03/25/2026

 

Samuel Clifford

In this article I analyze the Gnostic Gospels to determine if they are reliable. I'm not trying to analyze fully the content of the Gnostic Gospels (although some of that is below) but instead look at the historical reliability of the texts themselves.

 

The Gospel of Thomas

 

What is it?

 

In the 1890s, archaeologists digging in the city dump of ancient Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, found thousands of papyri, including three fragments of the Gospel of Thomas in Greek. They didn’t know what they were until 1945 when it was found again in a different location in Egypt when the found a jar that contained the Gospel of Thomas in Coptic.

 

Who was the author?

 

Contrary to the name, the Gospel of Thomas wasn’t actually written by Thomas due to its late date. Instead, it’s commonly believed to be written by a group commonly called “Thomas Christians” which was a group of Christians in Syria that thrived towards the end of the Second Century.

 

Is it Early?

 

When scholars test the reliability of a text, one of the main ways to know if a text is reliable or not it when it was written relative to the time the events it describes happened. If it is within 50-70 years of the event then it is more reliable than a text 150-600+ years written after the event. There’s many reasons to reject an early writing of Gospel of Thomas relative to the New Testament Gospels. Infact, logically it couldn’t have been written prior to 175 A.D. and was likely written closer to 200 A.D. This is evident for many reasons that will be presented below:

 

1. The Gospel of Thomas parallels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and sometimes Paul and other sources. Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas. When taking into consideration that no Christian writing prior to AD 150 references this much of the New Testament, it makes a strong case for a later date for the Gospel of Thomas.

 

2. The Gospels were published in the Greek language. Christianity then spread to other languages such as Syriac. In 175 A.D. a man by the name of Tatian, who was a student of Justin Martyr, created the Diatessaron which presents all four gospels in the Syriac language. In doing this he also blended all four gospels together which resulted in new forms since it was part Matthew, part Luke, and so forth. What’s interesting is that the Gospel of Thomas used those distinctive forms. Furthermore, the places in the Gospel of Thomas is also acquainted with the order and arrangement of material in Diatessaron. This means that the Gospel of Thomas must have been written later than the Diatessaron in 175.

 

3. Finally, the text reflects a type of Gnosticism that wasn’t prevalent until the middle second century. There is no doubt that the Gospel of Thomas has Gnostic leanings with all its emphasis on learning the secrets of Jesus. The prologue begins, “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke.” Moreover, the first saying states, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” The Gnostic salvation came through obtaining a secret knowledge.

 

The Gospel of Peter

 

What is it and Who wrote it?

 

Ancient Christian writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Serapion, bishop of Antioch, knew of a supposed Gospel of Peter. In Akhmim, Egypt in the winter of 1886-1887, fragments of a gospel were found in a codex that has been attributed to Peter. In the 1970s and 80s more fragments were published, believed possibly to be portions of the Gospel of Peter. However, Scholars arent even sure this is the actual Gospel of Peter mentioned by Eusebius and Serapion. Even if it is, church historian Eusebius and Bishop Serapion warned it was falsely attributed to the apostle because they believed it was full of errors and false teaching. The sole reason some believe it was written by Peter was because it was found alongside the Apocalypse of Peter and because Peter appears in the text and narrates it. Furthermore, the reason to deny that this is even the Gospel of Peter mentioned by Serapion and Eusebius is that Serapion stated the Gospel of Peter was ‘doetic’ which means Jesus only appeared to be physical. In other words, he didn’t leave footprints; his feet didn’t quite touch the ground. Yet, there’s no docetism in the supposed Gospel of Peter that’s been found.

 

Is it early?

 

Very few scholars would say the supposed Gospel of Peter that’s been found is as early as the New Testament Gospels or even as early as the first century as a whole. This is shown mainly because it appears to be loosely based on Matthew, and it contained errors that somebody ignorant of first-century political and cultural realities in Palestine would make.

 

For example, it claims that the ruling priests spend the night in the grave yard. Yet, they would not do that according to scholar Craig A. Evans. Evans states, “he’s (the writer of the found gospel) ignorant of Jewish burial tradition and rules about course impurity.”

 

Even further proof it is not early is the fact that the Gospel of Peter is largely anti-Semitic, which would reflect lateness, not earlieness. Since the people writing a gospel in the 50s would be a Jewish person.

 

Evans also claims that when the Gospel says Jesus’ head goes into the clouds that it probably represents an embellishment of the Shepherd of Hermes, written between AD 110-140.

 

In conclusion, the reliability of the Gospel of Peter since it wasn’t written by Peter according to historians and there’s much evidence for a late date for the Gospel.

 

The Gospel of Mary

 

A Coptic fragment of the Gospel of Mary was discovered in the late nineteenth century with another two fragments becoming known in the twentieth. There is no complete copy of the Gospel of Mary and the overlapping three fragments accounts for a total of at most half of the Gospel. It tells a story about Mary Magdalene telling the disciples that Jesus had given her a teaching he had not given anyone else. In this story, Andrew and Peter are highly skeptical as her teachings are at odds with what they have learned which saddens her greatly. The fragmented story ends after Levi defends her and commands the disciples to continue proclaiming the Gospel.

 

The Gospel of Mary is a radical interpretation of Jesus’ teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge. It even rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life. Very few scholars attribute Mary to actual Mary. Infact scholar Karen L. King believes that it wasn’t written by Mary but instead ascribed to Mary so that’s it could have apostolic authority for its teachings.

 

There is little doubt that the Gospel of Mary is a relatively late writing compared to the traditional gospels. Most scholars date it around 180-200 A.D. as the year(s) of its composition. Infact, according to Biblical Scholar C. M. Tuckett, the Gospel of Mary has many parallels with the New Testament which means it’s likely the Gospel of Mary was dependent upon the complete Gospels and the false ideas in it was later developed by its author.

 

The Secret Gospel of Mark

 

What is it?

 

In 1960, Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at Columbia University, announced to the Society of Biblical Literature that he had discovered a letter of Clement of Alexandria in the Mar Sava Monastery near Jerusalem while on sabbatical in 1958. It was written in Greek in eighteenth century handwriting in the back of a 1646 editions of the letters of Ignatius. Most importantly, it quotes from a “Secret Gospel of Mark” which continues passages that are not in the canonical Gospel of Mark. This secret Gospel of Mark, quoted in Clements Letter, contains a provocative story in which Jesus raises a boy from the dead and then teaches him about the kingdom of God naked.

 

Is it a forgery?

 

Interestingly enough, experts never examined the document. Smith said he left it at the monastery but today no one can find it which means it can’t be subjected to ink tests and other analysis. All Smith did was photograph it and that’s all people can see of it. From what experts have been able to examine of the document, it seems to be a forgery made by Smith himself in order to benefit himself.

 

Evidence of Forgery:

 

1. Forger’s Tremor

 

Experts have discovered in the text what is called a forger’s tremor which is where the text isn’t really written, but instead it’s being drawn by a forger in an attempt to deceive. There are shaky lines, pen lifts in the middle of strokes-all kinds of indications that this was forged.

 

2. Similarity in Writing

 

When the Greek letters were compared to a sample of Smith’s own writing, they found the Clement text had the same unusual way of making the Greek letters theta and lambda as he did.

 

3. Mildew

 

The photos taken of the document indicated the presence of Mildew on the book-something that wouldn’t occur in a book from the dry climate where the monastery was located. More than likely, the book was from somewhere else and not where it was claimed.

 

4. Smith 65

 

The book had Smith 65 written on it. There’s no reason someone would walk into someone else’s library and write their name on an ancient book.

 

Thus, considering no one can do ink texts on the documents because they cannot be found, based on the evidence above the document is likely a forgery by Smith in order to bolster his career.

 

The Gospel of Judas

 

What is it?

 

On April 6, 2006, scholars claimed they had found the long lost Gospel of Judas. Carbon-14 dating indicates the papyrus back to AD 220 to 340. The original gospel, however, was written prior to 180, which is when the Church Father Irenaeus claimed that the Gospel of Judas was fictitious history. The text claims Judas was the greatest disciple and that he and Jesus arranged Jesus’ betrayal.

 

Is it Reliable?

 

One reason to reject the Gospel of Judas is that the document calls itself the “Gospel of Judas” and not “Gospel According to Judas” as the New Testament Gospels have. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that the Gospel wasn’t written by Judas but about Judas. No reliable scholar would believe it’s accurate to historical events that actually happened.