Marvin Meyer and Elaine H. Pagels, in the Introduction to the book published by HarperOne titled, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures in 2007.   

Those who first investigated Thomas simply assumed it was Gnostic. They based their assumption on quotes from Irenaeus, one of the church fathers, who condemned some of these early Christian texts, like the Secret Book of John, the Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of Judas. Irenaeus wrote around 160 CE. While Irenaeus did not mention the Gospel of Thomas, his contemporary, Hippolytus, a Christian writer in Rome did. Irenaeus described all such texts as “illegitimate” and “apocryphal” and “full of blasphemy.” He clearly didn’t like them.

His pronouncements, of course, reflect his views, but not necessarily the views of the church at large. Even by the latter end of the second century CE there was still no theological or doctrinal standard accepted by any ecclesiastical authority as to what constituted true Christianity, though the trends were clearly headed in that direction. What his negative dismissals do indeed prove, however, is that these texts, and most likely many others, had been widely circulated among Christian groups by the middle of the second century. There certainly was no pure form of Christian teaching that had been passed on by the apostles that was later abandoned in favor of Gnostic teachings. The Jesus movement was diverse from the beginning, sparking different interpretations, or “Christianities” from the outset.

When an international group of scholars first published The Gospel of Thomas in 1959 the primary question in their minds was this: What can the Gospel of Thomas tell us about Gnosticism? They simply assumed that it was Gnostic and thus heretical, and must have been written later than any of the real Gospels that were written in the first century CE. After all, it was part of a treasure trove of documents, most of which were unmistakably Gnostic (in the way that scholars understood Gnosticism). So they assigned it a date in the middle half of the second century CE and dismissed it as Gnostic.

The Gospel of Thomas, however, does not contain the classical features that constitute Gnostic literature. There is no strange cosmology that posits a corrupt, malevolent lesser being called a demiurge who was responsible for the creation of the world and confining human beings to it. There is no bizarre mythology and wild philosophical speculation drawn from many different sources – Greek, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and even from Muslims and Buddhists. All this is missing in Thomas.

Meyer and Pagels point out: “When the first editors of Thomas found in it virtually no evidence for dualism, nihilism, philosophical speculation, and bizarre mythology, most just assumed that this just goes to show how devious heretics are: they do not say what they really mean?” Clearly the first editors of the Gospel of Thomas had an agenda.

Meyer and Pagels describe the current state of scholarship today: “Many of us are discussing questions like whether it is misleading to classify these texts [the noncanonical Gospels and other early Christian texts similar to them] as ‘Gnostic.’ Given how varied they are, we realize that it is more accurate to look at them simply as a wide range of early Christian traditions that are unfamiliar to us, because the bishops intended to downplay viewpoints that diverged from their own.”

Later, Constantine, in an attempt to unify the Roman Empire, convened the council of Nicaea. He wanted a standard of Christian teaching agreed upon by the church. He didn’t much care about the content, he simply wanted this as one mechanism for uniting Rome. In 367 CE Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, sent out a letter all over Egypt ordering believers to reject what he called “illegitimate and secret books”; the letter included a list of twenty-seven books of which he approved. Thereafter, books like the Gospel of Thomas were banned and destroyed.

Marvin Meyer and Willis Barnstone edited The Gnostic Bible published by Shambhala in 2003, revised in 2009. In their excellent, succinct Introduction to Gnostic literature they describe both the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospel of John “as representing incipient gnostic perspectives” though in very different ways. They designate them as “early wisdom Gospels.”

Why describe these Gospels as having an incipient form of Gnosticism? Meyer and Barnstone don’t tell us, perhaps, because it is so obvious. Both Gospels emphasize direct, unmediated knowledge of the Divine which is an essential component of Gnostic religions as they point out. And both Gospels show some evidence of being influenced by the Jewish wisdom tradition that had to some degree come under the influence of Greek thought.

A characteristic of all mystical literature and experience is direct, unmediated knowledge and inner innate, intuitive, and noetic experience of the Divine. The Jesus that is portrayed in Gospel of Thomas understands the One Source, whom he also calls the living Father and Mother of all, to be part of everything and everyone, which is another characteristic of mysticism. This understanding of the Divine as one with all creation and as immanent indwelling Presence in all things is derived from intimate unitive experience of Ultimate Reality (mystical experience), rather than from any sacred text. The one who lives in awareness of this cosmic unity can rightfully be called a mystic. In this regard, both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John can be described as mystical.

So then, what is the Gospel of Thomas? It is a Gospel of 114 logia (sayings or teachings) attributed to Jesus steeped in mystical experience and Jewish wisdom. It is Gnostic only in the sense that it emphasizes direct, unmediated knowledge and experience of the Divine and that some of its teachings reflect Jewish wisdom that had been shaped by Greek influence. But all the other more fanciful classical features of Gnostic religions are missing from Thomas. It is far more mystical and wisdom-oriented than Gnostic.

In my book, The Way of the Living Jesus: The Path to Personal Transformation in the Gospel of Thomas, I see and interpret Thomas through the lens of the universal mystical and perennial wisdom traditions.