Early Christian Thought \u0026 the Classical Tradition by Henry Chadwick

Early Christian Thought \u0026 the Classical Tradition Reviews

• 
  Christian Barrett

  This brief introduction to Clement and Origen connects the dots between Platonic thought in Alexandria to these early church leaders. By doing this Chadwick is able to draw on the influence of Philo and how his philosophical thought may have been influential in Alexandrian Christianity. This book lays out great ground work for examining whether or not Origen was orthodox and how such a question may be foolish given his context and time.
• 
  Ed Creedy

  A little dated now but a helpful overview in as much as what it covers.
• 
  Henry Sturcke

  Henry Chadwick was one of the great teachers of early Christianity in the 20th century. This book is a product of the best tradition of British scholarship, profound learning conveyed with a light touch and a judicious dose of wit. It is based on a set of four lectures Chadwick gave more than a half-century ago when visiting the U.S. As such, they are relatively accessible for the reader hoping to bootstrap his way into the field of patristics, the study of the Church “Fathers” (the writings so classified seem to all have been written by men). As the full title implies, these lectures focus on three authors notable for their engagement with the prevailing intellectual tradition of their time, Greek philosophy. It’s interesting to read his depiction of how these three early Christian thinkers strove to be both intelligent and orthodox. On the surface, it seems as if they took over the popular eclecticism of their time: Stoic ethics, Platonic metaphysics, Aristotelian logic. But Chadwick shows how, from the basis of Christian faith, they also engaged each critically. Theirs is clearly a project that has Chadwick’s sympathies.
  Yet is was a project not without controversy among fellow-believers at the time, many of whom felt no need for this engagement. What Chadwick writes of Clement’s persistence in the face of opposition is true to some degree of Justin and Origen as well: “To deny that philosophy is God’s gift is to deny providence and the image of God in creation” (p. 43).
  While many of their contemporary believers would have preferred to ignore questions raised by philosophy, those Christians of a more intellectual cast of mind were drawn to Gnostic systems, described by Chadwick as: “that somber and repellent theosophy in which Christian redemption is fused with a pessimistic interpretation of Plato, a dualism drawn from a hellenised version of Zoroastrianism, important elements from heterodox Judaism, the whole being mingled with astrology and with magic as the principal technique for overcoming the powers of fate” (p. 7). So here was a challenge of another sort, and each of the three writers discussed navigated between these two extremes.
  Of these three, the one whose name might be most familiar to today’s readers might be that of Origen, who famously stirred up controversy by expressing the opinion during a debate with a Gnostic opponent that he didn’t even feel the devil was beyond redemption. Chadwick devotes the fourth lecture to a balanced, sensitive discussion of whether Origen can be defended from the 6th century dismissal of him as a heretic. He shows that the charge of heresy is in part because of theological definitions formulated after Origen’s death. Another point is that Origen lived in a tradition shaped by Plato and Philo; some of what was subsequently viewed as suspect in his thinking had simply been taken over from them. In other cases, some of the charges are based on a position Origen reports, but never identifies as his own; indeed, in some cases even argues against. Nevertheless, Chadwick does not simply exonerate Origen on these grounds. Instead, he ends with the observation that, in “assessing whether or not he is orthodox,” we find “we are continually driven back to the prior question: what is the essence of orthodoxy?” (p. 123).
  While some of the controversies discussed in these pages belong to a long-bygone era, others remain surprising contemporary, such as the discussion of universalism. Some are a little of both, for example, the question of the difference between man and other animals: is it the difference between rational and non-rational, or are there degrees of rationality? The terms of the debate then and the examples used seem nonsense to us now, but the question abides.
  It was also interesting to see how many of the criticisms of Christian faith that show up repeatedly on my Facebook feed go back to that far-distant time. We know this because Origen writes of his controversy with the most vocal critic, Celsus, and does so in such a way that inspires confidence that Origen has listened carefully and taken the views of his opponent seriously, yet also offered reasoned answers that would serve equally-well today.
  When I rate a book by assigning stars, I normally reserve five stars for books that are not only great, but could be read with profit by anyone, no matter what their personal interests. Books for a more limited audience receive four as the highest from me. I went back and forth on my rating of this one. In the end, because of the one-sided, simple-minded memes lobbed back and forth in Facebook and other forums both by those who attack Christianity as well as those who defend it, I’ve decided to recommend this unreservedly.
• 
  Coyle

  An absolutely fantastic book that I "read" once as an undergrad but completely failed to realize what a goldmine I had in my hands.
  
  Basically, Chadwick is exploring the answers to ancient objections to Christianity given by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
  The challenege to Christianity was drawn from the philosopher Celsus, who began with the argument that there was nothing new about Christianity, and that it was merely stealing from older superstitions:

  Celsus draws up a list of parallels between teh Bible and the philosophers to prove that everything true in Christian teaching is a direct borrowing, and that every partial or faint resemblance is the consequence of misunderstanding. If an explanation of Christian error is sought, Celsus has a quick answer: the majority of Christians are stupid. Origen very reasonably replies to this that the membership of the Church is a cross-section of society and that the proportion of educated believers in the Church roughly corresponds to the proportion of educated people in society as a whole. but for Celsus the dull-wittedness of the majority of Christians is more than an accidental fact; for him it is symptomatic of the inherently irrational and anti-intellectual character which he ascribes to Christianity as such... He admits that there are intelligent Christians 'able to explain away crudities' but dismisses them as clever knaves driven to allegory because they are ashamed of the Old Testament and adriotly rationalizing a barbarian supersitition. The real heart of Christianity, as he sees it, is as hostile to the whole Greek tradition of rational investigation as it is to the Greek religious and cultic tradition. So Christianity is not merely a religious revolution with profound social and political consequences; it is essentially hostile to all human values. the Christians say (he accuses), 'Do not ask questions, only believe.' They say, 'Wisdom is foolishness with God.' Put embarrassing questions about the resurrection of the body, and they will flee to that last refuge of the intellectually destitue, 'Anything is possible to God.'" (23-25)

  Clearly little advancement has been made in terms of objections to Christianity (the challenge is still that Christians are either stupid or evil people who believe a bunch of stupid or evil lies contrary to the rational evidence and hostile to mankind), but what may have been lost are some of the truly excellent answers provided by some of the greatest minds of the early church. Certainly a must-read.
• 
  Joel Zartman

  Admirable. Chadwick is on Origen's side, and he puts forth some challenging arguments. There is no figure in the early church like Origen, through which the Classical tradition enters into that for which it was made. It is hard for me to think, nevertheless, from what I've read of Origen, that Chadwick is entirely right. Why is it anybody commenting on Origen is either wholly for him or wholly against him? Chadwick is reasonable, and commanding when it comes to understanding the philosophers and thinkers of late antiquity.
• 
  Scott

  This book led me to my work on a Masters of Arts degree.
• 
  Bert Jan

  Excellent introduction to the early Christian intellectual tradition. Focus on Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.