Elder is Assistant Professor of New Testament at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary in Iowa. With this book, Elder provides a fascinating and penetrating account of the employment of media, as the title suggests, prior to and into the writing of the New Testament. The aim of the book, he writes, is to engage “the mechanics and sociality of reading, writing, and circulation in the canonical gospels’ context” with the intention to argue that “the complexity of ancient media practices is reflected … [in] these written Jesus traditions” (p. 1). This emphasis on complexity stands in contrast to the tendency in NT scholarship to oversimplify these diverse phenomena; thus, part of his goal is to dispel myths that have accumulated around scholarship’s understanding of media in the ancient world. A discussion of these myths frame each of the chapters.

Elder divides the book into three main parts, dealing with reading, writing, and circulation, respectively. Part 1, consisting of three chapters, walks the reader through silent and vocalized reading (ch. 1), solitary and communal reading (ch. 2), and how these reading practices inform our understanding of the Gospels (ch. 3). Part 2 (chs. 4–6) explores direct writing as distinguished from dictated writing, and, as in the first part, applies the author’s findings to the Gospels. With part 3, Elder discusses the complexities of publication and circulation (ch. 7) before situating the gospels within this context (ch. 8). He then concludes the book with a summary of his findings.

In chapter 1, after marshaling evidence from a number of sources, such as a riddle in The Learned Banqueters (4th century BC) and Aristophanes’s comedy, Knights (5th century BC), Elder corrects the myth that “reading was always or usually done aloud” (p. 7), arguing instead that silent reading was “not rare or extraordinary” (p. 25). Drawing from Pliny, among others, Elder argues in chapter 2, in contrast to the myth that reading events were primarily communal, that the evidence provides multiple examples of solitary reading and diverse functions for communal reading events, such as to field test an oration with a small, private group in order to make corrections. Applying ancient reading practices to the Gospels, he frames his discussion by refuting the myth that “each gospel was written to be experienced in the same way” (p. 79). Here, he makes the case that “each gospel is self-conscious about its textuality and its textual medium” (p. 79).

Turning to his discussion of writing, he argues that, while writing by hand was not the norm, “it was common and used to varying degrees and for varying purposes by varying authors” (p. 143). Moreover, he demonstrates that, while “personal missives” were handwritten (p. 147), there were four primary reasons why letters were dictated and thus written by a scribe: “busyness, convenience, health, and secrecy” (p. 148). With the discussion of circulation and publication, Elder makes the case that such activities were “social acts” which have parallels with modern practices (e.g., revising a blog post after publication). The diversity attending these activities is reflective, he contends, of diverse purposes.

This is a fascinating and insightful work. Elder draws on a vast array of literature contemporary to the NT to demonstrate that reading, writing, and circulation/publication practices were highly nuanced and diversified. As such, the study of such media is worthwhile as it illuminates the Gospel writings themselves. To begin with, he makes a compelling case that the Gospel of Mark was written to be received as proclamation since, he argues, it exhibits an “interplay between orality and textuality” (p. 173). Its purpose was not to be read, primarily, but to be orally delivered. Both the length of this Gospel and its dissemination in codex form point to this function of the Gospel.

Whereas Mark served as a bridge between the oral tradition it textualized and later “textual instantiations” (e.g., Matthew), Matthew is distinct in that it presents itself as a book (p. 92), intended to be read in religious contexts. Luke, like Matthew, also displays a higher degree of literary sophistication, though written, Elder states, for its first reader, Theophilus. Thus, while Mark was not written for publication (but rather oral presentation), Matthew and Luke clearly were, and as such, they were circulating via a different media: a roll or “a bookroll” (p. 251). Intriguingly, while it is well-known that the Gospel of John stands out from the other gospels, its written features, the author demonstrates, further highlight this distinction as it both displays greater oral features than even Mark at points and “manifest[s] norms of written narrative” to larger degrees that Matthew and Luke at other times. As such, he writes, John “is a literary and media metamorphosis of antecedent [Gospels]” (p. 275).

In conclusion, this thoroughgoing analysis of the gospel media makes clear the value of such an investigation. While it pushes against the thesis that all four Gospels are, in the same way as each other, written for a universal rather than a particular audience, it does substantiate the effort and thought that was put into each of the gospel creations. By dispelling the myths regarding media, Elder gives the scholarly community and the serious reader a greater appreciation for additional layers of complexity that attend the Gospels. This is essential reading for any serious student or scholar working with the Gospels.