Why are there no second century Gnostic parallels to the Gospel of
Thomas as strong as the hundreds to the Christian Gospels and James?
Apparantly, the second century Gnostics, with their demiurges and
archeons were totally oblivious to the Gospel of Thomas.
Thebest they can come up with is that Thomas uses the word "rest" etc.
Matthew uses it more than Thomas. The Mandaeans won't shut up about it;
there's about a dozen in the Ginza Rba.
There's far more Thomas parallels to the Mandaean Ginza Rba, or Marqa,
the great Samaritan writer, than to all the Gnostics combined. Anything
is bigger than zero.
The fact is, it's convenient for both the Christians and second century
Gnostics (the ones with the demiruges and archeons) to claim the Gospel
of Thomas is Gnostic, each for their own reason.
The way Christian trained "scholars" claim "kernels" of Thomas that's
almost 100% Christian isn't coincidence.