What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Heresies
"Against Heresies" by St. Irenaeus is a significant work in early Christian theology and apologetics. Written in the late 2nd century, it addresses various Gnostic teachings and defends orthodox Christian beliefs. St. Irenaeus critiques Gnostic interpretations of Scripture and asserts the unity and authority of the Church founded on apostolic tradition. His work emphasizes the importance of doctrinal purity and the continuity of faith handed down from the apostles. "Against Heresies" remains a crucial text for understanding early Christian controversies and the development of theological thought in the early Church.
816 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 10, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 30, 2026
For almost 2000 years, this book provided religious historians with the only information they had regarding the so-called Gnostic Christians. These were people who considered themselves Christian in the 2nd to early 4th centuries who interpreted the Jesus event differently than the Pauline Christians. They were so utterly erased from history that this refutation of their beliefs was all the world knew about them. Was it an honest look, a caricature, a complete fabrication? No one could say for sure. What is certain is the imperial Christians (those who would later become the Roman church) considered them beyond the pale. This would not be the last time Romans would say some one else's Christianity was impermissible : now lots of places are mainly Muslim that were once central to Christian life: North Africa, Turkey. But let's get back on track...
With the discovery of the Nag Hamadi (AKA Dead Sea) scrolls in the 20th century and their subsequent restoration (which I believe has a way to go still), we begin to have some ideas of what their unique scriptures taught, even though we don't know exactly what people actually believed.
I'd read new interpretations (by Elaine Pagels, for instance, concerning the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas), but decided to get back to earlier texts to see for myself what they're about. So I've been reading The Gnostic Scriptures, a text that compiles translations of what we currently have from the scrolls.
It's slow going, though, because a lot of text is missing and, everything being unfamiliar, it's something hard to follow... actually, it is most of the time.
It seemed reasonable to read Against Heresies alongside the gnostic texts. Irenaus' text is complete and not at all unfamiliar language : except inasmuch as he's talking about an unfamiliar theological notions or using names of gnostic cosmological concepts. Up to here, he seems to be delighting in laying out all the complexity. He knows it's hard to follow and seems to suggest that it's proof of its absurdity.
Then he begins to lay out why they're theologically wrong. Now, I get it. Irenaus was a theologian and of course he writes what he does, the way he does. For me, though, it's all just a bit ridiculous. Apologists of all stripes fail to define their terms (what does"greater than" mean as it relates to gods?), they make wild claims with little more than their own ignorance ("Faith is believing something you know ain't true." - Huckleberry Finn) as proof, they reason like sophists (the watchmaker fallacy, for instance), etc.
Irenaus does all this almost constantly. What do you expect, though? He lived in a world that had destroyed libraries, tortured and killed the educated elite, introduced a compulsory belief system that required assent to some outlandish propositions. He was probably a smart man trying to argue against ideas he felt were wrong without having any of the tools earlier AND later generations would have for engaging reasonably with ideas. His world was all about believing what you're told is true or we'll kill you.
Throughout much history, Christians have been the Bolsheviks of the world: they had a revolutionary idea, they were willing to kill anyone who got in their way, they outlawed rational discussion of their ideas, they promoted people who knew the party line and were willing to enforce it.
Irenaus doesn't have more to teach us about truth than your average Marxist "intellectual." I should have listened to my History of Christianity professor who suggested this book wasn't worth reading for most people, even those of us studying to become ministers.
Trust me: you probably have better thing to do!
With the discovery of the Nag Hamadi (AKA Dead Sea) scrolls in the 20th century and their subsequent restoration (which I believe has a way to go still), we begin to have some ideas of what their unique scriptures taught, even though we don't know exactly what people actually believed.
I'd read new interpretations (by Elaine Pagels, for instance, concerning the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas), but decided to get back to earlier texts to see for myself what they're about. So I've been reading The Gnostic Scriptures, a text that compiles translations of what we currently have from the scrolls.
It's slow going, though, because a lot of text is missing and, everything being unfamiliar, it's something hard to follow... actually, it is most of the time.
It seemed reasonable to read Against Heresies alongside the gnostic texts. Irenaus' text is complete and not at all unfamiliar language : except inasmuch as he's talking about an unfamiliar theological notions or using names of gnostic cosmological concepts. Up to here, he seems to be delighting in laying out all the complexity. He knows it's hard to follow and seems to suggest that it's proof of its absurdity.
Then he begins to lay out why they're theologically wrong. Now, I get it. Irenaus was a theologian and of course he writes what he does, the way he does. For me, though, it's all just a bit ridiculous. Apologists of all stripes fail to define their terms (what does"greater than" mean as it relates to gods?), they make wild claims with little more than their own ignorance ("Faith is believing something you know ain't true." - Huckleberry Finn) as proof, they reason like sophists (the watchmaker fallacy, for instance), etc.
Irenaus does all this almost constantly. What do you expect, though? He lived in a world that had destroyed libraries, tortured and killed the educated elite, introduced a compulsory belief system that required assent to some outlandish propositions. He was probably a smart man trying to argue against ideas he felt were wrong without having any of the tools earlier AND later generations would have for engaging reasonably with ideas. His world was all about believing what you're told is true or we'll kill you.
Throughout much history, Christians have been the Bolsheviks of the world: they had a revolutionary idea, they were willing to kill anyone who got in their way, they outlawed rational discussion of their ideas, they promoted people who knew the party line and were willing to enforce it.
Irenaus doesn't have more to teach us about truth than your average Marxist "intellectual." I should have listened to my History of Christianity professor who suggested this book wasn't worth reading for most people, even those of us studying to become ministers.
Trust me: you probably have better thing to do!
Displaying 1 of 1 review