Part of the reason why the non-canonical (apocryphal) Gospels are so interesting to me is that, under one reading, these texts may have originated from a strand of the early Christian community that was marginalised relative to a more exclusive and orthodox strand. There’s an obvious parallel here to modern trans and queer Christians.

It’s also telling that these Gospels contain more nuanced perspectives on gender. In the context of the early Christian community and the specific spiritual beliefs and practices of one strand of that community, the Gospel of Thomas depicts a form of gender transformation, and the Gospel of Philip depicts a form of gender (re-)unification.

In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, in the context of a discussion about Mary Magdalene (saying 114):

Jesus said, “Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

An interpretation by Paul Foster (The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction):

[…] it is by reaching beyond narrow gender categories that one is able to enter the kingdom of heaven – which is the goal of members of this community, although their understanding of the kingdom appears radically different to that of their fellow Christians in other communities.

In the non-canonical Gospel of Philip (70):

If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death.

Foster interprets:

There was a belief that the material human form was the result of a rupture of the true spiritual being that led to a gender-based separation of being into two parts: the male aspect that had ‘fallen’ to earth, and become combined and tainted with physical matter; and the female part that was contained in a being’s angel and inhabited a higher cosmic level. The soteriological scheme of the Gospel of Philip promised the prospect of repairing this gender-based fracturing.

It’s interesting that these texts are quite explicit in transcending gender categories. Furthermore, these texts may be offering a critique of the gendered hierarchy that was emerging in the early orthodox Christian community.

Obviously these should not be interpreted as talking about gender transformation in the sense that we use the term today. But before today’s concepts of transgender and gender non-conformity emerged, transgender history was indeed closely related to critiquing and resisting rigid gender roles in society (see Kit Heyam’s book Before We Were Trans: A New History of Gender).