{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033063427800269905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016194331983805668, 'mean_word_length': 4.955823293172691, '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: A Theologian's 1 Samuel

Bezae, in the following manner: ‘what is now called Codex Beza, whose two volumes are now designated D (05) on the Gospels and Acts and D (06) on the Pauline letters’ (p. 281). These two codices were never two volumes of the same work, they were written in different centuries, probably in two geographically distant locations (Parker, Codex Bezae, 1992), and while they share some similar codicological features, there is much that separates them. Elsewhere, the book is much more reliable. In chapter five the vexed question of ‘the purpose of Romans’ is discussed. Here issues surrounding methodological and interpretative questions are clearly presented. There is an interesting overview of the Pistis Christou debate, and the theological significance of the expression in Romans (pp. 317-324), although interaction with Michael Bird’s The Faith of Jesus Christ would have been beneficial. The final chapter is an extended and rich discussion on the structure and argument of the letter (pp. 378-466). Helpful bibliographies accompany each section. There is much to be learnt in nearly every chapter of this volume. Longenecker helpfully orients readers to major interpretative cruxes and lays out the various critical options that have been proposed. Given that so many critical issues have been treated here, one expects that the introductory matter in his forthcoming commentary on Romans will be far less extensive – but time will tell!