{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02290909090909091, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01090909090909091, 'mean_word_length': 5.072847682119205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Travel and Religion in Antiquity

62 Regarding Witherington’s use of rhetoric as a methodological tool, he seems more centered on it without criticism of its use. As with his discussions of social science methods, there are moments in the commentary where he brackets out discussions of rhetoric and its use in Greco-Roman contexts. Although this is the case, these asides seem far more useful since he integrates his rhetorical method more widely throughout the book. For example, he has a section on synkrisis in his section on 3:1–4:1 (pp. 191–93). He cites Quintilian and explains how synkrisis works in a Greco-Roman context. His discussion here centers on the Judaizers and Paul’s rhetorical arguments against them and in favor of his leadership. What is problematic about his use of rhetoric is that he still uses Kennedy’s work extensively while ignoring studies that have moved the conversation forward. For example, Vernon Robbins’ work is not cited nor addressed in the commentary; nor does the author engage with J. David Hester, both scholars who critique earlier understandings of rhetoric that fail to address ideological issues. Kennedy’s approach is more descriptive and remains in the vein of form criticism while Hester has demonstrated that it’s necessary to address issues of language and power via Foucault. Ignoring these advances in his commentary causes his analysis to fall flat and, at times, his application of rhetorical descriptions offers little interpretative freight. In the body of the commentary, Witherington continues to make some strides in dealing with gendered issues, but still misses opportunities to move the conversation on this issue forward. He states in his introduction that women were important within the Philippian Pauline community and rightly notes that women were leaders in this Gentile community, but he misses the chance to place gendered issues at the center of some of his analysis. For example, Witherington discusses Paul’s remapping of citizenship, but he does not mention how women would have been impacted by a Roman citizenship that was exclusive to elite males rather than inclusive (pp. 93, 101–02). In his comments on 4:2–3, Witherington gives a background of women’s issues in the Greco-Roman context and rightly applies these to Euodia and Syntyche’s situation, doing more than most commentaries on this section in terms of women. While uneven in its methodological application, the commentary offers readers an introduction to Philippians that would be useful in the context of upper division undergraduate as well as beginning seminary courses with caveats from other readings and the professor. Jason Lamoreaux Texas A & M University College Station, TX 77843-0100