Why Did the Early Christians Reject the "Alternative Gospels"?

Why didn't they accept the Gospel of Thomas and similar works?

May 12, 2025

If you read last week’s post, you saw why the early Christians accepted the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authentic. But we also hear people talk about the “Gospel of Thomas,” the “Gospel of Peter,” and the “Gospel of James.” (These writings and others like them are often called the “Gnostic gospels.” I’ll explain why below.) Some even refer to these as “alternative” or “competing” gospels of Jesus. What do we make of these writings? Why did the early Christians reject these other accounts of Jesus?

The simplest answer is the New Testament Gospels met all the criteria of the early Christians, while these other self-claimed gospels did not. Let’s look again at what these criteria were:

When was it written?

Let’s put this into historical perspective. Jesus’ ministry took place either in the late 20s or early 30s of the first century. The Christian apostle Paul wrote his letters from the 40s to the 60s. Most scholars agree Mark’s Gospel was written by the 60s, Matthew’s and Luke’s were written by the 70s (although many scholars date all three much earlier), and John’s Gospel was written by the 90s.

The Gnostic gospels, on the other hand, were written much later. While a few people have tried to argue otherwise, there’s no historical or literary evidence placing the writing of any of these other gospels before the middle of the second century. This means they couldn’t have been written by eyewitnesses. Their authors couldn’t even have directly interviewed eyewitnesses. Their late dates call their authenticity into question.

By the time these gospels were written there was already widespread agreement among Christian leaders as to which writings they considered Scripture. This is especially true concerning the Gospel accounts of Christ. Despite the rhetoric of some sensationalist critics, these Gnostic “gospels” weren’t considered by the earliest Christians as alternative or competing gospels because they didn’t exist yet.

Who wrote it?

This may surprise some readers, but all scholars agree that none of these later Gnostic gospels were written by the people they claim to be written by. The Gospel of Thomas wasn’t written by Thomas, the Gospel of Peter wasn’t written by Peter, etc. These gospels are what we call “pseudonymous,” they were written in the name of someone famous (even someone long dead). This was done intentionally in the ancient world to attract a wider reading.

While Gnostics and other groups followed such a practice, the early Christians tended to view these falsely claimed writings with disdain—especially if they were supposed to be Gospel accounts of Jesus. These believers saw this attribution to famous dead people as inauthentic and grounds for immediate rejection. Not only did they not know who wrote the books or what connection they had with the apostles, but they felt these claimed gospels were misleading and deceitful. Because Jesus was a literal, historical person, and because they were convinced the events recorded in the Gospels actually took place, they were very serious about the trustworthy nature of the accounts of Jesus’ life and words.

Had it been widely accepted and used by the churches?

These other “gospels” fare poorly on this question as well. They weren’t old enough to have been around for the formative years of the early Christian movement. The churches didn’t use these “alternative gospels,” even as merely inspirational works, because they weren’t there to use. These gospels were propagated much later by groups of people outside the Christian churches (more on this below). Not only did no one know who wrote these gospels, the later Christians viewed much of their content as strange and not in harmony with the apostolic teaching at the heart of the Christian faith. These “gospels” were never accepted by the churches of the second century, but instead were consistently panned and rejected. Thankfully, we have writings from Christian leaders of this period showing their quick and decisive rejection of these so-called gospels. They were aware of the “gospels” now loudly hailed by a few speculative critics; they were not impressed.

Gnosticism

To understand these later gospels, it’s helpful to know a bit about the ancient religious system known to us today as Gnosticism. This religion gets its name from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people sought secret or hidden knowledge that was supposedly only known to a select few, so they were called “Gnostics.” Through their writings we know what some of this “secret knowledge” was.

The Gnostics were heavily influenced by some forms of Greek philosophy. They viewed the spiritual or immaterial to be pure, and the physical to be innately corrupt. They believed the physical world was created by an evil god (the god of the Jewish Scriptures, or Old Testament), and that salvation could only be attained through secret knowledge. These secrets were said to reveal how to escape the prison of physical, bodily existence. Some Gnostics taught that Jesus was an “emanation” of God who came to teach them this secret knowledge. They denied the physical existence and humanity of Jesus.

It’s important to remember that Christianity was understood by the early Christians to be a completion and fulfillment of Old Testament Jewish belief. The beliefs of the Gnostics were hostile to both Jewish religious tradition and early Christian beliefs. They adopted some of the terms Jews and Christians used, but redefined them according to their own unique purposes. An example of this kind of appropriation would be the way they seemed to embrace the person of Jesus, but actually changed who he was. Similar to New Age proponents who spoke of a “Christ-consciousness” but didn’t believe in the actual biblical Christ, these Gnostics adapted the story of Jesus to fit their new religion.

Scholars agree the Gnostic faith developed during the second century. Gnosticism didn’t exist yet in the first century, so there’s no way for there to have been Gnostic gospels written this early. This was a religion that developed independently of Christianity, but sought to draw new followers from the Christian churches. Because Christians put great stock in the teachings of the apostles, these Gnostics wrote “gospels” of Jesus that claimed to be written by Peter, James, Thomas, etc. Of course, the fact they weren’t written in the first century was enough cause to reject them, but they also depicted a distinctly Gnostic Jesus and worldview, which were incompatible with the existing beliefs of the Christians. Because of this, these so-called gospels were universally rejected by Christians.

Gospel of Thomas

Let’s use the Gospel of Thomas as an example. The Gospel of Thomas was rediscovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. (Because of this, some people refer to the “Nag Hammadi gospels.”) It’s not what we would ordinarily think of as a “gospel.” It doesn’t tell the story of Jesus, but merely records things he was supposed to have said. Much of the material is clearly Gnostic in nature. The book begins:

These are the secret words that the living Jesus spoke and Judas, even Thomas, wrote.

The book goes on to tell of the secret or hidden teachings of Jesus. These teachings are meant only for the spiritually elite, not for the common people. Instead of being taught to have faith, the reader is urged to discover the hidden interpretations that will reveal the secret knowledge necessary for salvation.

In the midst of this, we find statements that are strikingly similar to what we read in the biblical Gospels. Does this mean the Gospel of Thomas is actually from the first century, maybe even older than the New Testament Gospels? A few (very few) scholars would say yes, but most other scholars—Christian and non-Christian alike—see these few critics as clutching at straws. The evidence is just too convincing otherwise.

We have no historical evidence placing the Gospel of Thomas before the mid-second century. The Gospel of Thomas includes quotes of Jesus that are in common with all four of the biblical Gospels. Not only that, but it quotes from later versions of these Gospels (which include minor but noticeable corruptions), not the earliest, most accurate manuscripts. The Gospel of Thomas also references works we know weren’t written until the second century. And even when it quotes the Bible, it often twists the statements of Jesus into Gnostic variations. Despite the efforts of a few who try to find a first century fragment within the Gospel of Thomas, the vast majority of scholars accept that it couldn’t have been written before around 170 CE (or AD).

Conspiracy theories

I can’t help but comment on the sensationalistic books and articles of a few authors. Even though many of these writings are fictional, people surprisingly still labor under the false assumption they’re carefully researched. Nothing could be further from the truth, as countless reviews have demonstrated. For instance, author Dan Brown claims (in The Da Vinci Code) that the New Testament Gospels were later revisions and the Gnostic gospels were the earlier writings! This is blatantly false, turning all the historical evidence and scholarly consensus upside down. It would be laughable if it wasn’t still taken seriously by many.

It’s revealing to go back and look at what Dan Brown wrote because it includes many of the most fringe claims about Jesus. Brown claimed the Gnostic gospels defended a human Jesus from the Christians who wanted to turn him into a god. We’ll explore in a future post just when the Christians started believing in Jesus’ divinity, but Brown shockingly gets completely backward the nature of his own cherished alternative gospels. It was the New Testament Gospels who portrayed a Christ who was not only divine but also profoundly human. And it was the later, Gnostic gospels who denied the humanity of Jesus, and insisted he was purely divine! Again, such subterfuge could be humorous if not for the surprising influence it has somehow garnered.

(I should clarify the Gospel of Thomas differs from the other Gnostic gospels by not completely denying the humanity of Jesus. But it does strongly emphasize Jesus’ divinity, so it’s not contending for a merely human Jesus as Brown falsely claimed.)

Lastly, Brown repeatedly claimed these Gnostic gospel-writers were seeking to defend the rights of women and somehow protect the “feminine divine.” I’ll quote the end of the Gospel of Thomas, and you decide whether this gospel intends to protect the feminine divine (and whether there’s any reason to accept this as an authentic statement of Jesus):

Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said: “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Some may be asking, “Why are you talking about Dan Brown of all people?” Sadly, far too many believe that even though his stories were fictional, his historical research was legitimate. This is definitely not the case. Brown is an extreme example, but there are other highly speculative, sensationalist sources out there—both fiction and nonfiction—that contradict what we know from history. I challenge everyone to not just assume these kinds of books (or internet sites) are correct; do the homework for yourself.

These later “gospels” give us a lot of historical insight into the nature of second-century Gnostic beliefs, but they don’t tell us anything about the historical Jesus. They were written too late, by unknown authors, who had an alternative agenda. The Christians of the second century and later consistently rejected these writings, for good reason. So this brings us back to the New Testament Gospel accounts of Jesus. Now we know why these Gospels were accepted by the early followers of Jesus. But does this mean their content is historically reliable? How sure can we be about what Jesus did and said? We’ll explore these questions next week.