BOOK REVIEW:

From Clement to Origen: The Social and Historical Context of the Church Fathers, David Ivan Rankin, Ashgate 2006 (www.ashgate.com) ISBN 0-7546-5716-7. $89.95.

Reviewed by Edward Moore (www.theandros.com/emoore)

The title of this volume is rather misleading, as it ranges over many more periods and figures than those falling between the respective times of Clement and Origen. In fact, Rankin (hereafter R.) begins with an “Introduction” (1-22) including brief but quite helpful discussions of Plato (Euthydemus), Aristotle (Protrepticus), and Seneca (Epistle 90). This allows R. to focus on the importance of rhetoric and its development up to the time of the earliest Christian writers. This sets the stage quite nicely for the comprehensive, but necessarily concise, examinations of various Church Fathers that follow – of which, regretfully, Clement and Origen occupy only the final half of the last chapter of the book.

After the “Introduction” (which counts as Chapter 1), Chapter 2, “Rome and the Fathers,” treats of the famous 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, Minucius Felix, and the so-called Hippolytus of Rome. The tension between pagan philosophical thought in this period, and emerging Christian apologetic, is brought to the fore, especially regarding Stoic and even Epicurean thinking.

Chapters 3 and 4, on “Carthage and the Fathers” and “Antioch, Asia Minor and the Fathers,” respectively, are rather densely written, but helpfully rely upon primary sources to a greater extent than upon secondary sources. These chapters serve as a decent reference source for students, but contain little in the way of original argument or insight. Much of what Rankin states in these chapters has been explored already in secondary literature both recent and earlier.

The promising Chapter 5, “Alexandria and the Fathers,” suffers from a too great reliance upon secondary literature – which is not necessarily a bad thing, provided the literature is well-chosen. The slavish reliance upon John Dillon’s work for discussion of Middle Platonic philosophy is rather irksome, given the fact that more recent works – e.g., those by R. Berchman, J. Finamore, G. Shaw, and G. Boys-Stones – have helped open up more fruitful ground for an exploration of Platonism vis-à-vis the Church Fathers than the increasingly dated work of Prof. Dillon. This spotty use of secondary sources is one of the main weaknesses of R’s volume. The reference on p. 133 (and note 45) to Origen’s subordinationism as being derived from the pagan Platonist Numenius, cites only a single source (Dillon), and does not offer any of the more helpful discussions, such as those found in A. Tripolitis, for example. While we know that Origen knew the works of Numenius, there is clearly more to Origen’s elaboration of seminal Trinitarian doctrine than a simple application of Numenian ideas to a handful of vague and highly allegorized biblical references.

In his otherwise fine section on Athenagoras’ Legatio, R. makes the eyebrow-raising comment that the “Christian notion of providence had nothing to with {sic} the Greek one of irrational accident or of blind chance” (124). Unfortunate generalization mars this comment, and the surrounding statements. If R. had looked further, he would have discovered a more nuanced approach to providence in the surviving texts of Basilides (later condemned as a heretic, but no less a Christian in his time), and even in some so-called Gnostic texts, such as the Tripartite Tractate. The problem of early Christian attitudes toward fate (heimarmenê) and providence (pronoia) continues to occupy scholars.

Further, the statement that “[Origen’s] Platonism is the contemporary eclectic Middle Platonism and not the Neoplatonism which emerges in his own time” (134) betrays the spotty use of secondary literature – or, less kindly, R’s spotty acquaintance with the relevant literature. The question of “eclecticism” has been amply addressed in a volume bearing that title.[1] If R. had acquainted himself with said volume, he likely would have thought twice about that generalizing statement. Indeed, some have argued (including the present reviewer) that Origen is properly considered, alongside Plotinus, as one of the founders of Neoplatonism – in Origen’s case, of the Christian Neoplatonism that flourished with the Cappadocians, through Maximus the Confessor, and well into the later Byzantine period. That is, of course, beyond the scope of R’s text, but it would have been nice if he had included a less generalised and more scholarly aware discussion of Origen’s importance for later, philosophically-minded theologians.

Mention must also be made of R’s surprising statement: “Few patristic scholars evidence much conspicuous interest in the secular world of antiquity, and the compliment is largely repaid by historians of the ancient world” (1). R. cites only one “exception,” Timothy Barnes (note 1, p. 1). One will immediately think of the voluminous work of Jaroslav Pelikan, who made much of the relationship between secular and Christian thought, particularly in his outstanding book Christianity and Classical Culture. Significantly, R. does not cite Pelikan, or even include his work in the book’s bibliography. This is a glaring omission, and one which would be unforgivable, but for the fact that R. does quite a fine job of arranging and presenting his material, as selective as it is.

From Clement to Origen: The Social and Historical Context of the Church Fathers, then, is less a work of original scholarship than a highly selective survey of crucial periods and figures in the development of patristic thought. With the exceptions mentioned above, and perhaps a few others, R’s descriptions (for that is what they are) are largely accurate, and worthy of access for students requiring a sourcebook as they begin their adventure into the world of the Fathers. Unfortunately, it seems that R. was unable to make up his mind about the intended audience of the book. Some references and language choices (esp. the excessive use of Latin where a simple English translation would have sufficed) might easily turn away the beginner; while the introductory aspects of many sections will merely be skipped over by the more advanced student of patristics.

R’s intention is rather unclear. He present no thesis, other than the basic affirmation, going back to the foundational works of the last century, and even earlier, that the thought of the Church Fathers cannot be separated form the era in which they lived and worked. The strength of R’s volume resides in the helpful summaries he provides of several important Fathers and texts that serve to illustrate the point nicely.

1. J.M. Dillon, A.A. Long (eds.) The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy (Berkeley: 1988). This is another important secondary work that R. does not cite, although he cites other works by the editors of this volume.