The
Claim of the Critics. Some radical
critics of the New Testament claim that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas
is equal or superior to the New Testament and that it does not
support the resurrection of Christ. The so-called Jesus Seminar
places the Gospel of Thomas in their otherwise severely truncated
Bible. Both stances are serious challenges to the historic Christian
faith.
The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Nag Hammadi,
Egypt, near Cairo in 1945 and was translated into English in 1977.
While some have attempted to date parts of it earlier, the Gospel of
Thomas is most reliably dated no earlier than A.D. 140-170. It
contains 114 secret sayings of Jesus. Defenders of the Gospel of
Thomas include Walter Baur, Frederick Wisse, A. Powell Davies, and
Elaine Pagels.
An Evaluation of
the Credibility of the Gospel of Thomas. The
best way to evaluate the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas is by
way of comparison to the New Testament Gospels, which often the same
critics have grave doubts about. When this comparison is made, the
Gospel of Thomas comes up seriously short.
The Canonical
Gospels Are Much Earlier. Assuming the
widely accepted dates of the Synoptic Gospels (ca. A.D. 60-80), the
Gospel of Thomas falls nearly a century short. Indeed, there is
evidence of even earlier dates for some Gospels, as even some
liberal scholars admit (see Robinson, John A., all). O. C. Edwards
asserts of the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels that
"As historical reconstructions there is no way the two can
claim equal credentials" (27). And Joseph Fitzmyer adds,
"Time and again, she is blind to the fact that she is ignoring
a good century of Christian existence in which these ‘gnostic
Christians’ were simply not around" (123).
The Gospel of Thomas Is
Dependent on the Canonical Gospels. Even
if the Gospel of Thomas could be shown to contain some authentic
statements of Jesus, "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). Rather, the reverse is true
since the Gospel of Thomas presupposes truths found earlier in the
canonical Gospels.
The Gospel of Thomas
Portrays a Second-Century Gnosticism. The
Gospel of Thomas is influenced by the kind of Gnosticism prevalent
in the second century. For instance, it puts into the mouth of Jesus
these unlikely and demeaning words: "Every woman who will make
herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (cited by Boyd,
118).
The Gospel of
Thomas’s Lack of Narrative Does Not Prove Jesus Did No Miracles. The
fact that the author(s) of the Gospel of Thomas did not include
narratives of Jesus does not mean they disbelieved in Jesus’
miracles. The book seems to be a collection of Jesus’ sayings
rather than his deeds.
The Canonical
Gospels Are More Historically Trustworthy. There
are numerous reasons why the New Testament Gospels are more
trustworthy than the Gnostic ones. First, the earliest Christians
were meticulous in preserving Jesus’ words and deeds. Second, the
Gospel writers were close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts
(Luke 1:1-4). Third, there is good evidence that the Gospel writers
were honest reporters. Fourth, the overall picture of Jesus
presented in the Gospels is the same.
The Basic New Testament
Canon Was Formed in the First Century. Contrary
to claims of the critics, the basic New Testament canon was formed
in the first century. The only books in dispute have no apologetic
effect on the argument for the reliability of the historical
material used to establish the deity of Christ.
The New Testament itself reveals that a collection
of books existed in the first century. Peter speaks of having Paul’s
epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). In fact, he considered them on a par
with Old Testament "Scripture." Paul had access to Luke’s
Gospel, and quotes it in 1 Timothy 5:18. The churches were
instructed to send their epistle on to other churches (Col. 4:16).
Beyond the New Testament, there are extrabiblical
canonical lists that support the existence of a New Testament canon
(see Geisler and Nix, 294). Indeed, all the Gospels and Paul’s
basic epistles are represented on these lists. Even the heretical
canon of the Gnostic Marcion (ca. A.D. 140) had the Gospel of Luke
and ten of Paul’s epistles, including 1 Corinthians.
The Second-Century
Fathers Support the Canonical Gospels. The
second-century Fathers cited a common body of books. This includes
all the crucial books that support the historicity of Christ and his
resurrection, namely, the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. Clement
of Roman (A.D. 95) cited the Gospels (Corinthians, 13, 42,
46). Ignatius (ca. 110-115) cited Luke 24:39 (Smyrnaeans 3).
Polycarp (ca. 115) cited all the Synoptic Gospels (Philippians 2,
7). The Didache often cites the Synoptic Gospels (1, 3, 8, 9,
15-16). The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 135) cites Matthew 22:14).
Papias (ca. 125-140) in the Oracles speaks of Matthew, Mark
(following Peter), and John (last) who wrote Gospels. He says three
times that Mark made no errors. What is more, the Fathers considered
the Gospels and Paul’s epistles to be on a par with the inspired
Old Testament.
Thus the Fathers vouched for the accuracy of the
canonical Gospels in the early second century, well before the
Gospel of Thomas was even written.
The Resurrection Account.
The Gospel of Thomas does acknowledge
Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, the living, resurrected Christ
himself speaks in it (34:25-27; 45:1-16). True, it does not stress
the resurrection, but this is to be expected since it is primarily a
sayings source rather than historical narration. Furthermore, the
Gnostic theological bias against matter would downplay the bodily
resurrection.
Conclusion. The
evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas does not even
compare with that for the New Testament. The New Testament dates
from the first century; the Gospel of Thomas, the second. The New
Testament is verified by many lines of evidence, including
self-references, early canonical lists, thousands of citations by
the early Fathers, and the well-established dates for the Synoptic
Gospels.
Sources
G. Boyd, Jesus Under
Siege
O. C. Edwards, New Review of Books and Religion
(May 1980)
C. A. Evans, Nag Hammadi
Texts and the Bible
J. Fitzmyer, America (February 16, 1980)
A. Frederick, et al., The
Gnostic Gospels
N. L. Geisler, and W. Nix, General
Introduction to the Bible
R. M. Grant, Gnosticism
and Early Christianity
E. Linneman, Is There a
Synoptic Problem?
E. Pagels, The Gnostic
Gospels
J. A. Robinson, Redating
the New Testament
I. M. Robinson, The Nag
Hammadi Library in English
F. Seigert, et al., Nag-Hammadi
Register
M. J. Wilkins, et al., eds., Jesus
Under Fire