Such is the ignorance about this subject that this reviewer probably reflects the view of most readers when he writes:
"The 1945 discovery of 'Thomas', a previously unknown gospel of about the same antiquity as the canonic gospels, demands a reassessment of the traditional canon."
In truth, however, what we now know as "The Gospel of Thomas" has been well-known, even by the general public, for over 100 years - with just two qualifications:
1. Because we didn't have the openiong verse prior to the Nag Hammadi discoverty, the text was treated as being by possibly the most prolific author of all time - "anonymous" - and was referred to as the "Sayings of Jesus"
2. As the previous point implies, the Nag Hammadi document is the first known copy to include all 114 verses AND the introduction.
In other words, whilst the Nag Hammadi document is valuable insofar as it is apparently complete, there is nothing in what we know now that significantly adds to or alters what we knew before.
Secondly, this reviewer also reflects, I suspect, a very widespread illusion, when he claims that "The Gospel of Thomas" is:
"... about the same antiquity as the canonic gospels ..."
Leaving aside the claims of the self-styled "Jesus Seminar" (who are self-unvalidating by virtue of knowingly playing with a stacked deck), it is generally agreed by serious textual critics that "Thomas" actually dates from some time in the SECOND century AD, from somewhere between 120 AD -180 AD. That's AT LEAST 40 years after the last of the canonical gospels is usually dated.
Having said that, there are several sayings in "Thomas" which are pretty much the same as material in the canonical New Testament. On that basis it is quite possible that parts of Thomas were either based on extant canonical texts in the 2nd century, or may even have been written in the second half of the first century. In other words, whilst SOME of the sayings may have been produced at approximately the same time as the canonical gospels, but the rest - especially those that reflect gnostic thinking - date from the time of the rise of gnosticism itself in the 2nd century.
Lastly, I'm afraid that this reviewer, aga\in like many others, has been sucked into the swamp pf ethnocentric thinking that typifies the work of the Jesus Seminar.
The term "ethnocentric" means trying to evaluate another culture purely in terms of your own. Thus the members of the Jesus Seminar judge what could or couldn't have happened in 1st century Palestine purely in terms of what might or might not happen in 20th/21st century urban America. Or as this reviewer, echoing the JS viewpoint, puts it:
"While reading the scholarly arguments, I wondered if I could authentically quote anything my wife has ever said. I'm sure she said 'I do' at some point, but would be hard pressed to 'quote' a story or piece of wisdom she has shared with me. It isn't for lack of listening! It is almost impossible to remember exactly what anyone said without making a point of writing it down 'in the moment'."
And no doubt he is right, BUT ONLY about what HE could do in 21st century America (?), a highly literate context where we seldom bother to memorise ANYTHING of any substance. 1st century Palestine, on the other hand, was HIGHLY ORALLY ORIENTED, with very low literacy levels, by comparison with 21st century America. Remembering stuff was the way most people held whatever information they had. Word-of-mouth was the way most people passed on information. And even the average man in the street was far more skilled in both tasks than most people in the West in the 20th or 21st centuries.
The fact that the members of the Jesus Seminar so blatantly ignore such basic yet crucial information says a lot about the quality of their work as a whole. And this review says a lot about how uncritically some people accept the highly questionable information the Jesus Seminar puts out.