One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus

One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus. Mary Ann Donovan. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997. x + 197 pp. $18.95 (paper).

The author engagingly states at the outset that her "aim is to present clearly and concisely what Irenaeus says, following the order of his argument" (p. 4). She does not study his sources or his theology but his treatise against heresies, with much use of P. Bacq, who emphasizes Irenaeus's chiastic structure and use of verbal association, and she extends Bacq's analysis from Book IV through Book III. We might add that verbal association is common in the New Testament, especially the synoptic gospels, as is chiasmus. Conceivably Irenaeus thought of his method of writing as apostolic, though it is basically a matter of rhetoric, not logic or philosophy (for the latter cf. B. Reynders, "La polemique de saint Irenee: Methode et principes," Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale 7 [ 1935], 5-27).

He was primarily concerned with the exegesis of scripture and with maintaining against Gnostics that there was indeed "one right reading." Donovan points out that he gives the "rule of faith" a decisive role in this reading, but perhaps his own contribution to the formulation of the rule could be emphasized. Her Irenaeus is a passive recipient of tradition rather than a shaper of it, but when he adduces Clement of Rome as a witness he simply sets forth his own version of the rule, without any reference to what Clement wrote; and when he says that Polycarp wrote a "very powerful letter" evidencing "the nature of his faith and the preaching of the truth" (Heresies 3.3.3-4) he may mean no more than that Polycarp denounced a heresy like Marcion's. Irenaeus chooses traditions to follow, notably the chiliasm of Asia Minor in Book V Bacq's demonstration that "while Irenaeus did use sources he wove them into his own scheme" (p. 128 n. 24) is not surprising. Sources are there to be woven.

Paraphrasing Irenaeus yields significant results but one should not neglect his Greek education and sources. He apologized for living among non-literate tribes and was well aware of what his Greek education had given him. In addition, as I have insisted elsewhere, his allusions to an authoritative tag from Xenophanes in Books II and IV-ascribed both to "religious men" generally and to the Bible-shows that his theology was not entirely biblical. Finally, one might compare Irenaeus's insistence on a Roman primacy of some sort with his own vigorous criticism of Victor, bishop of Rome during the Quartodeciman controversy, described by Eusebius (H. E. 5.24.14-17), who refrains from quoting Irenaeus on Roman "primacy" though he does quote him on the succession of bishops (H. E. 5.6). Was one right reading really a feasible goal?

These questions do not detract from the reliability and usefulness of Donovan's study. She presents it as a guide to reading Against Heresies, and it will surely encourage and help students to enter into Irenaeus's thought. They should not abandon Ricoeur's preliminary "hermeneutic of suspicion" too rapidly, however.

ROBERT M. GRANT

Chicago, Illinois

Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Winter 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved