Cornelis Bennema, who teaches New Testament studies at the London School of Theology, has focused his career on research into issues of character and imitation in the NT, so with this latest contribution he brings together much of his earlier research. His aim is to provide “a literary, historical, and theological study of mimesis as a religious-ethical concept in early Christianity” (p. 25). His thesis is that “early Christian mimesis was a dynamic, participatory, creative, and cognitive process within the context of divine family education with the goal for Christians to represent and resemble Christ in character and conduct” (p. 24, emphasis original).

He specifies that by labeling his work as, in part, an “historical” study of the theme, he is signaling his intention to seek “the historic origins of the early Christian concept of mimesis in the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions” (p. 23). The first of the three parts of this book, chapters 2–3, surveys these historical origins. He concludes that the Greco-Roman traditions had an explicit category for ethical imitation, whereas in the Hebrew Bible ethical imitation is implicit at best. It was the later influence of Greco-Roman traditions on Jewish understanding (e.g., LXX, Philo) that “germinated” (p. 99) the seeds of imitation found in the Hebrew Bible.

By “literary,” he signals his intention to pay close attention to the literary sources, and by “theological,” his desire to show that the theme of imitation in the NT “belongs to the realm of Christian ethics” (p. 23). These aspects of the study are seen throughout parts two and three. The literary aspect is the main focus of part two (chs. 4–8) and the theological is the main focus of the concluding chapter of the book (ch. 10). Aside from the NT, he also discusses mimesis in the apostolic fathers (ch. 8).

There are numerous reasons to commend this book. First, given the author’s career-long focus, he brings expertise, clarity, and precision to the discussion. This is especially seen in his careful attention to the texts in view. For example, in his discussion of 1 Peter, he pushes against such scholars as E. J. Tinsley and Stephen Smalley (citing, e.g., 1:14, 2:2, 5, 11, 25) who are too hasty in seeing imitation in 1 Peter while affirming that 1 Peter 2:21 is a clear case of imitation.

Second, he is careful to distinguish imitation/mimesis from reciprocity. He gives three reasons to draw this distinction: (1) the former provides an example to follow (cf. John 13:15) whereas with the latter “a benefit” is bestowed on another person (John 3:16, reciprocation of belief); (2) the former goes in one direction (one person imitates another) while the latter is circular (one person gives a gift and the recipient returns the favor); and (3) the former aims for “moral transformation” whereas the goal of the latter “is to maintain social relations” (p. 22). The author’s careful distinction here is vital, given the impact that the notion of the gift has had on NT and especially Pauline studies following John M. G. Barclay.

Third, the distinction between imitation and analogy helps the reader to understand precisely what imitation is. Bennema defines analogy as “a correspondence, resemblance, or parallel between persons, actions, or objects that are otherwise different” (p. 19). Although he recognizes that imitation is a specific instance of analogy, he provides four ways to distinguish the former from the broader category of analogy. To begin with, analogy is discerned by a third, “external” (p. 20) person, whereas imitation is intentional on the part of the exemplar and the one imitating the example. Also, imitation entails that an action is offered that is worth imitating, whereas with analogy one may behave like others “without being emulated” (p. 20); and it follows that for an act to be imitable it must be “tangible or perceptible” (p. 20), yet analogy can make a correspondence between ideas without implying an act to be perceived. Lastly, imitation is for the purpose of moral transformation, whereas analogy can be merely explanatory.

The above distinction bears upon how we understand language that appears to hint at imitation. For example, although Matthew 12:40; 13:40; and 24:27, 37 use the “ὥσπερ … οὕτως construction” (p. 134) usually suggestive of mimesis, only one of these four, Matthew 12:40, is arguably an example of imitation, whereas the rest are examples of analogy.

Given the author’s cataloguing of the various strengths of each occurrence of mimesis, he concludes that, of the NT, the Johannine and Pauline corpora evidence the clearest instances of imitation as a central and vital aspect of Christian ethics. In contrast, the remainder of the NT, while differing by degrees, shows mostly traces of imitation, and thus, for these portions of the NT, imitation is not a significant category. This both gives the reader a sense of the unity between the different books of the NT and recognizes the diversity, helping the reader to appreciate the unique perspectives of John and Paul on the Christian life. In addition, the result of his investigation explains how, through memory and writing, even absent persons can serve as an example and compellingly argues that “early Christian mimesis was not about literal replication … but a creative, cognitive, and transformative didactic instrument that shaped the conduct and character of early Christians” (p. 373). This book is essential reading for anyone desiring to have a fuller understanding of NT morality and the specific value of imitation.