BOOK REVIEWS 425

Henny Fisk Hgg

Clement of Alexandria and the
Beginnings of Christian Apophaticism
Oxford Early Christian Studies
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
Pp. 314. $85.

The language of finite creatures has always been an imperfect tool for describing
the transcendent, infinite God. Hggs book is an interesting and important study
of the ways in which one of the earliest Christian writers, Clement of Alexandria,
wrestled with the problem of the limits of theological language, drawing in part
upon resources from the earlier Middle Platonic tradition. More specifically the
book is concerned to investigate the claim that the primary way of approach-
ing the divine is through negation (Gr. apophasis) (1) since it is through the
qualification and negation of our statements about God that we become more
nearly able to know and express something of Gods peculiar, utterly transcendent
mode of existence.
Before entering into an examination of these questions, Hgg first discusses
Clements background, outlining what is known about Christianity in Alexandria
in the second century c.e. (1551); the nature, audience, and purpose of Clements
extant writings (5170); and the various conceptions of Gods transcendence
in Middle Platonism, analyzing the views of Alcinous, Atticus, and Numenius
(71133). Hgg is particularly interested in the distinctions introduced by these
writers that would be embraced and further developed by Plotinus and early
neoplatonism, e.g., that one cannot arrive at any conception of the essence of the
first principle (the One/God) by abstraction from sensible phenomena; instead,
one may know something of the first principles peculiar mode of existence only
indirectly and analogically by examining the exercise of its causal powers on
what comes after it. This, Hgg argues, is the beginning of the Greek Christian
distinction between Gods essence, which is unknowable by created beings insofar
as it is simple and has no attributes, and Gods energies, which proceed from the
divine nature and are uncreated, yet through their action upon creation allow
created beings to know and participate in the divine life to a limited extent.
Hgg begins the analysis of Clements works by examining Clements claim
that divine truths must be concealed and made known only in a veiled, indirect
manner that takes into account the limited capacities of the recipients (13452).
He then discusses Clements conception of the being of God and what human
beings can know of it. For Clement respect for the transcendence of the first
principle requires the extensive use of negative descriptions (e.g., alpha privatives
like apeiron without limit); these the Middle Platonists had normally applied
not to the first principle but to derivative entities associated with the genesis of
the sensible world (161, 179). Clement, Hgg argues, was also the first Christian
writer to make systematic use of the Middle Platonic method of aphaire\sis, the
removal of all attributes and sensible properties as a means to know something
of Gods essential character (158).
Clement argues that the power of God (i.e., the activity of the Son/Logos),
426 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

which orders and sustains the sensible world in its multiplicity, is the only source
of knowledge about the divine essence, which is unknowable in itself because of
its simplicity. Since a clear distinction between Gods essence and Gods power
is maintained (206, 212), what the activity of the Logos can mediate to human
recipients will of necessity be limited, being confined to a negative knowledge
of the divine essence (225), whose significance must be grasped intuitively by
the mind. In a final chapter (25268) Hgg examines the distinction between
essence and power or energy in the Cappadocian fathers; while noting similarities
with Clements treatment of this topic, Hgg finds no evidence of their direct
dependence upon Clement (26467).
The book contains some minor typographical and factual errors. Three dots
(i.e., an ellipsis) should be placed after the footnote marker on p. 98, line 18 to
indicate a discontinuity in the quoted text. On p. 127, lines 67 for either the
word, essence, or nature, read either the word essence or nature. On p. 201,
line 28, the Greek words aute\s and ousia\s should be separated. Contradictory dates
are given for Eudorus on pp. 25 (incorrect) and 74 (possibly correct). Numenius
and Origen are described as contemporaries on p. 184, n.10 though Numeniuss
floruit was at least 50 years earlier. Contradictory accounts are given on pp. 31
n.41 and 41 n.59 concerning Epiphaniuss discussion of Valentinuss life.
The bibliography also omits a number of important studies that have appeared
within the last decade. The appearance in 1996 of the revised edition of John
Dillons The Middle Platonists is nowhere noted. On p. 33 none of the recent
literature on Basilides negative theology is cited, and in the discussion of the
essence vs. power/energy distinction in the Cappadocian fathers one misses a
reference to Michel Barness The Power of God: Dunamis in Gregory of Nyssas
Trinitarian Theology. In spite of these minor flaws, Hggs book makes a valuable
contribution to the study of apophaticism in early Christian literature.
Byard Bennett, Grand Rapids Theological Seminary

Didymus the Blind

Commentary on Zechariah. Translated by Robert Hill
The Fathers of the Church, 111
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006
Pp. xi + 372. $39.95.

In his translation of Didymuss On Zechariah Robert Hill has added to his list
of contributions on patristic exegesis. It is his first publication of an Alexandrian
exegete following prodigious work on those more commonly associated with
Antioch. It promises not to be his last since a translation of Cyrils comments
on the Twelve Prophets is forthcoming in the same series (FOTC 115). The
introduction stipulates that this translation is part of a project contrasting the
exegesis of Zechariah in Antioch and Alexandria and how ancient interpreters