in the case of the 'Sophia of Jesus Christ" this is certainly the case and that is considered a particularly way-out Gnostic text. I only quoted that because it illustrates how wild the early church was.Homebelly wrote: The Apocrypha are a group of texts that lie out side the cannon for any number of reasons. One of those reasons might be that the text contains overt gnostic imagery that is linked to gnostic philosophy.
In this regard the gospel of Thomas is absolutely a gnostic text.
The earlier quote in this thread about the Sophia and the King of Kings is about as gnostic as it gets.
In the case of the "Gospel of Thomas" you can call it Gnostic, but for the modern church that is used to effectively label something as 'not worth reading' or 'heretical.
'Gnostic' is such a broad classification, it encompasses everything that wasn't the Roman/Pauline top-down (accepted) view. "Thomas" is only slightly different from the canonical texts, and in the differences it is not overly Gnostic in fact it is often considered to predate the canonical versions
That it is interpreted as 'Gnostic' says a lot about the modern church and how the non-canonical texts need to be categorised.Stevan L. Davies provides statistical evidence that the lack of order with the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them. A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source. Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this. Similary Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter.
My core point is - although Paul made his version much more state oriented and the Jewish based model is much more weird and anti-state ... unifying all the non-roman texts under the label of 'Gnostic' and then marking them as 'Heretical' is simply an accident of history. The power of the Roman empire and various Synods took their canonical texts and massaged them to prove various points.
Although Thomas was left out of canon, this also saved it from centuries of editing by politically minded Bishops. This means that firstly it shows how some gospels may have read before they got edited, secondly it shows what got edited out.