Skip to main content
Log in

OK then why was the Gospel of Thomas and Magdalene papally purged from the Biblical opus?

    Administrator
    By Administrator

    There isn’t good evidence for the specific idea that the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary Magdalene were “papally purged” (as in: a pope formally erased them from the Bible corpus).

    What we can say from mainstream historical scholarship is:

    1) They were never part of the “Biblical opus” in the first place

    The New Testament “canon” wasn’t a single book that someone later edited by removing titles. It developed over time as different Christian communities used different collections of authoritative writings. Many texts (including Thomas–type sayings collections and Mary Magdalene–type writings) circulated, were debated, and then were not universally included.

    So “purged from the Bible” is often a category error: they were generally not treated as New Testament canon from early on, even if they existed and were read by some groups.

    2) “Papal purge” doesn’t match the historical record

    The available evidence doesn’t show a clear, documented moment like “a pope ordered these manuscripts destroyed” or “they were expelled by papal decree from the canon.”

    There were church leaders and councils who argued about which texts should be considered authoritative, but:

    • canon formation involved selection and rejection, not necessarily large-scale “burning/erasure,” and
    • for most non-canonical texts, the survival story looks more like loss by neglect, limited copying, and competition, rather than systematic extermination.

    3) The main driver wasn’t “scandal”—it was authority + community boundaries

    A common reason many writings were rejected is that they were seen as:

    • theologically risky or “not apostolic” in provenance,
    • non-standard compared to the four-Gospel narrative (for gospels like Thomas, which is mostly sayings and not a passion-resurrection narrative in the canonical style),
    • and/or associated with groups that mainstream bishops considered outside acceptable teaching.

    That’s a judgment about authority and orthodoxy, not proof of a coordinated papal cover-up.

    4) Why they still survive: if there were purges, we’d expect less

    Interestingly, many “non-canonical” Christian texts survive in manuscripts (including Thomas). If “purged” meant systematic destruction, survival would be much less likely—at least for the major targets claimed in popular accounts.

    One key clarification question

    When you say “papally purged,” do you mean:

    1. canon removal (they were excluded from the New Testament), or
    2. physical destruction (manuscripts were ordered burned/erased)?

    If you tell me which claim you mean—and where you got the “papal purge” idea from (a specific video/book/article quote)—I can evaluate it against the best-attested historical evidence and sources.