What it is
The Gospel of Thomas is a list. There are 114 numbered units in the standard modern edition — logia, sayings — each consisting of a short attribution (Jesus said or, occasionally, a disciple's question and Jesus's reply) followed by the saying itself. There is no narrative thread connecting them, no chronological order, no setting; the work is structurally closer to a wisdom collection in the Proverbs / Pirkei Avot / Dhammapada tradition than to the canonical narrative gospels. The Coptic manuscript — the only complete surviving witness — is one of fifty-two tractates bound into thirteen leather codices that were buried, probably by monks of the nearby Pachomian monastery at the time of the 367 CE festal letter from Athanasius condemning non-canonical scriptures, and that resurfaced in December 1945 when a farmer named Muhammad al-Samman struck a sealed jar with a mattock while digging for fertiliser at the base of the Jabal al-Ṭārif cliff near Nag Hammadi. The collection — published in stages across the next four decades under the editorial direction of James M. Robinson — is the Nag Hammadi library, and the Gospel of Thomas is its most-discussed single text. Three Greek fragments recovered earlier from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish heaps (P. Oxy. 1, 654 and 655) preserve sayings that overlap with the Coptic; the Greek is generally dated to the mid-third century at the latest, which pushes the underlying tradition substantially earlier than the fourth-century Coptic copy itself.
What it says
The dominant note of the Thomas sayings is interior. The kingdom of God is not a future event or a geographical location; it is present and unrecognised. Saying 3: the kingdom is inside you, and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are the children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, you live in poverty. Saying 113: the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it. Saying 70: if you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. The reading these sayings invite is unmistakable: the recognition the text is pointing at is structurally near to what the Indian non-dual traditions name the recognition of what one is, and the locating language — inside, outside, spread out upon the earth — is the language of immediate ontology rather than of cosmography. Saying 77 — I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there — sits in the same family of recognitions as the tat tvam asi of the Chāndogya and the I and the Father are one of John 10:30. A contemporary non-dual reader, encountering this material without knowing its provenance, would place it without hesitation alongside the verses of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. That the Thomas sayings sit as comfortably in the non-dual family as in the Christian one is the substance of the contemporary perennialist case for the text.
The scholarly question
The relationship of Thomas to the canonical gospels and to the Gnostic movements has been disputed since the Coptic manuscript was first published in 1959. The earlier scholarly consensus — represented by Helmut Koester at Harvard — treated Thomas as substantially independent of the synoptic gospels and drawing on a sayings tradition (the hypothetical Q source, or a near-relative of it) that predates the canonical narrative gospels and that may preserve some sayings closer to their original form than the canonical parallels do. A later consensus, represented by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole, treats Thomas as substantially dependent on the synoptics and probably composed in the mid-second century after they were already in circulation. The classification of Thomas as Gnostic is similarly contested: the text has some features the broader Nag Hammadi collection treats as Gnostic — the emphasis on gnosis as the operative recognition, the dismissal of bodily and ritual mediation, occasional language about the light and the living Jesus — but lacks the developed demiurgical mythology and the elaborated emanation schemes that mark the more distinctively Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts (the Apocryphon of John, the Tripartite Tractate). The current scholarly tendency is to treat Thomas as sitting between the earliest sayings traditions and the developed Gnosticism of the second and third centuries, partaking of both without belonging cleanly to either.
What the text isn't
The Gospel of Thomas is not a hidden gospel that the early church suppressed: the text was known to the church fathers (Origen, Hippolytus, Eusebius), was named by them, and was not included in the canon because the institutional consensus that emerged in the second and third centuries did not include it — for reasons that combined doctrinal preference with the structural difficulty of a non-narrative gospel that records sayings without setting them in the life of Jesus the narrative gospels were organising around. The romantic framing — popularised by Elaine Pagels's The Gnostic Gospels (1979) and reinforced by the popular reception of the Nag Hammadi material — that Thomas was the suppressed feminist or non-dual gospel the church wanted to erase is partially correct and partially overstated; the text was not erased, it was not canonical, and it has been in scholarly view since at least the early third century. The text is also not a manual: the sayings are pointers, frequently obscure, occasionally contradictory, and require the same kind of patient sitting-with that the koan tradition expects — which is part of why the non-dual reading of the text has been the most generative contemporary reception. And — relevant to the index — there is currently no item in the corpus recorded under the Gospel of Thomas as its subject; the text is discussed in passing in the Christianity, Gnosticism and Gregg Braden entries, but the standalone treatment a primary text of this weight would warrant in the index has not yet been built.
— end of entry —