The proliferation of studies in recent decades devoted to a better understanding of the theological communities known to history as “Gnostics” is a welcome development for early Christian studies. Nevertheless, the casualties of this reappraisal have been the early heresiologists and, in particular, Irenaeus of Lyons, whose lack of nuance in describing these communities now renders him in much of recent scholarship little more than a power-hungry, theological witch hunter. The great irony here is that this judgment comes only by removing Irenaeus from his own late second century context. In his latest book, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity, John Behr attempts a defense of Irenaeus by restoring the late second century as the appropriate context in which to understand Irenaeus's thought. In so doing, per the aims of the “Christian Theology in Context” series of which it is a part, Behr allows Irenaeus to speak “to our own context” (vi).

The structure of the book is relatively simple, with the first chapter devoted to Irenaeus's life and context and the remaining two chapters addressing the structure and content of Against Heresies. (Irenaeus's shorter work, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, receives only passing attention.) Behr's exposition includes thorough treatments of key Irenaean themes, such as economy and recapitulation. Of note is Behr's compelling use of a musical motif (“the symphony of salvation”) to illuminate how these different components fuse into a unity in Irenaeus’ mind as well as the helpful structural analysis of Against Heresies 2–5—each book follows the threefold movement of (1) God, (2) Christ and the economy, and (3) humanity.

Throughout, Behr's singular focus on Irenaeus as a faithful and careful reader of scripture makes his defense of the Bishop of Lyons effective. This focus paints a new portrait of Irenaeus’ method, one that is not marked by episcopal power but by congenial argumentation with scripture as the common, accepted authority of both sides. While both Irenaeus and the “Gnostics” accept Christ as the hypothesis or key to understanding the scriptures, Irenaeus alone insists that Christ “must be understood within the mosaic or matrix of Scripture” (123). This Christ, as opposed to the “Gnostic” Aeon, reveals the unity of the economy of salvation culminating in Christ's death and resurrection, which is itself the event that “provides the catalyst for the veil to be removed and the books to be opened” (131). In contrast, “his opponents’ reading simply does not ‘fit’ the text” (110).

This new portrait of Irenaeus's method accords much better with the late second century context in which the church is comprised of many different communities with varying beliefs and customs. Without a pope or mechanism of excommunication, the unifying feature of these communities was only scripture read according to the canon of truth. Irenaeus's appeal to the canon was not intended, then, to “stymie further reflection or thought, but to make it possible” by opening the scriptures (114). Thus, it was not Irenaeus, but Marcion and Valentinus who were intolerant of difference and therefore separated themselves from community. Significantly, this new portrait of Irenaeus's method is consistent with the biographical details of his life as well, especially his defense of the Quartodecimens’ practice of celebrating Easter at the expense of agreement with the practices of Rome and even his own Gallican churches.

Importantly for Behr's second objective, this new portrait of Irenaeus will also speak more clearly to today's context, particularly in his method of scriptural interpretation. In contrast to scholars of “lost Christianities” who assume that, for example, “Gnostic” texts offer “equally legitimate approaches to Christianity,” Irenaeus shows that scripture has an inherent hypothesis without which damage is done to the text (1). Put differently, if scripture is central, there are illegitimate approaches. More broadly, Irenaeus's method challenges those who limit scripture by imposing meaning locked in the past; rather, scripture is a treasury “of images, words, and reports, which gives flesh to the Christ proclaimed by the apostles, who in turn reveals the work of God deployed throughout the whole economy described in Scripture” (128). Scripture's purpose, in other words, is to make meaning of our lives.

Although few, there are some weaknesses of Behr's work. First, he spends an inordinate amount of space arguing that Irenaeus's famed unnamed elder is Polycarp, the payoff for which is unclear. In any case, his argument is taken over almost in its entirety from Charles Hill's earlier work on Polycarp, such that those who were not convinced by Hill will not be swayed by Behr. At the same time, Behr hardly acknowledges the more plausible influence of Justin Martyr, nor does he say anything about Theophilus of Antioch's influence, a thesis that is gaining traction in some scholarship. The lack of sustained attention to Demonstration is puzzling as well and calls into question whether this work can be called a comprehensive introduction of Irenaeus's thought. As he states, Behr believes Demonstration to have been written before Haer. 3–5, making this omission more understandable (in Behr's mind, Demonstration is not his most mature work). Nevertheless, this position is a minority among scholars and those who believe there is a noticeable progression in Irenaeus's thought from Haer. 3–5 to Demonstration will find the omission objectionable.

While others will have disagreements over aspects of Behr's reading of Irenaeus, such disagreements cannot be labeled weaknesses; they merely reveal open questions in Irenaean scholarship. At most, one could question Behr's lack of attention to alternate readings, but then again there is always a balance to be found in addressing technical issues in the context of an introduction. It seems to me that Behr finds this balance and, as a result, his book is a faithful and accessible introduction to Irenaeus's life and thought. Given the unfair reputation Irenaeus has gained both in the scholarly and popular conscience, Behr's reappraisal in light of the second century context is an important contribution.