ForKate optimapuellulainmundo
Acknowledgments
ThisbookwouldnothavecometobeifIhadnotcometoCandlerSchoolof Theologysixyearsago.So,itisrightformeto firstthankJanLove,Candler’ s Dean,fortakingariskandhiringthisone-timeadjunctprofessor.Beyond givingmeachancetoprovemyself,JanwithIanMcFarland,thenAssociate DeanofFacultyandAcademicAffairs,approvedaTeachingandResearch GrantthatfundedaportionoftheresearchforChapter1.Chapter5anda portionofChapter3werewrittenduringasemester’sleavefundedbythe EmoryUniversityResearchCommittee.Iamgratefulforthe financialsupport ofthesegrants,butalsofortheencouragementthatcamewiththem.
Duringthecourseofpursuingthisresearch,Ihavelearnedwhatitmeansto beamemberoffaculty.Beyondtheestablishmentoftreasuredfriendships, Ihavebeenthebeneficiaryofwisecounselandconsiderableencouragement. Candler’smostseniorfacultyhavebeenunfailinglygenerousintheseways, andtheirwordshaveformedandshapedmythinkingonmatterstoo numeroustomention.Ithinkespeciallyofmyemailsandconversations withCarlHolladay,LukeTimothyJohnson,CarolNewsom,DavidPacini, andPhilipReynolds.Twoofmycolleagues,PhilipReynoldsandJonathan Strom,lefttheirintellectual fingerprintsonthisbookwhentheysolveda mysterythathadbaffledmeforwelloverayear(youcanreadaboutitinmy essayontheologicalspeculationinChapter1).ColleaguesbeyondEmory alsoreadthatessayontheologicalspeculationandassuredmeIhadnotlost mymind:I’mgratefulforthetime(andthepsychologicalsupport)givenby MarkDelCoglianoandJacksonLashier.
ImustthankTomPerridgeatOxfordUniversityPressfor firstinvitingme tosubmitaproposalforthisbookandthenforawaitingagoodone.Karen Raithablymanagedtheproductionprocess,kindlykeptintouch,and patientlyawaitedthereceiptofcertainverylateforms.ChristineRanft’ s copyeditingprocessbroughtthetextinto fineform.Iamverypleasedto havethisstudyjoinmy firstinOxfordEarlyChristianStudies.GillianClark andAndrewLouthcontinuetodirecttheseriesaswellasever,ensuringits vitalityandcontinuingsignificance.
Thisbookismuchbetter andfarmoreuseful thankstothediligenceof threeofmydoctoralstudents.GraydenMcCashensoughtoutallthereferencesintheIndexLocorum.MicahMillerspenthourscheckingandformattingthepagesthatfollow,aswellasconstructingtheBibliographyandthe GeneralIndex.AmandaKnightsavedtheday.Iamdeeplygratefultoeach ofthem.
PortionsofChapters1and4haveappearedpreviouslyinpress,inearlier forms,as “Irenaeus’ ChristologyofMixture,” JTS 64.2(2013):516–55; “IrenaeusonNaturalKnowledge,” CHRC 95.2(2015):133–54; “Literary andRhetoricalTheoryinIrenaeus,Part1,” VC 69.5(2015):500–27;and “TheologicalSpeculationinIrenaeus:PerilsandPossibilities,” VC 71.2 (2017):175–98.
Writingabookplacesparticularpressuresandstressesuponone’sfamily. I’vefoundthatpressureandstressrevealcharacter,andIamevergratefulto havemarriedawomanwiththecharacterofmywife.Kellyisourfamily’ s NorthStar:heridealsandconvictionskeepustrue.Idon’tknowwhereI’dbe withouther,butIknowthisbookwouldn’tbedone.Overthecourseofwriting thisstudyourdaughter,Kate,grewfromaprecociousfour-year-old,who “graded” papersandreadbooksundermydesk,intothemostintelligent,kind, loving,andfunnyten-year-oldIhaveeverknown.Sheisthebestlittlegirlin thewholeworld.Thisbookisdedicatedtoher.
5.1.Security,Incorruptibility,Adoption
5.1.1.SectionConclusion
5.2.RevelatoryActivity
5.2.1.SectionConclusion
5.3.ChapterConclusion
Abbreviations
ACWAncientChristianWriters
AHAgainstHeresies
ANFTheAnte-NiceneFathers
ATRAnglicanTheologicalReview
BICSBulletinoftheInstituteofClassicalStudiesoftheUniversityofLondon
ETLEphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses
FotCTheFathersoftheChurch
GregGregorianum
HTRHarvardTheologicalReview
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JrnRelJournalofReligion
JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies
LCLLoebClassicalLibrary
NRTNouvelleRevueThéologique
NTSNewTestamentStudies
NVNovaetVetera
PAPhilosophiaAntiqua
PGPatrologiaGraeca
POPatrologiaOrientalis
PPSPopularPatristicsSeries
PrfProofoftheApostolicPreaching
ProEccProEcclesia
RevEARevuedesÉtudesAnciennes
RevEAugRevued’ÉtudesAugustiniennes
RevEGRevuedesÉtudesGrecques
RevSRRevuedesSciencesReligieuses
RevUORevuedel’Universitéd’Ottawa
RSRRecherchesdeScienceReligieuse
RTAMRecherchesdeThéologieAncienneetMédiévale
SCSourcesChrétiennes
SLIStudiesintheLiteraryImagination
SPStudiaPatristica
Abbreviations
STStudiaTheologica
VCVigiliaeChristianae
ZACZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum
ZNWZeitschriftfürdieNeutestamentlicheWissenschaftundKundederAlteren Kirche
NowthesplendorofGodgiveslife;therefore,thosewhoseeGodparticipateinlife.Andforthisreasontheonewhoisuncontainableand incomprehensibleandinvisiblerendershimselfvisibleandcomprehensibleandgraspable,inorderthathemaygivelifetothosewhograspand seehim.Forjustashisgreatnessisinscrutable,soalsoishisgoodness ineffable;bywhich,havingbeenseen,hebestowslifeonthosewhosee him.Foritisnotpossibletolivewithoutlife,andthemeansoflifecomes fromparticipationinGod,andparticipationinGodistoseeGodandto enjoyhisgoodness.
,AgainstHeresies 4.20.5
Irenaeus
Introduction
Ineverplannedtowritethisbook.Towardtheendofworkingonmy first book, IrenaeusofLyonsandtheTheologyoftheHolySpirit,Ifoundmyself thinkingmoreandmoreaboutRonaldHeine’sseminalarticleonearly Christology, “TheChristologyofCallistus.”¹Heinespendsconsiderabletime analyzingtheRomanMonarchianuseofStoicmixturetheory namely, blending(κρᾶσις) toexplaintheunionofthedivineandhumaninthe personofChrist.Thiscaughtmyattention,forIrenaeustooreferstothe Christologicalunionasamixture,butnoonehadeverinvestigatedits significance.So,uponsendingtoOxfordtheproofsofthe firstbook,Ibegan readingIrenaeusagain.IsoondecidedthatIhadsomethingtosayabout Irenaeus’ Christologicalappropriationofmixturetheory.Stillmore,mysense thattherewassomethingamissinscholarlyconstrualsofIrenaeus’ doctrineof GodandhisunderstandingofthepersonofChristhadsolidified.Aroundthis timetheexigenciesoftenureweremadecleartome,andanotherbookon Irenaeuswasborn.
WhenitcomestothehistoryofChristianthought,Irenaeusismostfamous asthegreatestopponentofGnosticismintheearlyChurch.Untilthe findsof NagHammadi,Irenaeus’ corpusrepresentedthegreatestcacheofinformationaboutGnosticthoughtwepossessed.Forthatreasonhispolemichas receivedconsiderableattentionandattimeshispolemicalsignificancehas overshadowedhisimportanceasatheologian.Butafocusonhispolemical significancewasnottheonlythingthatdiscouragednuancedanalysisofhis theologicalaccount.Forhistheologicalabilityandevenintelligencehavebeen impugnedforgenerations.
ThecoherenceofIrenaeus’ thoughtwas firstquestionedbyHansWendtin 1882.²WendtarguedthatIrenaeusmaintainedtwoincompatiblestrainsof thoughtwithregardtotheoriginalstateofhumanity:onethatinvolved thenotionofacontinualgrowthandincreasetowardperfectioninwhichthe Fallplaysapositiverole,andanotherthatinvolvedthenotionofanoriginal
¹Heine,JTS49(1998:56–91).²Wendt(1882).
perfectionlostattheFall.³ManyhavefollowedWendt’sevaluationofIrenaeus’ thought,includingAdolfvonHarnack⁴ and,mostimportantly,Friedrich Loofs.⁵ ThediscernmentofincompatiblelinesofthoughtinIrenaeus’ work becamethelogicalgroundsforLoofs’ source-criticaldivisionof AgainstHeresies whichledhimtoregardIrenaeusasamerecompileroftheideasthatcame beforehim.⁶ Irenaeus,accordingtoLoofs, “wasasatheologicalwritermuchless important” thanwehadsupposed.⁷
Loofs’stheoryandevaluationdidnotgounchallengedforlong.Afewyears laterD.B.Reynderswrote, “Adverseshaereses isthefruitofagreatwork ...If itlacksalittleorderandifitrepeatsitself,itisneitherwithoutunitynor withouteruditionnorwithoutmethod ...Irenaeushastakenaposition(on theproblemofGod,theworld,andknowledge)too firmandtooperceptive tobesomethingotherthanthespontaneousexpressionofhispsychology.”⁸ Overthesucceedingdecadesotherstudiesfollowed,eachsubstantiatingthe coherenceofIrenaeus’ thoughtandtheunityofhiswork.⁹ Consensus shiftedrapidly,somuchsothatAloysGrillmeiercouldsoonwrite, “Irenaeus scholarshiphasonceagaincomebacktorecognizingtheinnerunityofthe theologyoftheBishopofLyons.”¹⁰ ButitwaslefttoPhilippeBacqto conclusivelyestablishtheunityofIrenaeus’ writing,aswellastheharmoniousexistenceofthetwodebatedstrainsofthought,inhisanalysisofthe fourthbookof AgainstHeresies.¹¹
Still,thefailuretorecognizetheintellectualunityaswellastheplanof Irenaeus’ polemicalandconstructiveargumentationcontributedtoalow regardforhisintellectualabilityingeneral.¹²WithinthreedecadesofWendt’ s initialevaluation,PaulBeuzartconcludedthatIrenaeus “ n ’estpasdetout premierrangcommepenseurmaisdontl’influenceaétéextrêmementgrande
³Wendt(1882:21–6,29).Theselinesofthoughtwere firstraisedbyL.Duncker,who discussedtheimageandlikenessofGodinIrenaeus,butaffirmedtheinternalconsistencyofhis logic(1843:99–104).
⁴ vonHarnack(1901,vol.2:269–74,esp.274n.1). ⁵ Loofs(1930:1–4).
⁶ A.Benoîthasnotedtheparallelbetweentheriseofthesource-criticalandform-critical treatmentsofScriptureandtheapplicationoftheseapproachestoIrenaeus(1960:38).Though BenoîtcritiquedthemeritofLoofs’sapproach(1960:33–5),H.-I.MarrouhasshownthatBenoît himselffailedtograsptheunityofIrenaeus’ thought(RevEA 651963:452–6).
⁷ Loofs(1930:432). ⁸ Reynders,RTAM7(1935:5–27,here26–7).
⁹ F.R.M.HitchcocksoonofferedastringentcritiqueofLoofs’smethodologyandconclusions (JTS 381937:130–9,255–66).G.Wingrenthenproposedaharmoniousreadingofthetwolines ofthoughtpreviouslyassessedasirreconcilable(1959:esp.26–32,50–4,52n.33,onp.27n.78).
A.RousseaualignedhimselfwithWingrenanddeclared, “Ifonewantstohavesomechanceof gettingbacktothethoughtofawriter,oneoughtnot first seektodiscoverinhimborrowingsand plagiarisms asifitwouldsufficetomakethenasimplesubtractionsothattheresiduethus obtainedrepresentsthecontributionbelongingtotheauthor!” (SC1521969:190).
¹⁰ Grillmeier(1965;2nded.1975,vol.1:98).
¹¹Bacq(1978),seeesp.hisappendixdevotedto AH 4.37–9,pp.363–88,whichincludesa discussionofpastscholarshiponthisissue,pp.364–9.
¹²AsmaybeseeninLoofs’sevaluation,relatedabove.
dansl’ordrepractique.”¹³Suchopinionstookholdquickly.Thenarrativewas so fixedbythemiddleoflastcenturythatJohannesQuastenwroteinhis standard Patrology, “Thewholeworksuffersfromalackofcleararrangement andunityofthought.Prolixityandfrequentrepetitionmakeitsperusal wearisome. ...Evidentlyhedidnothavetheabilitytoshapehismaterials intoahomogenouswhole.”¹⁴ AfewyearslaterPhilipHefnerwrote, “Irenaeus’ useoftermsinthistreatiseisso fluid,atpointsevenambiguous,andtheman’ s naïvetéattimessogreat,thatanyinterpretermustbecautiousinapplying sharpdistinctionsandsophisticatedschematismstoIrenaeus’ theological work.”¹⁵ Morerecently,DenisMinns,whostandsinthistraditionofinterpretation,describedIrenaeusas “unwitting” and “naïve.”¹⁶
Yet,justasthefailuretorecognizetheintellectualunityandplanof Irenaeus’ argumentationoftenledtoalowregardforhisintellectualability, therecognitionofitsintellectualunityandplanledtoarenewedappreciation forhistheologicalaccount.SoitwasthatsixyearsafterBacqHansUrsvon Balthasarsaid, “Irenaeus’ workmarksthebirthofChristiantheology.Withit, theologymergesasareflectionontheworldofrevealedfacts,areflection whichisnotjustatentative,partialapproximationbutachievesthemiracleof acompleteandorganizedimageinthemindoffaith.”¹⁷
Butwhileafewundertooknuancedandsubtleinvestigationsintoaspectsof Irenaeus’ theology,¹⁸ othernarrativesbesettingthescholarlyimagination continuedtodiscourageinvestigationintothemostfundamentaloftheologicalarticles.Irenaeus,itwassaid,strictlyopposedtheologicalspeculation¹⁹ and hadlittleinterestinphilosophicalreasoning.²⁰ Asaresult,scholarshipon
¹³Beuzart(1908:169).¹⁴ Quasten(1950,vol.1:289).
¹⁵ Hefner,JrnRel44(1964:294–309,here304).¹⁶ Minns(1994,repr.2010:xi,69).
¹⁷ VonBalthasar(1984,vol.2:31).
¹⁸ E.g ,Fantino(1986)andFantino(1994),aswellasBehr(2000).
¹⁹ VonHarnack(1901,vol.2:233n.3,263);Bonwetsch(1925:62);AudetTraditio1(1943: 15–54,esp.51–3);GrantHTR42(1949:41–51,esp.46–7);Grant(1952:79–81);Schoedel,VC13 (1959:22–32,esp.23–4,30);andSchoedel, JTS 35(1984:31–49).J.Daniélou’sopinionboth instantiatedandadvancedthisnarrative: “Inthisparticularsectoroftheology(viz.,theTrinitarianrelations),however,itmustbeadmittedthattheGnostics,eveniftheyarebadtheologians, areatanyratemoreoftheologiansthanIrenaeus,whoforthemostpartrefusestostepoutside thebiblicalformulas.Itwasnotherethathisinterestlay,butinthetheologyoftheWordas Revealer,thesubjectofwhichheisthegreatDoctor” (1973:357).
²⁰ Muchoftheimpetusfor,andpossiblythebeginningof,thisnarrativeliesinG.Bardy’ s declarationthatIrenaeusisnotaphilosopher: “[Irenaeus]necombatpaslasagesseprofane;il secontentedeladédaigner” (1928:36).Thestandingofthisnarrativeinthesecondand thirdquartersofthelastcenturymaybeillustratedbyreferencetothesimilaropinionsof W.R.SchoedelandR.M.Grant.AccordingtoSchoedel,Irenaeus’ acquaintancewithhigher philosophywasconfinedtodoxographicalmaterialandpossiblyaPeripateticsource,concluding: “Butbeyondthatthereseemstohavebeenlittleornodirectphilosophicalinfluenceupon him.InanyeventIrenaeuswashimselfconsciousoflittleinterestinphilosophy” (VC 131959: 32).Grantlikewiseasserts: “Irenaeus’ solepurposeindiscussingearlyGreekphilosophyisto showthatGnosticideasarederivedfromit....Onlywhenhedoesnotrecognizeanideaas philosophicalcanheacceptit” (1965:365).TwentyyearslaterGrant’sevaluationofIrenaeus
Irenaeus’ conceptionsofthedivinebeingandthepersonofChristisremarkablythinforoneidentifiedasthe “fatherofwesterntheology.”²¹
Indeed,Irenaeus’ conceptionofthedivinebeing histheologyproper has notasinglebookdevotedtoitsanalysis.JulesLebretonofferedanenduring discussioninhis HistoireduDogmedelaTrinité.²²Inthethirdquarterofthe lastcenturycontributionsbyRobertM.Grant,WilliamSchoedel,Richard Norris,andW.C.vanUnnikilluminatedkeyaspectsofIrenaeus’ account.²³ Sincethattime,substantialtreatmentscanbefoundonlyinarticlesbyRichard NorrisandMichelRenéBarnes,aswellasJacksonLashier’ s Irenaeusonthe Trinity.²⁴ Noscholarhaseverattemptedtoproduceasyntheticanalysisthat takesintoconsiderationthethemesaddressedbyeachofthesestudies.
Therehas,moreover,neverbeenabookinEnglishdevotedtoIrenaeus’ conceptionofthepersonofChrist.Theonlybookinanylanguagethatcomes closetohavingsuchafocusisAlbertHoussiau’ s LaChristologiedeSaint Irénée.²⁵ HoussiauobservedthatpreviousstudiesofIrenaeus’ Christology focusedupontheproblemsrelatedtohistheologyofsalvationratherthan Christologyproper.Hisobjectivewastoprovideacounterbalancebyfocusing hisworkonIrenaeus’ conceptionofthepersonofChrist.Hesucceeded, providingthebeststudyofIrenaeus’ Christologytodate.ButevenHoussiau’ s volumespendsmorethanhalfitspagesfocusingontheChristological accountsofIrenaeus’ opponents;asaresultmanycentralthemesreceive onlyacursoryexamination.
Becauseofthestatesofthesequestionswedonotpossessathoroughor evencertainunderstandingofIrenaeus’ doctrinesofGodandthepersonof Christ.NeitherareweabletograspIrenaeus’ accountofthestandingofthe Word-SoninrelationtoGodtheFather,norfullycomprehendhisattribution ofdivinitytoJesusChrist,norrecognizehowcentralaspectsofhisaccount oftheeconomicactivityofChristaregroundeduponhisunderstandingof thedivinebeing.Butthatisnotall,forRichardNorris’sfearshavecometo remainedconstant: “Inhisopiniontruthistobefoundonlywithinthechurch.Aninstructive passageshowshisdislikeofphilosophicallearning.Innaturalscience ‘manythingsescapeour knowledge,andweentrustthemtoGod;forhemustexceloverall.Whatifwetrytosetforththe causeoftherisingoftheNile?Wesaymanythings,someperhapspersuasive,othersperhapsnot persuasive:whatistrueandcertainandsurelieswithGod’ [2.28.2]” (GrantwithTracy1984:50). Notallacceptedthisreading,especiallyasthecenturyprogressed.Forinstance,C.Steadwrote, Irenaeus “has,Isuspect,morephilosophicaltalentthaniseasytodetectinhissurviving work...Butwhenphilosophicalmethodsareused,theyareablyhandled,andoneregretsthe disappearanceofotherworksknowntoEusebius,especiallythetreatisearguingthatGodisnot theauthorofevil” (1994:90).
²¹Grant(1952:102).²²Lebreton(1928,vol.2:540–75esp.).
²³Grant,HTR42(1949:41–51);Schoedel(1972:88–108);vanUnnik(1979:33–43);Schoedel (1979:75–86);andNorris(1979:87–100).
²⁴ Norris(2009:9–36);Barnes,NV7(2009:67–106);Lashier(2014:esp.70–91).
²⁵ Houssiau(1955).
pass:theneglectofthesemattershasallowed “seriousdistortions” tocreep intocontemporaryappreciationsofthesefacetsofIrenaeus’ theology.²⁶
Themost “seriousdistortion” pervadingthesediscussionsofIrenaeus’ theologyistheminimizationofthemetaphysicaldimensionofhisthought. WeseethisminimizationindescriptionsofIrenaeus’ theologyaseconomicor incharacterizationsofhistheologyasunconcernedwiththeTrinitarian relationsandevenmodalistic descriptionswhichhavebecomesocommon withincertainscholarlycirclesastobebanal.²⁷ Themostrecent,andperhaps themostdirect,exampleofthisminimizationofthemetaphysicalcomesfrom thepenofMichaelSlusser.
SlusserarguesthatRichardNorris oneofthefewtohighlightthemetaphysicaldimensionofIrenaeus’ theology wasincorrecttoemphasizethe philosophicalbasisofIrenaeus’ accountoftheunityandtranscendenceof God.AccordingtoSlusser,Norris’ s “philosophicalangleofapproach” suggests Irenaeuswaslookingfora “metaphysicalsolution” intheconflictwithhis Gnosticopponents,andthus “obscuresIrenaeus’ realagenda,whichgoes beyondmetaphysicsandportraysGodintermsofloveandwill. ...(Irenaeus) appeals,rather,toadivineinitiativethatoverridestheinsuperablemetaphysicalobstacleconstitutedbyGod’sincomprehensibilityand magnitude.”²⁸
SlusseriscorrecttoarguethatIrenaeusdidnotsimplyauthorametaphysicalresponsetohisGnosticopponents.²⁹ Butheisincorrecttominimizethe importanceofmetaphysicstoIrenaeus’ responseandtocharacterizemetaphysicsasanobstaclethatIrenaeushadtoovercomebyemphasizingthe divineeconomy.³⁰ Farfrombeinganobstaclethatmustbeovercomebythe economy,metaphysicsisthefoundationforkeyelementsofIrenaeus’ account ofthedivineeconomy.ThisisthefundamentalinsightintoIrenaeus’ thought thatliesattheoriginofthisinvestigation.
Thepurposeofthisstudyistoelucidatethemetaphysicaldimensionof Irenaeus’ thought,namely,hisunderstandingofthedivinebeing,hisaccount ofthestandingoftheWord-SoninrelationtoGodtheFather,hisconception ofhowthedivineWord-SonisunitedtohumanityinthepersonofChrist (whichironicallydependsuponStoicphysics),andthemannerinwhichhe groundscentralaspectsofhisaccountoftheeconomicactivityofChristupon hisunderstandingofthedivinebeingandthedivinityoftheWord-Son.
²⁶ Norris(1979:89).
²⁷ IdocumentthesecharacterizationsofIrenaeus’ theologyinChapter3,footnotes2–4.
²⁸ Slusser(2012:133–9,here135).
²⁹ ThisisnottosuggestthatNorriswhollyneglectstheeconomicaspectofIrenaeus’ thought; hedoesnot.
³⁰ Slusser’sperspectivesuitstheubiquitouscharacterizationofIrenaeus’ theologyaseconomicinorientation.TheupcomingchapterswillchallengethatdescriptionofIrenaeus’ theology.In sodoing,IagreewithLashierwhorecentlyauthoredhisownchallengetothisreadingof Irenaeus(2014).
Eachofthesesubjectshasachapterdevotedtoitsexposition.ButbeforeIcould treatthesetopics,I firsthadtoaddressthenarrativesthathavehinderedand discouragedpreviousinvestigationsintotheseaspectsofIrenaeus’ theology. ThisIdoinChapter1.
Itistimeforabriefsummaryofwhatliesahead.Chapter1isbestcharacterizedasasubstantialprolegomenonthatchallengesseverallong-standing narrativesinhibitingthestudyofIrenaeus.Asmentionedabove,overthe courseofthepastcenturyIrenaeuswascharacterizedasincapableofsound reasoning,notagoodthinker,naïve,andunabletoconstructasophisticated theology.Hewassaidtostrictlyopposetheologicalspeculation.Anditwas arguedthathehadlittletonointerestinphilosophicalreasoning.Eachofthese narrativesinitsownwaystandsopposedtothestudyofIrenaeus’ understandingofGodanditsbearingonthedivineeconomy.Thischapterconsistsofthree essaysthatchallengethesenarratives,therebyestablishinganunderstandingof Irenaeusandhistheologicalmethodthatsustainsthechaptersthatfollow.The firstessaychallengesthenarrativethatIrenaeuswasunintelligentorincompetentbydemonstratinghisknowledgeofliteraryandrhetoricaltheoryand,thus, arguingheenjoyedathoroughrhetoricaleducation.Thesecondarguesthat heisnotstrictlyopposedtotheologicalspeculation.Thethirdshowsthathe recognizesanaturalknowledgeofGodwhich,inturn,establishesabasisforthe theologicalappropriationofphilosophicalinsights.
Chapter2examinesIrenaeus’ understandingofthedivinebeing,histheologyproper.ButsincethepropositionsfundamentaltoIrenaeus’ doctrineof GodalsobearuponhisunderstandingoftherelationshipoftheWord-Sonto theFatherandtheworkoftheincarnateWord-Son,JesusChrist,thischapter alsopreparesforthestudyofthesesubjectsinthechapterstocome.Tobe specific,thischapterexaminesthetwopropositionsuponwhichIrenaeus foundshisconceptionofthedivinebeing:GodisinfiniteandGodissimple. Bothpropositionsarearticulatedin AgainstHeresies 2andbothhavephilosophicalroots.Moreover,thesepropositionssustainseveralcorollariesthat furtherdefinethedivinebeing:transcendence,incomprehensibility,immanence,immateriality,andatemporality.OnceI finishaddressingthesepropositionsandtheircorollaries,IbrieflydiscussIrenaeus’ identificationofGod asSpirit,anidentificationwhichhasabiblicalbasisaswellasaphilosophical one.IconcludebydiscussingtheimplicationsofIrenaeus’ theologyproperfor ourunderstandingofhisthoughtmoregenerallyaswellastheparticular implicationsfortheremainingchaptersofthisstudy.
Chapter3investigatesthestandingoftheWord-SoninrelationtoGodthe Father.The firstsectionexploresthecontoursofIrenaeus’ doctrineofreciprocalimmanenceandidentifiesfeaturesleftunexplained.Thesecondexplains thesefeaturesbystudyingthelogicthatappearsintheearlierpolemical argumentsof AgainstHeresies 2.Thethirdsectioncontinuesexaminingthe polemicalargumentsof AH 2,butnowwithafocusuponthecomments
Irenaeusmakesabouttheproductionofasimple,spiritualsubstance his commentsaboutdivineproduction.Takentogetherthesesectionsfurther establishIrenaeus’ understandingoftheintra-Trinitarianrelationshipofthe Word-SontotheFather,includingthenatureandgenerationoftheWordSon.IncontrasttocharacterizationsofIrenaeus’ theologyaseconomicor modalistic,weseethatIrenaeusaffirmedaneternalanddistinctcoexistenceof theWord-SonwithGodtheFatherastheoneGod.
Chapters2and3establishIrenaeus’ conceptionofthedivinebeingandhis understandingoftheWord-Son,especiallythenatureoftherelationship betweentheWord-SonandGodtheFather.TheaimofChapter4istoexplain howIrenaeusconceivesoftheunionbetweenthedivineWord-Sonand humanityinthepersonofJesusChrist,therebypreparingthewayfora studyoftheworkofChristinthe finalchapter.Tothatend,Chapter4 contendsthatIrenaeususesStoicmixturetheorytoconceptualizetheChristologicalunion,includingtherelationshipbetweenthehumananddivineinthe experiencesandactivitiesofChrist.Insosaying,IchallengeHarryAustryn Wolfson’spositionthatIrenaeus’ useofmixturelanguageaccordswithAristotelianmixturetheory,andIstandagainstthose,includingWolfsonand Grillmeier,whomaintainthatIrenaeus’ conceptionofthepersonofChristis devoidofphilosophicalreasoning.³¹AfterabriefreviewofStoicmixture theory,thechapterbeginswithaconsiderationofpertinentscholarshipon theappropriationofStoicandAristoteliantheoriesofmixtureintheChristologiesofearlyChristianity,movestoanargumentforIrenaeus’ useofStoic mixturetheorytoexplaintheinteractionofthesoulandbodyinhuman beings,transitionstomyargumentforhisuseofthesametheorytoexplain thesalvificjoiningofhumanbeingstotheWordofGod,culminateswithmy demonstrationofhisuseofStoicmixturetheorytoconceptualizetheunionof andinteractionbetweenthedivineandhumaninJesus,andconcludesby highlightingtheconnectionIrenaeusdrawsbetweenthepersonofChristand themixedcupoftheEucharist.
Chapters2through4leadontoChapter5.HavingestablishedIrenaeus’ understandingofthenatureofthedivinebeing,theWord-Son,andtheperson ofChrist,thetaskofChapter5istoshowthatcentralaspectsofIrenaeus’ accountoftheeconomicactivityofChristaregroundeduponhisunderstandingofGod.Itconstitutesthe finalmovementinmyargumentthatscholars haveunderappreciated orfailedtoappreciatealtogether thesignificance ofmetaphysicstoIrenaeus’ theology.Thischapterconsistsoftwosections.
³¹AccordingtoWolfson,Tertullianis “the firstamongtheFatherswhosediscussionofthe unityofthepersoninJesusbetraystheinfluenceofthephilosophicdiscussionofphysicalunion” (1964,vol.1:387).Grillmeierdeclares, “Non-Christianelements findnoplacein[Irenaeus’] understandingofChrist(cf. Adv.Haer. I,10,1–3).HeisnotaphilosopherashismasterJustin was,butaboveallabiblicaltheologian, ‘the firstdeliberatelybiblicaltheologianoftheChristian church,’ andaninterpreterofthetraditionalcreed” (1965,2nded.1975,vol.1:100).
The firstfocuseson AH 3.18.7,whereinIrenaeusfoundsessentialfeaturesof theeconomyofsalvationuponthedivinityofChrist namely,thesecurity ofsalvation,thereceptionofincorruptibility,andtheadoptionaschildren ofGod.ThesecondsectionshowsthatIrenaeus’ understandingoftherevelatoryactivityoftheWord-SonintheOldTestamenttheophaniesandincarnationisbaseduponhisconceptionofthedivinebeingasin fi niteand incomprehensible.
ThesechaptersinvestigateaspectsofIrenaeus’ thoughtthatarecentralto hisargumentationbuthavelongbeenneglectedbythescholarlycommunity. Takentogethertheydemonstratethefundamentalsignificanceofmetaphysics toIrenaeus’ polemicalargumentandconstructivetheology.Butperhapseven moreimportantly,theyofferanewportraitofthebishopofLyons.Irenaeus emergesasasubtleandeclecticthinkerabletocreativelyappropriatephilosophicalandrhetoricalpositionstohisadvantage.³²
³²By “eclectic” IdonotmeantosaythatIrenaeusdidnot fitwithintheChristiantradition,as someusethetermtoindicatethatcertainphilosophersassembleddoctrinesbasedontheir personalpreferencesandsodidnot fitwithinaparticularschool(cf.Dillon,1996:xiv).Rather, ImeantosaythatIrenaeusappropriatedideas,fromvarioussystemsofthought,whichhe believedweresuited eitherintheiroriginalorinanadaptedform totheChristiantraditionas heknewit.
Prolegomena
“NoearlyChristianwriterhasdeservedbetterofthewholeChurchthan Irenaeus.”¹WhenHenryBarclaySwetepennedthesewordsin1914hehad noinklingofthechallengesawaitingthebishopofLyonsinwhatremainedof thetwentiethcentury.Overthenextninetyyearsseveraltropesconcerning Irenaeustookrootinthemindsofscholars.Irenaeus asrecountedinthe Introduction wascharacterizedasincapableofsoundreasoning,notagood thinker,naïve,andunabletoconstructasophisticatedtheology.²Hewassaid tostrictlyopposetheologicalspeculation.³Anditwasarguedthathehadlittle tonointerestinphilosophicalreasoning.⁴
ThesearejustthreeofthenarrativesaboutIrenaeusthatgainedcurrency amongstscholars.Eachhascometofunctionasapresuppositioninstudies ofIrenaeus’ theology.Andeachinitsownwaystandsopposedtoastudyof Irenaeus’ conceptionofGodandChristbecauseeachfailstoaccuratelyor adequatelyapprehendIrenaeusorhisthought.
ThegoalofthischapteristoestablishanunderstandingofIrenaeusandhis theologicalmethodthatpreparesthewayforaswellassustainsthefollowing investigation.Ishallachievethisgoalbymeansofthreeessaysthatchallenge thenarrativesjustenumerated.The firstchallengesthenarrativethatIrenaeus wasunintelligentorincompetentbydemonstratinghisknowledgeofliterary andrhetoricaltheoryand,thus,arguingheenjoyedathoroughrhetorical education.Thesecondarguesthatheisnotopposedtotheologicalspeculation.
¹Swete(1914:foreword).
²Amongstothers,see:Wendt(1882:21–6,29);Beuzart(1908:169);Loofs(1930:432); Quasten(1950,vol.1:289);Hefner(JrnRel441964:294–309,here304);Daniélou(1973:357); Minns(1994,repr.2010:xi,69).
³See,e.g ,vonHarnack(1901,vol.2:233n.3,263);Bonwetsch(1925:62);Audet,Traditio 1(1943:15–54,esp.51–3);Grant,HTR42(1949:41–51,esp.46–7);Grant(1952:79–81);Schoedel, VC 13(1959:22–32,esp.23–4,30);Daniélou(1973:357);Schoedel,JTS35(1984:31–49).
⁴ Bardy(1928:36);Schoedel(VC131959:32);Grant(1965:365);GrantwithTracy(1984: 50).Butnotallacceptedthisreading;see,forinstance,Stead(1994:90).Foradetaileddiscussion ofthesesourcessee,n.20oftheIntroduction.
ThethirdshowsthatherecognizesanaturalknowledgeofGodwhich,inturn, establishesabasisforthetheologicalappropriationofphilosophicalinsights.
1.1.RHETORICALEDUCATION
ThesuggestionthatIrenaeusofLyonsdrewuponrhetoricaltheoryisnot new.EightyyearsagoBrunoReyndershighlightedIrenaeus’ useofthe dilemma,counterquestion,and adhominem argument.⁵ Thefollowing decadesawRobertM.GrantdemonstrateIrenaeus ’ rhetoricaltrainingin hisseminalarticle, “IrenaeusandHellenisticCulture.”⁶ Grantconcludedby famouslyexhortingscholarstorefocusthecameraandtakeagainthepicture ofIrenaeus. ⁷ TenyearslaterWilliamR.Schoedelarguedthatthestructureof AgainstHeresies coincideswithrhetoricalmodelsandthatthemethodof Irenaeus’ argumentationcorrespondstothoseadvocatedintherhetorical schools.⁸ Buthewastemperedinhisconclusions:Irenaeushadsome knowledgeofHellenisticrhetoricandhadbeenexposedatsometimeto thefundamentalsofaHellenisticeducation,butIrenaeus ’ argumentation fallsshortoftherhetoricalgoalofsuccessfullyrefutingandsupportinga proposition. ⁹
Intheyearsthatfollowedscholarshaverecognizedtheimportanceof literaryandrhetoricaltheorytoIrenaeus’ thoughtintermsofhisuseofthe conceptsofhypothesis(ὑπόθεσις), œconomia(οἰκονομία),andrecapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις).¹⁰ Evenso,thesestudieshavedonelittlemorethannotethat Irenaeus’ useofthesetermsconformstotheliteraryandrhetoricaltheoryof hisday.Theyhavenotestablishedthedegreetowhichtheseconceptsdefine hispolemicorhisconstructivethought,and,therefore,havenotledtoanew consensusconcerningtheimportanceofliteraryandrhetoricaltheoryto Irenaeus’ work.ItisasifSchoedel’stemperedevaluationstillreigns.
⁵ Reynders,RTAM7(1935:5–27,here8–10).
⁶ Grant,HTR42(1949:41–51,esp.47–51). ⁷ Grant,HTR42(1949:51).
⁸ Schoedel,VC13(1959:22–32,here27–32).
⁹ Schoedel, VC 13(1959:31).ThefollowingparagraphsindicatethatSchoedelismainly questioning,inthislastpoint,Irenaeus’ successinsupportingaproposition.Hewrites,for instance, “Irenaeus’ partialandundevelopedanswersarenevertobeseparatedfromtheir polemicalframework” (p.32).
¹⁰ E.g ,vanUnnik, VC 31(1977:196–228,here206–7);Norris,ATR76(1994:285–95,here 287–90);Grant(1997:46–53);Blowers,ProEcc6(1997:199–228,here211–12);andBehr, The WaytoNicaea (2001:123–33).Incontrast,A.d’Alessuggestsover120appearancesof οἰκονομία inIrenaeusbutfailstoidentifyasinglemeaningthatcorrespondstoitsuseinliteraryand rhetoricaltheoryinhis RevEG 32(1919:1–9,esp.6–7).Fantino,forhispart,spendsoverforty pagesanalyzing οἰκονομία butgivesbarelytwotoitsrhetoricalprovenance(1994:84–126, 410–13,here117–18).
ThisessayrefocusesthecameraandtakesthepictureofIrenaeusonceagain. Iarguethataspectsofliteraryandrhetoricaltheoryareofcentralimportanceto Irenaeus’ anti-Gnosticpolemicin AgainstHeresies 1.8.1–10.3andevenfeature inhisconstructivethought.Irenaeusappears,then,tohaveenjoyedamore thoroughgrammaticalandrhetoricaleducationthanpreviouslyrecognized.
IshallproceedbyexaminingIrenaeus’ appropriationofthreeconcepts belongingtoancientliteraryandrhetoricaltheory,thoughitmustbesaid thatIgivealittlemoreattentiontotheirrhetoricalprovenance.The first sectionconsidershisuseofhypothesis(ὑπόθεσις),thesecond œconomia (οἰκονομία),andthethird fiction(πλάσμα and μῦθος).
1.1.1.Hypothesis(ὑπόθεσις)
TheimportanceoftheconceptofhypothesistoIrenaeus’ polemicalandtheologicalargumentationhasgarneredattentionsincePhilipHefnerasserted, “the onehighestauthorityforIrenaeusisthesystem,framework,or ‘hypothesis’ ofthe Faith.”¹¹AfewyearslaterRobertWilkenadded, “itappearsthatthequestionof thehypothesis,thesense,themeaningoftheChristianfaithisattheveryheartof histheologicalwork.”¹²Themostimportantcontributions,however,havecome fromthepensofW.C.vanUnnikand,muchlater,RobertM.GrantandRichard A.Norris.Eachsoughttoestablishtheparticularmeaningofthetermin Irenaeus,andeacharguedthatthetermisbestrenderedas “plot” or “argument” inaccordancewithitsuseinancientliteraryandrhetoricaltheory.¹³
Hypothesisstandsamongthefoundationalconceptsofliteraryandrhetoricaltheory.Writingtowardtheendofthesecondcentury,SextusEmpiricus introducedhisargumentagainstgeometersbydefiningthreeprinciplemeaningsoftheterm.¹⁴ Rhetoriciansusehypothesistosignifyan “investigationof particulars,inwhichsensethesophistsarewonttosayoftenintheirdiscourses, ‘Onemustpositthehypothesis.’” Philosophersandscientists “term thestartingpointofproofs ‘hypothesis,’ itbeingthepostulatingsomethingfor thepurposeofprovingsomething.” Athirdgroup,includingpresumably dramatistsandliterarycritics,usethewordtomean:
...the peripeteia (or “argument” or “plot”)ofadrama,aswesaythatthereisa tragicoracomic “hypothesis,” andcertain “hypotheses” ofDicaearchusofthe
¹¹Hefner,JrnRel44(1964:294–309,here295).
¹²Wilken,VC21(1967:25–33,here33).
¹³vanUnnik,VC31(1977:206–7);Norris,ATR76(1994:287–90);andGrant(1997:47–9). Seealso:Blowers,ProEcc6(1997:211–12).
¹⁴ SextusEmpiricus, AgainsttheProfessors 3.3–4.Unlessotherwisenotedthetextand translationofSextuscomesfrom SextusEmpiricusinFourVolumes (trans.R.G.Bury;LCL; Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1933–59).MypresentationofSextuscloselyfollows theworkofTrimpi,Traditio2(1971:1–78,here21–2).
