Why does the Gospel of Thomas, an early Christian text, present a different view of Jesus?

1. Historical Background and Discovery

The text called the “Gospel of Thomas” was discovered among the Nag Hammadi manuscripts in Egypt in 1945. It is not a narrative “gospel” in the canonical sense but rather a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, many of which differ significantly from the teachings documented in the biblical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Scholars generally date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid-2nd century AD, though some propose an earlier date. Regardless, the text did not circulate within the recognized body of writings that early believers identified as authoritative Scripture. Its exclusion from the canon was largely due to its content, which diverges from the central themes upheld in the established apostolic tradition and Scripture (cf. Luke 1:1–4).

2. Distinct Theological Emphases

Several features distinguish the Gospel of Thomas from the canonical Gospels:

1. Gnostic Influence: Early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 1.20.1) warned of writings permeated by Gnostic leanings. The Gospel of Thomas includes statements emphasizing hidden knowledge (or “gnosis”) as the path to salvation. This emphasis on secret teaching differs from the open proclamations of Jesus in the biblical texts, where salvation is grounded in faith in His atoning death and resurrection (Romans 10:9–10).

2. Lack of Crucifixion and Resurrection Focus: Canonical Gospels record Jesus’ atoning death and bodily resurrection—indispensable doctrines declared in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. The Gospel of Thomas does not focus on these crucial events, offering instead sayings that sometimes minimize or omit the sacrificial work of Christ and His victory over death.

3. View of the Material World: Many statements in Thomas treat the material world with suspicion or suggest it is inferior to “spiritual” existence. In contrast, the biblical witness upholds the created world as God’s good creation (Genesis 1:31), affirming both the reality of physical life and the promise of a physical, bodily resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17).

3. Relation to Apostolic Witness and Canonical Gospels

The earliest churches placed great value on documents tied directly to apostolic eyewitnesses or their close associates (cf. John 21:24). This apostolic connection was one criterion used by early believers when recognizing inspired Scripture (also see 2 Peter 3:15–16, where Paul’s letters are counted among the Scriptures). By contrast:

1. Late Composition: The mid-2nd-century dating for the Gospel of Thomas places it after the Apostolic Age. Its teachings do not reflect the same firsthand witness shared by the apostles (Acts 1:21–22) and taken up within the earliest Christian assemblies.

2. Interpretive Gaps: The text’s statements often lack the context of historical events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection. Because these historical anchors were central to the apostles’ preaching—“Jesus the Nazarene was a Man attested to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs” (Acts 2:22)—the omissions in Thomas stand out starkly.

4. Alignment with Established Christian Doctrine

Scripture presents a unified portrayal of Jesus as fully divine and fully human (Colossians 2:9), the only Savior (John 14:6), and victor over death through His bodily resurrection (Luke 24:36–43). In contrast, the Gospel of Thomas contains sayings that:

1. Undermine Unity with the Father: Canonical texts emphasize the oneness of the Son with the Father and the Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Some portions of Thomas appear to redefine Jesus’ identity or reduce Him to a dispenser of cryptic utterances lacking the consistent portrait found in inspired Scripture.

2. Downplay the Cross and Resurrection: The central doctrinal core in the New Testament is that Christ died for sins and was raised from the dead, providing eternal life to believers (1 Corinthians 15:20–22). By setting aside this focus, Thomas leads readers away from the redemption found exclusively in Jesus’ atoning work.

5. External Support and Manuscript Evidence

Archaeological and textual studies affirm the consistent transmission of the canonical Gospels and significant New Testament letters from the earliest extant manuscripts, such as the John Rylands Papyrus (P52) and others dating as far back as the 2nd century. These demonstrate the stability of essential Christian beliefs tied to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

Meanwhile, the Gospel of Thomas, also preserved in Coptic manuscripts, appears comparatively late and shows theological developments characteristic of Gnostic teachings that were never part of mainstream Christian doctrine. While it is historically intriguing, it diverges from orthodox teachings recognized by the earliest faithful communities.

6. Integration of Scriptural Truth

Biblical faith rests on cohesive Scripture inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16–17). When the early believers tested writings (1 John 4:1), they upheld those consistent with the apostles’ testimony of Jesus as incarnate Savior, crucified for sins, and raised bodily. The Gospel of Thomas departs from these main doctrines, presenting an alternative view inconsistent with the core truths of redemption and resurrection.

7. Summary and Conclusion

The Gospel of Thomas presents a different view of Jesus because it largely reflects later theological influences, lacks the narrative foundations of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, and emphasizes esoteric knowledge rather than salvation through faith in the risen Lord.

By contrast, canonical Scripture consistently proclaims Jesus as the eternal Son of God (John 1:1), victorious over the grave. The early church discerned this truth through reliable apostolic witness, rigorous testing of doctrine, and confirming evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work in the community (cf. Acts 2:42–47).

As a result, believers affirm that Jesus is risen (Matthew 28:6). His resurrection is the heart of the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:14–17). The Gospel of Thomas, despite its historical interest, does not align with the integral truths recognized by those who followed Jesus from the beginning and saw Him after He rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:5–8).