This impressive monograph is the revised version of a PhD dissertation defended by the author at the Faculty of Theology of Uppsala University in June 2019. It analyses all those passages in the nine extant books of Origen's unfinished commentary of John that refer in one form or another to an earlier – according to Berglund (pp. 318f) continuous – commentary on the same Gospel, written by a certain Heracleon. Berglund's aims are twofold: first, by the consistent application of well-defined and strict criteria, he wants to put the identification of authentic material from Heracleon's work on a much surer footing. And, secondly, having winnowed the original material from Origen's laudatory or critical comments, Berglund wants to profile Heracleon's theology in a way that avoids uncritically adopting the heresiological perspective of Origen and places Heracleon in the larger landscape of second-century theological discourses.

Chapters i–iii (pp. 1–106) define the aims, methods and the theoretical framework of Berglund's enquiry and present a short survey of previous scholarship. Berglund distinguishes four ways in which Origen refers to Heracleon's work (pp. 6, 92–106): (1.) Verbatim quotations of Heracleon with little or no alteration of the original wording are introduced by certain formulas such as the definite article ‘to’, a term such as ‘autais lexesin’ or a simple verbum dicendi such as ‘phêsin’; (2.) ‘Summaries or non-interpretative rephrasings’ may reliably present the meaning of Heracleon’ s remarks, but their wording may be altered; (3.) ‘Explanatory paraphrases’ are provided by Origen in order to clarify the ‘underlying argument’ of Heracleon's remarks: here considerable caution is required because Origen may have substantially altered the passage he refers to, either in light of other parts of Heracleon's commentary or, indeed, in application of Origen's own heresiology; (4.) ‘Mere assertions’ are those remarks of Origen which are clearly devoid of any basis in Heracleon's commentary, but may draw on the heresiological literature and/or exchanges with Origen’s theological opponents.

By defining these four categories Berglund establishes a solid basis for his subsequent analysis of Origen's references to Herakleon in his Commentary on John (chapters iv– x; pp. 107–308). As far as I can see, categories 1, 3 and 4 are convincing in a fairly simple and straightforward way, and their application to Origen's text presents no serious problems. However, on closer examination, category 2, the so-called ‘summaries’, turns out to be a bit more tricky: Berglund argues that, although these ‘summaries’ seem to be very close to verbatim quotations, they have yet to be distinguished from them. Whereas some of these summaries use indirect speech formed with accusative and infinitive, others introduce indirect speech with complementisers, as, for example, ‘hoti’. In addition there is also the ‘hoti’-recitativum which is usually taken to introduce a verbatim quotation. It therefore seems to follow that after a verbum dicendi complemented by ‘hoti’, one has to determine whether this is a case of indirect speech or a case of ‘hoti’-recitativum. However, the linguist Emar Maier has recently tried to simplify matters by claiming that a verbum dicendi combined with ‘hoti’ is invariably a marker of indirect speech and that in the case of the so called ‘hoti’-recitativum there simply occurs an immediate switch from indirect to direct speech. Having pointed out that ‘Greek authors sometimes switch rather abruptly from indirect to direct speech’ (p. 98), Berglund uses Maier's theory in order to argue – if I understand him correctly – that there is no difference between ‘statements attributed using “hoti” and statements attributed using infinitive’ (p. 99): both are to be considered summaries, and in both cases one may suspect a certain amount of adaptation. Berglund cites Origen, Commentary on John 13,2,11 and Comm.Jo. 2,20,135-6 in support. In both cases biblical ‘quotations’ (Ex 17,3; Ephesians 5,8) are introduced by, respectively, ‘gegraptai hoti ‘and ‘elegeto hoti’. Since in Origen's version the wordings of these biblical verses slightly differs from that of the standard text, Berglund argues that in both cases the direct speech should not be taken as an actual quotation but rather as a summary made by Origen. I must leave it to the expertise of classicists and linguists to decide whether they accept Maier's theory and particularly the use to which it is put by Berglund. The immediate consequence for the reconstruction of Heracleon's commentary of John is the elimination of a number of ‘quotations’. For example, the important passage in Commentary on John 6,20,108: ‘Dealing with John [the Baptist] and the prophets, Heracleon says in a rather abusive way that “The Saviour is the word, the voice indicated by John is the voice in the desert, the whole series of prophets is an echo”’; this is taken to be a summary, not a verbatim quotation, because it is introduced by ‘phêsin hoti’ (pp. 132–6). Here, however, Berglund seems to express some misgivings: ‘Nothing in the statement itself precludes it from being quoted verbatim, but our criterion that “hoti” indicates that a speech report is presented in indirect speech leads us to conclude that this is a summary, where the thought is Heracleon's, but the vocabulary may be Origen's.’ And he readily concedes that ‘the three key terms on which the statements hinges – logos, phônê and êchos – are chosen by Heracleon’ (pp. 134f). With regard to this and some other cases I find the term ‘summary’ slightly odd because no actual ‘summing up’ of a larger textual unit can be observed. As Berglund himself acknowledges, his categorisation of Origen's intertextuality should and must be tested with regard to other works of Origen, particularly his Contra Celsum (p. 342). But even if further scholarly discussion may lead to a modification of Berglund's proposals, his work will remain important as a touchstone for methodical rigour and circumspection.

As regards Berglund's second aim, the reconstruction of Heracleon's theology, as a result of applying his rigorous method he goes beyond his predecessors in distancing the authentic Heracleon even further from the heresiological portrait offered by Origen. Berglund contests the labelling of Heracleon as ‘Valentinian’ (pp. 340–2) and discovers – drawing on Lewis Ayres’s proposals – a certain closeness to a ‘proto-orthodoxy’ that emerges in the second century. In any case, Berglund argues, Heracleon's distinctions between a transcendent God, his Word, and a maker creating the world (p. 330) should not be deemed sufficient to closet him with a minority of radical ‘Gnostic’ theologians (p. 341). This removal of Heracleon from the Valentinian school goes possibly too far: Berglund's plausible claim that Heracleon did not accept a theory of three human natures (pneumatic, psychic and hylic) is no strong argument for denying a ‘Valentinian’ affiliation if it is unclear whether such a theory is a sure marker of a Valentinian doctrinal identity. Furthermore, Heracleon's view of a cooperation between the transcendent God and the creator of this world (p. 332) largely agrees with Valentinian conceptions, although other Valentinians may have laid more stress on the ignorance of the creator god. Ultimately, it all depends on how broadly or narrowly we define ‘Valentinianism’. By way of conclusion, Berglund discusses various scholarly attempts at conceptualising early Christian diversity (pp. 344–7). He critiques the proposal of this reviewer according to which Christian doctrinal diversity in the second century should be viewed as a ‘laboratory’ of Christian theology. It turns out that for Berglund the simile of the ‘laboratory’ does not evoke a place of unfettered experimentation, but rather an institution characterised by ‘authority and control’ (p. 347). Clearly, similes suggest different things to different minds: my proposal was inspired by the title of a book published at the time – Karl Schlögel's Jenseits des großen Oktober: das Laboratorium der moderne Petersburg, 1909–1921 (Berlin 1988) – and was meant to highlight that the ‘laboratory’ of the Christian second century had been preparing a revolution of concepts, spiritual ideals and mentalities.

This excellent monograph should be required reading for all those interested in the history of early Christianity and the literary culture of the first centuries ce.