{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04200626959247649, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021316614420062698, 'mean_word_length': 4.867647058823529, '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}}
Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition and Theology

his incomparable knowledge of the early witnesses. The disappointment—especially since the collection is so interested in the second century—is that of Royse on Paul and Hebrews (pp. 175–203), where the issue of Paul, Pseudo-Paul, and Pastorals receives virtually no attention. The third section looks at the citation evidence and could really be described as ‘evidence for the use of the collection in the second century’ (although the final essay by Cosaert is devoted to Clement of Alexandria). This comprises eight essays looking at the well-established topics in any discussion of early usage: Paul Foster on ‘the Apostolic Fathers’ (pp. 282–301)—a category whose propriety is not questioned—does not give sufficient attention to the problem of dating. So, for example, Ignatius is discussed (pp. 296–98) without reference to T. D. Barnes’s ‘The Date of Ignatius,’ Expository Times 120 (2008) pp. 119–30, which changes the whole landscape. Stanley Porter’s examination of the apocryphal gospels (pp. 350–69) is an excellent summary, but far too brief in view of the volume of recent work on these gospels, while the absence of any dedicated discussion of apocryphal material other-than-gospels (e.g. acta) is a major gap in the volume. This is an important book of which biblical scholars will have to take account—and they will be rewarded for their attention—not least as a status quaestionis on many topics; that said, one can already sketch out other collections that will both fill out and balance the picture.