Holsinger-Friesen's book is a welcome addition to Irenaeus scholarship. Although readers often associate Irenaeus with ‘the rule of faith’ or ‘recapitulation’, Holsinger-Friesen joins a growing group of scholars who have turned their attention to Irenaeus’ scriptural exegesis. Although there may not be a single ‘key’ text around which the disagreement between Irenaeus and his ‘Gnostic’ opponents centred, Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7 ‘notably stand out amongst a crowd of candidates’ (p. 106). In order to show how Irenaeus engaged in this disagreement, Holsinger-Friesen first explains Irenaeus’ characterisation of his Ophite and Valentinian opponents (in chapter 2), then moves on to a consideration of Irenaeus’ interpretation of Gen 1:27 in selections from books 3 and 4 of the Adversus Haereses (in chapter 3), and Gen 2:7 in selections from book 5 of the Adversus Haereses (in chapter 4).

Chapter 1 is a lengthy literature review which argues ‘Harnack's portrayal of Irenaeus’ recapitulation had a persistent, though subtle influence on Irenaean scholarship throughout the past century’ (p. 7). Holsinger-Friesen is right to shift his discussion to Irenaeus exegesis, which his theology of recapitulation summarised rather than drove, but this literature review ended up adding little to the main thrust of the book's argument.

In chapter 2, although he makes some reference to the texts found at Nag Hammadi, Holsinger-Friesen focuses on Irenaeus’ opponents as Irenaeus portrays them. He does so because ‘Irenaeus's depictions described an objective phenomenon . . . to a reasonable . . . degree of accuracy’. Moreover, ‘it is in pursuit of our primarily theological and hermeneutical interests . . . that our inquiry takes shape’ (p. 50). This focus allows Holsinger-Friesen to explore the contours of Irenaeus’ exegetical method.

Chapters 3 and 4 are the heart of the book. Here Holsinger-Friesen shows how Irenaeus read Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:7 christologically, and he argues persuasively that for Irenaeus these texts have as much to do with God as they do with human beings. For example, he writes, ‘By declaring God to be Creator . . . Irenaeus’ rule of truth effectively stipulated that any accounting of God's activity – or Christ's – must begin with anthropology rather than theogony’ (p. 112). Of course, any time one selects some sections of a text rather than others, a reviewer can quibble with the choice, but Holsinger-Friesen has judiciously chosen his texts.

In chapter 4, the strongest chapter of the book, Holsinger-Friesen offers a close reading of the first sixteen chapters of Adversus Haereses book 5. Holsinger-Friesen shows how Irenaeus understands the Genesis texts in light of other scriptural texts such as Ezekiel 37, John 1, John 9 and 1 Corinthians 15. He does an excellent job showing how Irenaeus understands the work of the Father, Spirit and Son in this section of the Adversus Haereses. As he notes, ‘In Genesis 2:7 . . . Irenaeus discovers the purpose of the continuous labor of the two hands of God [i.e., the Son and Spirit] to be human vivification’ (p. 153). Holsinger-Friesen also does well to point out the non-Platonic thrust of Irenaeus’ theology.

Overall, Holsinger-Friesen has made good use of the secondary scholarship on Irenaeus. M. C. Steenberg's book on Irenaeus and creation probably came out too late for inclusion, yet Holsinger-Friesen has not engaged with Jacques Fantino's book on image and likeness in Irenaeus. (It also would have been good to have a bit more engagement with Ysabel de Andia's work.) There are a few typographical errors which are a bit distracting. Overall, though, scholars of Irenaeus and those interested in the history of exegesis will find much of value in this book.