early church heresies

[thecone137]

Can anyone recommend a reliable book or source explaining the early church heresies (besides the Bible) 33-150 AD? I’m looking for something that will describe docetism, adoptionism, marcionism, gnosticism, etc and how the orthodox view was, in fact, the dominant one.

 

[InvisibleWorld]

THE HISTORY OF HERESIES, AND THEIR REFUTATION; OR, THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH. TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN OF ST. ALPHONSUS M. LIGUORI, BY THE REV. JOHN T. MULLOCK, OF THE ORDER OF ST, FRANCIS.

saintsworks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20The%20History%20of%20Heresies%20and%20Their%20Refutation.pdf

 

[1ke]

Dissent From The Creed by Hogan is excellent.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Can anyone recommend a reliable book or source explaining the early church heresies (besides the Bible) 33-150 AD? I’m looking for something that will describe docetism, adoptionism, marcionism, gnosticism, etc and how the orthodox view was, in fact, the dominant one.

That’s VERY early. Heresies flourished much later as well: Don’t forget manicheeism and albingensianism:

Here…

Of course, heresies flourish to this day.

 

[thecone137]

Maybe this will help: I’m looking, more specifically, for something that will refute the progressive apostacy theory conjectured by liberal sects today. The idea that the apostles were holding back evil until the last one died is just silly. I read the ‘great apostacy’ article, but i was looking for something a bit more in depth.

 

[Hesychios]

Maybe this will help: I’m looking, more specifically, for something that will refute the progressive apostacy theory conjectured by liberal sects today. The idea that the apostles were holding back evil until the last one died is just silly. I read the ‘great apostacy’ article, but i was looking for something a bit more in depth.

Read Adversus Haereses by St Irenaeus of Lyons (a bishop) circa 180AD, well after the Apostles. He describes the types of heresies that the orthodox Christians had to battle with in those days, which were pretty outrageous compared to the differences of Christians today.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Great Heresy was not believing in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ present in the Breaking of Bread.

 

[CalCatholic]

‘The Early Church’ by Henry Chadwick covers all of these heretical sects.

 

[mwb85611]

A fantastic work later antiquity would be a work by Fr. William Harmless, S.J., on desert monasticism. In this work, he dives into 2nd-4th century conflicts and present excellent snapshots of what led into some of the ecumenical councils. His insights on the anti-Nicenes are excellent. Most importantly, it is very readable, and one gets a healthy dose of some of the most beautiful early Christian monastic writings in existence. His recent work on St. Augustine is absolutely stunning, as well. I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to have him as my professor. If you are into early Christianity, these two works will cover the development of the Trinity, the Homoians, Manichaeism, gnosticism, the Pelagian controversies, the Donatist schismatics, ascetism, the influence of the Romans, the nature of evil and free will, grace… I could go on and on. These works will take you from the time period you mentioned all the way through St. Augustine.

amazon.com/Desert-Christians-Introduction-Literature-Monasticism/dp/0195162234

amazon.com/Augustine-His-Words-William-Harmless/dp/0813217431/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309632222&sr=1-5

 

[KathleenGee]

mwb…

Thank you!

 

[thecone137]

Thanks for the responses- I’ll have to spend some tiem reading the recommendations. Btw, has anyone heard of “The History of the Christian Religion and Church During the First Three Centuries” by Dr. Augustus Neander? It’s public domain and was wondering if that was a reliable source.

 

[Hesychios]

‘The Early Church’ by Henry Chadwick covers all of these heretical sects.

Yes.

A good suggestion.

Jaroslav Pelikan did a great series on historical Christianity as well.

 

[mwb85611]

Thanks for the responses- I’ll have to spend some tiem reading the recommendations. Btw, has anyone heard of “The History of the Christian Religion and Church During the First Three Centuries” by Dr. Augustus Neander? It’s public domain and was wondering if that was a reliable source.

I would not recommend this work simply because it is so incredibly out of date. There have been so many recent discoveries and translations from the patristic era that such an old book just does not have the same amount of information to give. Some of our understandings regarding early Christian heresies or enemies have been radically changed in the last decade or two thanks to archaeological discoveries, the accessibility of translations, and so on. At the very least, I would recommend a text that was first published in the last 20 years. The only time I don’t follow this rule is when I’m researching a topic on which nobody has really written on in the past 20 years, haha. I had difficulties finding a current biographical study on Erasmus of Rotterdam, so I used one that had been published around 1901, or something like that. That was difficult to pass off as an accurate source.

By all means, there is truth in the text you are asking about, but so many things have completely changed in what we know about these groups that I would be hesitant to use it.

 

[Publisher]

Can anyone recommend a reliable book or source explaining the early church heresies (besides the Bible) 33-150 AD? I’m looking for something that will describe docetism, adoptionism, marcionism, gnosticism, etc and how the orthodox view was, in fact, the dominant one.

“Heresy” by Joan O’Grady is very good…“Lost Christianities” by Bart Erhman is also a great read.

 

[InvisibleWorld]

Can anyone recommend a reliable book or source explaining the early church heresies (besides the Bible) 33-150 AD? I’m looking for something that will describe docetism, adoptionism, marcionism, gnosticism, etc and how the orthodox view was, in fact, the dominant one.

Against Heresies: newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

 

[Brother_Steve]

The one that I read was Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church by O.J. Brown.

 

[Contarini]

Can anyone recommend a reliable book or source explaining the early church heresies (besides the Bible) 33-150 AD? I’m looking for something that will describe docetism, adoptionism, marcionism, gnosticism, etc and how the orthodox view was, in fact, the dominant one.

Since you already think you know the answer, why are you asking for a reference?

It sounds as if all you want is a book to wave in other people’s faces, not something that will actually help you learn.

What would it do to your faith if you learned that the orthodox view was not in fact the dominant one?

As a matter of fact, I think that it probably was–at least, I’m not convinced by the arguments to the contrary. But we believe in orthodox Christianity because it’s true, not because it is or was dominant. If it turned out that there were more Marcionites or Valentinians or Montanists than Catholic Christians in 150 A.D., that wouldn’t make those heresies right.

Chapter 2 of vol. 1 of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition does a good job of summarizing the various early heresies and the formation of orthodoxy. Pelikan was a Lutheran at the time and eventually became Orthodox, so this is a relatively conservative take.

J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines is a classic survey, and of course he talks about early heresy as well as the formulation of the orthodox response. A more recent survey of early Christian literature is The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, which has chapters on the Gnostics and other heretical literature.

The book that may best correspond to what you’re looking for is The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger. I just found out about it–it looks interesting and I hope to get around to reading it sometime soon.

Edwin

 

[Brother_Steve]

Since you already think you know the answer, why are you asking for a reference?

It sounds as if all you want is a book to wave in other people’s faces, not something that will actually help you learn.

What would it do to your faith if you learned that the orthodox view was not in fact the dominant one?

As a matter of fact, I think that it probably was–at least, I’m not convinced by the arguments to the contrary. But we believe in orthodox Christianity because it’s true, not because it is or was dominant. If it turned out that there were more Marcionites or Valentinians or Montanists than Catholic Christians in 150 A.D., that wouldn’t make those heresies right.

Chapter 2 of vol. 1 of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition does a good job of summarizing the various early heresies and the formation of orthodoxy. Pelikan was a Lutheran at the time and eventually became Orthodox, so this is a relatively conservative take.

J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines is a classic survey, and of course he talks about early heresy as well as the formulation of the orthodox response. A more recent survey of early Christian literature is The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, which has chapters on the Gnostics and other heretical literature.

The book that may best correspond to what you’re looking for is The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger. I just found out about it–it looks interesting and I hope to get around to reading it sometime soon.

Edwin

In addition J.N.D Kelly’s book Early Christian Creeds is great as well as The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Davis.

 

[thecone137]

Since you already think you know the answer, why are you asking for a reference?

It sounds as if all you want is a book to wave in other people’s faces, not something that will actually help you learn.

What would it do to your faith if you learned that the orthodox view was not in fact the dominant one?

As a matter of fact, I think that it probably was–at least, I’m not convinced by the arguments to the contrary. But we believe in orthodox Christianity because it’s true, not because it is or was dominant. If it turned out that there were more Marcionites or Valentinians or Montanists than Catholic Christians in 150 A.D., that wouldn’t make those heresies right.

Chapter 2 of vol. 1 of Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition does a good job of summarizing the various early heresies and the formation of orthodoxy. Pelikan was a Lutheran at the time and eventually became Orthodox, so this is a relatively conservative take.

J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines is a classic survey, and of course he talks about early heresy as well as the formulation of the orthodox response. A more recent survey of early Christian literature is The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, which has chapters on the Gnostics and other heretical literature.

The book that may best correspond to what you’re looking for is The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger. I just found out about it–it looks interesting and I hope to get around to reading it sometime soon.

Edwin

I like to be a fair judge, and a fair judge examines sources that are both for, against, and neutral to orthodoxy. I picked up Dissent from the Creed by Hogan and the Catholic Tradition by Pelikan, so I think I’m set in terms of evidence for orthdoxy. I already had solid sources against and neutral to the fact.

 

[mwb85611]

It sounds as if all you want is a book to wave in other people’s faces, not something that will actually help you learn…

Why would you make a statement like that when all thecone137 asked for was some good information? It sounds like he’s looking for the historical background of Christian doctrine.

As a matter of fact, I think that it probably was–at least, I’m not convinced by the arguments to the contrary. But we believe in orthodox Christianity because it’s true, not because it is or was dominant. If it turned out that there were more Marcionites or Valentinians or Montanists than Catholic Christians in 150 A.D., that wouldn’t make those heresies right.

Did you know that Cyril of Alexandria bribed multiple court officials during the controversy with Nestorius over the Incarnation, influencing the decision made by the emperor on the matter? It does leave one to question whether or not our “orthodoxy” was established under the table, thanks to many pieces of silver (probably gold… just making a Biblical reference). I know that there were other factors at play following the Council of Ephesus, but it is interesting to know, and it is important to be aware of.