Missions Methods and Principles
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 57, No. 1 – Fall 2014
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Mark Goodacre. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2012. 236 pages. Paperback, $39.00.
The Gospel of Thomas is the king among noncanonical gospels—examined, discussed, and used by scholars today more than all other noncanonical gospels put together (1). It is also the darling among scholars who disparage the four canonical Gospels—sometimes called “the fifth gospel.”1 These academics typically place it earlier than the canonical Gospels, so they believe it is more chronologically accurate than the canonical Gospels. This early date is troubling since it does not mention the virgin birth or bodily resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the Gospel of Thomas (hereafter, Thomas) has no narrative stories at all. It is just 114 disconnected sayings of Jesus.
Now a much-needed corrective view appears. Synoptic Gospels expert Mark Goodacre does a first-of-its-kind detailed study in Thomas and the Gospels that demonstrates not only was Thomas written after the Synoptic Gospels but was dependent upon them for sources. This is a noteworthy book with important ramifications for Gospel studies. Goodacre is an associate professor in New Testament at Duke University who has written widely on Synoptic Studies. He is known for promoting Markan priority as well as dispensing with the Q document.2
Goodacre wisely notes that all scholars can do at the present time is work with the extant copies of Thomas. A complete text exists only in the Coptic version, discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Three Greek papyrus fragments remain, discovered at Oxyrhynchus, and it is in these Greek fragments that Goodacre finds some small verbatim quotations as well as some redaction (editorial reworking) of the Synoptic Gospels (27-29, 58, 61).
Goodacre believes the author of Thomas “reworked material from the Synoptic Gospels in order to lend legitimacy to his sayings, to provide an authentic-sounding Synoptic voice for its secret, living Jesus” (vii). He begins the book by solidly answering the three most common arguments for the independence of Thomas (9- 25). Goodacre then sets out to prove that “the presence of Synoptic redactional material in Thomas is frequent and significant” (57). He devotes chapter two to verbatim agreement. Chapter three describes the type of evidence: diagnostic shards—small but important pieces. Chapters four through six examine Synoptic redactional material in Thomas. For each example he gives a helpful synopsis (side- by-side comparison) of the texts both in Greek (or Coptic) and English (e.g., 30, 35-36).
Sometimes Goodacre’s work has overly-ambitious redaction claims, such as the belief that Matthew’s parable of the enemy sowing tares among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30) is a reworking of Mark’s parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26- 29) (73-80). Yet, those are clearly two different parables with two separate meanings. However, for the most part Goodacre’s evidence is insightful and compelling that Thomas used and reworked some Synoptic Gospel material. He speculates the author of Thomas used this material to try to give his gospel legitimacy so that he could then present his more unusual material.
Although Goodacre’s presentation is quite detailed, he does a good job in giving helpful comparisons when needed. He illustrates ancient literary dependence by discussing modern results of plagiarism percentages on student papers (45, 54- 56). When he draws large conclusions on what may seem like small grammatical details, he reminds the reader of modern-day crimes that are solved by DNA from a single strand of hair (54). He searches for grammatical diagnostic shards, named after pottery shards that an archaeologist will unearth and find helpful for dating a certain level of an archeological dig (56).
Goodacre dates Thomas in the mid-second century AD (171).Thus, Goodacre’s research is an important argument against the claim that Thomas predates the Synoptic Gospels and contains material closer to the original events. Instead, Goodacre dates it over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
Part of Goodacre’s argument is based on Markan priority and that Matthew reworked Mark and then Luke reworked Mark and Matthew (18-22). Although many New Testament scholars affirm Markan priority, this reviewer finds potential problems with such a view.3 However, even if Goodacre is wrong on this issue, he still plainly points out that the author of Thomas used the Synoptic Gospels and not vice versa. This is an important work both for Gospel of Thomas studies as well as Synoptic studies from which both scholars and Bible students can benefit.
- See Stephen J. Patterson, James M. Robinson, and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998). ↩︎
- Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002). See also Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze. Biblical Seminar 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001). ↩︎ - For instance, see arguments for Matthean priority in William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1976); David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels? The Historical Origins of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001). ↩︎
