Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto

Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings investigates portrayals of one particular Jew, the first-century philosopher and allegorical interpreter of the Bible, Philo of Alexandria, in the works of three prominent early Christian thinkers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. It argues that early Christian invocations of Philo are best understood not as attempts to claim an illustrious Jew for the Christian fold, but as examples of ongoing efforts to define the continuities and distinctive features of Christian beliefs and practices in relation to those of the Jews. This study takes as its starting point the curious fact that none of the first three Christians to mention Philo refer to him unambiguously as a Jew. Clement refers to him twice as a Pythagorean. Origen, who mentions Philo by name only three times, makes far more frequent reference to him in the guise of an anonymous “someone who came before us.” Eusebius, who invokes Philo on many more occasions, most often refers to Philo as a Hebrew. These epithets construct Philo as a “near-other” to both Jews and Christians, through whom ideas and practices may be imported from the former to the latter, all the while establishing boundaries between the “Christian” and “Jewish” ways of life. The portraits of Philo offered by each author reveal ongoing processes of difference-making and difference-effacing that constituted not only the construction of the Jewish “other,” but also the Christian “self.”

Philo of Alexandria and the construction of Jewishness in early Christian writings. By Jennifer Otto. (Oxford Early Christian Studies.) Pp. xii + 231. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. £65. 987 0 19 882072 7 - Volume 70 Issue 3

Jennifer Otto’s study, which originated as a 2014 McGill University doctoral thesis, is the first monograph devoted to Philo’s place in early Christian literature since my own overview of the subject published in 1993 (Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey). Though for the most part confined to the Alexandrian tradition...

Jennifer Otto. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. xi + 231 pp. - Volume 43 Issue 2

Reviewed by: Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings by Jennifer Otto Marieke Dhont Jennifer Otto. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. xi + 231 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009419000576 In her first book, based on her doctoral thesis (McGill, 2014), Jennifer Otto discusses how three protagonists of early Christianity, Clement, Origen, and [End Page 443] Eusebius, understand Philo's identity. We have extensive knowledge of Philo Alexandrinus and his writings because his works were transmitted to us not by Jews but by Christians. Taking into account the way in which early Christianity has tried to shape itself in "continuous and not seldom acrimonious rivalry with its 'mother-religion,'"1 it can be surprising that Philo the Alexandrian Jew appears to have been readily adopted by Christian authors. How did they navigate the fact that Philo was a Jew? Later Christian works sought to make a convert out of him (e.g., Acta Johannis), or discussed perceived restrictions of his Jewishness (e.g., Ambrose of Milan). Early Christian witnesses to Philo, such as Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, however, each had their own ways of presenting his identity, so as to not overemphasize his Jewish background. Clement refers to Philo twice as a Pythagorean. Origen may only mention Philo by name three times in his oeuvre, but he alludes to him on several occasions by citing an anonymous "predecessor." Eusebius, in turn, refers to Philo mainly as a "Hebrew." These invocations of Philo have often been understood as attempts to adopt him into the Christian tradition. Jennifer Otto challenges this opinion, and suggests that these references to Philo reveal "ongoing efforts by Christians to conceptualize and demarcate the difference between two emerging but fluid collective identities" (4). In chapter 1, entitled "Christians Reading Philo," Otto questions how Christians came to possess Philo. Traditionally, scholars have argued that in the course of the first or second century, some of Philo's Jewish successors became followers of Christ. They would then have introduced Christians to Philo, thus securing transmission. Otto, however, also challenges this view and argues that transmission of Philo would have taken place in philosophical schools. She touches on this question several more times in the following chapters. In each of her three main chapters, one Christian writer takes center stage, respectively Clement (chapter 2), Origen (chapter 3), and Eusebius (chapter 4). Each chapter has a similar structure: Otto first offers a detailed analysis of the different epithets each church father uses in reference to Jews, such as Israel, hebraioi, and ioudaioi, before presenting systematically the passages in his works that contain references to Philo. She examines the different designations Clement, Origen, and Eusebius use to characterize Philo, respectively, "Pythagorean," "predecessor," and "Hebrew," with due attention to the rhetorical context and purpose of the reference within the church father's writings. In the conclusion to each chapter, Otto discusses how each epithet reflects a particular understanding of Philo's identity as neither a Jew nor a Christian within the framework of each of the fathers' rhetorical programs. In the general conclusion, she reflects on how all three present Philo as a skilled interpreter of the philosophical doctrines of the Hebrew Bible. Yet, as a Jew, he missed the most important truth of the Scriptures, namely that of Christ as the Logos incarnate. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius negotiate Philo's identity in subtle ways as neither "one of them" nor "one of their own." Otto successfully [End Page 444] shows how the epithets they use in reference to Philo function as a mediation between the categories of Jew and Christian. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings is a valuable scholarly work that is pleasant to read. Otto's engagement with primary texts and secondary literature does not weigh down the narrative of the argument. The book reflects contemporary interests in the reception of Philo as well as in identity construction and Jewish-Christian relations in late antiquity. Otto goes beyond the presumption of a Jewish/Christian dichotomy often characteristic of earlier scholarship and shows apt awareness of...

This work provides a reassessment of the emergence and nature of Christian sexual morality, the dominant moral paradigm in Western society since late antiquity. While many scholars, including Michel Foucault, have found the basis of early Christian sexual restrictions in Greek ethics and political philosophy, the author of this book demonstrates that it is misguided to regard Greek ethics and political theory—with their proposed reforms of eroticism, the family, and civic order—as the foundation of Christian sexual austerity. Rather, she shows that early Christian goals to eradicate fornication were derived from the sexual rules and poetic norms of the Septuagint, or Greek Bible, and that early Christian writers adapted these rules and norms in ways which reveal insights into the distinctive and largely non-philosophical character of Christian sexual morality. Writing with a command of both Greek philosophy and early Christian writings, the author investigates Plato, the Stoics, the Pythagoreans, Philo of Alexandria, the apostle Paul, and the patristic Christians Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, and Epiphanes, elucidating their ideas on sexual reform. Early Christian writers, she demonstrates, transformed all that they borrowed from Greek ethics and political philosophy to launch innovative programs against fornication that were inimical to Greek cultural mores, popular and philosophical alike. The Septuagint's mandate to worship the Lord alone among all gods led to a Christian program to revolutionize Gentile sexual practices.

Illness, Pain, and Health Care in Early Christianity

Book Review| April 01 2000 Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Bernadette J. Brooten. Elizabeth A. Castelli Elizabeth A. Castelli Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (2000) 119 (1): 127–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3267982 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Elizabeth A. Castelli; Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 January 2000; 119 (1): 127–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3267982 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

In most modern interpretations of Paul's writings and early Christian history, ethnicity is implicitly or explicitly defined as natural, inherent, immutable, or otherwise given. Paul's letters are often read to support the view that the identities of Christ-believers, in contrast to other Jews, transcend fixed, bodily characteristics we associate with ethnicity and race. After all, Paul's writings include such powerful passages as Gal 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, male and female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. This verse is frequently invoked to support reconstructions of an inclusive and egalitarian impulse in the Jesus movement. For example, Rosemary Radford Ruether echoes Gal 3:28 when she writes that class, ethnicity, and gender are . . . specifically singled out as the divisions overcome by redemption in Christ.1 Our goal is to challenge the conceptualizations of race and ethnicity in such interpretations of Paul and early Christianity. This task arises out of our own interest in the politics and ethics of interpretation, specifically from the view that all reading is ideological.2 As scholars culturally marked as white and Christian, we feel an obligation to struggle against both racist and anti-Jewish interpretive frameworks that have served to mask and sustain white Christian privilege.3 This twofold ethical commitment leads us to favor a view of race and ethnicity that is widespread today but not typically used to interpret Paul's writings or early Christian self-definition.4 Specifically, instead of presuming that ethnicity and race are fixed aspects of identity, we approach these concepts as dynamic social constructs.5 We see them as characterized by an interaction of appeals to fluidity and fixity that serve particular political and ideological interests. Using this dynamic approach allows us to transform the ways we have been trained to think about race and ethnicity and their saliency for interpreting Paul. Our proposed model encourages a rethinking of traditional interpretations in which the understanding of ethnicity or race as given operates as a foil for a non-ethnic, all-inclusive Christianity. In this binary understanding, earliest Christianity is conceived of as a universal, voluntary movement that specifically rejected the significance of ethnoracial identification for membership and thereby broke from its Jewish roots.6 Since the universalizing image of Christianity is emphatically portrayed as voluntary or achieved, the implied or explicit contrast is a form of community that is involuntary and particularboth features frequently attributed to ethnicity and race. This understanding of early Christianity has had paradoxical effects.7 On the positive side, if Paul is interpreted as having defined religiosity as distinct from ethnoracial identifications, then Christian practices and structures that contribute to racist and ethnocentric oppression can be viewed as contravening universalitic and egalitarian ideals inherent in earliest Christianity. This kind of universal and inclusive vision of early Christianity has enabled antiracist reforms and has been central to the biblical interpretations of many ethnic and racial minorities.8 When ethnoracial differences are understood as natural and are used to explain and justify social inequalities, then it can be liberative to argue that some of Paul's teachings-and subsequent Christian interpretations of them-offer an alternative vision for human community, in which such differences are transcended, made irrelevant, or obliterated. On the negative side, however, this understanding of Christianity can have both racist and anti-Jewish effects. The view of early Christian universalism as non-ethnic can lead us to ignore the racism of our own interpretive frameworks and overlook how early Christian discourse relies on ancient modes of othering. Gay Byron's recent study demonstrates the polemical use of color symbolism in early Christian writings, including polemics that uncomfortably anticipate modern forms of racism. …

This chapter delineates a typology of the power of God in early Christian sources, including the New Testament, Justin Martyr, and other apologists of the second century, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius. It argues that any investigation of the concept of dunamis in early Christian writings must begin with an acknowledgement of the Scriptures, maintaining that late antique Christianity should be considered as a distinct philosophical school, which had its own first principles, interpreted its own texts, and gave its own sense to terms that it used in common with other schools. Thus, a specifically Christian notion of divine power could have been born of reflection on the common ‘reservoir’ of Christian thought, any other influence being strictly secondary.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) Thanks to work of scholars such as Ulrich Luz and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Wirkungsgeschichte (usually rendered into English as history) has come to be regarded as a necessary part of biblical scholarship.1 Recent years have seen publication of a volume on Revelation in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, as well as of a book, authored by Judith Kovacs and Christopher Rowland, on reception of Revelation in Christian tradition.2 In what follows, I propose an interpretation of several passages in Revelation that deal with ... and prophecy. I explore possible fusion of horizons between views expressed in book of Revelation at end of first century, views of certain second-century writers, in particular Clement of Alexandria, and, to a certain degree, views of today's scholars on Revelation. The witness of Clement is extremely valuable because he is very self-conscious in committing to writing certain oral traditions inherited from earlier authoritative, even charismatic, teachers, whom he refers to as the This is especially true of surviving portions of his Hypotyposeis-the Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae propheticae and Adumbrationes? It is generally admitted that in these works voice of elders is heard more often and more clearly than in other Clementine writings.4 I argue that Revelation exemplifies an archaic angelomorphic pneumatology similar to one discernible in other early Christian writings, one that occurs in tandem with christology, within a theological framework still marked by binitarianism.51 will clarify my use of Spirit christology and binitarianism at a later point. As for angelomorphic, this term, coined by Jean Danielou, is now widely used by scholars writing on emergence of christology.61 follow Crispin Fletcher-Louis's definition and use it wherever there are signs that an individual or community possesses specifically angelic characteristics or status, though for whom identity cannot be reduced to that of an angel.7 The virtue of this definition is that it signals use of angelic characteristics in descriptions of God or humans, while not necessarily implying that latter are angels stricto sensu. I. EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES ON REVELATION The earliest surviving commentaries on Revelation is that of Victorinus of Poetovio, composed around 258-260.8 The works by Melito and Hippolytus did not survive; a few scholia are ascribed to Origen.9 There is, however, much that can be learned about exegesis of Revelation prior to Hippolytus and Origen. It is certain, for instance, that a passage in scholia ascribed to Origen finds an exact match in Strom. 4.25.156.10 It appears that Clement of Alexandria's notes on Revelation (as well as on Apocalypse of Peter) were part of eighth book of Hypotyposeis.11 It is not dear whether Cassiodorus, who commissioned a Latin translation of this work, possessed only excerpts of Hypotyposeis dealing with some of catholic epistles (since he only mentions Clement's commentaries on these NT writings), or whether he not only took care to purge Hypotyposeis of offensive ideas, as he does admit, but also thought it best to leave out certain passages, such as, for instance, scholia on Revelation.12 In any case, Adumbrationes consist only of scholia to 1 Peter, 1-2 John, and Jude. We are fortunate, however, to possess Cassiodorus's commentary on Revelation, contained in his Complexiones. To degree that passages in Cassiodorus's commentary reflect theology present in Adumbrationes, commentary may represent views that go back to Clement and elders. II. THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF REVELATION AND THE SECOND-CENTURY ... Revelation refers several times to a mysterious group of seven spirits (1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). …

Reviewed by: The Silencing of Slaves in Early Jewish and Christian Texts by Ronald Charles Mary Ann Beavis ronald charles, The Silencing of Slaves in Early Jewish and Christian Texts (Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World; London: Routledge, 2020). Pp. xvii + 272. $124. This book sets out to examine a wide range of early Jewish and Christian texts in which enslaved figures are represented and, according to Charles, rendered silent, by their authors, “who had no intrinsic interest in slaves . . . used, abused, and silenced their enslaved characters to articulate their own social, political, and theological visions” (p. 1) The Jewish texts considered all belong to the so-called Pseudepigrapha: Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, Letter of Aristeas, Jubilees, Joseph and Aseneth, and Wisdom writings that include Ahiqar, 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Phocylides, and the Sentences of the Syriac Menander. The early Christian writings are both canonical and extra-canonical: 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, the Gospels, Acts, the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, Acta Perpetuae, Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, and the Acts of Andrew. C. approaches these texts through the lenses of Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing [End Page 330] the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon, 1995), and Subaltern studies, to “uncover small tales constructed around slaves, or better, to consider how particular narratives could be understood differently if the reader pays attention to enslaved persons in their characterizations in the texts” (p. 12). Not surprisingly in a project that covers so much ground, the results are uneven. In my reading, several “small tales” stand out: the slave woman in the Testament of Job who gives her own loaf of bread to Satan, disguised as a stranger, when Job snubs him (7:5). Admittedly, the woman is rebuked for her kind act, but by Satan, hardly a reliable character. C. pays special attention to the slave characters—an unnamed slave girl and Malchus, the male slave of the high priest named in John 18:10—who figure in the scene of the denial of Peter (Mark 14:66–68; Matt 26:69–71; Luke 22:56; John 18:15–26), meticulously detailing the unique features of each narrative. C. highlights both the devalued figure of Rhoda (Acts 12:1–16) and the unnamed fortune-teller of Acts 16:16–18, characters often neglected by interpreters. Although all act/speak truthfully (and, in the case of the slave woman in Testament of Job, righteously), their words are dismissed, like the true words of the women disciples in Luke 24:11. Similarly, the slave Felicitas is sidelined by the freeborn Perpetua in the Passion, and both women are silenced in the Acts. In the Acts of Andrew, the body of the slave woman Euclia is used, abused, and discarded to preserve the chastity of her Christian mistress Maximilla: “The body of the elite woman is protected, while the body of the slave is exploited” (p. 196). Several of C.’s interpretive moves are less compelling. Some of the references to slaves in the pseudepigraphal writings he includes are slight or nonexplicit, as with the figure of Hermon in 3 Maccabees 5, who “is not explicitly called one [a slave] in the text” (p. 47). The observation that “he is an administrative person, who is in danger of being killed because of the king’s caprice” (p. 47), suffices to explain his vulnerability. C. adopts the traditional, but highly contested, hypothesis that Onesimus (Phlm 10) was a runaway slave, although why a fugitive slave would seek refuge by visiting a Roman prisoner is not explained. C. assumes that Epaphroditus (Phil 2:19, 25; 4:18) was a freedman (and thus outside the scope of the study), although he could just as likely have been enslaved or freeborn. To be sure, Eusebius’s construction of Blandina as a Christ figure whose death has cosmic significance (p. 182) subordinates her to a “highly theologized salvation history” (p. 183), but this is no different from his portrayal of other martyrs, enslaved or free. Charles’s study features a conclusion that thoroughly summarizes his analysis, chapter by chapter, seemingly in response to the critiques of...

Reviewed by: The Studia Philonica Annual, Volume 13: In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay Lester L. Grabbe The Studia Philonica Annual, Volume 13: In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay, edited by David T. Runia and Gregory E. Sterling. Brown Judaic Studies 332. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2001. 304 pp. $37.95. The Studia Philonica Annual focuses on Philo of Alexandria but takes in all aspects of “Hellenistic Judaism.” This particular volume is a Festschrift in honor of David M. Hay. Much of Hay’s work has been on Philo, though he is probably best known to a wider audience for his 1973 book, Glory at the Right Hand: Ps. 110 in the Early Church, and for his 2000 commentary on Colossians (both Nashville: Abingdon). The essays in this volume cover Philo and Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. There is no particular theme to the volume, but one motif that emerges in several essays is the somewhat complicated relationship between Philo’s love of Greek thought and culture and his conviction of the superiority of Judaism and the Jews. Ellen Birnbaum (“Philo on the Greeks: A Jewish Perspective on Culture and Society in First-Century Alexandria”) shows how complex and difficult it is to assess Philo’s views, probably because the Alexandrian opponents of the Jews were from the Greek community. Although Philo makes some critical comments about Greeks, he clearly admires them (the majority of references are in fact positive or neutral; however, he thinks the Jews are superior). He never refers to his opponents as “Greeks” but as “Alexandrians” and “Egyptians” (it is unlikely that any of the opponents were actually native Egyptians). Although Philo’s exact connotation may be unclear, I am not sure that Birnbaum’s counsel to simply use his terminology is the solution. James R. Royse (“Philo’s Division of his Works into Books”) notes that some ancient writers apparently did not divide up their writings into books (e.g., Herodotus, Thucydides), though others did (e.g., Polybius). There are a number of indications that Philo followed the practice of dividing his writings into books. Royse focuses in particular on the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim and Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum. Peder Borgen (“Application of and Commitment to the Laws of Moses: Observations on Philo’s Treatise On the Embassy to Gaius”) argues that the treatise on Gaius has much in common with his expository writings, showing how the law functioned in communal life. One of the aims of the Embassy is to show the strength of the Jewish commitment in opposing Gaius’s statue in the temple. David T. Runia (“Philo’s Reading of the Psalms”) looks at all the passages where Philo quotes or alludes to the Psalms (c. 30 in all). Although he does not often exploit the full spiritual potential of the Psalms, Philo can when he wants to. That he does not do so more frequently is probably because his allegorical spiritualizing of the Pentateuch renders this use of the Psalms unnecessary. Karl-Gustav Sandelin (“Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues”) illustrates the ambiguity of Philo’s attitude. On the one hand, he detests “idolatry,” which he interprets as the worship of icons and polytheism, and speaks out against it. Yet a number of [End Page 154] passages show an appreciation of and even fascination with artists and even the divine statues of the surrounding Greco-Roman world. David Winston (“Philo of Alexandria and Ibn al-‘Arabi”) compares the medieval Sufi mystic with Philo, showing some remarkable parallels. These seem to come from their mystical view of reality rather than any organic connection. Thomas H. Tobin, S.J. (“The Jewish Context of Rom 5:12–14”) examines Paul’s contrast of Adam and Christ by looking at how Adam’s sin was interpreted in early Jewish texts. This context shows that Paul was not trying to develop a “doctrine of original sin”; rather his concern was the relationship of Jews and Gentiles and grace for both apart from the Law. Since Adam was prior to the Law of Moses...

Platonist interpretations of the Cratylus and its naturalist view of names were influenced by the Stoics. This chapter argues that the Mesoplatonist and Neoplatonist writings suggested by some scholars as the sources for the Heteroousian theory had only a very remote influence upon them. It contends that if Platonist speculations on names had any influence on the Heteroousians, it was mediated through Philo of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea. Yet even in these cases there are only scattered points of contact, and these not without considerable modification. The chapter also argues that neither Philo nor Eusebius had any influence on the Heteroousians in the initial formulations of their theory of names. Yet it suggests that Eunomius's later theory of the origin of names is an adaptation of Philo's similar theory.Keywords: Cratylus; Eunomius's theory of names; Eusebius of Caesarea; Heteroousians; Philo of Alexandria; Platonist tradition

Reviewed by: Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church Jerry L. Sumney Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church. By James W. Aageson. [Library of Pauline Studies.] (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2008. Pp. xvi, 235. $24.95 paperback. ISBN 978-1-598-56041-1.) James Aageson's engaging book examines the ways various groups within the early Church developed and utilized differing images of Paul. Rejecting the notion that only Gnostics and others on the fringe of the developing Church accepted Paul as an authority, he shows how various early Christian writers used both their image of Paul and Paul's letters as sources for their theological positions. Aageson's method is to compare the patterns and structures of the [End Page 761] thought and theology of individual writings, rather than identifying features of the tradition and comparing each text to that synthetic structure. Using this method, Aageson concludes that 2 Timothy was either written by someone other than the author of 1Timothy and Titus or that the situation it addressed was so different that it required a significant reorientation of thought. He also finds diverse patterns of thought in the manners in which Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen develop their images of Paul and use Pauline texts. Aageson's analysis of how the Acts of Paul constructs and uses its image of Paul undermines the notion that this work simply opposes the line of tradition the Pastorals represent by showing that in some ways, it stands close to the image of Paul in 2 Timothy, while in others, it opposes the outlook of 1Timothy and Titus. Aageson demonstrates clearly that the church fathers did not belong to a monolithic tradition of developing orthodoxy that demanded conformity; rather, they drew on a range of developing trends, trends that sometimes stood in tension with one another. Christians such as those who wrote the Acts of Paul drew on some of the same trajectories, even as they interpreted them differently and used their image of Paul to advocate alternative views. Still, most recognized Paul as an authority and by the third century drew on his writings as authoritative. The complexity Aageson uncovers shows that no simple model of conflict or separate trajectories sufficiently accounts for what we find in early Christian writings. Neither can models that assume movement from orthodoxy to heresy, or the reverse, explain the differences and commonalities in the theological structures and thought of these works. Aageson suggests a "multiplex"approach that recognizes commonality and tension within a shared tradition that contains competing elements and makes competing uses of common materials. Readers will disagree with some specifics of Aageson's interpretation of individual texts, but such disagreements do not undermine his comparisons or his method of comparison. One might also ask for a larger and more diverse comparative base, but the series in which the book appears limits its length, as well as its explicit exchange with the scholarly literature on the works it does treat. These quibbles do not, however, significantly weaken Aageson's convincing case for acknowledging the complexity of the development of the Church's theology, ecclesiology, and ethic through the third century and the resultant need to move beyond the oppositional models that many still use to interpret the theological differences present in the early Church. [End Page 762] Jerry L. Sumney Lexington Theological Seminary Copyright © 2008 The Catholic University of America Press