The Gospel of Thomas

[penfold]

Quispel and his collaborators, who first published the Gospel of Thomas, suggested the date of c. A.D. 140 for the original. Some reasoned that since these gospels were heretical, they must have been written later than the Gospels of the New Testament, which were dated c. 60 â€" 110. But recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although complied c. 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, 'possibly as early as the second half of the first century' (50-100) â€" as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

- The Gnostic Gospels â€" Elaine Pagels p.16
     

Its [the Gospel of Thomas - “GTh”] date of composition must be before A.D. ca. 200, the date of the earliest manuscript (a Greek papyrus fragment); and after the foundation of Christianity. Attempts to date GTh more precisely depend on a delicate hypothetical evaluation of how the earliest Christian literature ... evolved, especially saying collections. One qualified expert has recently estimated that GTh was probably composed in the first century A.D.; many other scholars assign it roughly to the middle of the second. At any rate, its literary genre and some of the individual sayings are extremely ancient. [...] ...[T]hrough the technique of form criticism, they [biblical scholars] have ascertained that in some instances GTh preserves earlier, more original forms of certain sayings that Matthew or Luke do.

- The Gnostic Scriptures â€" Bentley Layton p.377

If we know one thing about the Gospel of Thomas [“GTh”] we know this: it is old. Even by the later estimates it was complied only a generation after the earliest gospels, by the earliest estimate it pre-dates them. Particularly important is that, by most accounts, the sayings within GTh are amongst the earliest we have attributed to Jesus. In fact, if Professor Koester is right, some of these sayings could have been first written down within 20yrs of the supposed date of Jesus's death. So why is it that so few people, even amongst well educated Christians, have heard of it?

It is not as though this was some especially obscure text. The only complete version we have comes from the papyri discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This particular papyrus was written c. 350CE. Our earliest fragment dates from c. 200CE meaning that this text was being copied and read for, at minimum, 150 years, that is 4 or 5 generations. Moreover the version found at Nag Hammadi (now residing in the Coptic Museum in Cairo) is written on best quality papyrus; a practice reserved for only the most important texts. Further to this GTh fragments are amongst the most commonly found of any heretical texts as well as being quoted and referenced in many ancient sources. Clearly this was an important and widely read book.

That the book was lost for over 1,500 years is not, in itself, surprising. The vicious sectarian writings of figures such as St Irenaeus (see Against Heresies) paint a picture of an early church consumed by questions of orthodoxy. Part of this process seemed to have involved the systematic destruction of texts labelled as heretical. However in the 1940's at Nag Hammadi many of these lost texts, including GTh, were rediscovered in their entirety. So how come in the intervening decades they have not become a subject of general knowledge? How come they are not quoted or used by Christians today? How come that, outside of a small group of academics and readers of esoteric literature, they remain all but unknown?

I think there is an easy answer. Fear. The problem with GTh is that the Jesus depicted is not the Jesus of, what became, mainstream Christianity. The reason this text has been so ignored, in my opinion, is that it does not fit with the Christianity which has evolved out of the New Testament. As such there is a real risk that GTh could undermine many of the central tenets of modern Christianity.

GTh is a strange book, it is a collection of sayings, many of which are very similar to those found in the canonical gospels of the New Testament. Most of the 'chapters' (which are all short between 2 and 20 lines) start with the phrase “Jesus said”. There is no narrative; however there is a, somewhat cryptic, prologue:

These are the obscure/hidden sayings that the living Jesus uttered and which Jude Didymus Thomas* wrote down. And he said, “Whoever finds the meaning/interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” - GTh (1)

*As in the apostle Thomas (the doubting one). Most scholars agree this is an example of pseudepigrapha. (cf B. Layton)

I will refer back to this passage; however what is important to note at the outset is that it is not belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus which saves from death but a correct understanding of his words.

So let's have a look at a selection of those words:

Jesus said, “If those who lead you (plur.) say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you. If they say to you (plur.), 'It is in the sea', then the fish will precede you. But the kingdom is inside of you. And it is outside of you. ...” - GTh (3)

Jesus said, “I have cast a fire upon the world, and see, I am watching over it until it blazes.” - GTh (10)

Jesus said, “Blesses are those who are solitary and superior/elect. For you (plur.) will find the kingdom, for since you come from it you shall return to it.” - GTh (49)

Jesus said, “Whoever has become acquainted with the world has found a corpse, and the world is not worthy of one who has found the corpse” - GTh (56)

Jesus said, “If you (plur.) produce what is in you, what you have will save you. If you do have have what is in you, what you do not have [will] kill you.” - GTh (70)

Jesus said, “There are many standing at the door, but it is the solitaries who will enter the bridal chamber” - GTh (75)

Jesus said, “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I, too, will become that person, and to that person the obscure/hidden things will be shown forth.” - GTh (108)

his Disciples said to him, “When is the kingdom going to come?” <Jesus said>* “It is not by being waited for that it is going to come. They are not going to say 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth and people do not seek it.” - GTh (113)

* This seems to have been accidentally left out of the Coptic manuscript (Cf B. Layton)

The reason I have picked these passages from the many (and often bizarre) sayings in GTh is that these are the ones that seem to refer back to the prologue. These act within the text almost as guideposts on how to correctly interpret the obscure/hidden sayings.

If we analyse them carefully what we see emerging is a very different theology to that found in the New Testament. Firstly we see that the kingdom of heaven is not some far off spirit realm, but exists within us (GTh (3) & (70)). Secondly that the kingdom of heaven is not going to 'arrive' in some future date but is already here (GTh(113)). This view of the kingdom of heaven conflicts with that of the New Testament where it is depicted as a future physical place (ie external to us) that will come about by apocalypse.

In the New Testament we are told that it is through the community (or 'church') that we will reach the kingdom of heaven; in GTh we are told that it will be through solitary study of Jesus's teachings (GTh (49), (75), & (108)). Moreover the book has made it clear from the outset (GTh (1)) that these teachings are obscure/hidden. The Jesus of GTh is passing on select and obscure/hidden teachings to the elect few. Once again there is a striking difference from the inclusive and global salvation offered in the New Testament.

Perhaps the most important difference between the Jesus of GTh and the NT is in what is not said. In GTh there is no mention of sin, no conception of divine debt or retribution. Rather the world itself is seen as something bad (GTh (56)). Most significantly GTh contains no death narrative, and no resurrection narrative; for the Jesus of GTh what is important is the teaching, not some metaphysical personality cult. In fact the implication of GTh (108) is that once a person has understood these sayings they will be identical with Jesus and he with them. The whole process of salvation and atonement in the NT is completely lacking from GTh. The implication in GTh is that we suffer because of creation itself (GTh (56)), and through the sayings of Jesus we can overcome that (GTh(1)). The theme in the NT, conversely, is that creation is perfect, and we suffer because we sinned against God and we are only saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Jesus of GTh seems to be a spiritual teacher not anything so grand as the Son of God.

This difference is so striking that Elaine Pagels has even suggested GTh fits more into eastern Buddhist or Hindu traditions than that of the synoptic gospels:

Does not such teaching â€" ..., the concern with illusion and enlightenment, the founder who is presented not as Lord, but as spiritual guide â€" sound more Eastern than Western? Some scholars have suggested that if the names were changed, the 'living Buddha' appropriately could say what the Gospel of Thomas attributes to the living Jesus. Could Hindu or Buddhist tradition have influenced [it]?
British scholar of Buddhism, Edward Conze, suggest that it has. He points out that 'Buddhists were in contact with the Thomas Christians (that is, Christians who knew and and used ... the Gospel of Thomas) in South India'.

- The Gnostic Gospels â€" Elaine Pagels p.18

So to come back to my initial query. Why is this book so ignored by mainstream Christianity? The answer is simple. It is a book with a similar historical pedigree as the NT gospels, but presents a totally different Jesus. There is no grand metaphysical structure, no sin, no heaven or hell, no resurrection or divinely given salvation. Rather the Jesus of GTh appears as spiritual teacher who provides his followers with wisdom sayings which allow us to overcome the suffering of existence. There is simply no way to marry these two versions of Jesus; they could scarcely be more different. So Christians, to this day, rely on the judgement of bigots such as St Irenaus and St Epiphanius and discount this book as heretical. In doing so they can cling to their old faith, that of sin, self-loathing and divine truth.

peace

[notself]

The Gospel of Thomas presents a Jesus with thoughts parallel to Buddhist teachings.  During the years of his life before he started to preach he could have had contact with Buddhist philosophy which had already spread to the Middle East.  Buddhist monks and nuns had established monasteries in the area now known as Afghanistan and may have traveled as far west as Greece.

The Indian King Ashoka (273-232 BC), the grandson of the founder of the Mauryan dynasty, demonstrated his conversion to Buddhism by vigorously promulgating the religion across India. His edicts were carved on pillars of stone and wood, from Bengal to Afghanistan and into the south. He celebrated the distribution of the ashes of the Buddha, according to legend, placed inside 84,000 stupas. His best-known dedications are the Sarnath lion capital imprinted on India's currency and the Wheel of the Law at the center of the national flag of India. Ashoka's empire extended to the northwestern borders of the Punjab. The Buddhist monks were free to move throughout the whole area. As the result, the Buddhist community probably had reached the Hellenized neighbor, the Kushan/Bactrian kingdom, by the end of Ashoka's reign.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/buddhism.shtml

Certainly the idea of individual quest to end suffering is very much in line with Buddhist teachings.

Jesus said, “I have cast a fire upon the world, and see, I am watching over it until it blazes.” - GTh (10)  

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished â€" from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other â€" is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." Fire imagery was spread throughout the suttas.  In this imagery, a blazing fire which flares into the air is seen as freed from its fuel and is a symbol of release, unbound, nirvana.


Jesus said, “Blesses are those who are solitary and superior/elect. For you (plur.) will find the kingdom, for since you come from it you shall return to it.” - GTh (49)  

Casting aside the household gear,
As sheds the coral-tree its leaves,
With home-ties cut, and vigorous,
Fare lonely as rhinoceros.

[mwgrondin]

Very well done, penfold. You and everyone here who might be interested in serious secular discussions of the Gospel of Thomas and related texts is invited to join the e-list GThomas at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas.
-Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

[Asmodean]

Very well done, penfold. You and everyone here who might be interested in serious secular discussions of the Gospel of Thomas and related texts is invited to join the e-list GThomas at *link*
-Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Not to judge a one-post advertiser by its cover, but have you anything constructive to add..?  

[mwgrondin]

Being somewhat of a curmudgeon myself, I can appreciate your attitude. If pressed, I would say that the contrast between Thomas and the canonicals with respect to the kingdom isn't so black and white as penhope claims. See, for example, Luke 17:20-21, which is similar to Th3 in separating the kingdom from the end-times. The reason I haven't responded earlier is that I was counting on being notified of any responses to my note, but apparently I don't have it set up right to do that.

[penfold]

If pressed, I would say that the contrast between Thomas and the canonicals with respect to the kingdom isn't so black and white as penhope claims. See, for example, Luke 17:20-21, which is similar to Th3 in separating the kingdom from the end-times.

There is a lot of crossover with the canonical gospels in terms of text. However I'm not sure I agree with your point about similarities in their notions of the Kingdom. On the particular point of Lk 17:20-21 and GTh3 I agree it is a similar text, but I think their meanings are wildly different:

GTh3 says "...the Kingdom is inside you. And it is outside of you. When you become acquainted with yourselves then you will be recognised. And you will understand that it is you who are children of the living father." So the kingdom both internal and external - a mystery saying which has interesting parallels in Eastern literature. Importantly the Kingdom is achieved through 'acquaintance' with yourself. A type of gnosis or enlightenment.

Lk 17:21 by contrast there is no and outside of you passage. Moreover the following verses (17:22-24) don't mention of 'acquaintance' but talk of a "time" that "is coming". Most telling of all is verse 17:25: "But first he[the son of man] must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation"; the mechanism for the Kingdom in Lk is bound up in crucifixion, in this it could not be further from GTh.

Textually there is overlap, in terms of eschatology I can find none.

peace

[Gawen]

So to come back to my initial query. Why is this book so ignored by mainstream Christianity?

Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, book 5, ch. 2.

What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies.

...

But they assert that not only is there in favour of their doctrine, testimony to be drawn from the mysteries of the Assyrians, but also from those of the Phrygians concerning the happy nature-concealed, and yet at the same time disclosed-of things that have been, and are coming into existence, and moreover will be,-(a happy nature) which, (the Naassene) says, is the kingdom of heaven to be sought for within a man. And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: "He who seeks me, will find me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest." This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: "A child of seven years is half of a father." And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested. This, with them, is the ineffable and mystical Logos.

From the preface to book 1, giving context:

In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures-nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions;-but that their doctrines have derived their origin18 from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers,-it seems, then, advisable, in the first instance, by explaining the opinions advanced by the philosophers of the Greeks, to satisfy our readers that such are of greater antiquity than these (heresies), and more deserving of reverence in reference to their views respecting the divinity; in the next place, to compare each heresy with the system of each speculator, so as to show that the earliest champion of the heresy availing himself19 of these attempted theories, has turned them to advantage by appropriating their principles, and, impelled from these into worse, has constructed his own doctrine. The undertaking admittedly is full of labour, and (is one) requiring extended research.

[penfold]

^ well for a start the passage quoted by Hyppolytus does not appear in GTh. It makes me somewhat suspicious of him as a relaible source... (though to be fair there were other texts of the Thomic school which may have been referred to as gospels). There is also the broader question of why should Xianity have a cannon at all; it seems to have been a late development starting a couple of hundred years after the supposed date of Jesus' death (for that matter why Hypolytus should be considered an authority)...

Moreover, early Christian theology of all stripes was influenced by Greek thinking (eg the notion of Christ as homoousion affirmed at Nicea). In fact there is good evidence that John's gospel is deeply Hellenistic (cf Robinson).

So I don't think this really explains why early Xians deemed this text heretical (my own personal suspicion that there was a lot more politics and less theology than the anti-herecy texts suggest). However in terms of modern Xianity's ignoring of GTh the works of Hyppoltus simply does not suffice as a good reason.

Good spot though, thanks for the post.

peace.

[mwgrondin]

penfold - Let's say you're right about the point I raised. That, among other things, would go to show that the theological outlook of Thomas is very different from the canonical gospels. Isn't it a wee bit inconsistent, then, to imply that you're mystified why Thomas didn't get into the canon?

[lundberg500]

Our earliest fragment dates from c. 200CE meaning that this text was being copied and read for, at minimum, 150 years

Not likely at all. From everything I have studied, I have found that there is no evidence at all for any gospel about Jesus existing before the Bar Kokhba revolution that started in 132 CE. Jesus was not a real historical person. The earliest gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke were put together after 132 CE. It is my contention, and others as well such as Dr. Hermann Detering, that the little Apocalypse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 refers to aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolution.

The gospel of Thomas would be dated to after the synoptic gospels. I believe the gospel of Thomas was created when the gnostic period was underway which would have been mid to late 2nd century CE.

[penfold]

Isn't it a wee bit inconsistent, then, to imply that you're mystified why Thomas didn't get into the canon?

Haha, good point! To be honest I am not really surprised that it didn't get into the canon at all. For the sake of rhetoric my friend...

Incidentally I keep meaning to join your yahoo group, I promise, that when I have the time to do give it some attention I will. I was wondering, how far do you ascribe to the idea of eastern influences in GTh?

Not likely at all. From everything I have studied, I have found that there is no evidence at all for any gospel about Jesus existing before the Bar Kokhba revolution that started in 132 CE. Jesus was not a real historical person. The earliest gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke were put together after 132 CE. It is my contention, and others as well such as Dr. Hermann Detering, that the little Apocalypse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 refers to aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolution.


The gospel of Thomas would be dated to after the synoptic gospels. I believe the gospel of Thomas was created when the gnostic period was underway which would have been mid to late 2nd century CE.

Well a couple of points. I personally agree with Layton that GTh is not a gnositc text. Though it shares a few similar themes with Gnosticism it lacks many others and contains none of the characteristic Gnostic cosmology. The probable place of construction of GTh was Edessa in Syria; where as Gnosticism emerged later in Alexandria. We know that by the time of Valentinius GTh was widely read in Egypt (so it was undoubteldy influential in the Gnostic world), however the earlier classical gnostic writings share no text with GTh, which strongly implies that they come from different traditions. Moreover we know that the Thomic Christians lived in Syria and further East, so the very nature of the attribution to Thomas is suggestive.

I am not sure where you get the claim that GTh fragments don't date from 200CE (which is later than 132CE), as far as I am aware that is pretty well established. All I was saying is that some scholars have placed GTh as earlier than 100CE and that we have a fragment dating from 200CE; I do not pretend to be expert enough to date it myself.

As for your point about the historical Jesus, it is well taken. I personally think that Bultmann is correct in his analysis that while we can know next to nothing about the historical Jesus, it is more probable he existed than didn't. However, I do agree it is an open question. If it is not too presumptive could I ask that the deep question of the historicity of Jesus is not discussed in this thread. I wanted to have a thread talking specifically about GTh and its theology.

None the less, thank you for your post. In the mean time I will be looking up Dr. Hermann Detering and trying to educate myself.

peace

[Gawen]

Depends on when you think Thomas was written. In the intro to the Gospel, the explicit mention of "secret sayings" seems to follow Gnostic tradition. However, immediately after that, the phrase "living Jesus", seems to contradict later Gnostic/Docetic Christologies.

IF Thomas was actually the first "gospel" written, then it might explain the eventual split between the Gnostics and proto-Orthodox. Alas, it seems that in this gospel, Jesus is merely a wisdom sage and not a god. If Thomas is first, Jesus is merely a wisdom sage because it only contains sayings and no signs or wonders. Next, Mark is written which combines Wisdom Sage Jesus with Healer Jesus, thus going from simply a wisdom sage to the adopted son of god. Then Matt and Luke are written which further deifies Jesus by incorporating Wisdom Sage Jesus with Healer Jesus and goes one step further by making Jesus not the adopted son of god, but the literal son of god.

John is then written last; Wisdom Sage Jesus is dropped for the "Obama" Jesus, mixed with Healer Jesus. He then goes from just being the literal son of god presented in Matt and Luke to being god himself. God himself has no need for wisdom sayings. Furthermore, John seems to go out of his way to attack the wisdom sage Jesus presented in Thomas by having the "Doubting Thomas" story. After John is written, Jesus is further deified by later heresies.
Being "gnostic" does not automatically imply "early". In theory, the gnostics, docetists and other so called  heretics lived in some form of relationship with the orthodox Christians until Nicaea. This is demonstrated by a number of extant gnostic works (NT apocypha) which are thought by some scholars to have been authored in the fourth (or even later) centuries. Gnostic is very Hellenistic IMO.

Still...Mark could have come first. Yet Thomas  decided to focus only on the sayings for whatever reason. Also note that while the progression described from adopted son to God (etc) makes some sense, one can't fit the Gospel of Thomas in it because it's not obvious which kind of Jesus we're dealing with.

Moreover, the (some believe Coptic) Gospel of Thomas text does not explicitly make a reference to "Jesus" as an expanded literal and unambiguous name. As I understand it, a Coptic nomina sacra -- or abbreviated name -- of I_S is used consistently in this text. This can also be translated as The Healer. The implication is of course that the healer and jesus may not have been one and the same.  In the Coptic/Gnostic material
the names Jesus and Christ are never written in full, but indicated as the letters IS with a bar over them.
Scholars seem to routinely fill in the blanks, making IS into I(eseo)S, the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua. However, there is no textual evidence to support the assumption that in Gnostic usage IS indicated a historical person named Ieseos, Jesus. IS could as well be translated in another way: I(asiu)S, giving the name Iasius, “the healer,” a title rather than a common name. But translators and believers assume that "IS" is Jesus of the New Testament.
Basically, we are not allowed to consider that "IS" may indicate anything else but a literal person whose identity is predetermined.

Why did the church not want to accept the gospel of thomas? Well, you have this excuse as well:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a ... _id=00CcfK

Try this:
http://answers.org/bible/gospelofthomas.html

Then again...mayhaps Constantine had his hand a bit deeper than most people seem to think?

[lundberg500]

I am not sure where you get the claim that GTh fragments don't date from 200CE

That's not what I meant. The 200CE makes perfect sense. I was stating that there is no way that it would have been read and copied for 150 years before that date. The 200CE dating makes perfect sense seeing as the earliest that it could have been written was around 132 CE. Here are a couple of links to Detering for you.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/little-apocalypse-and-the-bar-kochba-revolt/

http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf

[mwgrondin]

Moreover, the (some believe Coptic) Gospel of Thomas text does not explicitly make a reference to "Jesus" as an expanded literal and unambiguous name. As I understand it, a Coptic nomina sacra -- or abbreviated name -- of I_S is used consistently in this text.

Almost right. It's actually a Greek nominum sacrum, used in the canonical gospels as well. There are basically three forms of it (IH, IS, and IHS), and the Coptic ms uses two of them - IS 102 times and IHS three times.

One can't infer anything from this, however, about the existence of Jesus, since nomina sacra were also used for other terms where there was no question of the authors' belief in the existence of the object.

Scholars seem to routinely fill in the blanks, making IS into I(eseo)S, the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua.

Actually, it's an abbreviation for Iesous.

Basically, we are not allowed to consider that "IS" may indicate anything else but a literal person whose identity is predetermined.

You're allowed to consider anything you like, but one doesn't rule out the other.

[meta]

There were several sects in early Christianity in the 2nd century forward to Constantine's edict to destroy the "heretics" and burn their books after Nicea and 325 C.E. There were various Christologies, soteriologies, and other theologies. One of the sects was Gnostic, following a tradition in Judaism which appropriated the viewpoint from Greek and Persian sources.  It is associated with mysticism and the early mystery religions, with which Christianity competed.  Some scholars claim Gnostic Christianity was the first and most populated of the sects, following a view like that of Paul known as the "cosmic Christ", without being human.  Orthodox Christianity had its goal in conservative organization for power and increase of members, and it was decided that Jesus must be both human and divine.  Denial of Jesus' humanity was the very highest form of heresy (Docetism), the "antichrist" of the Pastorals.  GThomas simply wasn't orthodox enough, especially in the denial of the real humanity of Jesus, rather than just an appearance (illusion).  Some of the Christian sects fought wars against each other, actually the proto-orthodox, some Bishops having their own armies.  The winner was the Roman Bishopric (understandably at the center of the Roman Empire), later controlled by Constantine and his chosen Bishop: Athanatius who determined the canon by letter to all the Bishops, although it generally was based on the most popular books previously.  The canon had requirements of Christology, primarily a Jesus Christ both human and divine, and with a history of Jesus and his deeds.  GThomas didn't fit into that.

GThomas is very similar to the hypothetical Gospel Q, the sayings of Jesus picked out of Matthew and Luke.  These sayings are collated for the three gospels including GThomas in "The Sayings Tradition," which you can google.  The sayings are thought to be recorded around 50 C.E., when some scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, think GThomas and Q were written. This would have been in a very different setting than that of Paul, which seems to be in a "mystery religions" setting.

Richard.