Simon Gathercole - Named Testimonia To The Gospel of Thomas - An Expandes Inventory and Analysis PDF

Named Testimonia to the Gospel of
Thomas : An Expanded Inventory and

Analysis*
Simon Gathercole
University of Cambridge
The question of how much apocryphal Gospels were rebutted, suppressed or

even destroyed in antiquity is a question of perennial interest, both popular and
scholarly. The present article makes no attempt at any sort of complete answer
to this question, but has the rather more modest aim of analyzing the various
testimonia- from antiquity into the middle ages- that make explicit reference to
a "Gospel of Thomas." This article will not touch on the numerous allusions to,
or quotations of, the contents of this Gospel, but will be confined to treatments of
the title (hence " named testimonia"). The impetus for this particular investigation
is of course the presence, at the end of the second tractate of Nag Hammadi
Codex II, of a colophon reading "The Gospel according to Thomas."1 Given the
controversial contents of this Gospel, and the equally controversial place that it
occupies in scholarly reconstructions of Christian origins, Thomas' s reception
in antiquity has been widely discussed since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi
Codices (see n. 2 below).
A list of a number of possible testimonia to the Gospel of Thomas has already
been available in Harold Attridge 's edition of the Greek fragments, and this is usually
referred to by scholars as the standard catalogue.2 The present article, however,
* I am particularly grateful to my colleague Dr. James Carleton Paget for his incisive, learned,
and helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. I also thank Professor Sam Lieu for his
assistance on matters Manichaean, and Dr. Matteo Grosso who read the manuscript and rescued me
from two errors of translation.
1 As is well known, this Nag Hammadi tractate is also paralleled in POxy 1, 654 and 655, one
of which (POxy 654) refers to the disciple Thomas, although none preserves a title of the work.
2 Harold W. Attridge, "Appendix: The Greek Fragments," in Nag Hammadi Codex 11,2-7:
Volume One (ed. Bentley Layton; NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 95-128, esp. 103-9. Attridge is
HTR 105:1 (2012) 53-89
This content downloaded from 201.153.151.19 on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:24:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
roughly doubles the number noted by Attridge, adding wh

as §§6, 15, 17- 18, 20-21 , 23, 25-36. 3 Additionally, the pr
analyze and assess the significance of the respective testim
some discussion of less explicit instances of books or wr
with Thomas that may imply reference to a Gospel. In all, t
indicates just how persistent was curiosity or concern abo
in late antiquity and beyond.4 The following list shall p
(§§ 1-36), leaving the uncertain cases to last (§§ 37-^4). I sh
threads running through these testimonia, as well as attendi
§ 1 . (?Ps.-)Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.7.
oi) uòvo v <ô' > aírccòv é7ci|iapi')pelv фао1 тф Xóycp та ' Aa

ка1 Opuycòv <àXXà Kai та AiyimTÍ(ov> rcepi Trçv tcdv yeyo
jxévcov Kai èaojiévwv eti jiaKapíav Kpi)ßo|ievr|v ójioú Ka
(JrÒGiv, f|V7i£p фг|о1 <Trjv> èvròç àv0pa>7roi) paaiÀEÍav oùpav
7iepi fjç ôiappfiôrjv èv тф ката Gcojiâv етпурафоцеую eva
ôóaai Xeyovxeq ошох;* ' E|iè ó Çr jtcòv ei)pf|aei év rcaiÔíoi
EKEi yàp èv тф теааареака1бекатф aicòvi Kp')ß0|ievo(; фа
toÍ)to ôè oi)K ëGTiv XpiGTOÍ) àXXà f Itctcokpótodç >i;y0VT
Kaiç 7raTpòç tíjiigd. ö0ev owoi tt^v àpxéyovov ф-òaiv tcòv o
Ti0é|iEvoi cmépâTi, то ' l7c^0KpáT£i0v aKT|KOÓTeç Ö
Tcaiôíov ènxà èTcov, èv toIç Téoaapai <Kai ÔéKa> фаа'1У
0(o^âv, Eivai фаУЕр0яЗ|1£У0У.
echoed in Francis T. Fallon and Ronald Cameron, "The Gospel of T

and Analysis," ANRW II, 25,6 (1988) 4195-51, at 4204, and followe
Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press,
Aóyoi 'Аяокруфсн. Aspetti della ricezione del Vangelo secondo
antico (Ph.D. diss., University of Turin, 2007) 24-38. For an early
Henri-Charles Puech, "Une collection de paroles de Jésus récemmen
Thomas," Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettre s. Compte s Rend
3 Concordance: Attridge Here Attridge Here Attridge Here
1 § 1 8 § 8 14 § 14
3 §2 9 §9 15 §16
5 §3 10 §10 16 §19
6a §4 11 §11 17 §22
6b § 5 12 § 12 18 § 24
7b §7 13 §13
Some of Attridge 's examples are instances o
not taken into consideration here. Jerome's
a separate item.
4 Almost all the dates given are approxim
5 Hippolytus Werke. Dritte Band. Refut
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) 83. On the vexed q
Allen Brent, Hippolytus & the Roman Chur
the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (Leid
cited attack on the attribution to Hippoly
l'histoire de la littérature chrétienne du t
SIMON GATHERCOLE 55
They (i.e., the Naassenes) say not only that the mysteries
and Phrygians support their own doctrine, but also that th
with those of the Egyptians about the blessed nature- at th
den and appearing- of those who have been, are, and are
they say, is the kingdom of heaven to be sought within man,
expressly pass on a statement in the Gospel entitled "accor
as follows: "He who seeks me will find me in children from
For there, in the fourteenth aeon I am hidden and yet appe
But this is not from Christ but from Hippocrates, who

seven years is half of his father." From this they locate th
of all things in its original seed, having heard this Hippocr
"the child of seven years is half of his father." So they say
years, according to Thomas, he is revealed.
This is the only reference to Thomas accompanied by a

that suggests that the Refutatio regards Thomas as origin
One of the difficulties with the Refutatio comes in det
generally dated to 222-235 с .е., but Brent has renewed th
authorship, contending that the Refutatio was written
predecessors during the lifetime of Callistus (i.e., before
the Refutatio employs a source that would have been ro
with, or even earlier than, its close parallel in the text of P
in wording may reflect different forms of the work in
hand, "it may well be that the citation in Hippolytus is but
4, distorted either by Naassene exegesis or by Hippolyt
Knowledge of the Gospel of Thomas can also be seen els
of the Naassenes in Refutatio 5. 8. 9 The purpose of the R
6 Brent, Hippolytus & the Roman Church , 289: "£/. was com
Callistus in 222."
7 From the beginnings of Thomas research, see Robert M. Grant, "Notes on the Gospel of
Thomas," VC 13 (1959) 170-80; William Schoedel, "Naassene Themes in the Coptic Gospel
of Thomas," VC 14 (1960) 225-43; Étienne M. J. M. Cornélis, "Quelques éléments pour un
comparaison entre l'Évangile de Thomas et la notice d'Hippolyte sur les Naassènes," VC 15 (1961)
83-104, esp. 89-92. More recently, there is José Montserrat-Torrents, "Le notice d'Hippolyte sur les
Naassenes," in Studia Patristica (ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone; vol. 17; Oxford: Pergamon Press
1982) 231-42, and Maria Grazia Lancellotti, The Naassenes: A Gnostic Identity among Judaism,
Christianity, Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions (Forschungen zur Anthropologie und
Religionsgeschichte, 35; Münster: Ugarit- Verlag, 2000) 317-48 on the Gospel of Thomas, an
passim on the unity of Hippolytus's notice.
8 Attridge, "Appendix: The Greek Fragments," 103.
9 Gos. Thom. 11.2 is parallelled in Ref. 5.8.32, and Alastair Logan, The Gnostics: Identifying
an Early Christian Cult (London: T&T Clark, 2006) 78, considers that the "Naassene Preaching
has "clear allusions to the ascetic Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas" (esp. Gos. Thom. 114) in Ref.
5.8.44-45. A very thorough discussion of other instances of Thomas in the Refutatio can be found
in Grosso, Aóyoi 'Алокрьфоь, 65-139.
that this "mystery" does not come from secret revelation,

Hippocrates réchauffé .10
§ 2. Origen, Homiliae in Lucam 1 (ca. 233-244 C.E.)11
то iiévToi é7iiyeypa|Li|iévov ката AiyurcTÍoix; eùayyéXio

ysypajLijiévov xrôv Бсобека eùayyéîov oí avyypá'|/avTeç èic
Ôè èxo^jirjae ка1 BaaiXeíôriç ypá'|/ai ката BaciÀ£Íôr|v eùayy
fxèv oív èiceêipriaav. ферета1 yàp ка1 то ката Gœ^âv eùa
ката MaT0íav ка! àXXa nXzíova. таша èou tg)v è7Uxeipr
Téaaapa jióvov TtpoKpívei rj той 0eoû £KKÀr|GÍa.
Those, however, who composed what is entitled the Gospel ac

Egyptians , and that entitled the Gospel of the Twelve- they "
to it." Basilides had already ventured to write the Gospel ac
lides. Therefore "many have set their hands to it." For also in
the Gospel according to Thomas , as well as the Gospel accord
and many others. These come from those who "set their hand
church of God approves four alone.
Origen 's use of the Gospel of Thomas has been a subject o

recent times.12 He is a case where we can speak without re
actual knowledge of the Gospel in some form: He quotes v
23, Gos. Thom. 69 and Gos. Thom. 82, attributing at least th
to written works he has read.13 In the testimonium quote
the opportunity in his interpretation of the third Greek
(èîiexei pr|oav) to criticize those (|iév) who "set their hands t
themselves, as opposed (5é) to the four NT evangelists, who
so to do. èrc£%£Ípr|aav is being taken here in a negative se
one's own initiative, as per the contrast in 2 Peter 1 :21 .14 Th
10 1 am grateful to Professor Catherine Osborne for putting me on to

Hippolytus in the Refutatio.
11 For the text, see Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung d
griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars (ed. Max
GCS 35; Berlin: Akademie, 1959) 5, 11. 9-1 1 . On the date, see the various
Homilies on Luke (ed. and trans. Joseph T. Lienhard; The Fathers of th
D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996) xxiv, as well as the
in the same volume (5-6).
1 2 See e .g . , Matteo Grosso , "Osservazioni sui testimonia origeniani de
(in Lue. hom . 1,1 ; contra Celsum VIII,15; in Jer. hom. lat. 1,3; in Jesu Ñ
15 (2009) 177-94; Stephan Witetschek, "Going Hungry for a Purpos
Stephen С. Carlson, "Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas" (paper presen
of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, 24 November, 2009)
13 Gos. Thom. 23: Peri tou Pascha II.6.3; Gos. Thom. 69: Нот. Lev.
Jer. L. I (III) 3 and Нот. Josh. 4.3. For the reference to Gos. Thom. 69, 1 a
"Going Hungry for a Purpose."
14 Origen is not concerned that the four NT Gospels were written first; rat
SIMON GATHERCOLE 57
Homilies on Luke survives only in fragments preserved

Jerome's Latin translation.15 The passage is also attested
fragment of Origen's Commentary on John discussed be
here.
§ 3. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.6 (ca. 311-323 C.E.)17
. . . tv' eiôévai ëxoi|i8v aûxàç xe xaúxaç Kai xàç òvójiaxi

Ttpòç x ©v aipexiKCÒv rcpo<|)£po|Liévaç fíxoi coç néxpoD K
f' Kai tivcdv 7capà xoúxovç äXXw evayyéXia TiepiexoÚG
cûç ' Avôpéou Kai ' Icoávvou Kai xtov àXfaùv ànooTÒXm 7tp
oùôa^wç èv o')yypáp|iaxi xwv каха xàç ôiaôoxàç èKK^r|aiaa
eíç jivf|(ir|v àyayelv f^ícoaev. . .
... so that we might be able to know both these, and those p

names of the apostles by the heretics- whether writings co
as if of Peter, or Thomas, or Matthias, or of any others in ad
Acts as if of Andrew or John or of other apostles. For of t
among those churchmen of the successions has thought it a
any reference in a work at all. . .
Here, Eusebius has classified works into three cate

books" of the New Testament (the four Gospels and Acts,
perhaps Revelation); the "disputed books" or avxiteyojiev
2 and 3 John); and those which are not genuine but vó0a
or counterfeit (a category including the Acts of Paul and
apocryphal Gospels such as those of Peter and Thomas re
They are not even to be counted among the bastards, but
in which a number of Gospels were written: "The Gospels we have w

gospels and passed on to the churches." Horn. Luc. 1; trans. Lienhar
15 Scio quoddam evangelium, quod appellatur secundum Thoma
plura legimus . . . ("I know of a certain Gospel, which is called 'A
as one according to Mathias; and we have read a number of othe
Lukas, 5,11.8-11])..
16 Scholia in Lucam 1 (date unknown) in PG 17:3 12B: xò (lévxoi èrciyeypa|i|iévov ката
AiyurcTÍouç eúayyékiov, Kai то érciyeypawiévov tãv бсобека eúayyékiov, oi auyypáxj/avTeç
èêxeípílaav- ферета1 ôè Kai то ката Ocoîâv eùayyéÀiov. tíôtí Ôè £TÓ^(irjae Kai BaaiAêíôíiç
cmyypáyai ката BaaiXeíÔTiv e-òayyéîov. Compare also Joseph Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra:
Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien (TU NF VI; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901) 143, who gives this text from
MS Marc. 544: tí tióvtíoç to ката Gcoîâv èrciyeypa|i|iévov äyiov eùayyéXiov fi кат' AiyxmTÍouç
EÙayyéÂAOv f' Kai то é7iiyeypa|i|iévov tcov бюбека eùayyeAicov oi cruyypáyavTeç énexeípTiaav.
This sentence comes in a scholion to Luke attributed to Titus of Bostra and Origen, but clearly it
closely resembles Origen.
17 Eusebius Werke. Zweiter Band. Die Kirchengeschichte I-V (ed. Eduard Schwarz; GCS 9.1;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903) 252.
18 vó0oç also has the sense of pseudonymity in the discussion of works falsely attributed to
Plato in Platonic circles: see Diogenes Laertius, VP 3.62.
öuaaeßfj rcapamyuéov- to be rejected as completely wicked

Eccl. 3.25.7). The passage also survives in Rufinus's Latin t
§ 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4.36 (ca. 348 C.E.)20
tííç ôè Kaivf|ç ôia0f|Kr|ç, xà xécroapa jióva evayyéXia' xà ôè

тиурафа Kai ßtaxßepa xvyxávei. ëypa'|/av Kai Maviâtoi
eùayyéXiov, Ö7iep eúcoôía xrjç еьаууеХькщ ^poaœvuîiaç érciK
01аф0г1ре1 xàç ij/uxàç xcòv aTcôuaxepcov.
Of the New Testament, there are only four Gospels. The ot

attributed and harmful. The Manichees wrote the "Gospel acco
as," which is dabbed on the surface with the fragrance of the
but which destroys the souls of simpler folk.
This testimonium is the first to attach Thomas to the Manic

will have a long history, as we shall see. Although the Ma
written Thomas, there is certainly strong evidence for the
92-94 below).
§ 5. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6.31 (ca. 348 C.E.)21
xoúxou |ia0r|xai xpeíç yeyóvaoi, 0co|Liâç Kai Baôôâç Kai 'E

àvayivcooKéxcû xò каха Gcojnâv eùayyéÀiov où yáp èaxiv év
árcoGxótaov, àXX évòç xcov какшу xpicòv xoíj Mávri |na0r|xct)v
He (Mani) had three disciples, Thomas, Baddas and Hermas.

the Gospel according to Thomas. For it is not from one of the
but from one of the three evil disciples of Mani.
Here the strategy is interesting: Cyril does not say that some
the Gospel (as he did in Catechesis 4!) but rather that the Th
the apostle Thomas .22 There is also a Thomas who is credited
in the Manichaean Psalmbook, though it is unknown whether
the apostle or the disciple of Mani. Some consider the Mani
a fiction, since he does not appear in Manichaean sources.
avers that "Mani's disciple Thomas is a phantom, and neve
phantom of ancient heresiological literature, where it could
19 Schwarz, Kirchengeschichte I-V , 253: sed et de Ulis sciendum est, qua

ab haereticis proferuntur, velut Petri et Thomae et Matthiae et ceterorum
appellant euangelia, sed et Andreae et Iohannis atque aliorum apostolor
prorsus in scriptis veter um, eorum dumtaxat, qui apostolis successerun
commemoratio habetur.
20 PG 33:500B.
21 PG 33:593A.
22 Cyril may not be inconsistent here: the title уе')0ея1урафа in 4.36 may refer to the title
"Gospel" being false, rather than being a reference to falsely attributed authorship.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 59
entertained that an apostle could be the author of a heretica

side, however, the pagan Alexander of Lycopolis mention
Lieu is much more sympathetic to the historical existenc
§ 6. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiast

fourth cent. C.E.)25
ôià xoûxo yoûv Kai ó rpéxepoç Xóyo ç àrcayopeúei xf^v

a7toKp{)<J)Cöv, ènei noXXà е['|/е')]5оураф110т1. Kai ypá'|/
amò e')ayyé[Ài]ov eí xúôi каха Gcojiâv f' каха né[xpov
àpxaloç è7iÍGK07roç einev £KK^r|GiaG[xi]KÓ(;* Aià xoûxo
xrçv [evxjeuîv xcov аяокр')ф(оу ôià xoùç 'ir' ôuva|iévoDç
èv aùxoîç Kaxa|Liiyévxa íwc[ò aip]e0iK©v.
Therefore also our teaching forbids the reading of the apoc

have been written under false names. Someone writes and t
a Gospel, whether it might be "according to Thomas" or "ac
But one ancient bishop of the church has put it well: "Fo
says, "we prevent the study of the apocrypha: because of t
able to distinguish what has been combined in them by he
Here the verdict of Didymus and the unnamed authorit

as, say, Eusebius. The problem with the apocrypha is pe
wholly evil, but that they have a mixture of good and ba
to there being "many" of these books perhaps recalls Orig
tradition attached to Luke 1:1.
§ 7. Jerome, Commentarium in Mattheum Prologue (late fourth cent. C.E.)26
... Et perseverantia usque ad praesens tempus monumenta declarant, quae

a diversis auctoribus edita , diversarum hereseon fuere principia , ut est illud
iuxta Aegyptios, et Thoman, et Matthian, et Bartholomeum, duodecim quo-
23 Jürgen Tubach, "Die Thomas-Psalmen und der Mani- Jünger Thomas," in II Manicheismo.
Nuove Prospettive della Riche rea. Quinto congresso internazionale di studi sul Manicheismo (ed.
Luigi Cirillo and Alois van Tongerloo; Manichaean Studies 5; Turnhout: Brepols, 1997) 397-416, at
401 , 409: "der Mani-Jünger Thomas ein Phantom ist, und es ihn nie gegeben hat ... . ein Phantom
der häresiologischen Literatur der Antike, da man sich nicht vorstellen konnte und wollte, dass ein
Apostel Autor von häretischen Schriften sei." Also on the skeptical side are F. Forrester Church and
Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, "Mani's Disciple Thomas and the Psalms of Thomas," VC 34 (1980) 47-55.
24 See Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia & the Roman East (Religions in the
Graeco-Roman World, 118; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 264.
25 Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes. Teil 1.1 .Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 1,1-2,14
(ed. Gerhard Binder and Leo Liesenborghs; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 25; Bonn:
Habelt, 1979) 22. For pessimism about the possibility of a precise dating, see xiii.
26 S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorum in Mattheum Libri IV (ed. David Hurst and Marc
Adriaen; CC, SL 77; Turnhout: Brepols, 1969) 1; also PL 26:17A.
que apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum

longissimum est.
. . . And works surviving up to the present time, which w

various authors and have been the founts of diverse heresies
I am referring to that (Gospel) according to the Egyptia
and Matthias, and Bartholomew, as well as "of the Twelv
of Basilides, and of Apelles, and of others whom it would
enumerate.
Although this extract comes from the Prologue to Jerome's commenta

Matthew, this Prologue begins with a note on Luke 1:1, along the lines tha
have already seen in Origen: These others attempted to make orderly accou
but did so without the Spirit of God. It is noteworthy that Jerome commen
the survival of these works up to his own time. For later use of Jerome's lan
here, see §§ 17 and 33 below.
§ 8. Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 1 .2 (ca. 389 C.E.)28
Et aliud quidem fertur euangelium, quod duodecim scrip sisse dicuntur. ausus
etiam Basilides euangelium scribere, quod dicitur secundum Basilidem. fertur
etiam aliud euangelium, quod scribitur secundum Thoman. novi aliud scrip-
tum secundum Matthian. legimus aliqua, ne legantur; legimus, ne ignoremus ;
legimus, non ut teneamus , sed ut repudiemus et ut sciamus qualia sint in
quibus magnifici isti cor exaltant suum.
And indeed there is another Gospel in circulation, which the Twelve are said
to have written. Basilides has also ventured to write a Gospel, which is called
"According to Basilides." There is also in circulation another Gospel, which
is entitled "According to Thomas." I know of another entitled "According to
Matthias." We have read some of them not so that they may be read; we have
read them so that we may not be ignorant of them; we have read them not in
order to hold to them, but to reject them and to know what the nature is of
these books in which those prideful men have elevated their hearts.
Here again we have the juxtaposition of Thomas and Matthias, as in Origen

other examples so far (§§ 2, 3, 7). Interestingly, Ambrose seems to be indic
that he himself has read some of them. Although the Latin verb lego could
"gather" in a sense here of "assemble a list," or possibly "select," it probably
mean "read" in each case: In the clause ne legantur , it certainly means "read,
Ambrose talks of the goal of ascertaining the nature of these works. He has
read aliqua ("some," "some such"), however, and so not necessarily his G
27 Sc. make it clear that, as Luke 1:1 says, " many have undertaken, etc."
28 Sancii Ambrosii Opera. Pars Quarta. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucan (ed. С.
Schenkl; CSEL 32:4; Leipzig: Freytag, 1902) 10-11.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 61
of Thomas. But clearly he thinks that getting acquainte

Gospels is important, in order to know their qualia.
§ 9. Philip of Side, Church History fragment (after 430 C
rcteloxoi xœv àpxaícov xrçv 'Icoávvou émaxoAjiv où 7c

xivòç Twávvov xaTJTrjv oiófievoi. xò ôè каб' 'Eppaíouç cò
êyó|iEvov néxpoi) Kai 0co|iâ xeêícoç ánéfiďkXov aipexi
ypájifiaxa téyovxeç.
Most of the ancients did not accept the epistle of John, th

a different John. But they completely rejected the Gospel
Hebrews and those called "of Peter," and "of Thomas," sayin
the compositions of heretics.
In this instance we have the appeal to the authority of

already seen in Eusebius and Didymus the Blind (§§ 3, 6)
dependent on Eusebius here.
§ 10. Pseudo- Athanasius, Synopsis scripturae sacrae (ca.
Tf|ç Néaç náXiv Aia0f|Kr|ç àvxiteyójieva xaûxa.

riepíoÔoi néxpoD, IlepíoÔoi ' Icoávvoi), FlepíoÔoi 0a)|iâ,
0(û|iâ, Aiòa^Tì òiTtOGXótaov, KÀrmévxia, èÇ ňv |хехефра
xà àÀrjõéaxepa Kai Qeónvevom. Tama xà àvayivcoaKÓ|i
These are the disputed works of the New Testament:

The Journeys of Peter, the Journeys of John; the Journey
Gospel according to Thomas ; the Teaching of the Apostles
By these, quite true and divinely inspired matters have
paraphrased. These are read.
This text initially sounds rather positive: These books are

divinely inspired, and are called "disputed" (avxiteyojieva
or rejected. (With the list of ОТ books there are the antileg
in contrast to the more suspicious apocrypha, such
The discussion proceeds more dismissively, however: Re
writings are described as completely superfluous- "bastar
(rcapayeypa|4iéva ôé eiai rcávxcoç ка1 vó0a, ка1 a7c0ßA,r
If we are to believe this account, it is interesting evid
Thomas was not only in circulation, but was actually used
books which are read (ávayivoaKÓjieva), even if the com
29 Carolus de Boor, Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pi

Excerpten aus der Kirchengeschichte des Philippus Sidetes (TU 5; Leipzi
30 PG 28:432B.
be unhappy that such books are used. The list here correspon
in Nicephorus's Stichometry (see below § 20).
§ 11 . Decretum Gelasianum 5.3 (sixth cent. C.E.)31
Euangelium nomine Mathiae , apocryphum.

Euangelium nomine Barnabae, apocryphum.
Euangelium nomine lacobi minoris , apocryphum.
Euangelium nomine Petri apostoli , apocryphum.
Euangelium nomine Thomae quibus Manichaei utuntur, apocr
Euangelia nomine Bartholomaei, apocrypha.
Euangelia nomine Andreae, apocrypha.
Euangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.
Euangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha.
The Gospel with the name of Matthias, apocryphal.

The Gospel with the name of Barnabas, apocryphal.
The Gospel with the name of James the Less, apocryphal.
The Gospel with the name of the apostle Peter, apocryphal.
The Gospel with the name of Thomas, which the Manichees
Gospels with the name of Bartholomew, apocryphal.
Gospels with the name of Andrew, apocryphal.
Gospels which Lucianus has fabricated, apocryphal.
Gospels which Hesychius has fabricated, apocryphal.
This list rejects a number of Gospel accounts, including the

Dobschlitz comments, in regard to the Manichaean connectio
is relying on an older literary tradition or on his personal
question.32 There is also a Revelatio Thomae later on in the
§ 12. Pseudo-Leontius of Byzantium, De seeds 3.2 (mid-late
omoi Kai ßißîa iivà éamolç kcuvotojioíkti. 'Xéyovci yàp

ката Ocojiâv ка1 ФШлттоу, атсер fpeîç огж ïajiev.
31 Text: Ernst von Dobschlitz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris rec

(TU 38; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912) 11 and commentary on 295-96. See als
ed., New Testament Apocrypha (translation ed. Robert McL. Wilson; v
Writings; rev. ed.; Cambridge, U.K.: James Clarke, 1991) 1:38^0.
32 Dobschlitz, Decretum Gelasianum , 295.
33 Deer. Gel. 5; Dobschiitz, Decretum Gelasianum , 12, with commen
Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literatu
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 645-51.
34 PG 86- 1:121 3C.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 63
These people also invent various books for themselves. F

Gospel according to Thomas , and of that according to Ph
we do not recognise.
"These people" are the Manichees, and the author is per

(fl. ca. 550 C.E.). The pairing of Thomas and Philip is an
Pistis Sophia 1 .43 has Philip, Thomas, and Matthew (see
the NT order,35 although we do have the Thomas-Philip
Codex II, where their Gospels are copied together.36 See
Basilica below (§ 25).
§ 13. Timothy of Constantinople, De receptione haeretic

C.E.?)37
oi 5' àn amoxi ÔEoaxDyeîç Maviâíoi Kaiv0T0}i0')Giv èamoîç ôaiiiovicòôri

ßißAia, ärcep eioi xáôe*
a Tò Çcòv EùayyéÀiov
ß' f O OriGcmpòç tF|ç Çwnç
y ' H tü)v ' EniGTO^tõv ó|iáç
Ô' ' H TWV MuaxripicDV
e ' H EKxáXoyoq ' AXoyíov
ç ř H tcûv E')x®v
Ç ' H xwv K£<{)aÀaia)v
ri' ' H xœv yvyávTíDv npayjiaxeia
0' tò ката Oci)|iäv evayyéXwv
i то ката Oí î7i7io v evayyéXwv
ia Ai Kpáêiç ' Avôpéo') то') ànooxóXov
iß' ' H êvTeKaiÔEKárn Kpòç AaoôiKeîç ' EkigtoTo]
ly Tà riaiÔiKà ^£yó|ieva тог) K')pío'). . .
Those accursed Manichees after him (sc. Mani) invent devilish books for
themselves, which are as follows:
1 . The Living Gospel
2. The Treasure of Life
3. The Collection of Letters
4. The Collection of Mysteries
35 It is not completely clear, however, which Philip is in view here. "Philip" could be the Philip
who was one of the twelve, or Philip the Evangelist (Acts 6:5; 8; 21:8) or a fusion of the two (for
which see Polycrates, apud Eusebius, HE 5.24.2). On this, see Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and
the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 440-42.
If Philip is thought of as belonging more to the Acts of the Apostles, then coming after Thomas
is more natural.
36 Puech, "Une collection de paroles de Jésus récemment retrouvée," 149, notes this connection
in his discussion of the Pistis Sophia.
37 PG 86-l:21C.
5. The Heptalogus of Alogius

6. The Collection of Prayers
7. The Collection of Kephalaia
8. The Deeds of the Giants
9. The Gospel according to Thomas

10. The Gospel according to Philip
1 1 . The Acts of the Apostle Andrew
12. The Fifteenth Epistle: to the Laodiceans
13. The So-Called Childhood Deeds of the Lord . . .
The use here of the comparatively rare word kciivoto|io')giv (rare at least in
connection with books) suggests a dependence of Timothy upon his predecessor,
the author of the De sectis. As commonly the case in these lists, the author
distinguishes the Gospel of Thomas from an infancy Gospel (number 13 in the
list) that is not connected with Thomas at all.
§ 14. Bede, In Lucae evangelii expositio 1, Prologue (late seventh, early eighth
cent. c.E.)38
Denique nonnulli Thomae, alii Bartholomaei, quidam Matthiae, aliqui etiam

duodecim apostolorum titulo reperiuntur falso sua scripta praenotasse.
Finally, a few "Thomases," various "Bartholomews," certain "Matthews," even

some "twelve apostles" are found to have named their writings with false titles.
As has become traditional, this reference to other Gospels comes in the discussion
of the prologue of Luke. Bede goes on also to note the Gospels of Basilides and
Apelles, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews- the latter of which should not
be considered apocryphal, but as belonging with the ecclesiastical histories.
§ 15. John of Damascus, Orationes de imaginibus tres II 16 (ca. 730 C.E.)39
Mavtxaîoi auvé ypayav то ката Gcojuav eùayyéîov урауате Kai ùjieîç

то ката AéovTa 8')aYyéA,iov.
The Manichees composed the Gospel according to Thomas. As for you- go

and write the Gospel according to Leo!
Here, John of Damascus mentions the Gospel of Thomas in passing. He regards

those who ban images as destroying the unwritten traditions of the church, and so
draws a parallel with the Manichaeans who have done the same.40
38 PL 92:307C.
39 Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (ed. P. Bonifatius Kotier; vol. 3; Patristische Texte
und Studien 17; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 113.
40 See Andrew Louth, St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 203-7 on the second treatise, and 205 on the taunt of Leo
SIMON GATHERCOLE 65
§ 16. Acts of the Second Council ofNicaea 6.5 (787 C.E.)4
Kai xò ката Ocojiâv Mavi%aloi лареющауоу eúayyéAio

XiKÌ' èKKÀrjGÍa cdç áXAóxpiov eúaepcoç алоотрефетаг.
And the Manichees have introduced that Gospel according t

the Catholic Church piously rejects as foreign.
Here, the Gospel of Thomas is mentioned just after the E

as another example of a false work.42
§ 17. (Anon.) Quaestiones uel Glosae in euangelio nomine

2 (late eighth cent. C.E.)43
Sanctus Hieronimus dicit plures fuisse qui euangelia scri

euangelista testatur dicens: quoniam quidem multi conati su
rationem rerum, quae in nobis conpletae sunt , sicut trad
ab initio ipsi uiderunt, quia muitos hereses <et> eorum do
praesumptiuo spiritu euangelia conscripsisse <et> nomina
rum praenotasse, quos et Johannis in epistola sua anticristo
carne minime dominum confitebantur uenisse , et ideo ip
quae scribebant, non sua sed aliorum nomina praenotauer
errore inducerent; ut est illud apud Aegiptios, euangelium
Bartholomeum, duodecim quoque apostolorum nomina, Ba
lis et reliquorum quos enumerare longissimum est.
Saint Jerome says that there have been many who have wr
Luke the Evangelist testifies: "Since many have undertak
derly account of the things which have been fulfilled amon
who themselves saw from the beginning have passed dow
have found many heresies and their teachers, with pridefu
composed Gospels and called them not by their own names
of others. These teachers John calls in his Epistle "antichri
not really confess that the Lord has come in the flesh. And
not named these same false Gospels, which they have writt
names but with those of others, in order more easily to lead
I am speaking of that according to the Egyptians , the G
Thomas , according to Mathias, Bartholomew, also the na
and the reference to Thomas.
41 Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (ed. Giovanni Domenico [J .D.] Mansi;
vol. 13; Florence: Zatta, 1767) 293B.
42 These Acts are translated into Latin by the colourful Anastasius the Librarian, ca. 872 C.E.
(for this section, see PL 418C).
43 Scriptores Hiberniae Minores. Pars I (ed. Robert E. McNally; CCSL 108B; Turnhout:
Brepols, 1973) 133 (text). On the date, McNally comments: "The series of glosae and questiones
here is representative of an aspect of the Irish tradition of biblical exegesis as it developed on the
continent in the late eighth century at a time before the Carolingian renaissance had become fully
effective" (131).
apostles, of Basilides, and of Apelles, and of others whom it

long to enumerate.
This is a fairly straightforward case of a recycling of J

Commentary on Matthew (see § 7 above). It is interestin
glossarist associates the apocryphal Gospels that he ment
christological error condemned in 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 Joh
§ 18. Paul the Deacon, Homily 59: In natali Sancii Luc

eighth cent. C.E.)44
et perseverantia usque ad praesens tempus monumenta decla

sis auctoribus edita , diversarum haeresum fuerunt principia
appellatur Evangelium juxta Aegyptios, secundum Thomam
Bartholomaeum, duodecim quoque apostolos, ac Basilidem
et cae te ros quo s enumerare long um est. . .
. . . And works surviving up to the present time, which w

various authors and have been the founts of diverse heresie
I am referring to that which is called the Gospel according t
that according to Thomas , according to Matthias , and a
tholomew , as well as according to the Twelve Apostles ,
Basilides , and according to Apelles , and others which it wo
to list. . .
The present homily, in veneration of Luke, merely repeats

with only minor changes, such as calling the work in qu
secundum Thomam rather than Evangelium Thomae.
§ 19. (Anon.) Commentar io lus Byzantinus Scholion §

cent. C.E.)45
Kpíaiç 7uoir||aáTú)v fièv л cncpißf^ yvcÒGiç xwv 7coir||iáx(ov léyezav xaúxfl щ

flKpipcû|Liévfl yvcÓGei xpcójievoç ó ypajijiaxiKÔç ôeî yivoÓGKeiv та ßißMa xíiç
èKKÀrjGÍaç rcávx a, xouxéGxiv xr'v naXaiàv Kai Kaivfiv ôiaGiÍKrjv, iva öxav
áKoí)Gfl <|)CDvfiv Çévrjv Kai огхууращш r' Ttoírjiia yeuÔéç, цт] ôéÇrixai amò cbç
àXr|0ivóv, érceiÔri ëaxiv eùayyéÀiov каха Oco|Liáv Xeyó|ievov. Aeí 8è yivcó-
GK81V xòv ypajLifiaxiKÒv xà òvó|iaxa Kai xàç (Jxovàç xcòv ей ayyeXiGxwv, iva
|ifi àMóxpiov Kai '|/£UÔèç eúayyéA-iov ÔéÇrixar
Judgment of works is said to be accurate knowledge of those works. In mak-

ing use of this refined knowledge, the scholar must know all the books of the
church, that is, the Old and New Testaments, so that when he hears a foreign
phrase and a false book or work, he does not receive it as true- there is,
44 PL 95: 1533B.
45 Scholia in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam (ed. Alfred Hilgard; Grammatici Graeci 1/3;
Leipzig: Teubner, 1901) 565-86, at 568, and xxxvii for the date.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 67
after all, also a Gospel according to Thomasi It is necessar

to know the words and phrases of the Evangelists, so that h
a different and false Gospel.
This is an interesting case, because it seems to imply that

well-known instance of a noncanonical work (note also
§ 20. Nicephorus, Chronographia brevis (ca. 850 C.E., pe
Kai öaa тщ véaç eioiv апокрифа-

a nepíoôoi Петрои gtíxcov /ß'|/v
ß' nepíoôoç ' Icoávvov gtíxcov ;ßx
у nepíoôoç 0co(iâ gtíxcov ta% •
Ô' EúaYYÉîov ката 0co|iâv Gtíxcov ;ат
e А10ахл ánooxóXwv gtíxcov ;ç . . .
And these are the apocrypha of the New Testament:

1 . The Journeys of Peter. 2750 lines.
2. The Journey of John: 2600 lines.
3. The Journey of Thomas: 1600 lines.
4. The Gospel according to Thomas : 1300 lines.
5. The Teaching of the Apostles'. 200 lines. . .
Since Nicephorus records the length of the work he ca

to Thomas , he clearly either knows a manuscript of it h
tradition that did. Might this indication of the length of t
to whether this is our Gospel of Thomas? Since the other w
fragmentary or difficult to identify exactly with an extan
fruitful to compare Thomas with the lengths given for NT
or less stable by this time: Matthew (2500 lines); Mark
lines), and John (2300 lines).47 Thomas , then, is on this
Luke's Gospel. Unfortunately, however, this does not cor
our Gospel of Thomas' it would mean that Nicephorus's
than ours.48 (No other works, such as The Book of Thom
versions of the Infancy Gospel, fit this size very well ei
46 Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula histó

Leipzig: Teubner, 1880) 135; also PG 100:1060В. On the question of
New Testament Apocrypha , 1:41.
47 Nicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani , 133; also PG 100
48 One manuscript even has E')ayyéîov ката Otofiâv gtí^wv
length as the book of Proverbs! Harnack made the same judgment a
Infancy Gospel. See Adolf von Harnack, Die Geschichte der altchris
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897) 1:1, 16. The situation might be alleviated
from Thomas intended to go in the blank pages in Codex II; even
make Thomas nearly as long as Nicephorus reckons it.
sizes of the works, one can compare the number of letters

our Thomas , and Matthew and Mark:
Approximate numbers of letters in extant Gospel s49
Coptic Greek
Matthew: ca. 70000 ca. 74000 characters
Mark: ca. 42500 ca. 46000 characters
Luke: ca. 72000 ca. 79000 characters
John: ca. 55000 ca. 59000 characters
Thomas : ca. 15000
Clearly our Thomas is nowhere near half the length of the Gos
length Nicephorus gives for the Gospel of Thomas is puzzling
to some extent are his lengths for Matthew and Mark: On his c
only 25 percent longer than Mark; on my count of characters, t
percent longer and the Coptic text 65 percent longer. We can p
lengths of the four NT Gospels along with Thomas as percent
percent) as follows:
Lengths as Percentages of the Length of Luke's Gospel
Coptic Greek Nicephorus

Matthew: 94 97 96
Mark: 58 58 77
Luke: 100 100 100
John: 76 75 88
Thomas : 21 n/a 50
Essentially, Nicephorus's figu

the case: On his reckoning,
they really are. Why this sho
coincidence. It is quite likely th
in each case, with enumeration
In sum, despite initial promise
on whether he knew the sam
49 The numbers of characters were

all breathings, accents, etc. as well
Coptic counts similarly, with the text
factors (e.g., the use of nomina sacr
the ending of Mark) which make th
aim here is merely to come up with
SIMON GATHERCOLE 69
§ 21 . George the Sinner, Chronicon breve 3.162 (ninth c
Toútod ôè цаЭтуит yeyóvaoi Tpelç' ©cû|iâç, Kai Bouôôâ

a>v omoç ó âç ßißôv èÇéôcoKe te:yo|j,évr|v Eùayyéta
(irjôeiç toívuv avayivcoaKETa) xò ката 0(O|iâv EûayyéXi
èvòç tíov iß' , àXX èvòç tcòv тршу kokcov toû Mávr| |ia0r|T
He (Mani) had three disciples: Thomas, Bouddas and Herm

Thomas produced a book called the "Gospel according to
let no one read the Gospel according to Thomas. For it is no
Twelve, but from one of the three evil disciples of Mani.
This follows what Cyril of Jerusalem says about the aut

Thomas, namely that the author is not the apostle Thom
development: One of Thomas's fellow-disciples is the Bu
appear in Manichaean literature, though in a more appropri
as one of the precursors of Christ;51 George also notes i
this discussion that Mani had a teacher called BoDÔâç as w
§ 22. Peter of Sicily, Historia Manichaeorum seu Paul

C.E.)53
Ma0r|xai Ôè тошои toû ccvtixpígtod Mávevioç yeyóvaai ÔóÔeKa' Xi-

oívvioç ó toútov ôiáôoxoç, Kai 0co|iâç ó то кат' atruòv jiavixaïKÔv
eùayyéÀiov owuáâç, Bodôôôç те Kai ' Epjiâç, "AôavToç Kai ' Aôf||iavTOç,
öv ànécxeiXEV eiç бшфора кМцата кг|рика Trjç rcÀávriç. 'Е^туутуиа!
ôè a')TO'j Kai гжо^гщаткпш yeyóvaGiv 'IèpaÇ Kai ' HpaKêíôrjç Kai
'Аф0<то<;. 'Ttctìpxov ôè ашф Kai ётерог |ia0r|Tai Tpelç 'Ayárcioç ó Triv
' Етста^оуоу awráÇaç, Kai Zapoúaç Kai Taßpiaßioq. |ir|Ô£Íç avayivoaKSTCo
то ката Ooojiav eí>ayyéA.iov où yáp èoTiv èvòç tíov 0(00ека ànoGxóXw,
àXX èvòç tcûv ôíòôeKa какт тог) àvTixpícruoi) MávevTOç |ia0r|Tú)v* 'ir'ie
ttìv ' EKTáôyov ' Ayarcíou, 'ir |те ктА,.
There were twelve disciples of this antichrist Mani: Sisinnius his succes-
sor; Thomas, who composed the Manichaean Gospel named according to
him; Bouddas and Hermas; Adantus, and Ademantus whom he (Mani) sent
to different regions as a herald of that deception. Hierax, Heracleides and
Aphthonius were his interpreters and recorders. He had three other disciples:
Agapius (who composed the Heptalogus),54 Zarouas and Gabriabius. Let no
50 PG 1 10:556C. The date is known from the fact that George's work extends from creation to
842 c.E.
51 See 1 Keph. 12. For translation, see Iain Gardner and Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts
from the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 263.
52 PG 1 10:556A.
53 Denise Papachryssanthou, "Les sources grecques pour l'histoire des Pauliciens d'Asie Mineure
I. Pierre de Sicile. Histoire des Pauliciens," Travaux et mémoires 4 (1970) 3-67, at 31; also PG
104:1265C.
54 Compare the attribution to "Alogius" above (§ 13).
one read the Gospel of Thomas. For it is not from one of th

but from one of the twelve evil disciples of the antichri
should one read the Heptalogus of Agapius, nor . . .
The language here clearly recalls that of the notice of Cy

(as does a good deal of Peter's Historia ), though Peter has
he uses to expand the number to twelve.
§ 23. Synodicon Orthodoxiae , Anathemata synodica 10 (te
Тф circ0Ô£X0|iévcû f' axé pyovxi то ßißMov то Kaôêv

oDVTcryeíoaç rcap aimôv rcévxe érciGxotaxç, f' то ката oTO
то ката 0(O|iâv eúayyéAaov, ка! |ifi ßöeAuGGOjiävw xaûxa
coç àfya õvTa jcupòç âpaváXcojia yevéaôai, aváGeâ.
To whomever accepts or has affection for the book called T

five Epistles composed by them, or the Alphabetical Book ,
cording to Thomas , and does not abominate these and spit up
worth only to be burned: Anathema.
For the first time readers of the Gospel of Thomas actua

surrounding context is difficult: We cannot easily identify
nor is the antecedent of the aúxcòv clear;56 as such, we d
group Thomas is being associated.57 The previous anathem
as does Gos. Thorn. 44, it replaces the reference to blasp
in Mk 3.28-29/Matt 12.3 1-3 2/Luke 12.10 with a statem
the Son (of God).58
§ 24. Pseudo-Photius, On the Recent Reappearance o

(eleventh cent.)59
|ш0г|та1 iLiévTOi той ôdgcdvúiliod Mávevxoç yeyóvaai бсобек

то á^ícojia аггсой xf|ç ö')oaeßo'^ ÔiôaoKaAiaç àvaôeÇájievoç,
кат a')TÒv òvojiaÇójLievov GDVTaÇá|i£V0ç EùayyéAiov, Boú
55 Jean Gouillard, "Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie," Travaux et mé

the anathemas, see "Appendix III. Les anathèmes parasites de Ma,
the supplementary introduction at 17-18. On the date, see 305.
56 Gouillard, "Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie," 308, 304.
57 A Manichaean connection of some kind is likely. There is a col
and the number five is a Manichaean favorite.
58 тф pyovxi- oç éàv ß>.aa<|)r||ir|crri eiç xòv Tiòv той Оеой, аф£0г|оеха1 ашф, хф ôè eiç è|iè
ßtaxa<|)Tifio')VTi о')к афеб^аетси, àváôeâ.
59 Wanda Wolska-Conus, "Les sources grecques pour l'histoire des Pauliciens d'Asie Mineure
III. Photius: Récit de la réapparition des Manichéens," Travaux et mémoires 4 (1970) 99-173, at
137; also PG 102:41В.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 71
Kai ' AôájiavTOç Kai ' Aôeíjiavxoç, öv Kai бтфороц ÔiÉ7ie

7tÀ,ávr|ç Kai Trjç áTtoamoíaç amcòv кг|ргжа . . .
There were, however, twelve disciples of the disreputable

also succeeded to his rank in impious teaching,60 and Tho
the Gospel named according to him, and Boudas and Herm
and Adimantus whom he also dispatched to various regions
deception and apostasy . . .
The account attributed to Photius here closely parallels Pet

in very much the same vein as he does.
§ 25. Basilica ( Scholia ) Book 21, Title 1: Chapter 45.3 (
oi Mavévxoç toû népoov jiaGrjmi 5гю àp^àç eiaáyovue

àya0òv Kai rcovripóv, xr'v Ttâoav 0prjGKeíav аЭетогхп
á7TOvé|iovT£ç Kai xriv kevt'v р^аафгциогту. sxodgi
тшреуураттса ката Ф1^1яяоу Kai 0co|iâv.
The disciples of the Persian Mani adduce two principl

good and an evil. They reject all piety, assigning it to the
ing it as vain. They have some Gospels that they have w
that "according to Philip" and that "according to Thomas.
This reference comes in the enormous collection of

begun during the reign of Basil I (with the scholia
later).62 As in the Ps .-Athanasius reference noted abov
verb лараурафсо (there rcapayeypa|i|iéva) in connect
Gospels. With Pseudo-Leontius of Byzantium (and N
Pistis Sophia) the Basilica here shares the pairing of Th
60 The language is awkward here, but probably refers to

(compare § 22).
61 Dou we Holwerda and Herman J. Scheltema, eds. Basilicorum
(Scripta Universitatis Groninganae; Groningen: Wolters, 1959) 4
62 On the date of the Basilica and its scholia, see Thomas E. van
to Date (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1996) 107-21.
§ 26. MS 1006: Gloss on John 7:53-8:11 (eleventh cent
The cursive nt text numbered 1006 has a remarkable

Thomas . There are two scholia to the Pericope Adulter
is an interpretation of Jesus' writing on the ground in
the sins of each of them [presumably of the adult
èicácTOD a')TG)v ájiapxíaç). The other is a note on the
кефа^аюу тошо тог) ката 0o)|iâv STjayyéîoi) écTiv (
Gospel according to Thomas). Because this is so unusu
whether there might be a credible tradition behind it.
already propounded the view that the pericope went
Hebrews {EH 3.39.17), and our gloss is perhaps a m
Eusebius 's attribution.
§ 27. Euthymius of Constantinople, Epistula Invectiva (ca. mid-eleventh cent.)65
In his attack on the Bogomils, or, as he also calls them, the "Phundagiagites,"
Euthymius discusses the martyrdom of Mani. He makes it clear, however, that
Mani was not a martyr of God but of the devil. Euthymius then paraphrases one
of the passages of Cyril already discussed above (§ 5):
урафег ôè eiç та атг^гтегтка mv aipSTiKÔv ó ayioç KúpiM-oç Iepo-

goAÚ|ig)v Kai тогУсо, ori* яроое^ете, ccÔetajxn, тог) 'щ avayivcocnceiv то ката
0o)|iâv eùayyéÂiov, èrcei огж ёотг тог) аттоат0А,ог) Хрштог) тог) cdriGivoû
0£oí) fpcov, àXX' етёрог) Оюца aipeTiKoû, тог) MavevToç |ш0г|тог).
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem writes against the records of the heretics the fol-
lowing: "Be careful, brothers, not to read the Gospel according to Thomas ,
since it is not of the apostle of Christ our true God, but of another, heretical,
Thomas, the disciple of Mani."
Euthymius perhaps quotes from memory here: The wording is not exactly that of
Cyril, though the sentiment is identical.
63 For the text, see Kirsopp Lake, Texts from Mount Athos (ed. Samuel R. Driver; Studia Biblica
et Ecclesiastica, vol. 5, part 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1903) 173. 1 take the date from Ulrich Becker,
Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. Untersuchungen zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte von Joh.
7.53-8.11 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963) 145. See also discussion in Alfred Schmidtke, Neue
Fragmente und Untersuchungen zu den judenchristlichen Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Literatur und
Geschichte der Judenchristen (TU 37; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911) 149-50: this is marred, however,
by his assumption that Eusebius knew the contents of the Gospel of Thomas.
64 Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin , 145, and even more so on 148-49.
65 For the text, see Gerhard Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten. Ein Beitrag zur Ketzergeschichte des
byzantinischen Mittelalters (Leipzig: Barth, 1908) 161, and 274 for the date. I owe this reference
to a mention in Antonio Rigo, "I Vangeli dei Bogomili," Apocrypha 16 (2005) 163-98, at 165.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 73
§ 28. Theophylact of Ohrid, Vita Clementis Ochridensis 28

twelfth cent.)66
ei |ièv o')v (bç Mavixaîoi то ката 0cop,âv eùayyéAiov, oik

ti 7tpoeveyKelv ё^ете tt^v Toiaikriv rcepi той rcve')|LiaT
eiariyriaaiievov, SeíÇaTe тошо K£KavovtG|¿évov ка1 aicD7tf|a
ôè Kai d)ç eùepyÉTaç т1цг|аоц£у. Ei ôè Téaaapai |nèv ápâi
GÍaç Tcapáôeiaoç ек |iiâç 7rnyf|ç xeo^vaiÇ noTÍÇexai, MaTÖ
Ao')Kâv Kai 'Icoávvriv, oljiai, аиулкате. 'O Ôè ké'iktov eia
Xiov TpiaKaTápaToç.
So if, like the Manichees with the Gospel according to Thoma

have something else to offer which has introduced this teac
Spirit, show us that it has been canonised, and we will be si
that- we will even honour you as benefactors. But if the p
church is watered by four principles (albeit flowing from a
then understand them, as it were, to be Matthew, Mark, Luk
he who introduces a fifth Gospel is thrice accursed.
Theophylact was bishop of Ohrid in Bulgaria, and so migh

negative concerns about Manichaeism because of the local
His reference is intriguing because it suggests a particular
Gospel of Thomas, namely the Spirit as understood by the Ma
is no detail supplied on the matter. Theophylact also anticip
the modern scholars who have designated Thomas as the fif
§ 29. Gratian, Decretum pars 1, distinctio 15, canon 3, § 3

cent. c.E.)68
Euangelium nomine Thaddei, apocrifum.

Euangelium nomine Thomae apostoli , quo utuntur Manichei , apocrifum.
Euangelium nomine Barnabae apostoli , apocrifum.
Euangelium nomine Bartolomaei apostoli, apocrifum.
Euangelium nomine Andreae apostoli, apocrifum.
Euangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrifa.
Euangelia quae falsavit Hyrcius, apocrifa.
Gospel with the name of Thaddeus: apocryphal.

Gospel with the name of the Apostle Thomas, which the Manichees use:
apocryphal.
66 Aleksandur Milev, Gruckite zitija na Kliment Ochridski (Sofia, 1966) 76-146, at 102.
67 Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson, eds., The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas
Comes of Age (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998); Nicholas Perrin, "Thomas: The
Fifth Gospel?" JETS 49 (2006) 67-80.
68 Corpus Iuris Canonici I. Decretum magistři Gratiani (ed. Emil Friedberg; Leipzig:
Tauchnitz, 1879) 38.
Gospel with the name of Barnabas: apocryphal.

Gospel with the name of Bartholomew: apocryphal.
Gospel with the name of Andrew: apocryphal.
Gospels which Lucianus has fabricated: apocryphal.
Gospels which Hyrcius has fabricated: apocryphal.
This is clearly an extract from the Gelasian Decree (see

and the sequence, however, differ slightly; the content he
of Ivo of Chartres and Peter Abelard (§§ 30, 31). The only
the Gelasian Decree in its reference to Thomas is in its identification of him as
an apostle, which means that the "Thomas" is clearly not intended as Thomas the
disciple of Mani here.
§ 30. Ivo of Chartres, Decretum IV 65 (ca. eleventh-twelfth cent. c.E.)69
Evangelium nomine Thaddaei, apocryphum.

Evangelium nomine Barnabae, apocryphum.
Evangelium Thomae apostoli quo Manichaei utuntur, apocryphum.
Evangelium nomine Bartholomaei apostoli , apocryphum.
Evangelium nomine Andreae apostoli , apocryphum.
Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus , apocrypha.
Evangelia quae falsavit Ysius, apocrypha.
The Gospel in the name of Thaddaeus: apocryphal.

The Gospel in the name of Barnabas: apocryphal.
The Gospel of the apostle Thomas, which the Manichees use:
apocryphal.
The Gospel in the name of the apostle Bartholomew: apocryphal.
The Gospel in the name of Andrew the apostle: apocryphal.
The Gospels which Lucian fabricated: apocryphal.
The Gospels which Ysius fabricated: apocryphal.
Again, the Gelasian Decree (§11) forms the basis for this list of Gospels: Here
the source indicates Thomas by the genitive construction Evangelium Thomae
apostoli. The apostoli means furthermore that the work is not attributed to the
disciple of Mani. As generally the case in traditions stemming from the Gelasian
Decree, the list of Gospels here follows a reference to the Acts of Thomas, and is
followed immediately after by the Liber de infantia Salvatoris, and later on by the
Revelado Thomae. As noted above, however, although the list of Gospels here is
substantially the same as that in the Gelasian Decree, both Ivo and Abelard (see
below) are closer to Gratian, and even closer to each other.
69 PL 161 :280C.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 75
§ 31. Peter Abelard, Sic et Non: Ex decretis Gelasii pa

(ca. 1 122-1 142)70
Evangelia Taddei nomine, apocrifa.

Evangelia nomine Barnabae apostoli , apocrifa
Evangelia Thomae apostoli, quibus Manichaei utuntur, apo
Evangelia nomine Bartholomei apostoli, apocrifa.
Evangelia nomine Andreae apostoli, apocrifa.
Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrifa.
Evangelia quae falsavit Ycius, apocrifa.
Gospels with the name of Thaddeus: apocryphal.

Gospels with the name of the apostle Barnabas: apocrypha
Gospels with the name of the apostle Thomas, which the M
use: apocryphal.
Gospels with the name of the apostle Bartholomew: apocry
Gospels with the name of the apostle Andrew: apocryphal.
Gospels which Lucianus has fabricated: apocryphal.
Gospels which Ycius has fabricated: apocryphal.
Here the ill-fated Abelard also includes the usual sus

Curiously, all the Acts and Gospels are here put into th
probably not to imagine multiple Gospels of Thaddeus, T
In his prologue to the Sic et Non , immediately precedi
Gelasian Decree, Abelard cites Jerome's warning: cav
expressing anxiety about the fact that these works hav
them.71
§ 32. Nicetas Seides, Conspectus librorum sacrorum 23 (twelfth cent.)72
Tò iiévToi è7ciyeypa|i|iévov ката AiymTÍovç eùayyéXiov ка! то è7iiyeypa|i-

(lévov Tcov бюбека evayyeXmv oi GuyypáyavTeç è7t£%eípr|Gav. Феретаг
Ôè Kai то ката 0a)|iâv eùayyéîov. "Hôrj ôè èTÓA|ir|0£ Kai BaaiteíÔTiç
ypá'|/ai ката BaaiX£ÍÔr|v eúayyéîov. ПоМхн jièv oiv Kai
ката MaTÖiav Kai äXka rcteíova . . .
But those who composed the Gospel entitled "according to the Egyptians" and
that entitled "Gospels (sic) of the twelve"- they "set their hands to" the task.
There is also a "Gospel according to Thomas" in circulation. Basilides had
already ventured to write his "Gospel according to Basilides." Indeed, then,
"many have set their hands to it"; there is also that according to Mathias, and
many others . . .
70 Peter Abailard. Sic et Non: A Critical Edition (ed. Blanche B. Boyer and Richard McKeon;
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976-1977) 108-9, at 109.
71 Boyer and McKeon, Sic et Non , 91 .
72 Panagiotes N. Simotas, NiKijta Zeïôov Ivvoy/iç zrjç ' Ayíaç Графцд (Analecta Vlatadon
42; Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1984) 270.
This is clearly essentially the same text as that of the Or

in common with MS Marc. 544 the curious plural evayye
§ 33. Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in Matthaeum , Pref
Hieronymus Super Matth. Circa numerum vero Evangelistar

plures fuisse qui Evangelia scripserunt, sicut et Lucas Evang
cens: Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare etc., et sic
usque ad praesens tempus monumenta declarant, quae a di
edita, diversarum haereseum fuere principia, ut est illud iux
Thomam et Matthiam et Bartholomaeum, duodecim quoqu
et Basilidis, atque Apellis, et reliquorum, quos enumerare l
Jerome, on Matthew: Indeed, concerning the number of

necessary to know that there are rather many who have w
Gospels, just as Luke the Evangelist testifies: "Since indee
tempted to put in order, etc." And works surviving up to t
which were composed by various authors and have been the
heresies, make it clear. I am referring to that (Gospel) accor
tians, and Thomas, and Mathias, and Bartholomew, as well a
Apostles," and of Basilides and Apelles, and others whom
long to enumerate.
Since Aquinas is simply quoting at length here (see § 7 ab

not assume that he knew anything about the Gospel of his
still in circulation in his own day. The only very small va
is the Latinization of Thomas's name, from Thoman in J
Aquinas.75
§ 34. Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in Lucam 1.1 (betwee
Ambrosius in prooem. in Lucam. Nam sicut multi in ludaeor

infusi spiritu prophetaverunt, alii autem pseudoprophetae e
prophetae ; sic et nunc in novo testamento multi Evangeli
sunt, quae boni nummular ii non probar unt: et aliud quidem
um quod duodecim scripsisse dicuntur: ausus est etiam Bas
scribere: fertur aliud secundum Thomam, et aliud secundum
73 See n. 16 above.
74 For the text, see Angelico Guarienti, Catena Aurea in Quattuor Evangelia I. Expositio in
Matthaeum et Marcum (Turin: Marietti, 1953) 6. On the date, see Aidan Nichols's Introduction
to the reprint of Newman's translation: Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea. Volume 1: St. Matthew
(Southampton: The Saint Austin Press, 1997) v.
75 It must be borne in mind, however, that this observation necessarily relies on confidence in
the textual traditions of both Jerome and Aquinas on a small point of spelling.
76 For the text, see Angelico Guarienti, Catena Aurea in Quattuor Evangelia II. Expositio in
Lucam et Ioannem (Turin: Marietti, 1953) 6. The Luke commentary was finished sometime
between the completion of Matthew and Thomas's death in 1274.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 77
Ambrose, in the Prologue to Luke. For just as many amo

the Jews were inspired by the divine Spirit and prophesied
false prophets rather than prophets, so also now in the New
have tried to write Gospels which good moneyers have not
indeed another Gospel in circulation which the Twelve are
ten. Basilides also ventured to write a Gospel; there is anot
according to Thomas, and another according to Matthias.
Again, Aquinas is simply quoting a patristic authority (
§ 35. Mechitar of Ayrivank, Chronicle I, 33 (ca. 1285)77
Then according to the New [Testament]:

The Book of the Infancy of the Lord
The Gospel of Thomas
The Revelation of Peter
Three Wanderings of Paul

The Catholic Epistles of Barnabas and Judas and Thomas.
Of St. Clement, "Which books are to be accepted?"

Acts, and
Apostolic Canons
The Revelation of John, which is called Pilalimsis
The Counsel of the Mother of God to the Apostles
The Books of Dionysius of Athens
The Epistle of Timothy
The Book of Crispos
The Words of Justos
The Orthodox Sermon
The Epistle of Barnabas.
This list of Apocrypha is relatively little known in recent discussion, and it contains
various peculiarities.78 In addition to a Gospel of Thomas, we have not only a work
of "The Infancy of Jesus," but also a "Catholic Epistle of Thomas": in this list of
77 Translation here from Michael E. Stone, "Armenian Canon Lists VI: Hebrew Names and Other
Attestations," HTR 94 (2001) 477-91 , at 485; there is also a French translation in Marie-Félicité
Brosset, Histoire chronologique par Mkhithar d'Aïrivank (St.-Pétersbourg: Commissionnaires
de l'Académie impériale des sciences, 1869) 22. For the original text, see Hagop S. Anasyan,
Armenian Bibliology, 5-18th Centuries (Erevan: Academy of Sciences, 1959) l:xl [in Armenian] .
For the date, see the more extensive discussion of Mechitar in Michael E. Stone, "Armenian
Canon Lists III: The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivankc (c. 1285 C.E.)," HTR 69 (1976) 289-300.
78 It is noted by Dobschiitz, Decretum Gelasianum, 295, following Harnack, Geschichte der
altchristlicher Literatur 1:1,16, and Theodor Zahn , Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen
Canons. Teil V, /. Paralipomena (Erlangen: Deichert, 1893) 109-14, 121-23, and 1 15-57 generally.
More recent treatments of the testimonia to Thomas , however, have not made reference to it.
Catholic Epistles, however, all three items are curious.79 The l

is included as a subset under the larger heading of "Secret
The list comes in Mechitar of (the monastery of) Ayrivank's
of lists including ОТ prophets, priests and kings, as well as
Armenia and Georgia. Stone (following Burchard) notes tha
Mechitar is also later recycled in other manuscripts.80 He co
that the list in Mechitar is also combined with another list of forbidden books in
the eighteenth-century manuscript M9121 , folio 73v.81 Since this manuscript is so

late, it will not add to the count here.
§ 36. Nicephorus Callistus, Historia ecclesiastica Book II, 46 (late thirteenth-

early fourteenth cent.)82
Петров фере eircelv, 0co|iâ те Kai MaxGaioi), ïocoç 8è Kal xivov áXki ov
EvayyéXia Ttepiexoúaaç Kai Пражец алоатоХоу èxépcov, актер âç ' Av-
0péo') Kai 'IcoávvoD TipoßaÄAovxar œv oakiç xcòv атюатоАлкюу ôiaSóôv
Kai xwv Ka0eÇf|ç екк^ашопкюу аиуурафеап' |nveíav 7ce7roír|xai.
Let us take the writings of Peter, and of Thomas and of Matthias, perhaps
also those which consist of some other Gospels and Acts of other Apostles,
just as they put out those of Andrew and John: Of these none of the apostolic
successors and generations of ecclesiastical writers have made any mention.
Here Nicephorus includes the Gospel of Thomas in the category of "bastards"

and antilegomena : In this way, and in a number of other particulars, Nicephorus
shows that he is heavily dependent on Eusebius. According to this list it appears
alongside the Epistle of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews , as well as Gospels
of Peter and of Matthias.
79 The reference to the Epistle of Barnabas is odd, given that the list later has the Letter of
Barnabas as a separate entry; it is odd that the epistle of Jude is identified as an apocryphon; an
epistle of Thomas is, as far as I am aware, unknown elsewhere. Stone proposes an elegant solution
to the problem of the apocryphal epistle attributed to Jude, namely that "of Judas and of Thomas"
should be read as referring to a single letter "of Judas Thomas."
80 Stone, "Armenian Canon Lists VI," 484. He notes Vardan vardapet (d. 1270), the Canon
of Gregory of Tatew, and some anonymous lists. There is also an unpublished appendix in the
dissertation version of Christoph Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth (Ph.D. diss.,
Göttingen, 1961) 481 ( non vidi).
81 For the date (1723-24 c.e.), see Stone, "Armenian Canon Lists VI," 486.
82 PG 145:888C.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 79
И Possible Additional Instances

§ 37. Origen, Commentary on John fragment 106 (mid-thir
rcepi 5è xoû 7iœç Xéyemi агяф «Mfi yívoD àrciGxoç àXkà 7u

övo|Lia Ôè тог) 0wp,â xoiaûxa âv teÔeíri, öxi xœv jièv àÇia)0r
xoû Gû)xf|poç jieíÇovoç 0ecopíaç rcepi xrjç èv хф öpei цехацо
Kai XG)v офбёухюу èv òòty] Mcocecoç Kai ' HAáou xà òvójiaxa
xcàv ôè Xoikíòv ôià xoûxo xà òvófiaxa o') jiexeTcoírjaev, 87c
Kai ка0' èauxà f^v 7mpaGxř|Gai xò ¿каохог) f)0oç. 7iepi 'iev o
aTCOGXóXcov o') vuv лрокеиш A^éyeiv, êpi ôè xov 0co(iâ, o
Aíôvilioç, ôià xoûxo, éêi ôíô')jnóç xi ç xòv Xóyov f]v аяо
0ela ôiggwç Kai jiiiarixTiç XpiGxoíj xolç |nèv ё^ю èv 7iapapoÀ
ках' iÔíav Ôè xoiç iôíoiç |ia0r|xai(; xà 7cávxa èTci^-úovxoç.
Concerning how it is said to him, "Do not be unbelieving, but

things could be addressed to the name of "Thomas," because
John) altered the names of those to be counted worthy by th
greater vision of his transfiguration when Moses and Elijah a
glory, but he did not change the names of the others, by reason
those (names) were sufficient in and of themselves for presen
of each. It is, therefore, not proposed at present to speak a
apostles, but about Thomas, which means "Twin," by reason o
he was a twin with respect to the word, recording the divine t
an imitator of the Christ who spoke to those outside in parabl
everything privately to his particular disciples.
Finally, we have eight cases that are possible instances, thou

Carlson has recently suggested this complicated passage as a po
The passage is a reflection on Thomas's name: He is one of th
witness the Transfiguration, and therefore his name was kep
by Jesus or John the evangelist.85 The apparent, though
passage is that Origen understands Thomas to have writte
plain and one more expository. This is puzzling given what
about a "Gospel of Thomas" (see on § 2 above): The languag
his writing activity here is entirely positive.
83 For the text, see Orígenes Werke IV. Der Johanneskommentar (e

Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1903) 561-62.
84 Carlson, "Origen's Use of the Gospel of Thomas."
85 Jesus changed the name of Simon to Cephas/Peter (John 1:42); the a
such in John's Gospel, but presumably assumed by Origen to be c
James is not named thus in John's Gospel, and so may be assumed by
nomenclature there: both James and John are referred to, but only
John 21 :2; similarly John's Gospel is the only Gospel to mention the n
with Peter. Also noteworthy in this connection is Justin, Dial. 106, which
of the disciples' names.
§ 38. Pistis Sophia 1, 42-43 (ca. third cent. C.E.)86
^сфсипе se Птере ю сштм еф i Ainnoc nex^q пьц хе оситм Ф i лшпе

пм^к^рюс йт^ф^хе Ши^к хе ñtok ÑÑ -е^им^с Ш ngn-
т^утэ^с nhtñ 2Й пфорп мнустнрюи есе2 ф^хе nim efN^xooy Ш
NefH^^Y 'уш mñ 2^в NIN GTeTN^N^Y ерооу . . . теиоу se ñtwtñ
мпфонТ NeTN^C2M Пф^хе nih efN^xooy ÑÑ NefN^^y Ш Nef-
nm^y ерооу ь<уо) Пт^рГШтре ñ2íub nim Пте тШтеро ППпнуе нм se
ÑTepeqxooy Ñ6i ïc nex^q ÑNeqna^HTHC хе пете oyÑ н^лхе fìnoq
eccuTÑ n^peqccüTÑ ....
етве пф^хе ÑTá.KX00q efi Ainnoc хе ñtok mñ -единое mñ n'îoc
Ne ñt^yt^c nhtñ мпфомТ 21ťm пфо"рп ммустнрюи ec2¿¿i йф^хе nih
ÑTe тГПТТеро мпоуош ^уш ÑTeTÑpMÑTpe 2^Рооу сштм se тал^уе
пвол ипеТф^хе гш пе йть текбом ÑoyoeiN профнтеуе FÌMoq
мпюуоекр 21ТМ моуснс хе 2»tñ Штре ONxy ^уси фомт ере 2^в nih
N¿^2epa0xj пфойТ мШтре пе Ф i Ainnoc ГШ -тим^с ÑÑ мь-е-еддос.
It happened that when Jesus heard Philip, he said to him: "Hear, Philip, thou
blessed one, with whom I spoke; for thou and Thomas and Matthew are
those to whom was given, through the first mystery, to write all the words
I will say, and the things I will do, and everything you will see. ... At this
time now, it is you three who will write every word I will say, and the things
I will do, and the things I will see. And I will bear witness to all things of
the Kingdom of Heaven. When Jesus had said these things, he said to his
disciples: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." ....
(Mary said:) Concerning the word which thou did say to Philip: "Thou and
Thomas and Matthew are the three to whom it has been given through the
First Mystery to write every word of the Kingdom of Light, and to bear wit-
ness to them," hear now that I give the interpretation of these words. It is
this which thy light power once prophesied through Moses: "Through two
and three witnessess everything will be established." The three witnesses are
Philip and Thomas and Matthew.
Harnack appears to think this statement is a straightforward indication of a Gospel

of Thomas (albeit the Infancy Gospel with which he was acquainted), and while
we probably cannot be so confident, there is a possible allusion to the work here.87
This passage assigns Thomas a role alongside Matthew and Philip, who are also
established already as Gospel writers.88 In addition to Thomas's responsibility to
write down everything that Jesus says (compare Gos. Thorn , incipit ), there is the
comment that Mary now provides the interpretation of these words (compare Gos.
Thorn. 1), and the use of the "ears to hear" formula (Gos. Thorn. 8 et al.). There is
86 Text and (slightly modified) translation from Carl Schmidt and Violet MacDermot, Pistis
Sophia (NHS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 71-72 (= alt. 142, 144).
87 Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, 1:166-67.
88 In addition to the references to Philip already in examples above, see Pan. 26.13.2-3 and
there are two other references in Wesley W. Isenberg, "Introduction," in Nag Hammadi Codex
11,2-7: Volume One , 132.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 81
thus a reasonable chance that the Pistis Sophia here is ref

consciously alluding to some of its opening sayings. There
allusions to Thomas in the work.89
§ 39. P. Kell. Copt. 19, 11. 13-18 (mid-late fourth cent. c.E
Another intriguing possibility (which cannot be more than

letter of Makarios to his son, found in House 3 in Kellis.
of Manichaean works to "the Sayings
мелете ймек^лмоо eire ÑoyixNiN erre Прмйкние 200' <nim> epe

тср^2[ • • • ]п мпрке текепмтел1*. еи^л ею Ткрюю Ппетрос 2^Тнк
e[pi п^п]оотолоо н mmmi м^те Шпьб Ясрлнл ин ñí>a[m]oc N[oyixN]-
iN ею Прми^ ьн 2^тнк ¿.pi и[е]лете Пи^у ею ñkaicio Ç2 2ÑK[oyi 2Jn
2Ñc^n о'п Ñ2oyo Ñ20[yo]
Study [your] Psalms, whether Greek or Coptic, <every> day (?)... Do not
abandon your vow. Here, the Judgment of Peter is with you. [Do the] Apos-
tolos' or else master the Great Prayers and the Greek Psalms. Here too, the
Sayings are with you: Study them! Here are the Prostrations. Write a little
from time to time, more and more . . .
Obviously given the character of the Gospel of Thomas, it is a candidate for what
is here referred to as "the Sayings " (Прнмь.).91 We have seen the strong sense of the
Fathers of the Manichees' use, even composition, of Thomas. This is also borne out
in Manichaean literature, although no text mentions a Gospel of Thomas explicity.92
89 See e.g., the references to the "five trees" in PS 1:1, 10; 2:86, 93, 96.
90 For text and translation, see Iain Gardner, Anthony Alcock and Wolf-Peter Funk, Coptic
Documentary Texts from Kellis. Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxbow, 1999) 157, 160, and 9 n. 18 for the date.
91 See Alcock and Funk, Coptic Documentary Texts , 79, for brief comment on the works
mentioned in these Kellis letters.
92 On the use of Thomas in Manichaean literature, see Ernst Hammerschmidt, "Das Thomas-
evangelium und die Manichäer," OrChr 46 (1962) 120-23; Paul A. Mirecki, "Coptic Manichaean
Psalm 278 and Gospel of Thomas 37," in Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor
Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Alois van Tongerloo and S0ren
Giversen; Manichaean Studies, 1; Leuven: International Association of Manichaean Studies and
the Centre of the History of Religions, 1991) 243-62; Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, "Apocryphal
Gospels in Central and East Asia," in Studies in Manichean Literature and Art (ed. idem and
Manfred Heuser; NHMS 46; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 189-21 1; Wolf-Peter Funk, "Einer aus tausend,
zwei aus zehntausend. Zitate aus dem Thomasevangelium in den koptischen Manichaica," in
For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke (ed. Hans-
Gebhard Bethge et al.; NHMS 54; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002) 67-94; Peter Nagel, "Synoptische
Evangelientraditionen im Thomasevangelium und im Manichäismus," in Das Thomasevangelium:
Entstehung-Rezeption-Theologie (ed. Jörg Frey, Jens Schröter, and Enno E. Popkes; BZNW 157;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 272-93. Also noteworthy is Grosso, Aóyoi 'Ал0круф01, 277-304, and
n.b. Grosso's list on 303, which expands considerably the number of possible influences of Gos.
Thom. upon Manichaean literature.
Manichaean literature contains allusions to Thomas?3 in the

we even have a quotation.94 If this is indeed a reference to
that it keeps is noteworthy, as is the instruction to study
§ 40. Faustus (late fourth cent.), apud Augustine, Contra F

C.E.)95
mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrům et Andreám,

Thomam et ilium inexpertum Veneris inter ceteros beatum lohannem, qui
per diversa possessionem boni istius inter uirgines ac pueros diuino praeco-
nio cecinerunt formam nobis atque adeo uobis ipsis faciundarum uirginum
relinquentes. sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo, quia eos vos ex clusistis ex
canone facileque mente sacrilega uestra daemoniorum his potestis inportare
doctrinas.
I pass over the other apostles of our Lord- Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and that
one unacquainted with Venus and blessed among the others, John. These in
various ways gave to young men and maidens by divine proclamation the
possession of that good, leaving to us, and to you too, the pattern for making
virgins. But I pass over them, as I say, because you (pl.) have excluded them
from the canon, and with your sacrilegious minds you are easily able to at-
tribute to them doctrines of demons.
Augustine has quoted 1 Tim 4:1-3 against the Manichees, with its reference to
those who attend to doctrines of demons also abstaining from meat and forbidding
marriage. Faustus replies first by questioning whether Paul said such a thing at
all (anticipating skepticism about the Pastoral epistles by 1400 years, perhaps!),
and then defends abstinence from meat on the basis of the ОТ (especially the
prohibition by Moses of certain meats, and the vegetarianism practiced by the
Daniel and the three youths in Daniel 1). Faustus then moves on to defend chastity,
noting the presence of virgins in the church, as well as the practice of Jesus himself
and his teaching about the "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" in
Matt 19:12. Then comes the statement above, with Faustus's "passing over."96
93 E.g., Gos. Thorn, incipit + 1/ Mani, Epistula Fundamenti, fr. 2 (mid-third cent.) = Augustine,
Contra epistulam fundamenti 11: see Sancti Aureli Augustini De utilitate credendi: De duabus
animabus. Contra Fortunatum. Contra Adimatum. Contra epistulam fundamenti. Contra Faustum
(ed. Joseph Zycha; CSEL 25/1; Vienna: Tempsky 1891) 193-248, at 206; Gos. Thom. 44 and 2 Keph.
416:12-16/2 Keph. 417:25-29 (late third cent.); Gos. Thom. 41 1 PsBk I 179:24-27; Gos. Thom.
37/ PsBk II 278: 99:26-30 (end of third cent.); Gos. Thom. 17 and M 789=M 551 (date uncertain)
/So 18220 (seventh-ninth cent.?); Gos. Thom. 23/ 1 Keph. 285.24-25 (late third cent.) / M 763, r
II, 24-28 (date uncertain).
94 Gos. Thom. 5.1 in 1 Keph. 163:28-29 (late third cent.): "Indeed, concerning the mystery that
is hidden from the sects, the saviour cast an allusion [to] his disciples: 'Understand that which is
before your face and that which is hidden from you will be revealed to you.'"
95 For the text, see Zycha, Sancti Aureli Augustini De utilitate credendi etc., 751-52. For the
date, see Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London: Faber, 1967) 184.
96 Augustine makes no mention of Thomas in his reply (which comes in 30.5-6).
SIMON GATHERCOLE 83
This example is taken by Schröter and Bethge to be a tes

of Thomas, but it is not possible to be certain about it.97
reference to Andrew, Peter and Thomas here is in connec
§ 41 . Etheria, " Peregrinado " 19 (ca. 400 c.E.)98
Unde denuo proficiscens, peruenimus in nomine Christi d

Ubi cum peruenissemus, statim perreximus ad ecclesiam
sancii Thomae. Itaque ergo iuxta consuetudinem factis orati
quae consuetudo erat fieri in locis sanctis, пес non etiam
sancti Thomae ibi legimus.
From there I set off again, and we arrived in the name

Christ at Edessa. When we had arrived, we immediately we
and the martyry of St Thomas. So then, after saying pr
custom, and doing everything else customary in holy p
there a certain number of works of St. Thomas himself.
This interesting possibility, in Etheria's account of her pilgrimage, has been noted
by Uwe-Karsten Plisch." The construal of this passage is quite difficult. Pétré's
Sources Chrétiennes edition takes the key phrase aliquanta ipsius sancti Thomae
to mean "quelques textes relatifs à saint Thomas," and in a note glosses this as
a probable reference to the Acts of Thomas. 100 This is a cautious interpretation,
however, and perhaps an over-cautious one. A more maximalist interpretation
might stress the fact that aliquanta can also mean a large quantity or number, not
just a certain number.101 Additionally, her translation of the genitive phrase ipsius
sancti Thomae as "relatifs à saint Thomas" neglects the intensive pronoun ipse,
and so the phrase might well mean that Thomas himself wrote it.102 It would be quite
unremarkable for there to be works about Thomas at his own shrine; the emphatic
ipsius , however, is more likely to be stressing works claiming to come from the
hand of Thomas himself. The Acts of Thomas would be a very natural candidate
for inclusion here, but the aliquanta may well imply more. It would be a further
point in favor of seeing a reference to the Gospel of Thomas if there is truth in the
various scholarly claims about Edessa as the provenance of the Gospel.103
97 Hans-Gebhard Bethge and Jens Schröter, "Das Evangelium nach Thomas" in Nag Hammadi
Deutsch: I. Band. NHC 1,1 - V,1 (ed. Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge and Ursula
Ulrika Kaiser; GCS NF 8; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) 151-81, at 152.
98 For the text, see Éthérie: Journal de voyage (ed. Hélène Pétré; SC 21; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 162,
and 14-16 for the discussion of the date.
99 Uwe-Karsten Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008) 19, 21.
100 Pétré, Éthérie, 163, with п. 4.
101 OLD 99. So, rightly, Plisch, Thomas , 21 .
102 Pace also Plisch, Thomas , 21: "about St. Thomas."
103 A very common view: see e.g., Gilles Quispel, "Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macarius,"
VC 18 (1964) 226-35, at 234; Birger A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism : Traditions and Literature
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 267 .
§ 42. Innocent I, Epistula 6.7 (405 с. E.) 104
Caetera autem, quae vel sub nomine Matthiae sive Jacobi

nomine Petri et Joannis, quae a quodam Leucio scripta
mine Andreae, quae a Nexocharide et Leonida philosophis]
Thomae, et si qua sunt alia , non solum repudianda , verum e
damnanda.
Others, however, which appear either under the name of Matthias or James
the Less, or under the name of Peter and John, which were written by a
certain Leucius [or under the name of Andrew, written by the philosophers
Nexocharis and Leonidas], or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others
there may be: These are not merely to be rejected, but are actually (as you
know) to be condemned.
This example, again, does not actually mention a Gospel of Thomas, but we should
include it as a possible reference. The epistle first provides a list of canonical
books, and then deals with the "others." It is unclear whether the anathema here
covers the Gospel, the Acts, or even the Revelatio of Thomas; perhaps Pope
Innocent knows of more than one of these. Perhaps given the sequence Peter- John-
(Andrew)-Thomas it is the Acts that are in view. As we have seen, Ps.- Athanasius
and Nicephorus's Stichometry (§§ 10 and 20 above) record this same sequence
of Apocryphal Acts, but also append the Gospel of Thomas (Ilepíoôoi Штрог),
Ilepíoôoi 'IcodvvoD, Ilepíoôoi 0о)}ш, EůayyéAaov ката Gcojiâ / ílepíoôoi
Штрог), riepíoôoç 'Iwávvou, Fíepío5oç 0ю|ш, EûayyéXiov ката 0(O|iâv). As
such, the Gospel may well be included as well.105
§ 43. Severus, fragment (Cairo 8010a), Verso , col. 1 (early sixth cent. c.E.)106
. . . ннкуинпсж MHNQinniKoc e^qKtu ncc uc| NNXiucuNe итегр^фм nnib[6]

NTe гшоуте ^qcucp 2NN6NT^Npec|xe фиш xooy 6TeN^Teq2îpecic
етсооцме eiu^xe еи^ин ми-е<им^с пецмг^нтнс MNNeNT^yxooy
N6i H2îp©TiKoc тнроу
... the circus games and the horse races, when he forsook the books of
divinely-inspired Scripture, and read from the things which the myth-makers
-who are those of his abominable heresy- have spoken. I am speaking of
Mani and Thomas his disciple and all that the heretics have said.
This comes from a fragmentary single leaf from a heresiological work by Sever
It mentions on the recto a heretic, whose name is lost, accused of drunkenness an
sexual immorality; it is unclear whether he is connected with the other Manichae
104 PL 20: 502 A.
105 The list of rejected works here is referred to extensively later: see PL 56:505A; 67:248
84:652B-C; 130:705В.
106 For text and discussion, see Walter Ewing Crum, "Coptic Anecdota (II. Severus and the
Heretics)," JTS 44 (1943) 179-82.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 85
heretic on the verso here. The interesting point for our pur
link between Thomas and heretical books. It is fairly clear t
Mani and Thomas as the "myth-makers" (upeqxe фвш) w
heretical literature that the opponent here has embraced.
a reference to a "Gospel of Thomas." This is likely, how
that elsewhere in discussions of Mani and his disciples, t
him. The Patristic testimonia to do not associate any othe
we of course have the Psalms of Thomas in the Manichee
§ 44. Second Council of Lyons: Synopsis of the Canon

(1273-1 277)107
Tf) ôè á^rjÕeía тогяо то ôóyjia, то kigteveiv öti Kai è

rive')|ia èKTTOpeÚETai, 0юца tivóç egtiv aipeTiKOÛ, |ia
evtoç, coç ó ayioç Kai jiéyaç цартире! KúpiÀloç jietò Ka
In truth, this dogma, this belief that the Spirit proceeds fr

from a certain heretic Thomas, a disciple of Mani, as Sain
along with other saints testifies.
This extract is preceded by a statement of the Damascene

Son but not from the Son, and that the heresy of the S
Father is a Manichaean one, with its source in Thomas.
with the testimonium we have already seen above from
although he does not actually identify Thomas's par
heresy. It may be, however, that the Council of Lyons he
of Theophylact, or testifies independently to gossip abou
of Thomas with dangerous understandings of the Spirit.
has, anachronistically, been credited with the western
Cyril- of Jerusalem, not Cyril the Great as here- certa
or any discussion of the Spirit in the Gospel of Thomas,
it with Thomas the disciple of Mani (see §§ 4-5 above).
■ Synthesis and Conclusions

After Hippolytus's first mention of the Gospel of Thomas
direct quotation in the name of Thomas. There is also no
work with the Naassenes, which is not surprising given
to them in the later heresiological tradition.108 There is
and- perhaps surprisingly- nothing in Epiphanius, who
referring to heretical books by name.
107 Jean Darrouzès and Vitalien Laurent, Dossier grec de l'Union de

de l'orient chrétien 16; Paris: Institut Français d'Études Byzantines
108 According to Lancellotti, Naassenes , 1, there is only one oth
after Hippolytus, and that is in a derivative passage in Theodoret of
A large number of the references above, beginning wit

ca. 348, associate Thomas with Manichaean authorship and
15-16, 21-25, 27-3 1 , 39-40?, 43-44?). Some of these are c
Cyril (§§ 4-5) and his decoupling of Thomas from the apos
24), with explicit references to Cyril in two cases (§§ 27, 44
(§ 11) is more influential in other instances (§§ 29-31).
Manichaeism is no doubt part of the reason why mention o
for so long. Some of the later notices about Thomas co
result of preservation of older material about Manichaeism
real concern about groups such as the Bogomils (e.g., §§ 24
mention of the Gospel of Thomas by name, however, in M
although there is evidence of influence (see notes 92-94 ab
A number of the mentions of Thomas are, however,
statements. In his exegesis of Luke 1:1, Origen (§ 2) sp
tradition of there being "many" who tried to write Gospels
without divine inspiration. This is followed by some Greek
also enters the Latin tradition through Jerome's translation o
in his own Matthew commentary (§ 7). Jerome's influence
tradition some staying power in the west. Some, such as Ab
and Jerome 's anxiety about the "many" (see comment on § 3 1
interpretation of Luke 1 : 1 more out of pietas to the earlier
commentator in § 17 quotes the Jerome reference (§ 7) at l
it comes because Pope Urban IV asked Aquinas for a Gospel
patristic interpretation, hence the incorporation of Jerome in
(§ 33) and a similar comment of Ambrose (§ 8) in his work
As mentioned already, the Gelasian decree exercised som
sequent references. Some of the notices above, however, ref
"apocryphal works of the new covenant," preserved in the
20; compare § 35). Some other lists reflect not only an
but also a kind of antiquarian, scholarly interest. Timothy
assembles an impressive list of what he calls Manichaean w
which probably were Manichaean (§ 13). In the Stichometry
the line-lengths of the apocryphal books, as he does for th
This case is noteworthy because it indicates actual knowle
knowledge of a source that had knowledge of its length). Hi
some of the content as well, as does Origen. In other inst
sure of any knowledge of the work's content, though there
references from the Pistis Sophia. Jerome shows knowledg
his own day of Thomas and other Gospels, even if he is un
109 As noted above, rightly or wrongly I have not followed Attrid

translation as a distinct testimonium.
110 Nichols, "Introduction," in Catena Aurea, l:v.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 87
The sixth-century compiler of the Synopsis scripturae

is remarkable for expressing the view that in his day (or
a Gospel of Thomas was among antilegomena that are "r
(avayiv(ooKÓ(ieva). The claim in Theophylact (§ 28) a
Synopsis (§ 44) that the Gospel of Thomas evinced a her
a very late connection, and probably the result of a mu
certainly true of the gloss on the Pericopae Adulter ae in
pericope to Thomas (§ 26).
The references in the Pistis Sophia , the Kellis lett
if accepted, be distinctive as references by sympath
Otherwise, the statements are all negative, though
variegation. After 1) the canonical books, 2) the antilegom
(vó0a), Eusebius has a fourth category that he reserves f
irredeemable awful-ness: Thomas belongs in this fourth g
Pseudo- Athanasius includes Thomas in a list of antilego
In these instances we have some consistency in the form
form of the title appended to the Coptic version (то ка
пеу^ггелюм пк^тг. -ешн^о) is found in almost all cases
being noted. The exceptions on the Greek side are Euseb
him (§§ 3, 9, 36), who use a genitive form (Осоца), rath
Ocojiâv. In the Latin tradition, the longer form is used
preposition ( iuxta , secundum or apud: §§ 7, 8, 17). The
here: Abelard uses a genitive phrase, and the Decretu
of its followers emphasize the pseudonymous charac
euangelium (sub) nomine Thomae (§§ 11, 29,42?).
It cannot be decisively ruled out that we may not
references to the same work. It is possible that authors m
work such as the Book of Thomas the Contender , the In
or the Acts or Revelation of Thomas: As noted, the Arm
mentions an Epistle of (Judas) Thomas. Various factors m
various other candidates very improbable, however. Th
are unlikely, since the do not appear to have been well
Infancy Gospel of Thomas is an unlikely candidate beca
that work to Thomas is late: The name does not appear,
versions (the Syriac and the Old Latin).111 Additionally,
explicitly refer to a Gospel of Thomas and an Infancy
under separate names (§§ 11,13 and 35). 112
It is more probable that we are dealing with the same wo
forms. Comparison of the Hippolytus citation with the e
111 See Tony Chartrand-Burke, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: T

Transmission (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 2001) 118, 249, 2
112 See also Chartrand-Burke, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, 15, 16.
that versions with diverging content may well have been in

comparison of the Greek and Coptic texts of Thomas revea
differences of content (e.g., Gos. Thorn. 5, 36) and order ( G
Do these testimonia, however, contribute to the interpret
Thomasi There are three possible lines of approach to the w
by the Fathers. First there is Hippolytus's suggestion
origin for Thomas', ; the view that Thomas is in any conven
however, has now rightly been criticized.113 Secondly, the
anonymous glossarist (§ 17) of Thomas' s dubious Christolog
link here with Gos. Thom. 28 and the statement of Jesus
in flesh," but this is at best ambiguous, and in fact not d
conventional statements about Jesus.114 Furthermore, the glo
Thomas in a list of other Gospels and is clearly intending to
same brush indiscriminately. Thirdly, although Theophyl
the anachronistic view of Manichaean origin, it is interesti
identify the center of gravity of the Gospel of Thomas as p
have seen, though, that this is a questionable attribution as
One way in which these testimonia may contribute to o
Thomas , however, is in their possible relevance to the inv
original language and provenance. The earliest instances h
of the fourth century: §§ 1-6) are all Greek, which may be
Greek original, given that- to my knowledge- there is no
in Syriac.116 On the other hand, the earliest evidence is v
geographically (and so perhaps not so useful for the discussion
in the third century, in Rome (?Ps.-Hippolytus: § 1) and C
then Jerusalem (Cyril: §§ 4-5) and Alexandria (Didymus: §6)
and so on. By the seventh and eighth centuries, Thomas is r
as the British Isles (§§ 14, 17), and by the thirteenth as far
113 See e.g., Gilles Quispel, " 'The Gospel of Thomas' and the 'Gospel
(1966) 371-82, at 371-72. Kendrick Grobel, "How Gnostic is the Gospel
367-73, was already similarly skeptical. Cyril C. Richardson, "The Gos
Encratite?" in The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ge
(ed. David Neiman and Margaret A. Schatkin; Rome: Pont. Institutum
1973) 65-76, prefers "Encratite," though does not exclude some G
recent critical voices, expressing what is now essentially a consensu
Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?" in Thomas at the Crossroads (ed. Risto U
1998) 107-39; April D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in
T&T Clark, 2006) 4.
114 E.g., 1 Tim. 3.16: oç é<j)aveptó0r| év aapicí and Barn. 5.6: èv aapKÍ ëôei amòv <J)avep(o6fivai.
115 Hammerschmidt, "Das Thomasevangelium und die Manichäer," 120-23, argues that the
appeal of Thomas to the Manichees lay in connection between the "twin theology" and the
conversion of Mani.
116 On the other hand, some Syriac literature (e.g., the Acts of Thomas) does betray knowledge
of the contents of Thomas, so this point cannot be pressed too far.
SIMON GATHERCOLE 89
Finally, how typical are these references to Thomasi D

references to other apocryphal Gospels? Part of the answe
seen, where Thomas appears in lists of other works that
way. It is also evident, however, that Thomas is perhap
apocryphal Gospel: John of Damascus cites it as an appar
of a perversion of church teaching (§ 15), as similarly d
Byzantinus (§ 19). Some of the apocryphal Gospels appear
as regularly as Thomas , such as the Gospels of Philip a
hand, by comparison with many other Gospels, Thomas
discussed. Some Gospels that are regarded as equally, or
today, such as the Gospels of Judas and Mary, are in antiqui
by comparison. Judas , for example, is mentioned only by
never at all in extant literature.117 Thomas , then, clearl
most- prominent instance of a non-canonical Gospel.
Some bodies of literature investigated in the course of th
proven to be dead ends. As has just been mentioned, no r
Thomas" in Syriac literature have been found. The same
case for Anglo-Saxon literature. Although traces of the A
Ireland,118 Martin McNamara and John Carey have infor
of no Irish references to a Gospel of Thomas nor to the c
as the work under that title. Nevertheless, far from hoping
exhaustive one, I expect that it will be expanded by other
Appended Note :
At the proofs stage, S.N.C. Lieu, ed. Greek and Latin
Cosmogony and Ethics (trans. Greg Fox and John S
Manichaeorum Series subsidia 6; Turnhout: Brepols, 201
There, an intriguing reference to a Manichaean biblos tõ
118: attr. John of Caesarea, Capita VII contra Manichae
similar to §§ 22 and 24 above, to Mani's disciple Thomas
= Long Greek Anathematization Formula).
117 For the testimonia to G.Jud. in Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Theodo

The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity (Oxford: OUP,
of reference to G. Mary , see Christopher M. Tuckett, The Gosp
OUP, 2007) 3.
118 Martin McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin:
Studies, 1975) 1 1 8-19; Frederick M. Biggs, The Apocrypha: Sources of
(Instrumenta Anglistica Mediaevalia 1; Kalamazoo: Medieval Instit

Simon Gathercole - Named Testimonia To The Gospel of Thomas - An Expandes Inventory and Analysis PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Simon Gathercole - Named Testimonia To The Gospel of Thomas - An Expandes Inventory and Analysis PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Named Testimonia to the Gospel of

Thomas : An Expanded Inventory and

The question of how much apocryphal Gospels were rebutted, suppressed or

HTR 105:1 (2012) 53-89

roughly doubles the number noted by Attridge, adding wh

§ 1 . (?Ps.-)Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.7.

oi) uòvo v <ô' > aírccòv é7ci|iapi')pelv фао1 тф Xóycp та ' Aa

echoed in Francis T. Fallon and Ronald Cameron, "The Gospel of T

But this is not from Christ but from Hippocrates, who

This is the only reference to Thomas accompanied by a

that this "mystery" does not come from secret revelation,

§ 2. Origen, Homiliae in Lucam 1 (ca. 233-244 C.E.)11

то iiévToi é7iiyeypa|Li|iévov ката AiyurcTÍoix; eùayyéXio

Those, however, who composed what is entitled the Gospel ac

Origen 's use of the Gospel of Thomas has been a subject o

10 1 am grateful to Professor Catherine Osborne for putting me on to

Homilies on Luke survives only in fragments preserved

§ 3. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.6 (ca. 311-323 C.E.)17

. . . tv' eiôévai ëxoi|i8v aûxàç xe xaúxaç Kai xàç òvójiaxi

... so that we might be able to know both these, and those p

Here, Eusebius has classified works into three cate

in which a number of Gospels were written: "The Gospels we have w

öuaaeßfj rcapamyuéov- to be rejected as completely wicked

§ 4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 4.36 (ca. 348 C.E.)20

tííç ôè Kaivf|ç ôia0f|Kr|ç, xà xécroapa jióva evayyéXia' xà ôè

Of the New Testament, there are only four Gospels. The ot

This testimonium is the first to attach Thomas to the Manic

§ 5. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6.31 (ca. 348 C.E.)21

xoúxou |ia0r|xai xpeíç yeyóvaoi, 0co|Liâç Kai Baôôâç Kai 'E

He (Mani) had three disciples, Thomas, Baddas and Hermas.

19 Schwarz, Kirchengeschichte I-V , 253: sed et de Ulis sciendum est, qua

entertained that an apostle could be the author of a heretica

§ 6. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiast

ôià xoûxo yoûv Kai ó rpéxepoç Xóyo ç àrcayopeúei xf^v

Therefore also our teaching forbids the reading of the apoc

Here the verdict of Didymus and the unnamed authorit

§ 7. Jerome, Commentarium in Mattheum Prologue (late fourth cent. C.E.)26

... Et perseverantia usque ad praesens tempus monumenta declarant, quae

que apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum

. . . And works surviving up to the present time, which w

Although this extract comes from the Prologue to Jerome's commenta

§ 8. Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 1 .2 (ca. 389 C.E.)28

Here again we have the juxtaposition of Thomas and Matthias, as in Origen

of Thomas. But clearly he thinks that getting acquainte

§ 9. Philip of Side, Church History fragment (after 430 C

rcteloxoi xœv àpxaícov xrçv 'Icoávvou émaxoAjiv où 7c

Most of the ancients did not accept the epistle of John, th

In this instance we have the appeal to the authority of

§ 10. Pseudo- Athanasius, Synopsis scripturae sacrae (ca.

Tf|ç Néaç náXiv Aia0f|Kr|ç àvxiteyójieva xaûxa.

These are the disputed works of the New Testament:

This text initially sounds rather positive: These books are

29 Carolus de Boor, Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pi

§ 11 . Decretum Gelasianum 5.3 (sixth cent. C.E.)31

Euangelium nomine Mathiae , apocryphum.

The Gospel with the name of Matthias, apocryphal.

This list rejects a number of Gospel accounts, including the

§ 12. Pseudo-Leontius of Byzantium, De seeds 3.2 (mid-late

omoi Kai ßiß^ia iivà éamolç kcuvotojioíkti. 'Xéyovci yàp

31 Text: Ernst von Dobschlitz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris rec

These people also invent various books for themselves. F

"These people" are the Manichees, and the author is per

§ 13. Timothy of Constantinople, De receptione haeretic