Dieter MITTERNACHT and Anders RUNESSON (eds.) Jesus, the New Testament, Christian Origins. Perspectives, Methods, Meanings. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2021, pp. 706 + xxiv.  $65.00 hb. ISBN 978-0-8028-6892-3. Reviewed by Anthony J. BLASI, 4531 Briargrove St., San Antonio, TX 78217

Sage advice to beginning educators is to assign the second best textbook to students, reserving the best for oneself. The best one will provide balance and a largesse of information, and hopefully a thorough index, while the second best will provide an orderly overview. This book un derreview is the kind of text to reserve for oneself. Authored by 22 scholars, mostly from Sweden, and blended into a seemless whole by the two editors, the text had been first published in Swedish in 2007. Rather than focus on the 27 books of the canonical New Testament, one-by-one, this text limits such descriptions to its 4th chapter. The first chapter provides a review of New Testament research, the second a general historical background to the New Testament era, and the third a treatment of the historical Jesus. After the presentation of the New Testament texts in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 recounts the emergence of Early Christianity: Jewish Christ Followers and the emergence of both Christianity and Rabbinc Judaism, Paul and his successors, Johannine Christ followers, varieties of Judaism, gnosticism, and finally the question of Christian diversity and the struggle for unity. A final chapter describes different readings one can give a given text, with nine sample treatments of passages.

Because the content of the volume dates from 2007 and was initially addressed to students in a generally Lutheran society, there are features for which one might wish to make adjustments. For example, the New Testament is presented as the basis of Christian unity—a quite Protestant approach, since some traditions look to worship for unity and accept the biblical canon on the basis of use in worship. There is a concern to contest the the thesis that ancient Judaism featured works righteousness and the view that Paul rejected his Jewish heritage.

The field of New Testament studies, as many fields, is marked by differences among its scholars. An informed reader can be expected to take exception to the stand the authors take on some issues. Here are some features I find to be questionable: The authors date Hebrews after the gospels; that book presupposes the Temple worship in Jerusalem still occurring and hence must date from before the year 70 CE, the earliest possible date of the oldest gospel, Mark.

The First Letter of John is presented as a guide to how to read the Gospel of John, when in all likelihood it predates the fourth gospel.

The infamous statement, "Let the women be silent in the assembly," found in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, is attributed to St. Paul though he contradicts it elsewhere in the same letter; an analysis of the structure of the letter reveals that it is organized in large part around issues raised in a letter the Corinthians had sent to Paul, which he sometimes cites with the phrase "now about" (peri de) and sometimes with a quotation from the letter. The statement in question is manifestly a quotation since it marks a change in subject and Paul immediately rejects it out of hand.

The implications of the development of the Gospel of John in stages are insufficiently appreciated. For example, "the Jews" often refers to the Judean authorities in the older material, rather than to the diaspora ethnic group.There are also numerous interruptions in the gospel’s discourses, marked by a double Amen, which should be understood as notes or marginalia. The gospel also builds narratives around types, marked by named personages. Students should be made aware of such matters.

Second Corinthians and Romans are treated as unitary letters; the general view among New Testament scholars is that 2 Corinthians is an assemblage of portions of different letters, and those portions had become detached and left out of order. Romans 16:1-24 is a separate letter, recommending a deacon named Phoebe, probably addressed to Christian assemblies in Ephesus; Rom 16:25-27 is obviously an added doxology.

Second Thessalonians advises "busybodies" (in some translations) to work. The authors take this as a critique of idle poor people, but the poor—slaves and dependents—had no choice to not work. Rather, the author (not Paul) is criticizing political hangers-on. The letter as a whole has a rather populist flavor.

In the 1980s, a number of New Testament scholars who knew little about the social sciences began applying a few "models," taken from the work of the structuralist anthropologist Mary Douglas. They imposed the models on the texts, even using them to fill in missing data. I personally tried to explain to these scholars that no social scientist would proceed that way, but they resisted and persisted. Eventually, they claimed they were not doing sociology but anthropology, and that my critique was that of a sociologist. Of course, that was nonsense; the two social sciences differ in the kinds of society they tend to study and research methods that do or do not presuppose literate people under study, but they are the same in general methodology (i.e., the stratagem of relating concepts to observations). To their credit the authors of the volume do not endorse filling in missing information with models, but now and then they import an "honor/shame" model, proper, they say, to something called a "Mediterranean culture," whereas a grounded theory approach, perhaps using Max Weber’s pure types of stratification (class, status, party—based on property, prestige, power) as sensitizing concepts would be far more appropriate. That approach was described in a major 2002 reference work that I co-edited; the authors evidently were unaware of it or the relevant social scientific literature. [Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte (eds.) Handbook of Early Christianity. Social Science Approaches. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira (Rowman & Littlefield), 2002]

Consequently, while I highly recommend this volume to professors of New Testament introductory courses as something to have in hand when preparing classes, the features deriving from its time and place of composition should be kept in mind, along with its occasional limitations and lapses.