This is a little too extreme. Origen does refer to it, if you want someone ante-nicene. And it's unclear exactly how the sayings it lists relate to the same sayings as we have them in the synoptics. There is no reason, however, to think that it has any significance for any orthodox Christian, except maybe historical (but certainly not doctrinal).
Elaine Pagels
Ραφαήλ wrote:This E. Pagels wrote a book called "Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas". She tries to show this text as evidence against thw Church! It is simply a gnostic 2nd century document, supposedly written by st. Thomas, that contains various sayings of Christ. Most of them are based on the New Testament. No early Church Father(e.g. St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, St. Justin etc.) makes any reference to the Gospel of "Thomas"! If it were actually part of Scripture, how come they don't recognize its existence?
I enjoy reading Elaine Pagels' books, but I wouldn't say they're entirely profitable reading. Basically, they're part of the general trend among scholars to acknowledge diverse (and equally valid) versions of Christianity in the first centuries of the Christian era. It's been popular for some time to suggest that Orthodoxy marginalized and crushed "alternate" Christianities, and that these alternate Christianities may have more validity to many modern people. So if you want to read them, fine, but glean what factual knowledge you can, and understand her philosophical bias for what it is.
As for the Gospel of Thomas, the majority opinion is that it's a Gnostic gospel. (That seems to be what some people like about it.) But while it was clearly used by the Gnostics, I'm not entirely convinced that it's Gnostic in origin or that there's anything in it that's not susceptible to an Orthodox interpretation. Nevertheless, it's not a part of the canon of scripture, and the calculated attempts of the Jesus Project, Ms. Pagels, and others to put it on an equal footing with the canonical Gospels must be rejected by an Orthodox Christian. It's interesting reading -- even, in my opinion, profitable reading. But it is not scripture or equivalent to scripture scripture.
Almost all scholars of the Bible have a bias that is inimical to Orthodox Christianity. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read their books, but it does mean we have to be careful and alert when doing so, and to carefully weigh the evidence they present before we accept their arguments. The majority of them have have agenda we can't accept -- and that applies to archaeologists as well as to textual critics. I love reading Finkelstein, and have learned a great deal from him, but while I'm interested in his data, I reject almost all his conclusions. In the case of Ms. Pagels, she is not so much a scholar of the Bible as a sympathetic scholar of (mostly) heretical texts, and should be read in that light.
Patrick