The book is Christoph Markschies, Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology , newly translated by fellow blogger Wayne Coppins (Baylor University Press 2015). I reviewed it on Twitter as I was reading it over the last couple of days. I've pasted all the tweets below – first a summary of the book and then some general thoughts.1.1 Christian history is not a one-way street of development or decline.1.2 New ideas have to take root in new social forms. A history of theology is a history of institutions and their guiding norms.2.1a Early Christians generally participated in the pagan education system with very little fuss.2.1b Christian teachers adopted diverse educational institutions. This helps to explain the diversity of early Christian theology.2.1c While some Christian teachers (e.g. Justin) were free-wheeling philosophers, Origen's school was more like a formal university.2.2 The Montanists sought to recover the power of primitive Christianity by adopting the institution of the pagan oracle cult.2.3a A third new institution: the Christian worship service. This absorbed elements of both pagan and Jewish cults.2.3b School-theology was urban; prophetic-theology was rustic; liturgical-theology was universally accessible.2.3c Early eucharistic prayers show a high degree of adaptation to local contexts. Liturgy was a vehicle of theology.2.4 When Christianity transformed institutions, the old forms remained recognisable; that was part of the attraction.3.1a The development of fixed norms isn't a power-play or a theological regression. It's necessary for the formation of new institutions.3.1b Normative lists of a NT canon weren't only used in ecclesial institutions but also in the free-wheeling schools.3.1c Marcion's institutional setting was Alexandrian philology. He wasn't trying to create a new canon but to edit an existing one.3.1d Powerful bishops and free-wheeling teachers both used a NT canon in exactly the same way.3.1e The Gnostics, free-wheelers par excellence, presupposed the same normative canon but interpreted it differently.3.1f The point of this is that the canon was not an authoritarian construct used to suppress dissident voices.3.1g But the canon wasn't monolithic either. Different communities had slightly different canons with a common centre.3.2 This (amazing) section on the canon has been a case study in the way norms functioned in the new Christian institutions.4.1 Walter Bauer's thesis of early Christian plurality and of orthodoxy as power remains dominant, even though it can be seen now as a piece of liberal protestant apologetics.4.2 If Bauer's basic thesis of early Christian plurality is correct, is there nevertheless a deeper unity of Christian identity amid the plurality?4.3 In opposition to Bauer, the inculturation view argues for a deeper unity by positing an original (culturally pure) gospel embedded in diverse cultures.4.3b If Bauer's model is an apologetic for liberal protestantism, the inculturation model is an apologetic for Catholicism. Both models impose too much on the sources.4.4 Plurality and identity go together. Early Christians forged a coherent and bounded identity out of plurality.4.5 Early Christianity was a pluralism centred on an identity-forming centre articulated in theological institutions.Bibliography: 100 pages. Small font. German encyclopedic erudition. Anglo-American scholarship well represented too.Best part is the very rich and very important section on the NT canon. The book is worth getting for this alone.Other highlights: the account of Origen's school, and the surprising demonstration of local improvisation in early eucharistic prayers.I see this as a revitalised history-of-ideas approach. It doesn't see ideas as the products of social struggle.Nor are ideas timeless truths. Nor do they unfold teleologically. Ideas belong to the engine of social life.The book argues that early Christian plurality is best explained by the diversity of its institutions.It includes research from ritual studies and material culture (e.g. a nice little section on ancient libraries) but also shows the validity of the "great authors" for early Christian history.After all, individual talents like Origen weren't just products of institutions but were creative agents of institutional formation.Compared to the rest of the book, the theoretical basis of the plurality/identity thesis (sections 4.4 – 4.5) seemed a bit thin.The three institutions studied here are selective and illustrative. But it got me thinking about the theological function of other institutions like baptism, burial, martyrdom, etc.I wish there'd also been a section on early Christian preaching (especially since Markschies has done top work on preaching elsewhere, e.g. in his book on Origen ). But I'm not complaining.Also really useful is the way the book maps out the field of early Christian studies. Great section on Walter Bauer and his reception.All in all, I don't think I've learned so much about early Christianity since reading Peter Brown or Elizabeth Clark.