Neither Jew Nor Greek: A Contested Identity. Vol. 3 of Christianity in the Making by James D. G. Dunn (review)

This volume is Dunn's farewell to his long and very influential academic career. The book (824 pages of materials) is substantial, covering the period between 70 ce and around the end of the second century ce. The author's aim is to show how major factors that shaped the first generation of Christ-followers influenced those of the second, third, and fourth generations. Dunn's encyclopedic knowledge is impressive. He seems to cover every historical and theological issue. This volume is simply a mine of information to anyone interested in the developments of various Christ-groups. Instead of continuing to praise the volume for its sheer breadth of knowledge and its insights, I will highlight some areas I find troubling, beginning with Dunn's usage of the term Christianity. He admits that ''the term 'Christianity' was first coined (so far as we can tell), or at least first used in writing that has endured, by Ignatius in the 110s'' (12), yet he uses the term in imprecise ways.

A few examples will suffice to show that specific lack of historical sophistication in Dunn's use. Dunn states, ''If we deduce that Luke, as the companion of Paul, had used the two years of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea to gather information about the beginnings of Christianity, then we can equally infer that he used such opportunities to garner as much Jesus tradition as he could'' (61). He argues that the teaching of the Didache came down ''to the subsequent generations from the founding apostles of Christianity'' (119). The author has a ''great man'' approach to history when he states, ''The impact made by Jesus was the primary formative influence in the making of Christianity'' (187). Dunn seems to imply that historical development of what became known in a later period as Christianity can, unproblematically, refer back to a complex gestation period that would have given rise to the birth of that particular religious tradition.

The second major issue I have with Dunn's magnum opus is its omissions, specifically the omission of authors who have articulated challenging views to the overall linear views of Dunn on the development of the Jesus movements. Again, a few examples will illustrate. In the voluminous bibliography I noticed the absence of Burton Mack, Joseph Marchal, Fernando Segovia, or anyone who has challenged a meta-narrative of the tradition that came to be known as ''Christianity.'' Only Ron Cameron, from the Redescribing Christian Origins Project, is mentioned. Under the specific commentaries used, I was surprised not to see Elizabeth S. Malbon mentioned under Mark, or Adele Reinhartz under John, or Tina Pippin, Stephen Moore, under Revelation. The absences suggest a particular trajectory, which does not seem to value the works or the interpretive frameworks of certain scholars.

Third, there is a theological agenda that seems to blind the author to some historical nuances. Two examples will buttress my claim. First, consider this statement from Dunn regarding non-canonical documents: ''As a whole, the spin-off literature is much poorer in quality than what became acknowledged as the canonical literature––the poorer, properly second-rate quality of most of the literature reviewed above providing an interesting confirmation that the early church was right to acknowledge the canonical status and value of (almost all) the documents which make up the New Testament'' (182). Another problematic statement is the following: ''Yet Paul's definition of 'gospel,' given genre status by Mark, in the event ensured that their definition of 'Gospel' had normative and canon-shaping effect. Should that imply, or be allowed to imply, that since the later (apocryphal) Gospels do not measure up to the Paul- and Mark-given definition of 'gospel,' they were justifiably rejected by the great church in subsequent decades?'' (208). Clearly, the author's focus on unifying beliefs, essentialized...