Tischendorf supposes the book was written by some Gnostic, that it was adopted by the Naasenes, that it became popular among the Manichæans, and at last found favour with the orthodox (notwithstanding its condemnation by high authority, including the second Nicene Council in a.d. 787).
After all that has been said about the authorship of this book, I am strongly tempted to ask whether it may not be the so-called Gospel of Basilides, or a part of it? As the discussion of this question would extend to some considerable length, I must be content with recording it.
The Pseudo-Thomas was substantially incorporated with other documents in the third part of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. It covers a definite period, reaching from Christ's fifth year to his twelfth, and its intention is precisely stated in the introduction — to record "the infant acts" of Jesus. I am also inclined to think that the unknown document from which Pseudo-Matthew drew the second part of his book, may represent one of the lost portions of Pseudo-Thomas.[1]
- ↑ In illustration of the ideas thrown out about the connection of Thomas with Basilides, and of the second part of Pseudo-Matthew with Thomas, I append a note. Pseudo-Matthew, xxii. records the
