The Bible contains sixty-six books that Christians recognize as inspired by God. But throughout history, many other religious writings appeared that claimed to describe the lives of the apostles or events of the early church. One of these writings is the Acts of Thomas. Because it presents stories about the apostle Thomas, some people wonder why it was not included in the Bible.
The answer lies in the process of how the biblical canon was recognized and in the content of the book itself. Early Christians examined writings carefully to determine whether they were inspired by God. The Acts of Thomas did not meet the criteria used to identify genuine Scripture. Its teachings, historical background, and theological ideas differ significantly from the Bible.
Understanding why the Acts of Thomas is not part of the Bible helps believers appreciate the reliability of the biblical canon and recognize the difference between inspired Scripture and later religious literature.
What Is The Acts Of Thomas?
The Acts of Thomas is an early Christian writing that tells stories about the missionary work of the apostle Thomas, particularly his journey to India. The book likely appeared in the third century AD, well after the time of the apostles.
It describes Thomas traveling to India, performing miracles, preaching, and converting many people. It also includes dramatic stories such as exorcisms, resurrections, and encounters with kings. In many ways it resembles other writings known as the “Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” which were popular in early centuries but were never accepted as Scripture.
Main Themes In The Book
The Acts of Thomas contains several themes that differ from the Bible:
• Strong emphasis on asceticism (rejecting marriage and normal family life)
• Mystical or symbolic teachings
• Legendary miracle stories
• Ideas influenced by Gnostic thought
These features raised serious concerns among early Christians about whether the book truly represented apostolic teaching.
The Biblical Standard For Accepting Books Into Scripture
When the early church recognized the books of the New Testament, they did not arbitrarily choose them. Several important criteria guided the process.
Apostolic Authorship
The most important test was whether the book came from an apostle or from someone closely associated with an apostle. The New Testament writings were composed in the first century by apostles such as Matthew, John, and Paul, or by close companions like Luke and Mark. The Acts of Thomas, however, was written about two hundred years later. Because of this, it could not have been written by the apostle Thomas himself.
The Bible warns believers not to accept teachings that originate after the apostles if they contradict the gospel already given. Paul wrote, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Since the Acts of Thomas appeared long after the apostolic age, it did not meet this essential requirement.
Agreement With The Teachings Of Scripture
Another key test was whether a book agreed with the teachings already recognized as inspired. Scripture is consistent in its message. God does not contradict Himself. The apostle Paul explained that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). If a writing introduced ideas that contradicted the teachings of Christ and the apostles, it was rejected. As we will see, the Acts of Thomas contains teachings that differ from the biblical message.
Widespread Acceptance By The Early Church
A genuine book of Scripture was recognized and used widely by early Christian communities. The four Gospels, the letters of Paul, and other New Testament books circulated broadly and were read in churches throughout the Roman world. The Acts of Thomas did not have that level of acceptance. Instead, it circulated mainly among small groups and was often viewed with suspicion. Because it lacked universal recognition among believers, it was never considered part of the canon.
Doctrinal Problems In The Acts Of Thomas
One of the main reasons the Acts of Thomas was rejected is that it includes teachings inconsistent with the Bible.
Extreme Views About Marriage
The book strongly discourages marriage and promotes celibacy as spiritually superior. For example, several stories describe newly married couples deciding to remain celibate after hearing Thomas preach. However, the Bible presents marriage as a blessing from God. In Genesis, God declared, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18).
The New Testament also affirms marriage. Hebrews states, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4). While the Bible recognizes that some people choose singleness for ministry (1 Corinthians 7:7), it never condemns marriage as spiritually inferior.
Gnostic Influences
Many scholars note that the Acts of Thomas contains elements connected to Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an early religious movement that taught salvation through secret knowledge and often viewed the physical world as evil. Some passages in the Acts of Thomas reflect this worldview by presenting the material world negatively and emphasizing hidden spiritual knowledge.
The Bible rejects this idea. Scripture teaches that God created the physical world and called it good. Genesis records, “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Because the Acts of Thomas includes ideas influenced by Gnostic thought, early Christians recognized that it did not align with apostolic teaching.
Legendary And Unreliable Stories
Another reason the Acts of Thomas was not included in the Bible is the legendary nature of many of its stories. The book contains dramatic miracle accounts that read more like religious fiction than historical reporting. For example, in one story Thomas sells himself as a slave carpenter to an Indian king. The king asks him to build a palace, but Thomas instead gives the money to the poor. Later he claims the palace was built in heaven rather than on earth.
Stories like this differ from the historical style found in the New Testament. Luke explained how the biblical accounts were written: “It seemed good to me also… to write to you an orderly account” (Luke 1:3). The New Testament writers aimed to record real historical events, not symbolic legends. Because the Acts of Thomas contains many imaginative stories, early believers did not consider it reliable history.
The Difference Between Canonical Acts And Apocryphal Acts
The New Testament includes the book of Acts, written by Luke. This book records the growth of the early church and the missionary work of the apostles. It was accepted as Scripture because it met all the necessary criteria:
• Written in the first century
• Associated with the apostle Paul
• Historically reliable
• Widely accepted by the early church
In contrast, books like the Acts of Thomas, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Andrew appeared later and included legendary material. For this reason, they are classified as “apocryphal acts,” meaning writings that claim apostolic authority but were not recognized as inspired.
Did Thomas Really Preach In India?
Although the Acts of Thomas itself is not Scripture, some historians believe that Thomas may have traveled east and preached in regions near India. Early Christian tradition suggests that the apostle Thomas carried the gospel beyond the Roman Empire. However, traditions about missionary journeys do not automatically make a book inspired. The authority of Scripture depends on divine inspiration, not simply historical possibility.
Peter explained how the Bible differs from myths when he wrote, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:16). The apostles preached real events they personally witnessed.
Why The Biblical Canon Can Be Trusted
The fact that the Acts of Thomas was rejected actually strengthens confidence in the Bible. Early Christians were careful about what they accepted as Scripture. They did not include every religious writing that appeared. Instead, they carefully examined each book using clear criteria:
• Apostolic authority
• Doctrinal consistency
• Historical reliability
• Acceptance by believers
Because of this careful process, the books that form the New Testament have strong historical credibility.
The Bible itself warns against altering God’s Word: “Every word of God is pure… Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). And Revelation gives a similar warning: “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18). These warnings remind believers that God’s Word is complete and should not be mixed with later writings.
Conclusion
The Acts of Thomas was not included in the Bible because it did not meet the standards used to recognize inspired Scripture. It was written long after the time of the apostles, contains doctrinal ideas that conflict with biblical teaching, and includes legendary stories rather than reliable historical accounts. While the book may reflect certain early traditions about the apostle Thomas, it cannot be considered part of God’s inspired Word.
Christians can trust the Bible because its books were carefully recognized by the early church based on clear criteria. The Scriptures remain the authoritative guide for faith and practice. As Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). By studying the Bible itself, believers can know the genuine teachings of Christ and the apostles without confusion from later writings.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article — share your thoughts above and start the discussion.