What do you think?
Rate this book
PATRISTISCHE TEXTE UND STUDIEN #25
Refutation of All Heresies
"The Refutation of All Heresies" is part of The Fig Classic Series on Early Church Theology. To view more books in our catalog, visit us at fig-books.com.
Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 220
34 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 5, 2022
En strålande genomgång av antik religion, filosofi, kristendom och kopplingarna däremellan, liksom mellan dem och judendom och romerskgrekisk astrologi och magi. Den förefaller objektiv, och beskriver väl.
I termer av rekomendationer, så går de till den som vill ha en snabbläst och mycket välskriven grundbok från ett antikt perspektiv, av både antik filosofi och religion, och hur de fungerade i en värld där stjärnorna sågs som gudar.
I termer av rekomendationer, så går de till den som vill ha en snabbläst och mycket välskriven grundbok från ett antikt perspektiv, av både antik filosofi och religion, och hur de fungerade i en värld där stjärnorna sågs som gudar.
April 25, 2022
Hippolytus of Rome spends ten books talking trash on early Christian heretical offshoots. Some of these particular sects were pretty weird- many took that very Roman tact of adopting a bunch of other preexisting religions and cramming them into their own. So you end up with Christianities stuffed full of Pythagorean numerology, Chaldean astrology, and Eleusinian-like secret mystery rites. Add on top of that a healthy dollop of fan-fictionesque extras that were clearly just made up by bored theologians who had nothing better to do than just re-read the gospels a billion times until they could make the most tenuous connections to their bizarre ideas.
I wouldn't recommend this book unless you're a hardcore heresy fan with a deep background in Greek philosophy. Otherwise a lot of this stuff is just gonna hurt your brain, like it did mine.
I wouldn't recommend this book unless you're a hardcore heresy fan with a deep background in Greek philosophy. Otherwise a lot of this stuff is just gonna hurt your brain, like it did mine.
July 21, 2025
In my opinion, this work is one of the most impressive intellectual feats to come out of the third century across all scholastic fields, and not simply from among Christian writers. I think that people do not appreciate how difficult writing something like this is. Hippolytus is a rare, generational genius who has the unique blend of memory, comprehension, and interest to produce a compendium of this sort. Prior apologetic works against Christian Heresies had mostly tried to argue that they were new (Tertullian), that they were ridiculous (Ireneaus), that they were internally inconsistent and misinterpreted scripture (Tertullian, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria), and would labor at length to minutely describe and disprove the heretical teachings from their own presuppositions via internal contradiction, or by using earlier writers and the Scriptures. Justin Martyr had a philosophical background and wrote against heretics but, according to Ireneaus, struggled to make any impact because he didn't actually understand (and thus mischaracterized) what many of his opponents taught. Ireneaus and Clement of Alexandria thus expended a great deal of labor in discovering and then revealing what the actual teachings of these early heresies were. They all understood, to some degree, the influence of Greek philosophical thought on these writers, and Tertullian (whether before or after this work of Hippolytus I do not know since they were contemporaries) had observed that "the philosophers are the patriarchs of the heretics."
However, for the first (and perhaps only) time amongst Christian writers, rather than argue at length against all of these various heretical opinions, Hippolytus decides that the most effective method of refutation is to lay out their intellectual development, from which it becomes self-evident that they are elaborate innovations on Greek philosophy dressed up in Christian language. The accomplishment of this task (particularly in an age where books were scarce and there was no easy way to cross-reference sources other than memory) requires that the writer first have a detailed and comprehensive understanding of nearly all of the Greek philosophers and poets, as well as Babylonian astrology, Egyptian religious rites and practices, the practices and tricks of "magicians," etc. Somehow, Hippolytus has discovered, read, and seemingly memorized great deals of all of these convoluted and differing doctrines and opinions. He only occasionally will acknowledge the "great deal of labor" that he has put into something like reading through vast amounts of ancient astrological literature for "the benefit of my readers." Once this has been done, it is then necessary to somehow find, read, and understand the doctrines of a huge number of Christian heretics, which he has also somehow accomplished, quoting many books and heresies that are presented for the first time in the history of the subject. Then he must match up, by recognizing basic themes and patterns, which heresies are, in essence, drawing upon which earlier heresies or philosophers, detecting these influences despite changes in terminology, names, etc. Accordingly he finds that Valentinian is borrowing extensively from Pythagoras, Basilides from Aristotle, Simon the Magician from Heraclitus, etc.
There are a few bizarre and unexpected insights that shed light upon the complex relationship that many of these intellectual movements had to each other and Christian Orthodoxy. For instance, Hippolytus appears to claim that the famous explanation that, if God is love but love requires a lover and an object of love, then God is love because the persons of God hold each other in the highest love (this is more or less an explanation that was popularized by Augustine), was originally taught by Valentinus. Valentinus was not "Trinitarian" in the sense that Christians understand the term, but rather believed in a "trinity" of collections of "characteristics of God" that emanated, or were produced, in sequential order from each other. Thus there is the top-tier of 8 characteristics of God, which then allow for the production of a lower 12, followed by an even lower 10 which all emanate from an original entity that may or may not be part of the original 8 depending on which of his disciples was asked. Hippolytus' lengthy description of the Jewish sect of the Essenes (the third of the major sects of Judaism, of which the other two were the Pharisees and the Sadducees) was rather remarkable and I just wish he had given some indication of what source he was using and when it was written. The book as a whole is rather tedious, incredibly dry (his sense of humor is a deadpan sarcasm that is so nearly imperceptible that it might as well not be there at all), but is nonetheless impressive, particularly if you have read the works of other writers on the subject. Compared to his predecessors, he is mercifully brief in his "refutations" but makes up for it by covering more. I enjoyed it but can't recommend it unless you find something this esoteric inherently interesting.
However, for the first (and perhaps only) time amongst Christian writers, rather than argue at length against all of these various heretical opinions, Hippolytus decides that the most effective method of refutation is to lay out their intellectual development, from which it becomes self-evident that they are elaborate innovations on Greek philosophy dressed up in Christian language. The accomplishment of this task (particularly in an age where books were scarce and there was no easy way to cross-reference sources other than memory) requires that the writer first have a detailed and comprehensive understanding of nearly all of the Greek philosophers and poets, as well as Babylonian astrology, Egyptian religious rites and practices, the practices and tricks of "magicians," etc. Somehow, Hippolytus has discovered, read, and seemingly memorized great deals of all of these convoluted and differing doctrines and opinions. He only occasionally will acknowledge the "great deal of labor" that he has put into something like reading through vast amounts of ancient astrological literature for "the benefit of my readers." Once this has been done, it is then necessary to somehow find, read, and understand the doctrines of a huge number of Christian heretics, which he has also somehow accomplished, quoting many books and heresies that are presented for the first time in the history of the subject. Then he must match up, by recognizing basic themes and patterns, which heresies are, in essence, drawing upon which earlier heresies or philosophers, detecting these influences despite changes in terminology, names, etc. Accordingly he finds that Valentinian is borrowing extensively from Pythagoras, Basilides from Aristotle, Simon the Magician from Heraclitus, etc.
There are a few bizarre and unexpected insights that shed light upon the complex relationship that many of these intellectual movements had to each other and Christian Orthodoxy. For instance, Hippolytus appears to claim that the famous explanation that, if God is love but love requires a lover and an object of love, then God is love because the persons of God hold each other in the highest love (this is more or less an explanation that was popularized by Augustine), was originally taught by Valentinus. Valentinus was not "Trinitarian" in the sense that Christians understand the term, but rather believed in a "trinity" of collections of "characteristics of God" that emanated, or were produced, in sequential order from each other. Thus there is the top-tier of 8 characteristics of God, which then allow for the production of a lower 12, followed by an even lower 10 which all emanate from an original entity that may or may not be part of the original 8 depending on which of his disciples was asked. Hippolytus' lengthy description of the Jewish sect of the Essenes (the third of the major sects of Judaism, of which the other two were the Pharisees and the Sadducees) was rather remarkable and I just wish he had given some indication of what source he was using and when it was written. The book as a whole is rather tedious, incredibly dry (his sense of humor is a deadpan sarcasm that is so nearly imperceptible that it might as well not be there at all), but is nonetheless impressive, particularly if you have read the works of other writers on the subject. Compared to his predecessors, he is mercifully brief in his "refutations" but makes up for it by covering more. I enjoyed it but can't recommend it unless you find something this esoteric inherently interesting.
June 25, 2023
The book is interesting for several reasons. It provides a catalog of all the Greek philosophers and then sketches out their beliefs. It also describes elaborate magic rituals of the second century and exposes many of the tricks employed by the magicians of the time. (After describing how they unseal and reseal a letter in order to read its contents unnoticed, the author recommends mixing pigs blood and hair when sealing letters, since this renders them tamper-proof.) There is also a book dedicated to astrology, explaining the symbols and numerology. The way the author refutes the heresies is that he demonstrates how the heresies derive from philosophical systems. The magic and astrology also provide antecedents for the derivative thinking and practice of heretics.
This is a compendium of learning, and in some ways it suggests Augustine's later compendium, The City of God. As in Augustine, there is irony, sarcasm, scorn, and plenty of information. But there is a breadth of soul in Augustine that the author of the Refutation does not have. The sketches of the philosophers do not give one appreciation for that branch of ancient learning. There is more detail sometimes in the description of magical rituals or in recounting admittedly curious anecdotes.
I think the author of the Refutation makes an interesting bridge in the Christian response to Gnosticism between the compendious, often tedious, and categorical rejection of Irenaeus and the more subtle approach of Clement of Alexandria. The Refutation's description of Gnostic cosmologies and cosmogonies suggest to me that there was in the air a sense of the pagan synthesis breaking down and a common need to give it new vitality. Christianity was in some way captivating the imagination of unbelievers who tried imitations stocked with the mental debris of the age, perhaps the same way that fantasy sprang up in the wake of Tolkien's irruption: ignorantly and dreadfully. The Refutation is without doubt condescending to philosophy, but it was probably not condescending to the Gnostics. It cleverly penetrates the cheap thinking of cheap thinkers. (It doesn't help that the author sometimes crows about his own diligence, though it makes it more fun.)
It also helps us to understand a confusion that early Christians had when it came to the nature of philosophy. They did not consider the philosophical options assorted metaphysical systems, they considered them rival theologies and often associated them with the hostility of paganism. What the Refutation provides that comes after Irenaeus, whom the author has read, and is before Clement, is someone offering what he believes is a coherent explanation of an incoherent phenomenon: his thesis is that all the heretics come up with doctrines derivative of three polluted sources, Greek philosophy, magical rites, and astrology. In other words, he offers a single explanation for the bewildering phenomenon mushrooming all over the Christian church of the second century, heresy.
The author holds, of course, to some of the philosophical assumptions he catalogs. He is willing to pronounce that out of the four elements, angels and heavenly bodies are composed of fire, that fish and fowl are both composed of the element of water, and that earth makes the substance of creatures that go on the land. This is to be expected, he was a man of his times. But he is beyond that so Hellenized that he thinks Christianity is the real answer to the Hellenic project of knowledge, its true rival. In other words, he is framing Christianity as an answer to a question posed by Greek philosophers. And what he shows is how vulnerable Christianity was at a moment in which theology was undeveloped and the church therefore weak and susceptible to all kinds of distortions. He barely escapes Gnosticism when he understands salvation merely as rescue from evil.
This scholarly and recent translation comes with a good introduction, the Greek text facing the English, copious annotation, and is quite lively and entertaining.
This is a compendium of learning, and in some ways it suggests Augustine's later compendium, The City of God. As in Augustine, there is irony, sarcasm, scorn, and plenty of information. But there is a breadth of soul in Augustine that the author of the Refutation does not have. The sketches of the philosophers do not give one appreciation for that branch of ancient learning. There is more detail sometimes in the description of magical rituals or in recounting admittedly curious anecdotes.
I think the author of the Refutation makes an interesting bridge in the Christian response to Gnosticism between the compendious, often tedious, and categorical rejection of Irenaeus and the more subtle approach of Clement of Alexandria. The Refutation's description of Gnostic cosmologies and cosmogonies suggest to me that there was in the air a sense of the pagan synthesis breaking down and a common need to give it new vitality. Christianity was in some way captivating the imagination of unbelievers who tried imitations stocked with the mental debris of the age, perhaps the same way that fantasy sprang up in the wake of Tolkien's irruption: ignorantly and dreadfully. The Refutation is without doubt condescending to philosophy, but it was probably not condescending to the Gnostics. It cleverly penetrates the cheap thinking of cheap thinkers. (It doesn't help that the author sometimes crows about his own diligence, though it makes it more fun.)
It also helps us to understand a confusion that early Christians had when it came to the nature of philosophy. They did not consider the philosophical options assorted metaphysical systems, they considered them rival theologies and often associated them with the hostility of paganism. What the Refutation provides that comes after Irenaeus, whom the author has read, and is before Clement, is someone offering what he believes is a coherent explanation of an incoherent phenomenon: his thesis is that all the heretics come up with doctrines derivative of three polluted sources, Greek philosophy, magical rites, and astrology. In other words, he offers a single explanation for the bewildering phenomenon mushrooming all over the Christian church of the second century, heresy.
The author holds, of course, to some of the philosophical assumptions he catalogs. He is willing to pronounce that out of the four elements, angels and heavenly bodies are composed of fire, that fish and fowl are both composed of the element of water, and that earth makes the substance of creatures that go on the land. This is to be expected, he was a man of his times. But he is beyond that so Hellenized that he thinks Christianity is the real answer to the Hellenic project of knowledge, its true rival. In other words, he is framing Christianity as an answer to a question posed by Greek philosophers. And what he shows is how vulnerable Christianity was at a moment in which theology was undeveloped and the church therefore weak and susceptible to all kinds of distortions. He barely escapes Gnosticism when he understands salvation merely as rescue from evil.
This scholarly and recent translation comes with a good introduction, the Greek text facing the English, copious annotation, and is quite lively and entertaining.
October 19, 2018
La meilleure description de ce livre est que c'est une encyclopédie détaillée de toutes les hérésies gnostiques (ou non) qui existaient à l'époque d'Hippolyte de Rome vers la fin du IIe siècle. C'est un très bon travail qui a survécu jusqu'à nous.
Le livre est parfois assommant -à moins que vous ne soyez fan des doctrines gnostiques- tellement Hippolyte va dans le détail et expose minutieusement chaque détail de chaque doctrine qu'il présente. Néanmoins à partir du livre IX, on a des commentaires très intéressant sur l'histoire de l'église de son temps et sur les juifs qui donnent des détails très piquants sur cette époque.
Je lui met 3/5, non parce qu'il est mauvais, mais parce qu'il faut vraiment avoir le coeur accroché pour survivre à certains exposés.
Le livre est parfois assommant -à moins que vous ne soyez fan des doctrines gnostiques- tellement Hippolyte va dans le détail et expose minutieusement chaque détail de chaque doctrine qu'il présente. Néanmoins à partir du livre IX, on a des commentaires très intéressant sur l'histoire de l'église de son temps et sur les juifs qui donnent des détails très piquants sur cette époque.
Je lui met 3/5, non parce qu'il est mauvais, mais parce qu'il faut vraiment avoir le coeur accroché pour survivre à certains exposés.
September 10, 2021
Lots of esoterica for the scholar. Not so much practical insight.
October 21, 2017
Recommended!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews