On a personal note, I first came across the work of Frank Matera when I was a third-year seminary student. In the summer of 1999 I was in St. Petersburg, Russia with an international group of students, taking an exegetical course on Galatians taught by the late Harold Hoehner. One of the requirements of the course was that we read a minimum of 500 pages in the standard commentaries on Galatians. I chose Matera’s commentary in the Sacra Pagina series and was amazed at his ability to draw out the underlying narrative of Paul’s thought while simultaneously paying attention to the nuances of the Greek text and the contours of Paul’s theological argument. It remains my favorite commentary on Galatians. Three years later I was privileged to sit under Fr. Matera in a doctoral course on 2 Corinthians while he was completing his commentary for the New Testament Library.

All who know Frank Matera recognize that he is an incredibly humble man with a gentle spirit and a great passion for the New Testament. I feel tremendously privileged to have studied under him and wish him the best in retirement!

The book begins with an introductory chapter (pp. 1-16) in which Simon covers the contemporary discussion of Thomas’s composition. He makes a number of observations, but to my mind, two of the most important observations he makes are: (1) too many conclusions about Thomas-Synoptic relations are based upon scholarly reconstructions of Q, many of which are passed off as authoritative (rather than speculative); and (2) there is significant disagreement about Thomas’s relationship to the Synoptic tradition, though in North American scholarship there is a tendency for scholars to suggest that the debate is over. I think these observations need to be made in a book like this one. Since Simon is concerned to discuss the original  language and sources behind Thomas, it is necessary for him to situate his study in the context of current discussions. As I have tried to show in my recent book on Thomas, there is something of a “continental divide” in the debate over Thomas‘s relationship to the Synoptic gospels. North American scholars (many of whom favor Thomas’s independence) have a tendency to assume (and often assert) that the debate is over. European scholars are still very interested in the discussion (and often favor Thomas‘s dependence).

This first chapter is a helpful entree into the first substantive section of the book, which deals with the original language of Thomas. In my next post I will look at Simon’s argument in chapters 2-4.

Brief correction: After Mark’s critique Powell included one reference to the Farrer hypothesis. Good for him.