Book Review: Thomas and the Gospels

This book review is an interesting one. Its a book that I thoroughly enjoyed (because I used to study theology full time) but don't feel qualified to give an opinion on (because I no longer currently study theology full time. Its a book about things of great interesting to lots of people, but because its an academic book, its not particularly accessible. This is largely due to the reality of the subject matter; ancient bits of parchment written on in Greek.

I started reading this book, recently published in the UK by SPCK (who kindly provided this review copy), in a hairdresser. That provoked some odd conversations. The topic of this book is the relationship between the non-canonical 'Gospel of Thomas', and the four canonical Gospels, especially the synoptics. The author, Mark Goodacre, opens his preface with the question at hand; "in spite of the fact that it remains one of the most vexed questions in the study of Christian Origins, not a single monograph in English explores the case that Thomas knew the Synoptic Gospels". Interesting stuff. This is a book that follows an argumentative line, and makes the case that the author of Thomas knew the Synoptics, and why said author use them. It links to the authors previous book attacking the 'Q Hypothesis', and a rejection of Q does make this book more tenable. Anyway, enough preamble, on with the review.

In the opening chapter, "Fresh Impressions", Goodacre explores the implications of his work. If Thomas is autonomous and unique amongst 'gospels', then it strengthens the case for a vague, emergent Christianity. If, as this author contends (and this blogger was fairly impressed by the case), Thomas knew the synoptics, then it begins to look like a more centered-set of ideas about Jesus was forming from an early age. But - and Goodacre is very quick to point this out - this is not to say that the autonomy of Thomas (for good or ill) is an entirely partisan and polarising issue. Indeed, one of the endorsements on the back of the book makes the point that rather than labelling and opposing things, "he focuses instead on the textual evidence on which any responsible historical conclusion must be reached". And that is what the bulk of this book is about.

Goodacre structures the book well - its a clear argument throughout - and (for an academic book!) it is very readable. One of the standout features of this book (the difference, arguably, between a popular and an academic book on such a subject) were the various comparison tables of the Greek texts of Thomas, Matthew, and Mark. The differences are fascinating. The full range of issues in 'Thomas Scholarship' are touched on (most of which I had only a passing familiarity with through undergraduate exploration and the occasional tidbit from lecturers), which helps to give Goodacre's conclusion some well-earned meat. His concluding chapter is challengingly titled "Conclusion: The Fifth Gospel?", and Goodacre ultimately affirms Thomas as being vitally important, but stops short of saying it should be seen as equal to the Canonical Gospels. As he puts it, "The attempt to elevate Thomas to 'Fifth Gospel" status in the end only serves to draw attention to its differences from the Synoptic Gospels" These differences, summarised, include "genre, literary conceit, and antiquity". All being quite relevant to the quality of the Gospels!

This, then, is a technical, complex, but important book. It forced me to re-engage my somewhat dormant Greek, and reminded me of the excitement of New Testament study, and particularly of Christian Origins. It is thus slightly difficult to know who to recommend this book to - though it undoubtedly deserves a place on the shelves of those who study Thomas, it is incredibly specific! Bravo, though, to SPCK for publishing it, and good luck to the lay person who wants to grapple with Goodacre's manageable, but advanced work!