Framed with the question of how Palamas's essence-energies distinction relates to the earlier tradition of the Greek fathers, Torstein Theodor Tollefsen provides an in-depth study of essence, activity/energy, and participation in the late patristic period with a focus upon Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo Dionysius, and Maximus the Confessor. After exploring the development of philosophical thinking related to activity and participation up through Neoplatonism, Tollefsen situates the development of Christian theology from the fourth through seventh centuries. When he turns to Palamas, Tollefsen ultimately argues that Palamas's ideas of “essence, activity, and participation . . . are primarily in accordance with what we have already seen” (200). The major difference is merely terminological. His argument about Palamas is interesting and helpful, but the primary value of the monograph is to provide one of the broadest discussions of activity and participation in the Greek patristic tradition.
The focus of the study is on “activity,” a helpful new gloss for energia rather than the traditional “energy.” Others have explored this topic, but Tollefsen advances the discussion by providing a larger overview of the development of doctrine, beginning with Greek philosophy found in Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus and then exploring Greek theologians explain the mysteries of the Trinity, creation, and salvation. Through the heart of the study of the patristic writers his main interlocutors are David Balás and David Bradshaw. When turning to the question of Palamas and his interaction with the patristic tradition, Tollefsen uses John Meyendorff and John Zizioulas as his discussion partners.
After establishing the initial context of the “activity” discussion in the fourth century Trinitarian debates, the heart of the monograph is a succession of chapters, which diachronically explore various aspects of theology. That is, each of the four main chapters explore individual topics—the immanent trinity (chapter 3), creation (chapter 4), the incarnation (chapter 5), and salvation/deification (chapter 6)—and each highlights the progression of thought about essence, activity, and participation from Gregory of Nyssa to Pseudo Dionysius to Maximus the Confessor. Tollefsen could have chosen to address each author individually rather than progressing topically. I think the topical progression is the better choice, but at times it was difficult in the later chapters to keep each author's ideas straight. For instance, in the chapters about the incarnation and salvation it could be difficult to remember the specifics of the discussion about Nyssen in the Trinity and creation chapters. Short summaries would have helped, and, in fact, Tollefsen did regularly give these when comparing the patristic writers to Plotinus.
With the issue of Neoplatonism in the background Tollefsen shows both continuity and discontinuity with this philosophical tradition and patristic theology. He emphasizes Plotinus's double activity, which is both internal and external. With regard to the Trinity, the activity of causation from the Father who generates the Son and from whom the Spirit proceeds does not fit the hierarchy of being like that of Neoplatonism: there are multiple hypostases, but they remain on the same ontological level. Accordingly, this generation and procession are activities but only internal activities. The external activities—creation, incarnation, salvation—from a Christian perspective are willful acts done out of love rather than unintended emanations from a higher hypostasis. Tollefsen regularly posits that deification is not to be considered pantheistic because the strong apophatic theology of the patristic writers means there is always an absolute distinction between the Creator and the created. At the same time, the Christian employment of conceptualities like internal activities in distinction from external activities shows the dependence upon Neoplatonic forms of argumentation.
While direct in his language, the work can be appropriately described as dense. With its focus on abstract metaphysical points and a close attention to primary texts, this work is full of complex discussions. As to his discussion of issues, when a writer was silent on an issue, Tollefsen would conjecture an opinion about what the writer might have said, but he would signify that it was not explicitly in the texts at hand. Regarding theosis, Tollefsen argues this “is not a metaphor, but should be taken in a literal sense . . . [inside of] certain limits” (167). Following Norman Russell, I agree that this points to a real ontological transformation, but “metaphor” is a better description since it better emphasizes Tollefsen's Creator-created distinction. However, that disagreement is more terminological than substantive.
Tollefsen's monograph has much to commend it, and its discussion of these patristic writers efficiently explores complex ideas and dense material. This diachronic study competently highlights the continuity and discontinuity between theologians within the tradition and between Christian theology and that of Neoplatonism. With the temporal difference and theological progression between these earlier theologians and Palamas, firm conclusions about Palamas being in direct continuity with previous theologians are difficult in such a brief treatment. However, this work definitely serves as an important discussion of participation in the Greek patristic tradition.
