The Gospel of Thomas

The claim that the Qur’an plagiarized from the Gospel of Thomas, popularized in modern form by W. Atallah, rests on a methodological error: confusing shared religious vocabulary with literary dependence.[1]

The Gospel of Thomas is not a Gospel in the historical sense

The Gospel of Thomas is a 2^nd-century Gnostic text, written in Greek (with later Coptic versions), rejected by all early Christian churches. It is a sayings collection, not a narrative gospel, and reflects Gnostic cosmology, not Jewish or Qur’anic theology.

The Qur’an, by contrast:

• Rejects Gnosticism entirely
• Rejects emanation theology
• Rejects secret salvific knowledge
• Rejects divine sparks within humans

A text cannot meaningfully plagiarize a worldview it systematically contradicts.[2]

The “Table from Heaven” (Q.5:112-115) Is not a Thomas motif

Atallah’s argument suggests that the Qur’anic Table (al-Mā’idah) reflects Christian apocryphal imagery. This collapses under scrutiny:

• The Qur’anic table is:

1. A public sign
2. A test conditional upon faith
3. Followed by a warning of punishment for disbelief

• In Christian apocrypha, “heavenly meals” are:

1. Symbolic or mystical
2. Eucharistic
3. Salvific by participation
4. Never juridical or conditional in Qur’anic terms

The Qur’an’s account functions as divine legislation, not sacrament.

Similarity of theme is not the same as borrowing of text.

Shared Near Eastern religious motifs is not plagiarism

Second Temple Judaism, Syriac Christianity, and early Islam all existed in the same cultural ecosystem. Overlapping motifs (tables, angels, forgiveness, Adam) are expected, not suspicious.

If shared motifs = plagiarism, then:

• The New Testament plagiarized the Hebrew Bible
• Rabbinic literature plagiarized earlier Mesopotamian myths
• Christianity plagiarized Zoroastrianism

No serious historian accepts this logic.

No evidence of textual access[3]

There is no evidence that:

• The Gospel of Thomas was circulating in Arabic
• It was read publicly in the Hijaz
• The Prophet (ﷺ) had access to Gnostic libraries
• Any early Muslim cited it

Academic claims without transmission evidence are speculative, not historical.

Conclusion

The Qur’an does not plagiarize the Gospel of Thomas. The claim relies on:

• Late texts
• Thematic overlap
• Ignoring theological contradiction
• Absence of transmission proof

This is parallelism, not plagiarism.

The Gospel of Bartholomew

The second claim involves the Gospel of Bartholomew (also known as Questions of Bartholomew), particularly passages describing Adam’s (عليه السلام) immense height, angelic reception, hymns in heaven, and forgiveness.

This claim fails even more decisively.

The Gospel of Bartholomew Is extremely late and legendary

Scholars date it to the 5^th-6^th century CE, and even then, it survives only in fragmentary manuscripts in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic traditions.

It is:

• Anonymous
• Highly mythological
• Filled with visionary excess
• Not used in any liturgy
• Unknown to Arabian Christianity

There is no historical mechanism by which this text reached Makkah.[4]

Adam’s (عليه السلام) height is a Jewish, not Christian, motif

The idea that Adam (عليه السلام) was extraordinarily tall (e.g., 60 or 80 cubits) appears long before Islam in:

• Talmudic literature
• Midrash
• Early Jewish cosmology

The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioning Adam’s (عليه السلام) height aligns with ancient Semitic anthropology[5], not Bartholomew’s gospel.

Chronology matters:

Judaism → Christianity → Islam

Not
Bartholomew → Islam

Qur’anic theology rejects the Bartholomew narrative framework

The Gospel of Bartholomew includes:

• Angelic processions
• Liturgical hymns
• Mystical ascents
• Christological supremacy

The Qur’an:

• Rejects inherited sin
• Rejects angelic mediation of forgiveness
• Rejects Christological exaltation
• Emphasizes direct divine pardon

A plagiarist does not invert the metaphysics of his alleged source.

Similar imagery is not literary dependence

Adam’s (عليه السلام) forgiveness, angels rejoicing, and heavenly honor are pan-Abrahamic concepts.

They appear in:

• Jewish texts
• Christian sermons
• Islamic revelation

Imagery is shared cultural language, not copying.

Conclusion

The claim that the Prophet (ﷺ) plagiarized from the Gospel of Bartholomew is:

• Chronologically implausible
• Textually unsupported
• Historically untraceable
• Theologically incoherent

It collapses under basic historical method.

---

[1] Let’s look at this entire situation with the example of the flood:

• The Mesopotamian “Epic of Gilgamesh” (dating back thousands of years) describes a great flood with a boat and survivors.
• In ancient China, tales of the “Great Yu” recount catastrophic floods that reshaped civilization.
• Among Native American tribes, from the Hopi to the Cree, flood myths describe a great deluge from which only a few survived.
• Polynesian, Mayan, and Indian traditions also preserve strikingly similar stories.

Over time, when stories are passed down without Divine guidance, they inevitably undergo changes; the process of ‘Chinese whispers’ distorts details, adds exaggerations, and reshapes narratives. Yet the fact that such diverse groups preserved a common memory points to an underlying truth. What they hold in common carries more weight than the differing embellishments.

This can be illustrated with a simple example: Ahmed from Jordan and John from the USA both go on safari in Kenya. Two lions attack them. Ahmed shoots one lion with his last bullet, while John fends off the other with a baseball bat. Finally, Ahmed hurls a large rock that drives the lion away, saving them both. Later, when each retells the story, details may shift; perhaps they exaggerate their bravery, perhaps they misremember. By the time the story reaches their great-grandchildren, Ahmed’s descendant (Ali) may boast that his ancestor killed seven lions with his bare hands, while John’s descendant (James) may claim his forefather strangled four lions and blinded two others, saving an entire village. Clearly, their competing claims are exaggerated, but the underlying truth, that there was a lion attack, and their ancestors survived it together, remains.

If there had been video footage, there would be no dispute at all. The Qur’an, being Divine Revelation, is like that clear record; it corrects distortions and reveals the truth of history (Q.25:33).

A wise person will take this as {a reminder}, listening with {a conscious ear}, and marvel at how peoples with no contact preserved the memory of the flood. This shared testimony across cultures affirms the truthfulness of the event, while the Qur’an confirms it with clarity and Divine certainty.

[2] Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels.

[3] Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, on transmission history.

[4] Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament.

[5] Genesis Rabbah 12:6; Babylonian Talmud, Ḥagigah 12a.