Cornelis Bennema’s book examines the issue of ethical mimesis, distinct from literary or other types of imitation, in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, with a focus on several particular gaps Bennema has identified in previous scholarship on the topic. He finds that previous scholarship has either neglected or failed to reach consensus on issues including the origins of mimesis as a value in Christian writings, the precise linguistic expressions of calls for imitation, whether there is a consistent idea of imitation throughout the New Testament, the content of imitation (i.e., what about Jesus’s or Paul’s behaviour is a believer meant to imitate?), and the issue of imitating an absent model.

By ‘mimesis,’ which the book (and therefore this review) uses interchangeably with ‘imitation’, Bennema means ‘creative, cognitive, and volitional actions for which a person is responsible rather than a mindless cloning for which one might not be held accountable’ (p. 16). Thus, someone like Paul or Jesus can stand as a model for imitation without an explicit list of exact behaviours and attitudes a believer is intended to imitate. This definition not only addresses ethical and philosophical concerns about the value of imitation in an ethical framework, but also allows for a nuanced analysis of the texts in which mimesis appears or might appear. A lack of concrete instructions for imitation does not on its own indicate that imitation is not an important feature of a given text; rather, it places responsibility on the believer (Bennema’s term) to reflect on the model (with assistance from tradition, the community, trusted interpreters, etc.) and to determine how best to integrate the model’s example into the believer’s own context.

Over seven chapters, plus an introduction, summary, and conclusion (the latter numbered as chapters 1, 9, and 10, respectively), Bennema addresses mimesis/imitation in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature (ch. 2), Greek and Roman literature (ch. 3), the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (ch. 4), Johannine literature (ch. 5), Pauline literature (including the pseudo-Pauline letters and the Pastorals; ch. 6), Hebrews and 1 Peter (ch. 7), and the Apostolic Fathers (ch. 8).

Bennema focuses primarily on linguistic expression of the topic of mimesis in the target texts. That is, each content chapter analyses uses of specific lexemes such as μιμϵῖσθαι (to imitate) and τύπoς (model) and particles/particulate constructions such as ὡς, ὥσπϵρ, οὓτως, etc. He also identifies concepts not directly linguistically indicative of imitation, but that may or may not be used in reference to it, such as ἀκoλoυθϵῖν (to follow) in the Gospels and γίνϵσθαι (to become) in Paul. After identifying the occurrences of such vocabulary, Bennema does a granular analysis of each use to determine whether it indicates imitation in its context. His explicit definition of imitation as noted above provides a helpful methodological fence for this analysis: some occurrences of the vocabulary might indicate parallel or coincidental behaviour, causal relationships, or analogy, but Bennema is able to weed those out and focus on imitation as a specific, intentional, and cognitive process. In several cases this allows him to clarify ambiguities or disagreements from previous scholarship.

Beyond identifying whether and to what extent imitation is a feature of these texts, Bennema also asks what imitation is in each case. He approaches this question from both sides: Which behaviors or ethics of Jesus (or Paul, or other churches, etc.) should be imitated? and How should a person or community go about imitating them? In Paul he identifies what he calls the ‘mimetic chain’, in which the believer is instructed to imitate Paul (or Paul’s proxy, such as Timothy), because he, in turn, imitates Christ. In keeping with the book’s established definition of mimesis, Paul expects believers to observe his lifestyle and behaviour and apply what they observe to their own contexts, a system in which, to some extent, the believer is expected to use their own reasoning to determine precisely what to imitate and how to do it, rather than simply mirroring Paul’s actions without deeper reflection. Inclusion of the Apostolic Fathers in a book more fully focused on the New Testament provides a clear opportunity to see a focus on martyrdom as a subject of imitation as a second-century development, with little explicit analogy in the New Testament texts.

Bennema’s thorough linguistic analysis of mimesis/imitation in his chosen texts paves the way for further study into the question of genre. The book’s methodology does not differentiate between the concerns and modes of expression of various types of texts, so, for example, the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible is compared to a smattering of Greek and Latin texts specifically chosen for their approaches to imitation to conclude that imitation is a culturally Hellenistic phenomenon. Likewise, the book approaches the Gospels with the same methodology and criteria with which it approaches Paul’s letters. Although Bennema mentions several times that Greek and Roman authors promote the imitation of ‘great men’, he does not have space to compare the Gospels to Greek and Latin biographies and other narratives, nor does he address whether and to what extent accounts of ‘great men’ by Greek and Roman authors internally promote such imitation, or whether that value is imposed by secondary texts. The discussions of imitation of a model in absentia are helpful here, but a closer study of the expectations and receptions of genre could provide further light and nuance.

Bennema’s book is a useful addition to the conversation on biblical ethics, and it also provides helpful insights into the ways in which New Testament and early Christian authors thought of themselves as authorities of Jesus worship and builders of the growing tradition.