The presence of Christian apocryphal material attests to the vast diversity in early Christianity. Eric Vanden Eykel presents the inaugural volume in the series Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries, published by Bloomsbury T&T Clark, entitled, “But Their Faces Were AllLooking Up”: Author and Reader in the Protevangelium of James. As one reads this volume, they will be presented with the normal sea of early Christian literature but geared with different literary and critical tools—so much so that they will see the same literary world through a much-different set of lenses.The central aim of Vanden Eykel’s research is twofold. First, he sets out to determine how the Protevangelium of James [PJ] “might have been understood by a hypothetical second century reader.” And, second, he sets out “to explore how the reader’s knowledge of other texts may have influenced his or her interpretation of PJ” (p. 167). These two central aims are clearly accomplished in part 2 of this work (chs. 3–5), whereas chs. 1 and 2 are methodological and critical in orientation to frame the researcher and their approach to the Protevangelium of James.Although Vanden Eykel does not provide a meta-structure to his book, it can easily be distinguished into two parts: part 1 as critical and methodological (chs. 1–2) and part 2 as solely focused on readings of the Protevangelium (chs. 3–5). Chapter 1 offers a critical introduction to PJ that assesses normal historical critical questions (e.g., textual status, provenance, date, sources, etc.). Chapter 2 orients readers to consider a variety of literary methodologies. Vanden Eykel reflects on intertextuality, the role of the author and their intention, as well as reader-oriented postures. Here, Vanden Eykel also considers Wolfgang Iser’s implied reader, Stanley Fish’s informed reader, and Umberto Eco’s model reader.In part 2 (chs. 3–5), Vanden Eykel assesses three sections of the Protevangelium. In each of these three chapters, he presents the same structure and, essentially, the same kinds of research questions: (1) “Introductory Matters”; (2) “Author and the Text”; (3) “Literary Analysis”; (4) “Reader and Intertextual Canon.” Vanden Eykel considers Mary and her time in the Temple (PJ 7–9), Mary and the summons to spin thread for a new veil (PJ 10–12), and Mary giving birth to Jesus in a cave (PJ 17–20). In these three chapters, PJ is placed in concert with Jesus tradition, canonical material, Greek and Roman mythology, Josephus, and many other possible available traditions.Each chapter contains a repository of available research. In addition to this research acumen, Vanden Eykel grants to the reader a number of items worth highlighting. First, the critical introduction (ch. 1) to PJ needs to be heavily considered when investigating the Apocryphal Gospels. Vanden Eykel presents both literary readings and a literary structure for PJ, but he also presents a status quaestionis to a variety of historical critical concerns, including critical editions, provenance, date and sources, genre, and more. Although this section offers a heavy analysis of the critical items and the scope of research, Vanden Eykel’s voice likewise emerges among these critical concerns.Second, from the vantage point of a biblical scholar, Vanden Eykel offers a balanced and accessible summary of his hermeneutical proposal (see ch. 2). After offering a summary of the origins of intertextuality and its use in biblical studies, Vanden Eykel suggests a way to move forward. He offers a both/and balance to historical-critical author-centered readings and the relative challenges of intertextual methodologies. He suggests, rather convincingly, “I have insisted that the two need not be construed as mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to achieve a synthesis whereby they might complement one another” (p. 63).Last, though certainly not limited to these, the most obvious advantage to this book is the critical and literary readings of PJ. Chapters 3–5 are certainly advantageous to the work as a whole given their close readings of PJ and its relation to an intertextual with canonical material, Greek sources, and Jewish text material.However, there might still be room to consider areas for further research and clarification. The first area for further clarification centers on the use and definition of intertextuality. Granted, this discipline and language is already difficult. However, to help Vanden Eykel’s arguments, a second section could bridge together more critical reflection on Julia Kristeva and note the continuity and discontinuity between biblical scholarship and Kristeva’s framework. Does biblical scholarship use Kristeva in a way that she would affirm, or have biblical scholars transformed intertextuality into something else?Second, part 1 on the literary and critical theories and part 2 on three sections of PJ are quite valuable and insightful in their own right. However, I was left wondering on many occasions about the integration of the critical literary theory with Vanden Eykel’s reading of PJ. In other words, which critical literary theory did Vanden Eykel assume, or were his readings uniquely attributed to his via media of the literary critical theories presented in ch. 2 (“Author, Reader, and Ancient Meanings”)?If we asked a broader question of Vanden Eykel’s book, “What is this volume?” our answer would be multifold. “But Their Faces Were Looking Up” is critical theory meets literary exposition meets the intertextual cultural encyclopedia of the second century. As I continue to teach on the apocryphal Gospels in a university setting, Vanden Eykel’s volume is too advanced for collegiate or master’s level students, but Vanden Eykel’s work will continue to be used for general early Christian apocryphal research, and my anticipation is that it will influence specific research of the Protevangelium of James.