Book Review: How Ancient Narratives Persuade: Acts in its Literary Context, by Eric Clouston

53 sive (listed here in the order of appearance): P. N. Anderson, D. C. Allison, H. W. Attridge, G. L. Parsenios, U. C. von Wahlde, R. A. Culpepper, C. S. Keener, J. H. Charlesworth, J. Roskovec, M. A. Daise, P. Pokorný. All of them appear in the panel discussion transcripts, about which I will say more below. The optimistic conclusion reached by the participants on the value of JG’s use in Jesus research is not surprising, in light of the wealth of unique material found in the Gospel. However, given the paucity of such use, this conclusion is both timely and refreshing. Similarly expected is the contributors’ tendency to lean in the direction of John’s creative rewriting of one or more of the Synoptics. This has been a growing trend in Johannine studies post-Dodd, and today one can characterize it as a relatively mainstream view. The contributors reconcile the above conclusions by balancing synoptic dependence with unique Johannine traditions in a final document that essentially is seen as a rather eclectic mix. The hypothesis of JG’s synoptic dependence faces stronger crosswinds than its counterparts in synoptic studies (Lukan or Matthean posteriority hypotheses). The participants doubtless understand that there is no “double tradition” or “triple tradition” consistently connecting John to one or several Synoptics in the manner that binds Luke or Matthew to Mark and the other synoptic author. Of course, it must be conceded, and has been for some time, that a number of Johannine texts could have been derived from the Synoptic Gospels, perhaps with the help of secondary orality (the stratigraphy of JG surely has a role to play in all such discussions). But can a selective cross-influence be taken as demanding a direct textual dependence? The question is fascinating, and one eagerly anticipates its assessment in the context of the ancient media environment, establishing the available precedents and analyzing the mechanics of this particular hypothetical rewriting (for a methodological framework, see, for example, Alan Kirk’s 2016 Q in Matthew monograph). For the time being, the present volume seems to this author to be at its most persuasive when the participants express caution in entertaining a direct dependence, acknowledging the many nuances still complicating the discussion. Given the complexity and the nuanced character of the subject matter, the volume’s documentation of the panel discussions is most welcome. This is not a frequently seen format, no doubt because of the amount of labor that must be put into accurately reproducing the sessions. It does not seem to be an exaggeration to suggest that all collected volumes should nevertheless strongly consider adopting it. It simply makes a major difference, especially when one thinks of a non-specialist reader or someone who is only beginning to explore a particular field of study. It takes some of the guesswork out of reading an essay for a reader who wonders where the author stands on a particular issue. With this format, the reader can peruse the author’s contributions to the panel discussion (or, as here, discussions), which frequently will yield answers that may not necessarily be explicit in the text of the essay. Of course, in addition to providing such concrete aid to the reader, panel transcripts also enrich the contributors’ essays by offering further insight into the various topics under discussion, just as any live conference Q&A is supposed to do. This volume treats the reader to four separate panel discussion transcripts, responding to four groups of papers given at the symposium. Unfortunately, these groups are not the ones into which the papers are divided in the volume’s table of contents. It is clear that the editors decided that the groups offered in the volume’s TOC are thematically more successful than the symposium ones, but this creates a certain disconnect between the four panel sessions (which now are bunched together in the volume’s concluding segment) and the papers to which they originally were attached. Preserving the symposium’s original sequence of papers and coupling each original group with its panel discussion would have been more effective. All the same, this is a landmark contribution to Johannine studies, and a highly successful example of documenting a symposium for future generations of scholars. Olegs Andrejevs Loyola University Chicago Chicago, IL 60660