When U. died in 1982 he left behind a new translation of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses, with notes. Ten years later the first portion of this bequest to the academic community was made available when J.J. Dillon brought U.'s Book 1 of Adversus Haereses to press for the Ancient Christian Writers series. Scholars and students alike have long awaited the publication of the remaining portions. Partial relief came in 2012, the thirtieth anniversary of U.'s death, with the publication of the next two Books: Book 3 appeared under the editorial hand of M.C. Steenberg and was soon followed by this volume, edited by Dillon.
That this edition offers the finest English translation of AH 2 hardly bears mentioning. The limitations of the text of Irenaeus found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) series, the hitherto standard for readers of English, are manifest to the casual reader and scholar alike. The inclusion of a fine introduction by M. Slusser, which displays a thorough acquaintance with the literature on Irenaeus, and copious notes on points of translation, theology and pertinent scholarship, serves further to increase the value of this edition. Even so, a few comments on the translation and accompanying notes are worthwhile.
The translation tends towards the dynamic side of the spectrum – more readable than literal in style. This has as much to do with the limitations of the Latin text as anything else, but readers should keep it in mind. At times a concern for gender inclusivity has resulted in a translation that takes certain liberties with the text. Two examples will suffice. In AH 2.7.5 de hominibus is rendered ‘of men and women’ instead of the more straightforward ‘of human beings’, and in 2.33.1 uidit is rendered ‘he or she has seen’ instead of either ‘he has seen’ or ‘she has seen’ (all Latin quotations come from Sources Chrétiennes 294). While it is appropriate and beneficial to use gender inclusive conventions in our analyses of ancient texts, it is unhelpful and misleading to insert them into translations of ancient texts, particularly those that present themselves as a resource for scholars. We must strive for a more sophisticated level of discourse than the simple alteration of a text.
On occasion the translation suffers from infelicitous expressions. An example of a strictly linguistic nature appears at 2.28.1 where numquam autem excidere ab ea suasione qua manifestissime praedicatur quia hic solus uere sit Deus et Pater is rendered ‘Never should we, however, give up the conviction that most clearly preaches that he alone is truly God and Father …’ Translating qua … praedicatur as simply ‘that … preaches’ does not satisfactorily render either the present passive or subjunctive. An example of a theological nature appears at 2.28.3 where U.'s translation approximates the misguided version of the ANF when he presents Si ergo, secundum hunc modum quem diximus, quaedam quidem quaestionum Deo commiseriumus as ‘So if, according to the method stated, we leave some of the questions in God's hands …’ The idiomatic use of ‘hands’ in the translation has the potential to mislead readers who could find in it an allusion to Irenaeus' identification of the Son and Holy Spirit as the Hands of God.
As with every translation published by ACW the text is bolstered by substantial notes. Most often, these notes provide excellent discussions of the interpretative decisions that occupied the translator, which is especially helpful given the, at times, frustrating state of the Latin text. The notes indicate that the translation largely follows the text of the Sources Chrétiennes volumes edited by A. Rousseau, et al. The degree to which the notes offer a satisfactory engagement with scholarship varies. At times we find references to articles published in obscure journals or in-depth discussions of scholarship that reveal an intimate familiarity with the surrounding literature. So, for instance, we are provided with the excellent note on Irenaeus' understanding of the natural knowledge of God that begins on p. 122 and runs for two full pages. At other times, however, we find no references to scholarly debates that have stretched over the course of a century. In particular, the notes on 2.14 which betray nary a whisper of the role of this text in the debate over Irenaeus' philosophical acumen initiated by H. Diels' comments (1879) and carried forth by G. Bardy (1928), R.M. Grant (HTR 1949), A. Benoît (1960) and W.R. Schoedel (VC 1959; JTS 1984). It is not clear how much this is due to the post-mortem publication of U.'s text.
Readers who have waited for the release of the remaining portions of U.'s translation will not mind such minor deficiencies. Students and scholars of early Christianity owe a debt of gratitude to the work of U. and to the continuing efforts of Dillon on his behalf. This translation will be enthusiastically welcomed, and will find a ready place on curricula and bookshelves around the world.
