The Song of Songs thrusts us into a completely different environment of lus-cious gardens and idyllic pastures where young

love blossoms in boundless effulgence. But even here, as Paulsell observes, ominous shadows lurk; all is not bliss. Angry brothers (1:6), sword-bearing soldiers poised to answer alarms in the night (3:8), and callous night watchmen who molest the young woman while she searches the streets for her lover (5:7) abruptly shatter the amorous mood and eerily evoke the terrors that. . . Lamentations documents and mourns (p. 229) and the kinds of heartbreaking reversals such as we find in the book of Lamentations (pp. 243-4). Overall, however, the celebration of passionate love as strong as death (8:6) dominates this greatestand holiest (according to Rabbi Akiba) of all songs. Paulsell does a masterful job holding together various dimensions of this erotic experience flowing through the history of interpretation, from the physicalsexual (intimate love between woman and man) to the allegoricalspiritual (mystical love between God/ Christ and Israel/Church). The Songs multifaceted portrait of love coheres around a reverence for embodied life that shines through every verse (p. 177) and a dialectic of longing and fulfilling, seeking and finding, absence and presence. Anticipation and frustration are as much a part of the Songs rhythms of love as

consummation and satisfaction. As Paulsell aptly concludes, This seems to me one of the most important contributions of the Song to our understanding of what it means to love and to be loved. Lovers, children, friends, Godall our love rela-tionships are marked by both intimacy and mystery (263). If you cant remember the last time (if ever!) you either delivered or heard a sermon or lesson on these two stunning books of biblical poetry, packed with pathos and practical and theological insight, pick up this commentary and get on with it! F. Scott Spencer Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond Richmond, VA

Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomass Familiarity with the Synoptics, by Mark Goodacre. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012. 226 pp. $39. ISBN 0-802-867480. Renewed interest in the Gospel of Thomas over the last fifty years of biblical scholarship has produced

310

Book Reviews Review and Expositor, 110, Spring 2013

thoughtful discussion and wild speculation regarding the origin and purpose of this ancient text, from its association with the hypothetical Q document to its casual dismissal as an apocryphal Gnostic Gospel. However, if the Gospel of Thomas does in fact predate the canonical Gospels and represent the earliest extant written Jesus tradition, then it is worthy of serious consideration by current historical and textual research. Lack of consensus on this issue has fogged the timeline of early Christian history and been the source of great confusion for teachers and scholars for decades. Yet what exactly is the relationship of the Gospel of Thomas to the canonical Synoptic Gospels? Over and against the claims of notable defenders of Thomas as an authentic witness to the earliest Jesus tradition (DeConick, Crossan, Patterson, et al.), Mark Goodacre arrives on the academic scene to clear up the fog and construct the case that Thomas is in fact a much later Gospel that borrows from the written and oral traditions of the Synoptics. Goodacre begins his substantial argument with the observation that the Greek Oxyrhynchus fragments of Thomas (as well as Greek retroversions of the Coptic text) on numerous occasions share verbatim agreement with Greek manuscripts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Clearly there is a relationship between the four texts, but this acknowledgment

alone is not enough to definitively establish Thomass dependence. For example, how do we know that the Synoptics do not rely upon Thomas, rather than the opposite? Here, Goodacres own intimate working knowledge of the Synoptic Problem is a great boon to his argument. The answer to these questions is elaborated upon in the following chapters, in which Goodacre reveals in examples from the logia of Thomas the presence of both Matthean and Lukan material redacted from the Markan tradition. In other words, Thomas includes editorial material unique to both Matthew and Luke. Goodacre also puts forth a valiant effort to establish dates of origin for both Thomas and the Synoptics. According to his exegesis of Logia 68 and 71, the Temple has already been destroyed and the Jews have been banished from Jerusaleman event that occurred following the Bar-Kochba Rebellion in 135 CE, suggesting that Thomas could only have been written after this date. In the final section of the book, Goodacre deals with the remaining question of why the author of Thomas borrowed from the Synoptic tradition in the first place, concluding that the presence of a familiar, Synoptic-like Jesus would have served to draw the reader in and appear to legitimize the secret truths of the Gospel revealed by its pseudepigraphical author.

311

Thomas and the Gospels may prove a challenging read for those not well versed in the details of the Synoptic Problem, or for those unfamiliar with the tools and tactics of textual and redactional criticism. Still, the importance of this books contribution to the field of early Christian historical research cannot be overstated. Goodacre effectively puts to bed the fanciful notion of Thomasine priority by sufficiently establishing Thomass literary dependence upon the Synoptic tradition. Additionally, he concludes that Thomas is not an early and mysterious Q-like collection of Jesus sayings, but rather a well-crafted and carefully edited text that utilizes the genre structure of an apocryphal sayings Gospel to appear authentic, creating its own unique theological appeal to those already familiar with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. This revelation should not be taken as an encouragement to abandon the scholarly study of Thomas, however.

In this fine piece of scholarship, Goodacre suggests that we might instead lay down our wild theories and return Thomas to its place on the shelf with the rest of the Nag Hammadi library, and perhaps even turn our attention to the study of other ancient and equally curious extracanonical textsThe Dialogue of the Savior, The Gospel of Truth, or The Apocalypse of Peter, for examplewith the same academic zeal. Joshua Paul Smith Central Baptist Theological Seminary Shawnee, KS

312