In Defending and Defining the Faith Dan Williams fills a long-standing lacuna in scholarship with a thorough introduction to the apologetic literature of early Christianity. The text begins with categorial questions surrounding the question of apologies, moves to contextual matters and finishes with introductory discussions of apologetic literature stretching from the second to the fifth century. Though the book occasionally glosses over scholarly debates, resulting in simplistic readings, and though it is beset with copy-editing errors, it is an essential volume for any collection concerning early Christianity, serving nimbly as an introduction, reference or textbook for advanced undergraduate as well as graduate courses.
Debate has surrounded the apologies of early Christianity or their authors – the so-called apologists – at least since Adolf von Harnack argued that the time of the apologists was the moment when earliest Christianity, characterised by Jewish traditions of faith, encountered concepts from Greek philosophy. The syncretism that resulted from this encounter, in Harnack's mind, was the principal turning point in doctrinal development: the Christian theology that resulted was different in kind from that which defined earliest Christianity. Beyond questions concerning the history of doctrine, more fundamental categorial questions have bedevilled the field. For instance, no previous two studies of this material share common lists of which writers should be identified as apologists. Indeed, there is not even consensus about whether one ought to speak of apologists (namely, those Christians who belonged to a certain period and whose writings undertook a certain task), apologies (a particular genre) or apologetic literature (those writings which share common traits or goals). Such questions have endured and even multiplied for well over a century.
The first two chapters of the book consist of Williams’ attempt to address many of the questions that have troubled scholars. Neither apologists nor apologies, he maintains, constitute a homogeneous group, and so should be considered neither a distinct class nor genre. At the same time, the apologists and apologies do share certain common characteristics and purposes and, so, should not be considered wholly disparate. In addressing these two categories, Williams discusses the biographical and historical matters concerning each apologist just enough to situate their writings, focusing instead on the apologies they produced. He helpfully defines an apology as a writing that responded to particular threats to or assaults – be they ideological, social, or physical – upon early Christians by proponents of paganism. By contrast, ‘polemic’ or ‘hortatory’ writings respond to needs other than defence against a particular threat. Apologies, Williams argues, were not just defensive but also constructive. Indeed, he contends that the constructive role of apologies, according to which they offered moral and doctrinal instruction to Christians, was more significant than their defensive role. Apologies, moreover, were not limited to the years prior to Constantine. The early church continued to feel the need for the defence and instruction offered by apologies during and after Constantine's reign.
Of the chapters that follow, the next three contextualise early Christian apologies in terms of their historical setting, their contribution to Christian self-definition and the legal context of early Christianity. The remaining thirteen chapters consist of critical introductions to those works Williams identifies as apologies. Some of those identifications may surprise readers familiar with previous studies – the Apology of Aristides does not make the cut, Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel and Demonstration of the Gospel do – but Williams’ reasoning is sound. His discussion of each apology typically covers the historical occasion of the text, a few doctrinal points made in the text, points of philosophical engagement, as well as matters that provide the reader with a sense of a given text's significance within the apologetic tradition of the early church.
Every chapter includes a robust engagement with secondary literature that serves as an excellent introduction to many of the scholarly concerns surrounding the text under consideration. Nevertheless, there are times when Williams’ analysis of a text does not take into consideration pertinent aspects of previous scholarship. So, for instance, in his insistence that Theophilus of Antioch does not attribute a hypostatic reality to the Holy Spirit he seems to overlook J. A. Robinson's important comments (in his translation of Irenaeus’ Demonstration) that, at the very least, highlight the challenges of such a reading. Nor, for that matter, does Williams provide an adequate discussion of some of the chief passages in Theophilus concerned with this subject. Readers in general, but especially those new to this material, should keep in mind the limits entailed in a study presenting critical surveys of so many writings. Perhaps the issue that most besets this text is the number of typographical and copy-editing errors marking its pages. An error does not appear on every page, but it is close – especially as the work progresses. There has clearly been a significant breakdown in Oxford's copy-editing process; one that I hope will be set right post haste.
Williams begins this book noting the desperate need for a critical survey of the apologetic literature of early Christianity, especially one suited to academic coursework. Defending and Defining the Faith fills that need admirably. It will occupy an important place in libraries and private collections for years to come.
