Coogan, Thomas A. Deadheads and Christians: You Will Know Them by Their Love. Resource Publications, 2025. 132 pp. Pb. $18.00 Link to Wipf & Stock
Thomas A. Coogan graduated from Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. For more than twenty years, he has been a member of Nassau Presbyterian Church in Princeton, New Jersey, serving as elder and deacon. Coogan says he is equal parts Deadhead and Bible student. For some readers, it might be impossible to think of a “Christian Deadhead,” but yes, they exist (there are dozens of us). I listened to the Grateful Dead since high school. And I am not one of those new fans who got their t-shirt at Target. I own all their studio albums (several times over), traded cassettes (and later CDRs), and accumulated a massive library of live music from “America’s greatest cover band.”
Most Christians have a muddled view of what a fan of the Grateful Dead is, and most Deadheads have an equally muddled view of Christians. This is expected from two communities on opposite ends of the social spectrum, at least in various media presentations. After all, they had a song called “Friend of the Devil” and “Hell in a Bucket.” Neither song is actually satanic (or about Satan, for that matter), but people like Bob Larson still condemned the band as “demonically inspired.” Certainly, the skeleton-based Deadhead art looks scary, and the glorification of drug use does not help. The media often portrays Christians as terrible people, ultra-puritanical, narrow-minded, and judgmental, never having any fun whatsoever.
Setting aside those stereotypes, I agree with the book’s central thesis: the Deadhead community is not unlike the community of believers described in the Book of Acts. Coogan does not engage with the lyrics of Grateful Dead songs for their spiritual potential. Instead, he draws parallels between the earliest Christian community as described in the book of Acts and the Grateful Dead fanbase (and hippie culture in general).
The connection between Deadheads and Christians comes from Coogan’s subtitle: “They will know we are them by their love.” This line riffs on John 13:35, Jesus says, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” But if you are of a certain age, you might remember signing “They will know we are Christians by our love” around the campfire in the mid-70s. The song was actually “We are one in the Spirit” and was first published in 1966 by Roman Catholic Peter Scholtes, who obviously knew nothing about Deadheads at the time.
Conclusion: When a representative from Wipf & Stock reached out to me to write a review of this book, I was intrigued. As a long-time Grateful Dead fan and a biblical scholar interested in the Book of Acts, I started thinking about what I might write in a book entitled Deadheads and Christians. I will admit this is not the book I would have written, but I did enjoy reading it. The book is praised by George Hunsinger (a very significant recommendation) and Mark James Edwards, the author of Christ Is Time: The Gospel According to Karl Barth (and the Red Hot Chili Peppers). Barth and RHCP? Who knew?
NB: There is a Logos version of this book for those interested. Both the Kindle and Logos versions are about $10. Thanks to Wipf & Stock for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Sharp, Carolyn J. Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Illuminations. Eerdmans, 2025. xxv+466 pp. Hb. $64.99 Link to Eerdmans
Carolyn Sharp is Professor of Homiletics at Yale Divinity School. She has contributed a commentary on Jeremiah 26-52 (Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah, T&T Clarck 2003) and Joshua (Smyth & Helwys, 2910), as well as several monographs, such as The Prophetic Literature (2019); Wrestling the Word: The Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Believer (2010); and Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (2009), and edited volumes. She serves as Preacher in Residence at St. Thomas’s Episcopal Church in New Haven. In this new volume of Eerdmans’s Illuminations commentary series, Sharp provides an excellent exegetical commentary combined with theological interpretation and reception history.
In the extensive 126-page introduction, Sharp begins with an overview of Micah’s historical context, both new-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian. There are many proposals for the composition and editorial process of Micah as it appears in the Masoretic tradition. She surveys the relevant literature, including James Nogalski (NICOT, reviewed here) and Ehud Ben-Zvi (who argues the book represents Scribal memory from the Persian), and recent suggestions that there are canonical links within the book of the Twelve. She does not interact with Michael B. Shepherd’s commentary on the Twelve, which focused on these canonical links (reviewed here). Although she acknowledges it is not comprehensive (but it is thorough), Sharp reviews various theories of composition. She considers this survey “as an invitation to the reader, to observe shifts in tone, addiction, imagery, and the themes as MicahMT unfolds” (18). In its final form, Micah was shaped as a written composition, drawing on the memories of the fall of Samaria and the neo-Assyrian invasion of 701, events that were still meaningful for the postexilic community (19).
Discussing literary dimensions of Micah, Sharp observes a “fascinating combination of artistically crafted language and structural elegance” (25). She discusses this poetic artistry by serving various forms with examples from the book. As a prophet, Micah is highly figurative and elliptical. The book represents a dramatic public performance by Micah, which was “polished up” by later scribes. She is not convinced the book dates entirely to the postexilic or Persian period. But neither is she convinced that the voice of the prophet can be discerned with confidence in the earlier oracles, but not in the later ones (25). She has a three-page sketch of what can be known about the original prophet Micah from the book.
An important part of her introduction is a discussion of political and economic factors in ancient Judah. After serving, she discusses several approaches to this, including feminist interpretations that amplify Micah’s views (46-57). Feminist interpretation engages with power in several ways, is concerned with social justice, and gives a voice to invisible or erased persons. As a Profitt, Feminist interpretation is interested in social justice and economic oppression, and wants to honor all subjects (erased, silenced, and distorted voices). With this in mind, Sharp addresses two sub-topics raised by Feminist interpretation. First, she asks if Micah was a killjoy, who “dares to name sordid and tragic truth of systemic, patriarchal violence” (52), which Micah often does! Second, she describes Micah as representing “fugitivity.” This term refers to covert resistance to oppression. For Sharp, Micah, insights flight from dehumanizing violence. He argues a possible world exists, energized by life-giving mutuality” (55).
Another important theme in both the introduction and the overall commentary is Micah and ecological justice (57-60). She reads Micah in the context of “the present global ecosystem collapse.” In each chapter, there is a brief excursus connecting the chapter of Micah to a discussion of ecological justice.
Like other commentaries in the Illumination series, the majority of the introduction (60-124) is devoted to “history of consequences.” Here, she traces Jewish traditions (midrash interpretation, medieval Jewish interpretation, modern Jewish interpretation). She then focuses on Christian traditions, including early Christian interpreters, medieval, early modern, and contemporary interpreters, including Christian liturgy, and in social justice movements. Unlike Amy Erickson’s Jonah volume (reviewed here), Sharp has far less artistic reception of Micah. This is to be expected, since Micah generated very little art or literature.
The body of the commentary (133-408) is divided by the chapters of canonical Micah. She begins with a new translation, using YHWH rather than masculine pronouns when Micah refers to the deity. This is followed by several brief sections: a theological overview of the chapter, and a “history of consequences” sidebar (briefly summarizing the reception history covered in the introduction), a retrospect (a kind of application of the chapter), and a short essay on Micah and ecological justice. She follows this with an exegetical commentary. She focuses on exegesis of keywords and phrases (with Hebrew transliterated). All secondary sources are cited in text, making for a very readable commentary.
Conclusion. As with other commentaries in the Illuminations series, Sharp’s excellent commentary on Micah is unique in that it attempts to do reception history alongside an exegetical and theological commentary. How does this commentary differ from Stephen G. Dempster’s Micah 2017 commentary in the Two Horizons series (reviewed here)? They are similar, but different. Both commentaries engage in theological readings of Micah and relate the ancient prophecy to contemporary issues. Both address Micah’s social justice and use it as a template for speaking to modern Christians and for how the church ought to address ecological justice (Sharp) or economic injustice (Dempster). Unlike the Two Horizons series, Sharp intentionally focuses her attention on the reception history of Micah. The result of the multi-focused goals of the illuminations series is a different sort of commentary that does indeed “illuminate” the ancient prophet’s text and is a pleasure to read.
NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Soden, John M. and Randal Emery Pelton. Genesis. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2025. 752 pp. Hb. $54.99 Link to Kregel Ministry
Kregel’s Kerux commentary series combines a rich exegetical commentary with timely preaching in order to help pastors and teachers prepare sermons and lessons for the church. In this new commentary on Genesis, exegete John M. Soden (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) combines pastoral experience and academic credentials. Soden previously published In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (with Johnny V. Miller, Kregel, 2012). The preaching sections are written by Randal Emery Pelton (PhD, Capital Seminary & Graduate School; DMin, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary). Pelton serves as senior pastor at Calvary Bible Church in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania (since 2003), and adjunct faculty at Lancaster Bible College, Capital Bible Seminary, and Gordon-Conwell. He previously published Preaching with Accuracy (Kregel Ministry, 2015, reviewed here). His website, Pelton on Preaching, aims to help pastors preach with precision and passion.
Soden and Pelton divide Genesis into four major sections and forty-five preaching units.
Notice that the genealogy in Genesis 25:12-18 is missing. They call this “Family History of Ismael.” They provide three paragraphs of explanation, but do not consider the genealogy a preaching unit. Each major section is introduced with several pages on its literary structure, theological themes, and preaching suggestions. This will be helpful, since most pastors and teachers will not teach the entire book of Genesis in a single long series. Pastors should select one of these four units as a sermon series (your congregation will appreciate this). Weird observation: these sections are a single column, while most of the rest of the commentary is two-column.
A “preaching unit” is a section that can reasonably be covered in a single sermon or teaching session. The authors provide a one-sentence exegetical idea, a theological focus, and a preaching idea for each unit. These should look familiar to those who have read Haddon Robinson on preaching. These are one-sentence summaries of what the sermon should look like. Following this are two paragraphs of “preaching pointers.” This material is gathered on pages 13-48 and repeated at the beginning of each preaching unit.
The twenty-page introduction seems brief, considering seven pages discuss structure and outline (contrasting the Tolodoth structure with Gary Rendsburg’s work on Genesis). This is the nature of the Kerux series; the commentary is much more interested in the text of Genesis than in typical introductory issues. If the book is taken at face value, Moses is the author. But this does not imply that Moses wrote every word in the book (although this introduction does not discuss source criticism, traditional history, etc.) A decision on authorship will affect the date and place of writing. Even if the traditional authorship is accepted, the date of the Exodus is an open question. Nevertheless, they conclude that the occasion and the original recipients were Israel after coming out of Egypt, likely during the wilderness period.
As with other volumes in the Kerux series, there are numerous sidebars discussing cultural and historical issues. In this, there are interesting sidebars on cosmic conflict, surrogate wives, dreams, Levirate marriage, covenant meals, the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh, the identity of Jacob’s assailant, household gods, and marriage contracts (and many, many more). In addition to these, there are extensive “translation analysis boxes. In these sections, Sodon discusses Hebrew lexical and syntactical issues by comparing popular English translations. This is helpful, especially for pastors, who must deal with a variety of translations in their congregation. Sodon explains the reasons why some translations choose a particular English word based on the Hebrew text.
The exegetical section proceeds through the text by paragraphs. Even in a commentary of this length, it is impossible to deal with every word and phrase in the book of Genesis. Soden comments on the Hebrew text, which often appears without a transliteration. Secondary sources are cited with in-text citations rather than footnotes. Each exegetical unit concludes with a comment on the text’s theological focus.
Pelton’s Preaching and Teaching Strategies begins with an exegetical and theological synthesis. These short reflections on the main point of the passage are followed by a repetition of the preaching idea. He then provides a series of comments on contemporary connections, the sorts of things an interpreter needs to consider before they preach or teach the passage. Sometimes these are canonical connections, others are warnings or advice to preachers as they prepare. The final section is “Creativity in Presentation.” These sections offer suggestions for drawing the congregation into the text (illustrations, for example). These seem shorter to me than other Kerux volumes, but also less gimmicky. The “Creativity” sections often include contemporary movies (The Lord of the Rings) or famous Christian writers (C. S. Lewis, and a host of ancient church writers). Pelton does some of that, but these sections are more concerned with how the narrative works within the larger story of Genesis and the Bible. Each preaching unit concludes with discussion questions that guide the sermon’s application.
Conclusion. Soden and Pelton’s commentary on Genesis will be a valuable resource for pastors and teachers presenting the first book of the Bible in the local church. They do not get bogged down in the fine details, which distract many (especially in the first eleven chapters). By focusing on the text’s meaning and narrative flow, Soden and Pelton provide a solid foundation for reading Genesis with clarity.
Barker, James W. Writing and Rewriting the Gospels: John and the Synoptics. Foreword by Mark Goodacre. Eerdmans, 2025. xvi+188 pp. Pb. $22.99 Link to Eerdmans
James W. Barker serves as an associate professor of New Testament at Western Kentucky University. He wrote his PhD dissertation on John’s use of Matthew (Vanderbilt, 2011; Amy-Jill Levine, advisor), now available as John’s Use of Matthew (Fortress, 2015). In addition to many essays and journal articles, he also published a monograph, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Composition, Redaction, Recension, and Reception (Oxford Academic, 2021).
For many years, one of the few things Gospel scholars agreed on was that John was written last and that John wrote more or less independently of the three Synoptic Gospels. P. Gardner-Smith and C. H. Dodd made this case early in the twentieth century, and it held strong until at least the 1960s. Since then, there has been a slow erosion of John’s independence from the Synoptic Gospels, but solutions to the Synoptic Problem rarely (or ever) included the fourth Gospel. One notable exception is Mark Goodacre, in his recent The Fourth Synoptic Gospel (Eerdmans, 2025, reviewed here).
Barker’s method can be fairly summarized as “snowballing” (a word he uses in this book). “The central thesis of this book is that each subsequent gospel writer knew and used every gospel that came before it” (41). Why is this a case? Because this was how writing was done in the ancient world. Barker uses evidence from Oxyrhynchus papyri of Homeric epics, recensions of the Septuagint, Tatian’s Diatessaron, and Joseph’s use of canonical Samuel and Chronicles. He suggests, “Josephus could not compose this section of his history without scrupulously and continually comparing both his biblical texts” (49). Since “all writers are readers” (52), he suggests the gospel writers “usually maintain visual contact with their source texts, and that each subsequent evangelist could easily reposition within every previous gospel” (55).
In terms of the Synoptic Problem, Barker’s book is a defense of the Farrar Hypothesis extended to include John’s gospel (chapters 2 and 3). Mark wrote first, then Matthew and Luke both revised Mark. Luke also revised Matthew (dispensing with the need for the hypothetical sayings source, Q). Like many scholars, Barker thinks John wrote last, but he argues that John knew Mark and its revisions in Matthew and Luke. Essentially, the author of the fourth gospel had the three previous gospels available. This means no Gospel writer was independent except Mark (or at least this book is not interested in hypothetical pre-Markan sources or oral tradition). This means how John wrote his gospel is an extension of the Synoptic Problem.
Barker wants to avoid two “paths” in this book. First, this book is not a historical Jesus study. He thinks “literary dependence and creative writing can be explored without regard to his historicity” (14). Second, he does not speculate on how or where any Synoptic material originated (oral tradition, M-Source, L-Source, etc.). But he does want to consider the role of textual criticism, because copies of the gospels were harmonized so they would agree verbatim. He thinks Gospel authors revised their sources to fit their theological emphasis, but this book does not engage in Redaction Criticism. Barker thinks Redaction Criticism went too far by creating “communities” for which the gospels were written. A major emphasis in his method is the Greco-Roman practice of imitation and rewriting. This was ubiquitous in Greco-Roman literature. After providing many examples, he concludes, “I find the same literary techniques to play as John rewrote the synoptic” (25).
In the first chapter of the book, “How to Write a Gospel,” Barker suggests that the gospel should not be considered an oral traditional composition. He doesn’t deny that Oral tradition existed, only that it is “utterly unrecoverable” (28). The gospels “are not transcriptions of Oral performances” (52). The Roman orator Quintilian (c. AD 35-100) provides evidence that the gospels were extensively drafted and revised before publication (31). He seriously doubts any author wrote a book from start to finish (38), using the analogy of the Beatles writing their song Get Back. As Peter Jackson’s documentary has shown, there are over 150 hours of tape documenting the writing, revising, and recording of this simple song. The Gospels are far more complicated than a three-minute pop song.
In chapter 3, Barker offers evidence of John’s intentional rewriting of the Synoptic Gospels. Where there are parallels to the Synoptic Gospels, they can be compared. Barker argues John is using oppositio in imitando, a literary practice found in Quintilian. Although this practice is recognized in classics studies, Barker is one of the first to apply oppositio in imitando to biblical studies.
His “quintessential example” of oppositio in imitando is John 5. Barker argues John rewrites the story of Jesus healing the paralyzed man from Mark 2:1-12 (and revised in Matt 9:2-8 and Luke 5:18-26). John has moved the story from Galilee to Jerusalem and made it into a Sabbath controversy. John’s gospel never actually states that the man was paralyzed (he was merely sick, using ἀσθένεια). When Jesus says, “Pick up your bed and walk” (5:9), John is imitating Mark’s gospel. A key feature of Mark’s version is the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sin, which appears to be missing in John 5. However, 5:14b implies that Jesus did forgive the man’s sin. Something Barker omits that would strengthen his case is Mark 2:7. When Jesus claims to forgive the man’s sin, the scribes think to themselves that Jesus is blaspheming since only God can forgive sin. In John 5:17, when questioned about healing o the Sabbath, Jesus says “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” followed immediately by John’s observation that the Jews “were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
The problem is, is John 5 really an imitation of Mark 2, or is it a completely different story? What Barker identifies as creative adaptations of the earlier story are indications that this is an entirely different event. The same could be true for his argument that Jon has rewritten Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the rich man) as the resurrection of Lazarus and John 11. The main parallel is the name Lazarus, a common one in the Second Temple period. Although it is tempting to see the poor man in Luke 16 as the dead man in John 11, the only parallel is the name.
In both examples, Barker thinks anyone who does not see the parallels simply is not taking oppositio in imitando into account. It seems to be a better example of oppositio in imitando is miracle stories that are parallel in all four gospels, such as the Feeding of the 5000 (98-99) and the walking on the water, or perhaps the reason why Judas betrayed Jesus (100-03). Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem is in all four gospels, providing data that can be compared with the Synoptic Gospels. In these examples, Barker’s “snowballing” is evident. I need more evidence to convince me that John radically rewrote Mark 2 in John 5, or that the Lazarus resurrection in John 11 rewrote the Lazarus story in Luke 16.
Conclusion. Barker’s book is an engaging challenge to the (eroding) consensus view that John’s gospel was written independently of the Synoptic Gospels. His introduction of oppositio in imitando into the discussion is a significant contribution to New Testament Studies. Along with Mark Goodacre’s The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, Writing and Rewriting the Gospels is a considerable step forward in Gospel research.
NB: Mark Goodacre interviewed Barker on his NT Podcast (I did not listen to the podcast before writing this review). This book was the subject of a review session at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Boston, 2025, in the Johannine Literature section. Once again, this review was published before this review session.
NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Gathercole, Simon J. The Genuine Jesus and the Counterfeit Christs: New Testament and Apocryphal Gospels. Eerdmans, 2025. ix+131 pp. Pb. $24.99 Link to Eerdmans
Simon Gathercole is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, and Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He has written extensively on both the Gospels and Pauline letters, including two monographs on the Gospel of Thomas and one on the Gospel of Judas. This new book compares the canonical Gospels to several apocryphal gospels to show that the canonical Gospels are considerably different than these other “lost” gospels.
Gathercole has two propositions for this study. First, the four New Testament Gospels share key elements of theological context that mark them out from most of the non-canonical gospels. Second, the reason why the four New Testament gospels are theologically similar to one another is that they—unlike most others—follow the existing gospel message of the apostles. Essentially, the canonical Gospels are based on apostolic preaching and aim to preserve it; the non-canonical gospels “have a clear desire to distance themselves from key elements” of the apostolic preaching (109).
The first two chapters of the book introduced the “other gospels.” Gathercole includes the Gospel of Marcion, two Valentinian gospels (The Gospel of Truth in The Gospel, Philip), two Gnostic gospels (The Gospel of the Egyptians and The Gospel of Judas), The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Mary. Each is introduced with a short sample. How can you tell the gospel apart? He suggests that the non-canonical gospels lack a certain “normality” when compared to the canonical gospels. There are strange elements in each of his examples, such as the talking cross in the Gospel of Peter. With respect to the origins of these non-canonical gospels, authorship is usually unclear, and they tend to date later than the canonical gospels (this may be debatable for the Gospel of Thomas, but he is generally correct). The non-canonical gospels lack biographical narration, focusing on dialogue between Jesus and a main character. Gathercole suggests that the non-canonical gospels may have been less popular, but this is a difficult criterion since truth is not measurable by popularity or majority.
It is the theological differences that distinguish the non-canonical gospels from the canonical ones. These differences are the burden of the rest of the book. He compares four issues of critical concern in the canonical gospels to those in the apocryphal gospels, devoting a chapter to each. For each theological topic, he summarizes how the canonical Gospels present the idea, highlighting the diversity between the four while showing they are remarkably similar. He then surveys his eight examples, looking for similarities and contrasts with the canonical gospels.
First, Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. In the canonical gospels, this is a central fee. However, in the non-canonical gospels, some will reject the idea that Jesus was the Messiah or ignore Jesus as the Messiah. Second, the canonical gospels focus on Jesus’s death as necessary for salvation, while the non-canonical gospels tend to downplay the crucifixion or bury it in the background. Third, another key element of the canonical gospels is Jesus’s resurrection. The resurrection was part of apostolic preaching from the beginning (1 Cor 15:4), and in many ways, the canonical gospels reach their conclusion with the resurrection of Jesus. Non-canonical gospels either rejected Jesus’s death and resurrection (Judas and Egyptian) or collapsed the death and resurrection together (the Valentinian gospels). Some accept the idea of resurrection. Jesus is alive, but that is the extent of the resurrection. Fourth, in each of the canonical gospels, Jesus fulfills the Hebrew scriptures. This is a significant feature in all four of the canonical gospels. However, in non-canonical gospels, the idea that Jesus fulfills scripture is either irrelevant or ambiguous in its fulfillment.
After surveying these for theological points in both the canonical and non-canonical gospels, he returns to his original two propositions. The reason why the canonical gospels are similar is that they are all based on apostolic preaching. The reason the non-canonical gospels are different is that they are not based on that same tradition. Obviously, they have some awareness of the gospel story and may have known the canonical gospels. But the theology of the canonical gospels is not important for their theological emphases.
Gathercole makes an important point in this book. The non-canonical gospels are not an alternative Bible that presents a unified view (53). There is quite a range of theological motives and interests in the eight gospels he has chosen to feature in this book. There are many more apocryphal gospels, often with even more divergent theological views. Too often, studies of apocryphal gospels lean towards conspiracy theories. It is not the case that these apocryphal gospels represent a strand of Christian theology that was violently suppressed by orthodoxy.
In most cases, they differ enough from the canonical gospels that they never gained traction with the majority of the church. Significant church theologians indeed condemned many, but the fact that we have copies today indicates they were copied and studied. Considering the expense of copying a book in the ancient world, it is no surprise that there are fewer manuscripts available.
Conclusion. This brief book is a good introduction to eight examples from the New Testament Apocrypha. Noncanonical gospels are often interesting to read since they give an insight into the wide range of theological views in the early church. Gathercole’s introduction to this literature and his comparison of it to the canonical gospels are a valuable contribution that most readers will enjoy.
Gathercole recently edited an edition of the Apocryphal Gospels for Penguin Classics (2022). This extensive collection includes the gospels mentioned in this volume, as well as many others, including fragmentary gospels found among the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. This inexpensive book is a good value for readers interested in the Apocryphal Gospels.
