Gospel of Thomas was a "sayings" book with very little narrative, correct?
Correct -- Almost no narrative. You could go so far as to say no real narrative. To me, at least, this holds some indications as to the author's intent.
I believe that when it was first found everyone thought it was the long-postulated "Q" document.
Be some, certainly, but not by all -- not even all those who who accept the postulation of 'Q'. I tend to believe such conclusions were wishful thinking.
It also portrays Jesus in a way totally irreconcilable with that of the "Big Four."
Not quite totally, but with some great difficulties. Many of the sayings in Thomas are identical or parallel to those in the Synoptics. There are others that are in complete contrast.
For any council to accept both would require a great act of doublethink. And that's possible, I suppose. But it would need a good explanation.
I feel I should interject here a little about councils 'accepting' a book. There seems to be an image (not necessarily held by you) that a council sat down with a stack of books, and proceeded to decide if each one was in or out. This simply is not the case. The canon of the NT (and, IMBANSHO, the OT as well) is largely a received canon. The Church used ('accepted') the books that they used. It may seem circular, but it is consistent with Christian (or at least Catholic/Orthodox) theology (If you want me to explain how, I will).
Of course, there were times when councils did speak on the canon. However, this was usually to confirm that what the Church was already doing was correct in the eyes of the council.
Maybe a strong and vibrant gnostic element that insisted that the Church remain neutral on whether its views were correct or not.It's possible, I suppose, that the early fathers would have sought unity as one church with 2 opposing elements. But it would be out of the ordinary, and would need further explanation.
I simply do not see this as possible. Disputes such as whether or not Christ had a physical body is just not something that can be glossed over.
@Cornelius - rejecting Revelation would be a very plausible POD, more so anyway than one involving accepting the gnostics. Each of the Antilegomena books (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena) had its detractors, and I could see a Council scrapping one here or there in the name of Church unity.
I would agree that not having the Revelation universally accepted is far more likely than having one/some of the gnostic writings accepted.
If you are looking for books to add to the canon, I would suggest (as I did in some other thread I can't seem to find) the following:
- Didache
- Protoevangelion
- I Clement
- Epistle of Barnabas
- Shepherd of Hermas
- Epistles of Ignatius