{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02312992125984252, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002952755905511811, 'mean_word_length': 4.858789625360231, '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: The Architecture of Religion: A Theoretical Essay

decade. Robinson's contention that H. is on the cutting edge of Johannine scholarship because he used the Nag Hammadi material represents in my judgment a failure to realize where Johannine scholarship has been going in these recent years. H.'s source-tradition approach (where the Evangelist touches up a source only where necessary) makes recourse to the source a major factor in interpretation, and many of H.'s solutions to problems are on a literary level. I was not overly impressed by that approach when I wrote my own commentary before H. died, and I would be even less impressed today. Obviously, I have found this work very uneven; but if it is taken as a collection of insights on John spanning the period 1915-75, the commentary is valuable. H. was a brilliant scholar, and I found many observations that I immediately copied into my notes. We owe Busse a debt for making this disparate material so available in German for scholars. My puzzlement centers on the decision to offer a translation of Haenchen as the Hermeneia commentary on John. Professors and students in Englishlanguage classes desperately need modern full-scale commentaries on the important books of Scripture, and by the prestige of the publishing houses behind them the Hermeneia and Anchor series have become two of our principal sources for these commentaries. When an inadequate choice is made in either series (and both have their "lemons"), we all suffer. I deem it particularly unfortunate that the Johannine area has represented Hermeneia's weakest effort. A translation of Schnackenburg's Johannine Epistles would have been far more serviceable to professors and students than a translation of Bultmann's much inferior Epistles. For the Gospel of John, the Hermeneia editors would have been wiser to commission a new work by one of the brilliant younger Englishspeaking Johannine scholars. Culpepper, Kysar, or Painter would have given us something far more on the cutting edge.