MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980231825 · doi:10.1353/tjt.2012.0054

Irenaeus: An Introduction (review)

2012· article· en· W1980231825 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel R. Driver

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasmus+PhilosophyClassicsPerfectionCLARITYTheologyHistoryArt historyChemistryThe Renaissance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Irenaeus: An Introduction Daniel R. Driver Denis Minns. Irenaeus: An Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Pp. 192. Paper, $31.11. ISBN 978-0567033666. Denis Minns presents two major reasons for addressing the work of Irenaeus, despite the fact that the second-century apologist had little direct influence on theological developments in the third century and beyond. The first concerns the breadth of his writing, which seeks to confound heretics with arguments drawn “from the widest possible base. . . . In consequence of this strategy he has left us a remarkably comprehensive picture of what was believed by Christians who thought themselves orthodox in the late second century.” Minns’s second reason lends his introduction clarity of purpose, for Irenaeus “offers to those more used to a catholicism overshadowed by the figure of St. Augustine a remarkably fresh and different outlook” (152). What makes this particular introduction stand out is the light touch with which its author handles so many historical moments—those leading up to and including Irenaeus, those of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan controversies by which Irenaeus’s thought has inevitably been judged, that of Erasmus in republishing Adversus Haereses after a thousand years, and so on—always with an eye to theology’s present interest and need. For example, in an exposition of evil and the freedom of will, where the difference between Irenaeus and Augustine seems sharpest, Minns dismantles Irenaeus’s assumption that for humans to have a beginning is to begin in infancy. When Irenaeus writes, “God . . . could have granted perfection to humankind in the beginning, but humankind, being in its infancy, would not have been able to sustain it,” Minns does not mince [End Page 322] words: “The logic of this is false. It is as though a Michelangelo were to say, ‘I can sculpt out of melting butter, but the butter is not able to sustain my art.”’ And yet Minns spots “one of his most powerful theological insights” here, which is that humans are, for Irenaeus, “necessarily imperfect in the beginning” (88). A resolution surfaces after thinking through what Irenaeus might have argued, had he been more careful, and what he did mean in his adaptation of the philosophical categories Being and Becoming. It amounts to a quite different and seemingly more optimistic plan of salvation than the better-known ones of Augustine or Athanasius. God alone is; human creatures are set on an infinite progress toward perfection by which their natural state of Becoming approaches the asymptote of Being, for all eternity. For Minns, “The grounding of this positive evaluation of free will and the consequent sinfulness in the distinction between Being and Becoming might, in the end, sustain the free-will defence of the claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good” (91). John Hick makes no appearance in the text of this book, nor in its superb bibliography, though Evil and the God of Love (London: Macmillan, 1966) would make a good companion to it on a reading list about theodicy. If Minns raises questions for specialists, his book still succeeds as a basic introduction to Irenaeus. After a brief opening chapter, “Heresies” (chapter 2) works both to inform a reader little acquainted with Marcion, Gnostics, or Valentians, and to alert more knowledgeable readers to how such problematic terms will be used. A sound case is made for staying close to what Irenaeus understands his adversaries to believe without spending too much time at Nag Hammadi. The argument from there is tightly structured. Heresies set the background for Irenaeus’s confession of “The One God” (chapter 3), who is simple and identified with the God of old. Chapter 4 gives a lucid and sympathetic account Irenaeus’s trinitarianism. That he is almost exclusively concerned with the economic over the immanent Trinity, to use later language, would cause some anxiety, but as Minns contends, “Within its own terms of reference, Irenaeus’ theology of the Trinity was perfectly orthodox” (66). Chapter 5 handles the economy of salvation, culminating, as we have seen, in a sketch of an Irenaean answer to the problem of evil. Chapter 6 frames the important term “recapitulation” in a broader discussion of the way Irenaeus...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207