Book Review: "Heresy" by Catherine Nixey

Here we go! It's been a while since I have reviewed a work of nonfiction and it's been even longer since I've read a book by Catherine Nixey. More than often, Catherine Nixey's work has been a bit hard for me to read because of its constantly interlinking arguments and though I got through it this time - I think I might have picked quite a bad time to read it since I have so much to do. I like to read the book and then do the reading around the book so you could say that I make the job even more difficult for myself. So let's dive into the arguments Catherine Nixey presents in this book and what I thought of them.

Nixey presents evidence that the concept of a god-man or a divine figure walking among humans was common in the ancient world. Figures like Hercules, Asclepius, and Dionysus were also considered sons of gods, capable of performing miracles, healing the sick, and even rising from the dead. These myths were deeply entrenched in Greco-Roman culture, and Nixey argues that Jesus’ story fits into this broader mythological framework. What made Jesus different was not the uniqueness of his narrative, but the fact that early Christians successfully positioned him as more real and more divine than these other figures, despite the overwhelming presence of similar stories.

I love drawing similarities between older stories and trying to make connections around them. What I think about this argument is that there may have been something special about this guy because of the fact people thought he was worthy of being presented like this, but what is even more interesting is the storytelling trends. I would love to know why this trend appeared, much like how the Sci-Fi and Horror trend appeared during the HG Wells and RL Stevenson era.

Another argument presented in the text is that contrary to the popular image of early Christians as pacifist martyrs, Nixey argues that the religion’s early expansion was not always peaceful. Once Christians gained power within the Roman Empire, they began to use violence and coercion to establish their dominance. Pagan temples were defiled, statues were smashed, and sacred sites were destroyed. Christian mobs, often encouraged by bishops, would target sites of pagan worship, ensuring their physical and spiritual dominance in the landscape.

I think we could say this for practically every single culture in human history. Everyone destroys everyone else to try to get their way and this is not unique at all. I don't agree with Nixey presenting it as a unique time in human history because it must have been happening in a lot of places with different ideas. Nobody's expansion is peaceful and peace does not warrant expansion. What I do find interesting is that many documentaries have also spoken about this as a unique thing that this religion was doing - whereas, there is overwhelming evidence from throughout history to state that this was not the case.

The author also argues that early Christians carefully curated the narrative of Jesus’ divinity to distinguish him from other divine figures in antiquity. While pagan gods such as Dionysus and Hercules were seen as mythical figures, the Church worked to position Jesus as a historical and unique figure, both fully human and fully divine. This was achieved through the development of doctrines that carefully excluded elements from rival myths while reinforcing the literal truth of Jesus’ resurrection and divinity.

She explores how early Christian councils, such as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, were crucial in shaping the narrative of Jesus’ divinity. By codifying doctrines like the Trinity and affirming the divine nature of Jesus, the Church set Jesus apart from other divine-human figures. This manipulation of theological narrative ensured that Jesus was perceived not merely as one among many but as the one true Son of God.

I've read a lot (and I mean a lot) about the 2nd Council of Nicaea and I think that people often overestimate what actually happened there, thinking it was a bunch of people arguing and shouting at each other like an American courtroom TV show. Whereas what it probably actually was is people sitting around a table like a script reading, handing scribblings to each other and passing some votes. My question for this argument would be: if you had control over the information others received about something you believed as fact (whether it was fact or not) would you not do the same thing? Of course you would.

Now, on to the main thing that the whole book is about: heresy. Nixey argues that the concept of “heresy” was a deliberate creation of the early Church to suppress alternative interpretations of Christianity. In the Roman world, religious diversity was generally accepted, but Christianity introduced the idea that there was only one true interpretation of faith, and all others were dangerous deviations. The book explores how heresies like Gnosticism, Arianism, and Manichaeism were labeled as threats to orthodoxy, and their followers were persecuted.

Again, this relates to the previous argument: you have something you believe as fact and you have the power to control what others believe. This is not unique to this particular culture and it is also not unique to a particular belief or time. It may sound a bit dystopian but it is true for a vast range of things from religion in the medieval eras to what you are allowed to say online in our own time. Nixey presents this argument again, as unique to this particular culture and though I understand the book is long and she cannot make connections from everything to everything else, she could spend a few sentences acknowledging that its not unique at all.

Though I enjoyed reading this book, I feel like there are arguments that get repeated as being particularly unique to Christianity when they are actually true for every single culture that has ever existed. Be that as it may, it was still an interesting read and I enjoyed learning about Christianity's early history from someone who does not practice the religion.