Here is how she concludes the article:
The type of religiosity found in the Gospel of Thomas is not all that unusual. You can find references to it in Biblical and nonbiblical literature. It is nothing more than an early Christian expression of mysticism that developed out of an earlier, apocalyptically oriented Christianity that wished for the immediate end of the world. When the end didn’t happen, the Christians were forced to rethink and rewrite their cherished apocalyptic teachings...
We can even locate this mystical form of Christianity historically. It is a form that developed in eastern Syria in the late first and early second centuries, a form of Christianity that was an heir to early Jewish mystical traditions and a precursor to later Eastern Orthodoxy. I think that Thomas’s “place” in early Christianity was misidentified originally not because it represents a type of Christianity unfamiliar to the canonical tradition or deviant from it. The Gospel of Thomas was wrongly identified at first because Western theological interests controlled its interpretation within a Western Christian framework that could not explain its unfamiliar, mystical structure. Yet we now know—in part from manuscript discoveries like the Nag Hammadi collection—that there was a multiplicity of groups, beliefs and traditions in the diverse early Christian communities. Scholars who misunderstood the Gospel of Thomas mislabeled it as Gnostic in order to lump it together with other traditions they thought to be strange, heretical and late.
DeConick's point concerning the nature of the Gospel of Thomas resonates farther than merely the labeling of the Gospel of Thomas as "Gnostic." Her point can be applied to other collections of texts that are considered "extra-biblical."
If there is one thing we have learned from the Dead Sea Scrolls it is this. In the late Second Temple Period, there was the presence of other texts, ultimately not included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, that were embraced as "scriptural" by various Jewish communities, such as various Enochic, Maccabean, and Qumran texts for example. These texts were embraced by their communities as "scriptural" and on par with the later canonized texts. [There are even variant readings of later canonized texts existing side by side, showing that perhaps there was not even an "official" version of these texts in the late Second Temple period. But that is a discussion for another day.]
DeConick's point is well taken. As we begin to uncover and study new textual finds, we need to carefully and judiciously be open to revising our previously held categories and labels. We may also need to entertain the possible notion that the forces involved in the canonization of texts may have had an agenda larger than the collection of so-called approved texts.
Now whether you agree or not with DeConick's assessment on the Gospel of Thomas, the point must not be missed. There were various communities, both Jewish and Christian, who were writing texts, some were embraced as scripture and out of these some were embraced as canonical. In the end, we need a much more nuanced approach when it comes to the labeling of manuscripts we have in our possession.