Upon the discovery and identification of a complete Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi Codex ii, the Oxyrhynchus fragments P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655 were very quickly recognised as belonging to the same work. Scholarship on Thomas frequently contains references to the radical differences between the Coptic version and the Greek original, with the former often being dubbed as a different recension or Überarbeitung, and yet the study of this apocryphon nevertheless often proceeds all too glibly on the assumption that the Coptic text can give us immediate access to the second-century (or even, according to some, the first-century) original. The volume under review addresses the knotty issue of the relationship between the Greek and Coptic texts, emphasising the ‘unleugbare Unterschiede’ (p. 42) which necessitate the conclusion ‘dass wir es bei dem Thomasevangelium nicht mit einem einzigen Thomas zu tun haben’ (p. 250). The merit of this book lies in its pressing these differences, which force the student of Thomas to re-evaluate the stability of the textual transmission of the work, with all the implications which the differences imply for the role that Thomas might or might not play in scholarly reconstructions of Christian origins. For the present reviewer, a number of differences are overplayed: readings in the Coptic text are too frequently eschewed in the reconstructions of the Greek, with other traditions being utilised instead. Thus, for example, a lacuna in the Greek of the prologue is restored – in part – with the help of a Johannine motif rather than with the sense of the Coptic. (There is, to be a sure, a difficulty in the Greek, but other options are available.) Again, the Greek of Thomas 3, ‘the kingdom of God is within you’, is not restored in accordance with the Coptic's ‘the kingdom is inside you and is outside you’; this latter is deemed not to make good sense in the context of the Greek saying, though Thomas's notorious opacity might prevent one from judging too prematurely what makes sense in it. Despite the differences among the manuscripts, it is still striking that almost all of the Greek loan words in the Coptic are paralleled in the Oxyrhynchus fragments (the only exceptions are particles) and that there is only one difference in the order of the sayings. On the other side, Eisele's assessment of Thomas 30 is very judicious, refusing in the light of the papyrological difficulties to be too confident. Especially noteworthy is the author's treatment of the ‘lilies of the field’ saying (where, on the basis of P.Oxy. 655, J. M. Robinson famously claimed to have detected a scribal error during the copying of Q). Against T. C. Skeat's dismissal of the reconstruction ἅτινα αὐξάνει οὐδὲ νήθει (‘which grow but spin not’) in P.Oxy. 655 as impossible Greek, the author shows that this reading is quite probable, both for linguistic reasons, and on the grounds of the structure. A useful Anhang presents the Greek and Coptic texts in parallel, with an additional list of the places where the author departs from Attridge's edition. This volume is the best and by far the most detailed treatment of the textual variation between Greek and Coptic Thomas, and as such it will be a vital reference work for any scholars working on Thomas. Its original arguments are not always compelling, but they do shine a spotlight upon problems in conventional reconstructions of the Greek text. It is both this emphasis, and the consistent maximising of the differences between the Greek and Coptic, which should force Thomas scholarship to reflect more deeply on the extent to which the sense of the Coptic can be said to travel back in time to the second century. Its conclusions also invite the obvious question of when a translation becomes a different edition of a work altogether.