Thank you. Excellent question. The gospels were written 40-70 years after Yeshua's death... that's when the texts themselves were composed by anonymous communities. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't added until the 2nd century. And they weren't officially canonized as scripture until the 4th century councils. Three separate timelines. The writing, the attribution, and the canonization all happened centuries apart. Mark was written first, around 70 CE. Matthew and Luke came later, around 80-85 CE, and scholars believe both authors used Mark as their source; along with a hypothetical lost document they call Q. John was written last, around 90-100 CE. None of these authors knew each other. None of them met Yeshua. They were compiling oral traditions and earlier written fragments decades after his death, each shaped by the theological concerns of their own communities. As for the Gnostic gospels—Thomas, Philip, Mary, Judas—those came even later. Most scholars (including Bart D. Ehrman) date them to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, well after the canonical gospels. Some scholars like Elaine Pagels argue that Thomas may contain early oral traditions, but even she dates the text as we have it to around 90-140 CE at the earliest. While some Gnostic texts, like Thomas (one of my favorites), may preserve early material, most scholars see them as reflecting later theological developments rather than earlier eyewitness accounts.

There are other scholars who put the gnostic gospels earlier. Modern gnostics themselves say they are earlier, and they have the advantage of a tradition that predates Jesus, and you can see how "gnosticism" (which is actually many different things) grew into gnostic Christianity, which then was narrowed and flattened into orthodoxy, which then did tried to exterminate their predecessors. IMO its evident that Thomas is Q.

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."