In their first volume on the history of apologetics, William Edgar and K. Scott Oliphint introduce the reader to sixteen figures from the patristic and medieval periods of church history that have left notable marks in the development of Christian apologetics. Along with each figure, at least one representative work is reproduced. From the patristic era, Edgar and Oliphint include as their primary sources biblical texts, Aristedes, Justin Martyr, Athengoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. From the medieval period, the editors list Boethius, Peter Abelard, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, and Girolamo Savonarola.
From these primary sources, the reader gathers several significant points concerning the development of Christian apologetics in the patristic and medieval eras. First, and most generally, apologetics is always contextual. The fact that the early apologists are under the power of the Roman Empire deeply influences their apologetic concerns, especially since Christianity was the object of several persecutions during its first few hundred years of existence. Justin Martyr, Athenegoras, and Tertullian are three early church apologists who all attempt to clear Christians of the same false rumors and in so doing argue for the truth of Christianity.
Second, apologetics is not just for the purpose of defending the faith against unbelievers, but it is also devoted to defending orthodoxy and orthopraxy from false teaching. Irenaeus and Athenasius are incredible examples of this from the early church, and Boethius provides a great example from the Medieval period.
Third, there is variation of apologetic methods throughout the history of the church; historical, cultural, and biographical contexts seem to significantly impact how an apologist approaches the task of defending the faith. Justin Martyr, for example, sought through many different philosophical schools before converting to Christianity, and thus his apologetic is more friendly to certain forms of philosophy. Raymond Lull, for a different example, lived in the Mediterranean world of the Medieval period, and therefore his apologetic works heavily involve Jewish and Islamic perspectives. Many apologists, however, do uphold a classical methodology, in which the theological principles of the faith are self-consciously removed from the engagement with the unbeliever. One can see this methodological move explicitly in John Chrysostom, (debatedly) Anselm, and Savonarola.
The editorial work from Edgar and Oliphint is a mixed bag; some of their introductions are better than others. The introduction to Justin Martyr and ad hominem arguments, for example, possesses unhelpful examples and redundancy, and the illustration of Van Til verges on the edge of historical eisegesis (why not an example of a positive ad hominem from Justin himself?). I am unconvinced of the position articulated concerning Anselm’s method in his introduction, namely that Anselm represents the classical method of attempting to prove the truthfulness of Christianity solely on the basis of rational argument with no methodological recourse to or presupposition of Christian teaching (John Frame and Robert Letham offer expositions of the counter perspective). The introduction on Thomas Aquinas also seems to assume that the reader is more familiar with Thomas than not, and also takes on a critical tone throughout, which seems unfitting for an introduction.
Overall, this is a fine primary source reader that helps the reader to not only become basically familiar with specific apologists and their arguments, but also helps the reader to see the broad contours of the developments of Christian apologetics from the primary sources themselves. The reader, however, may not receive the most helpful or consistent information from the introductions of the sources, which is most likely due to the fact that there are two different editors with two different styles of writing (if one is already familiar with the writings and emphases of Edgar and Oliphint, one should be able to discern which introductions are being written by which editor; if my own discernment is correct, Edgar’s introductions are typically more engaging and helpful than Oliphint’s).