I hear you, and on the theology, we're on the same page. I still remember the day I ran out to buy a first edition hardback copy of Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels. And this wonderful quote... "How can we tell the truth from lies? What is genuine, and thus connects us with one another and with reality, and what is shallow, self-serving, and evil? Anyone who has seen foolishness, sentimentality, delusion, and murderous rage disguised as God’s truth knows that there is no easy answer to the problem that the ancients called discernment of spirits. Orthodoxy tends to distrust our capacity to make such discriminations and insists on making them for us. Given the notorious human capacity for self-deception, we can, to an extent, thank the church for this. Many of us, wishing to be spared hard work, gladly accept what tradition teaches." Elegant writing. Condescending message! She's critiquing the church for not trusting you to discern truth... while implying most people can't be bothered! Classic. The teachings in Thomas... the kingdom within, discovering your own divine nature, self-knowledge as the path. This resonates way more with what a Jewish mystical teacher focused on enlightenment would actually have been teaching. However... When scholars date ancient texts, they look at when other writers first reference them, manuscript evidence, linguistic patterns, theological development. The earliest mentions of Thomas come from the late 2nd century. The papyrus fragments we have date around 200 CE. The Nag Hammadi manuscript is 4th century. Could Thomas contain earlier oral traditions? Sure. That's what Pagels argues; the compiled text (90-140 CE) probably includes some early material mixed with later stuff. But we can't date the text earlier than the evidence allows. On Thomas being Q... some have suggested it, but here's the problem: Thomas shows signs of knowing the synoptic gospels. When it shares sayings with Matthew and Luke, it often reflects their editorial changes. That means the version—at least as we currently have it—came after them, not before. Ehrman points out that Thomas lacks the apocalyptic urgency that marks the earliest Jesus material. The synoptic gospels present Yeshua preaching that the kingdom is coming soon. Thomas presents the kingdom as already here, within you. Ehrman sees that as a later theological development, but it could just as easily show that the original mystical teaching got changed into apocalyptic urgency by the early church. So while I agree... the theology in Thomas is most likely closer to what he actually taught. But the text itself, as we have it, was compiled later. The tradition is older than the documents. My favorite line from the Gospel of Thomas (Saying 70): "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."