Controversy has long raged over the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian, partly because of its overall lack of coherence and focus, but in particular because of the extensive, sometimes verbatim, parallels between the second half, from book 9, and the Adversus Marcionem iii, where the polemic is more sustained and successful. Solutions have tended to see the Adversus Iudaeos either as the work of an imitator, or as an earlier draft which the author abandoned because of its lack of clear focus; a mediating position identifies the work with one of the initial drafts of the Adversus Marcionem, lost and illegitimately circulated by a fellow, then apostate, Christian. Geoffrey Dunn, in this revision of his 1999 doctoral dissertation, tackles head-on such dismissals of the work's integrity, arguing that in its final form it can be read as a unity against a template of the conventions of second-century rhetoric. His method is to analyse the internal structure, argumentation and style of the work in its own terms, rather than through detailed comparison with Tertullian's other works. Having defined the genre as a controversia, and since his attention is primarily directed to the final form of the text – only once does he find himself compelled to admit an interpolation (14.11–14) – he is able to adopt the narrative-critical device of implied versus intended readers; his conclusion is that the former are the Jews and Christians imagined as an audience to the encounter between the Jewish proselyte and Christian, while the latter are Christians for whom the text would offer guidelines for the future. Although the text is not a documentary record of a debate, Dunn does not doubt that such a debate may have taken place, and he does see in the work valuable evidence for the actual situation of and relations between Jews and Christians in North Africa at the very end of the second century. Yet despite his sympathy for the text and efforts to gain for it a sympathetic reading, even he has to conclude that it ‘reads like many student essays: desperately in need of a major overhaul’. At times the reader feels that some further such revision may have helped this volume; the arguments are often repetitious and the main stages in the argument and contributions to debate are easily lost in such; engagement with other work, including that on Jewish-Christian relations, tends to be descriptive, confirmatory or dismissive, but lacking sustained creative argument. Moreover, the reader needs to have a text of the Adversus Iudaeos to hand in order to follow the argument; the inclusion of at least a detailed outline of the Adversus Iudaeos would have provided invaluable support. None the less, Dunn is to be thanked for drawing serious attention to this oft-neglected work, and for highlighting its significance not only for an understanding of Tertullian but also for that of Judaism and early Christianity.