This is effectively two books. It is an exposition of Aristotle’s thinking, but it is also an exposition of how that thinking influenced Christian thinkers and theological expression.

This means that readers not only learn about Aristotle’s views, but they are also introduced to a wide range of significant Christian thinkers. This ranges from first century figures like Polycarp (Chp 20) to sixteenth century figures like Francis Bacon (Chp 3), to Enlightenment figures like Rousseau (Chp 17) and modern Aristotelian scholars like Alasdair MacIntyre.

Another strong feature of the text was the way that the author explained Aristotle’s disagreements with Plato, and noted Christian preferences for Aristotle’s approach. This included issues like Plato’s insistence that sin is ignorance, and it also included Plato’s scepticism about the value of arts and individual property.

One of the features which worked less well in the book, was that the text would sometimes slip from exposition of history and philosophy into defending an idea. This led to a defence of Intelligent Design in chapter 6 and a defence in chapter 16 of the idea that ‘most wives are happier… (when) led by a … patriarch…’ Both of those ideas are very controversial, and so they both needed far more detailed exploration than the book gave them. Perhaps it would have been better to leave them out of this text, and to explore them in a different book?

There was also an occasional tendency to over-egg the Aristotle analogies and attributions. This occurs in chapter 2 where Transubstantiation is cited as an archetypal example of a doctrine influenced by Aristotle. Yes, that was indeed a common reformation criticism of Catholicism, but is it entirely accurate? The theological language used in official documents (like the Council of Trent) is not the Aristotelian terms ‘substance and accident’ but it is instead the terminology of ‘substance and species.’ Arguably that language owes more to Augustine (eg Bk 7 of the De Trinitate) than it does to Aristotle. Issues like this are far more complex than the book allowed for.

Another example might query whether Christians really got their idea of the four cardinal virtues from Aristotle (or Plato), as Chapter 13 seems to suggest. What we have to remember is that until the Reformation, all Western Christians were reading the Latin vulgate which included a Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom. That book of Wisdom listed the four cardinal virtues as a scriptural text (See chp 8 verse 7). That being the case, how can we be so sure that Christians learned about the cardinal virtues from pagan philosophers, rather than from their Scriptural texts?

Overall, this is a very informative exploration of both Aristotle’s ideas and also of their reception in the Christian tradition. It will be of interest to any readers interested in how philosophical ideas have interacted with Christian faith. The complexity of the ideas means that the book will be enjoyed most by readers with a prior awareness of some of the issues.

(These are honest comments based on a free ARC digital version of the text).