Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox–Catholic Working Group, October 7, 2021, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2021/october/documents/20211007-gruppo-ortodossocattolico-santireneo.html.

Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience: Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, March 28, 2007; https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070328.html.

Benedict XVI, St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

I refer you to Steenberg’s superb introduction for the history of the work on these volumes. I would like to note that, like Steenberg and Dillon, I have left Unger’s voice to speak throughout Books 4 and 5. I have added some updated bibliographic material in the notes and smoothed out some translations.

See Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Routledge, 1997). Eric Francis Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Scott D. Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith: Irenaeus and the Structure of the Adversus Haereses (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019).

As you would expect, Irenaeus’s discussion of the “rule of faith” has garnered much scholarly discussion. Albert Ebneter, “Die ‘Glaubensregel’ des Irenaeus als oekumenisches Regulativ,” in Unterwegs zur Einheit, ed. Johannes Branchtschen, Heinrich Stirnimann, and Pietro Selvatico, 588–608 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1980); William Reuben Farmer, “Galatians and the 2d Century Development of the Regula Fidei,” Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies 4, no. 3 (1985): 143–70; Philip J. Hefner, “Saint Irenaeus and the Hypothesis of Faith,” Dialog 2, no. 4 (1963): 300–306; Norbert Brox, “Irenaeus and the Bible,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, ed. Charles Kannengiesser, 483–506 (Boston: Brill, 2004).

Irenaeus also discusses this in A.H. 4.35 and Proof 3.

Irenaeus did not seem to know the third epistle of John, Paul’s letter to Philemon, and the Epistle of Jude. André Benoît, Saint Irénée; Introduction à l’étude de sa Théologie (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960), 105.

The fact that Christians do not all agree on whether certain books are inspired does not negate Irenaeus’s point.

For a particularly helpful discussion of this, see John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 112–13.

See Jacques Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée: lecture des Ecritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique : une approche trinitaire (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1994), 117–18.

On this point, see Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith, generally and especially 21.

See A.H. 4.20.7. Barbara Aland, “Fides und Subiectio: zur Anthropologie des Irenäus,” in Kerygma und Logos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); Mary Ann Donovan, “Irenaeus: At the Heart of Life, Glory,” in Spiritualities of the Heart (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990); Antonio Orbe, “Gloria Dei Vivens Homo (Analisis de Ireneo, Adv Haer IV, 20, 1–7),” Gregorianum 73 (1992) 205–268; Thierry Scherrer, La Glorie de Dieu dans l’Oeuvre de Saint Irénée (Rome: Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 1997).

This schematic comes from Mary Ann Donovan’s discussion of Phillipe Bacq’s magisterial study of Book 4. See Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 285–86. Donovan notes her indebtedness to Bacq. For Behr’s division of the book, which mirrors this one, see Behr, Irenaeus, 98.

Here I follow the editors of the Sources Chrétiennes edition. I should note, though, that in his analysis of the book, Overbeck divides Book 5 this way: (a) 1–14, (b) 15–20, (c) 21–30, and (d) 31–35. Winfried Overbeck, Menschwerdung : eine Untersuchung zur literarischen und theologischen Einheit des fünften Buches “Adversus Haereses” des Irenäus von Lyon (New York: P. Lang, 1995). Behr divides Book 5 this way: (a) 1–14, (b) 15–24 (c) 25–36. See Behr, Irenaeus, 103. Antonio Orbe, Teología de San Ireneo, Comentario al libro 5 del Adversus Haereses, 3 vols., Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos (Madrid: Editorial Católica, 1985).

See A.H. 1.11.1. On this point, see Lance Jenott, “The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 3 (2012): 589–91.

Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); Karen L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003); David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).

Sources chrétiennes, vol. 100 (Paris 1965), published its scholarly edition of Book 4 of Adv. Haereses, done by the team A. Rousseau, B. Hemmerdinger, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier. (The Sources chrétiennes volumes will be abbreviated SC.) There scholars can find a complete discussion of the text, especially of the Armenian version. There seems no need for me to go into the matter here, beyond the treatment found in my Book 1. I am in close contact with their text and notes throughout my translation and Notes. Where I decide against the Armenian version will be noted in the Notes. See also follow-up study on textual problems that was done by B. Hemmerdinger, (Observations critiques sur Irénée, IV: (Sources chrétiennes 100), ou les Mésaventures d’un philologue [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966]) to which I refer a number of times in my Notes. L. Doutreleau also published some observations on the text in “A propos d’ Irénée, Adv. haer., livre IV,” RSR 53 (1965) 589–99.

For the title to the whole work, as given here, see the discussion in Book 1, Introd., pp. 2–3.

The aim of Book 4 is to prove by the Lord’s words, as promised in A.H. 3.25.7, that there is only one God the Father.

The Latin here reads profundum, which is a translation of the Greek Βυθός, which is one of the Aeons in the Valentinian system Irenaeus describes in Book 1. See A.H. 1.1–8.

Lat. Iren. has the second person singular (facias), as if the addressee (a preacher) would try to convert the heretics. That fits the idea that the addressee is to accept (accipias) Irenaeus’s writings, and then (as in #2 also) be said to attempt converting the heretics. But Arm. Iren. has the third person plural, referring to the heretics, who can then avoid falling into the Deep and avoid being swallowed up by the sea of ignorance; rather, they will, turning back to the harbor of the Truth, obtain salvation. SC preferred that against the Latin. But I still think the Latin fits better in the context, and the Armenian translator changed the approach. SC also introduced “in” with pelago, as in Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. does not need “in.” It is not a question of being drowned in the sea, but of being swallowed up by the sea.

Once for all, note that when the Latin has a doublet joined by sive and the Armenian has only one term, only the first has been translated, while the second is considered the translator’s clarification.

Arm. Iren., as SC points out, has here a confused translation. The Latin is clear and standard in Irenaeus; cf. 1.P.2; 13.3; 3.17.4. Too bad we do not have an indication as to who Irenaeus’s predecessors were. Possibly Justin is one.

See A.H. 2.31.1

Cf. A.H. 1.1–4; 2.19.9.

Cf. A.H. 1.2.6. SC, following Arm. Iren., would read in labe, in place of Lat. Iren. a labe, citing other cases where in labe occurs; e.g., 2.14.9; 19.9; 16.8. But in those cases the verb is facti sunt, with which in is correct, whereas here the verb is emissi sunt, with which ab is correct. Besides, just before our passage we read both a labe and ex labe. I stay with the Latin as quite correct.

Cf. Luke 1:5.

For Irenaeus’s use of this term, see also A.H. 1.P.1; 3.15.2; 3.17.4; 5.P.

“Foresaw” is according to Lat. Iren. (supposing προιδὀντες). Arm. Iren. supposes προειδὀντες (foreknew). Either could be correct. Someone misread the Greek. “Announced beforehand” is according to Lat. Iren. (praedicaverunt). Arm. Iren. has “commanded beforehand.” Both suppose the same προειδὀτες but give it a different translation. SC opts for Arm. Iren. as better. Possibly. But again the Latin is quite good in context.

2 Cor 11:3; Gen 3:5. There might be an allusion to the Ophites. Bacq notes the eschatological context this allusion sets up. Bacq 37n.2 See A.H. 3.4.4. On the Dragon see A.H. 2.31.3; 3.23.7; 5.25–36.

Cf. Rev 12:9; 20:2; Gen 3:15.

Arm. Iren. has “flesh” made to God’s likeness, whereas Lat. Iren. has “man.” SC thinks Arm. Iren. is better, because that is the more difficult reading and fits the immediate context better; and in A.H. 5.6.1, “flesh” is said to be modeled on the image of God. Yet here it is not image but likeness, and in Irenaeus likeness is referred to the spirit, that is, to man made spiritual through the Spirit’s grace. For the composition of man see Orbe, Antrop. 34–74; Joppich 27–37, who has a detailed analysis of the terms. For man made after God’s likeness see Orbe, Antrop. 75–77; Joppich 86–98; and chap. 20, note 6 below.

Cf. Gen 1:26. The first-person plural of Gen 1:26 is not a proof for the Trinity of Persons. The plural is one of perfection of being and power which God has. Yet, given the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament, it is just this Trinity of Persons that best explains the perfection of being in God. The early churchmen quite generally referred this plural to the Trinity. Irenaeus often speaks of the consultation of the Father with the Word and the Spirit implied in this plural. Cf. Proof 11.

Cf. Wis 2:24.

Cf. A.H. 3.16.6, for instance. The Son of God made the entire economy of salvation for the sake of humanity, who is God’s handiwork. See A.H. 4.5.1; 7.4; 5.29.1; 8.1; also Joppich 43, 80ff. One must, however, not interpret this as if God became man primarily for man’s sake, excluding Christ’s human nature, which was the very first recipient of salvation.

For more on Irenaeus on adoption, see A.H. 3.51.; 3.6.1; 3.9.1; 3.15.3. Bacq 38n1.

Cf. A.H. 3.6.1. “In his own name” was added from Arm. Iren., as noted by SC.

Justin has a close parallel to this sentence in Dialogus 56.15 (MG 6.597).

Cf. Matt 23:9; also John 10:35. Irenaeus is developing a theme he began in A.H. 3.6–8.

“In reality…by name” is naturaliter…verbotenus in Lat. Iren. Arm. Iren. is more literal, supposing θἐσει, that is, “by nature…by convention.” This pair is found already in A.H. 1.23.3. See SC (201).

“Mythologists” is grammatici in Lat. Iren. Above, these were branded as perversissimi sophistae, and in #2 as Pandora perversissimi sophistae.

Cf. A.H. 1.5.3.

Cf. John 10:35

Deut 32:1.

Pss 120 (121):2; 123 (124):8, from which “our help” comes.

Isa 1:2.

Isa 42:5.

Matt 11:25; Luke 10:21.

Deut 6:4.

John 5:46–47.

Luke 16:31.

Luke 16:19.

Cf. Isa 5:11,12, where the subject is not “they” but “you.”

Cf. 1 Cor 15:24. Lat. Iren. has Dominum, but Arm. Iren. has Christ, which seems correct, because of the contrast in the context between Christ and Jesus against Irenaeus’s opponents.

Col 1:18.

As Bacq notes, Irenaeus constantly argues against his opponents’ belief that one can separate Christ from Jesus. See Bacq 53n1.

Cf. Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22.

Matt 5:34–35.

Isa 66:1.

For the “great King” see Matt 5:34–35. See also A.H. 3.5.1; 4.2.5.

Mark 11:19; Matt 21:13; Mark has “have made” according to Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren., but Matt has “made.”

Cf. Matt 5:17. Of course, this is central to Irenaeus’s argument.

Isa 1:23. “Rebels” is indicto audientes in Lat. Iren., which occurs also in A.H. 4.16.3; 5.27.1; and in 4.27.4, indicto audientia for disobedience; and in 4.41.2, dicto audientia for obedience. That, of course, comes from a very literal translation of the Greek.

Jer 4:22.

Matt 10:6.

John 4:41. As Bacq notes (55n2), this might also be an allusion to Matt 10:5–6.

Rom 11:26.

Gal 3:24.

St. Augustine quotes this to the end of the paragraph, in Contra Iulianum 1.35 (ML 44.644).

Cf. Num 21:8; John 3:14–15.

Cf. Rom 8:3.

John 12:32 and 3:14–15.

Cf. John 5:21.

Cf. Isa 66:1 and Luke 21:33.

Bacq notes that Irenaeus makes this type of philosophical argument in A.H. 2.1.1–4. Bacq 56n1.

1 Cor 7:31.

Arm. Iren. has only “this form,” not “the form of this world,” which seems to have slipped into Lat. Iren. from the preceding quote of 1 Cor 7:31. In A.H. 5.36.1, we read the same Greek, with which both the Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. agree, as noted by SC.

Ps 101 (102):26–29.

Irenaeus extends this argument in A.H. 5.36.1. See Bacq 56n2.

Isa 51:6.

Matt 5:35; Ps 47 (48):3.

Cf. Isa 1:8.

Cf. A.H. 2.28.1.

Cf. Gal 4:24–31.

Rom 5:14.

Irenaeus will discuss this at much greater length at A.H. 4.9.1 and 4.12–16.

This statement implies the catholicity of the Church. See also 1.10.1 and 4.34.4.

Isa 27:6, but not as in the Vulgate.

Rom 9:5.

Lat. Iren. MSS have ad impletionem eius advenerat Christus. That makes sense, as has been translated here, and nothing is then missing. “Since” is implied. SC 100.420 corrected the Latin to idimpletio enim eius, according to Arm. Iren. and the one MS Ottoboniensis, second hand at that. Such a scribal mistake could have been possible; yet the change is probably not necessary. Other attempts at correcting the text through a supposed Greek (cf. Harvey) are not necessary either.

Cf. Luke 16:16. The historical reference in the following sentence is to 2 Kgs 5:7.

Cf. Wis 11:20: “But you have arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” In his allusion to this, Irenaeus has “order” in place of “number.” “unplanned” is incompositum ametron. In A.H. 3.16.7, Lat. Iren. has incomptum (no Greek extant). So, literally, “unnumbered.” Ἀναρίθμητον does not mean reconsider, as if compounded with the prefix ᾽ανα. The first alpha is a negative prefix. Nu was inserted to avoid running two alphas together.

“Comprehend” is capit. So Lat. Iren. contrasts a noun and a verb. Arm. Iren. has “since he is his comprehension,” contrasting two nouns (mensura…comprehensio), and is possibly original. See also Bacq 58n2.

Isa 1:8. In place of the Vulgate umbraculum Lat. Iren. has casa; and in place of custodiarium, tugurium.

Cf. 1 Cor 7:31.

Mal 4:1. The Vulgate and Aquila have “all the proud and all that do wickedly. LXX has “strangers,” which is a misreading of the Hebrew zarim for zedim (sinners).

Matt 3:11–12.; Luke 2:16–17.

Rationality makes man like God. That is really the explanation of the image of Gen 1:26, though here Irenaeus does not refer explicitly to that passage. Of course, the body belongs to that whole man who has reason. Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem 2.5–6 (CCL 1.479–82). We should note in the next clause the clear expression on freedom of the will.

Ps 48 (49):21. Arm. Iren. quotes only part of the psalm verse, as in my translation. Lat. Iren. has the full verse, but that must have been an adaptation of the translator, because in A.H. 4.41.3 and 5.8.2 the verse is quoted only partially also by Lat. Iren. SC (425n1) thinks “prophet” was Jeremiah, not David. True, Irenaeus never calls David a prophet, but he does present him as prophesying; cf. 3.10.4; 3.22.2; 5.17.3; and in 4.5.2 the author of Ps 44 (David) was given as a prophet.

Isa 34:4.

Ps 103 (104):30.

Man, therefore, can cooperate with God in achieving heavenly immortality, which is the result of a good life, as ripe fruit is of a good tree. This immortality is obviously supernatural imperishability, because it is due to a good life. There is no question here of natural immortality of the soul, implying that it could be not immortal. On this whole problem see Orbe, Antrop. 395–480, for an ample treatment.

Cf. Eph 2:7. “Unsearchable” is from Arm. Iren. The Bishop could have gotten that adjective from Eph 3:8, where the Vulgate has investigabiles. Lat. Iren. has inenarrabiles. In this chapter, Irenaeus summarizes the errors of his opponents. Bacq 61n1.

Isa 43:10–12 LXX.

Isa 41:4.

“It was impossible to learn of God without God” is a kind of theme song in Book 4. Irenaeus means, as he brings out later in 6.4.–5, that the incarnation was needed, not absolutely, but because God willed it for the facility of man. And all this speaks forcefully for the incarnation in God’s original plan, prior to the foreknowledge of sin. See Unger, FS 14–18. For the soteriological value of revelation through the Word as the beginning of salvation that leads eventually to imperishability, see Jossua 58–62, and Houssiau 80–82.

Matt 22:29.

Matt 22:29, 31–32. Irenaeus rightly ascribes the last words to Christ.

Exod 3:3–6.

Dan 14:5.

Dan 14:25.

Luke 20:36.

John 11:25.

Ps 44 (45):17. Cf. chap. 4, note 19 on “prophet.” In A.H. 3.22.4, Lat. Iren. quotes the same phrase thus: Pro patribus nati sunt tibi filii (without tui). In the present passage it is: Pro patribus tuis facti sunt tibi filii tui, as if Irenaeus were saying that in place of the forefathers, who were also Christ’s (tuis), sons were born to him and were his sons. Arm. Iren. has: In place of the fathers that were there were born sons of yours. SC claims the context demands the idea that they who were Christ’s fathers in the flesh became his sons in the spirit; that context does not demand this idea: Your sons were born in place of (in the place left vacant by) the fathers. That is true, but there is no reason why the Lat. Iren. cannot carry that same meaning in the sense that in place of the forefathers according to the flesh, sons of Christ’s were born according to the spirit, and among these sons were also the forefathers.

Christ is certainly divine, clearly identified with God, just as the Father is. See Dominic J. Unger, “The Divine and Eternal Sonship of the Word According to St Irenaeus of Lyon.” Laurentianum 14 (1973): 357–408.

John 8:56.

Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Gen 15:6. Hemmerdinger (311) would restore here Quid enim dicit Scriptura from Rom 4:3. That would fit, but there is no warrant in the MSS for it, and it is not needed at all. Irenaeus asks for the reason for the Gospel statement of John 8:56 and gives the answer from Rom 4:3.

Cf. Gen 14:22; 2 Ezra 9:6.

Cf. Gen 15.5; Heb 11:12.

Phil 2:15. Cf. Proof 35, where Irenaeus quotes Gen 15:5 and then adds “and setting up lights in the world those who believe in him.”

“Traveled as pilgrims” and “dwell as citizens” are each given in Greek by one verb. Irenaeus presents Abraham on pilgrimage in this world in search of the Word to live with him and follow him freely through faith (see also note 97). This contains the essential elements of Christian living as developed later in monasticism. Cf. E. Lanne, “La Xeniteia d’Abraham dans l’oeuvre d’Irénée: Aux origins des themes monastiques de la peregrinitio,” Irenikon 47 (1974): 163–87. Irenaeus seems to have a link here with Philo, but he Christianizes the matter.

Luke 5:11.

Gen 22:6; Luke 9:23.

Cf. Gen 22:1–18. This is a clear statement of redemption through the cross, which some scholars, wrongly, think Irenaeus slighted too much. Cf. also 4.8.2; 14.2; 33.12; 20.2. Jossa (101–8, 122, 167–69) speaks somewhat disparagingly of Irenaeus’s grasp of Pauline soteriology. González (215–19) and Joppich (108 f) defend Paul. That Abraham was our forerunner in faith is also expressed in A.H. 4.21.1; 25.1.

Lat. Iren. has per quem. The antecedent must be Dominus, because in the following sentence it is stated that the Lord was not unknown to Abraham. So it is the Lord, through faith in him, who saves. But SC, supposing the Greek to have been κὐριον, took “passion” πάθους as the antecedent. κὐριον is neuter; the relative could have been read as neuter. But in the context that is not correct. Irenaeus ascribes salvation directly to Christ, not to his passion.

Gen 14:22. The last phrase is according to LXX, which here, as in Prov 8:22, translates the Hebrew qanah with “created” instead of “possessed.” That Abraham was a prophet is noted also in Proof 44.

Matt 11:27 is the text referred to; he will speak of it at length in chap. 6.

Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22. The mutual knowledge of Father and Son is noted also in Proof 7. There is no object for the last Greek verb in Christ’s statement. So the question is asked, Whom does the Son reveal? It would seem that he reveals both the Son (himself) and the Father. Irenaeus consistently holds that the Son reveals the Father only by revealing himself, and when he does reveal himself he reveals the Father too. So directly the object is the Son, but indirectly it is also the Father. Cf. also A.H. 6.3 5.7; 5.15.2; 16.3. See Unger “The Divine and Eternal Sonship of the Word According to St Irenaeus of Lyon.” Laurentianum 14 (1973): 357–408 (1973), 376–380.

Mark’s present Gospel does not have this passage. Perhaps Irenaeus’s copy did, or maybe he took it from a book of Testimonies, where it was interpolated from Matthew or Luke.

Cf. A.H. 1.20.3 for Irenaeus’s discussion of Ptolemy, who, Irenaeus argues, says this. For further bibliography see Bacq 68n4.

The main point of difference between his opponents’ version of Christ’s statement and Irenaeus’s is this: Christ used the present “knows,” his opponents read it in the aorist, “knew.” The entire context is about Irenaeus’s opponents claiming that no one knew the Father before Christ’s coming, and they bolster that view by their version of this text. For a longer discussion of this text see R. Luckhardt, “Matthew 11:27 in the Contra Haereses of St. Irenaeus,” Revue d’Université d’Ottawa 23 (1953): 65–79.

Justin’s work Syntagmata against Marcion quoted is not extant. See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.18.9 (GCS 9.366). Scholars are not agreed on how much of this paragraph comes from Justin. Some hold that only the first sentence does, namely, what is given by Eusebius. The rest is Irenaeus’s own explanation. Thus Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos; a History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), n51; J. A. Robinson, “On a Quotation of Justin Martyr in Irenaeus,” JTS 21 (1930): 374–78. Others hold that the rest of the paragraph is a quotation from Justin. Thus Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochen Adversus Marcionem und die Anderen Theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1930), 225–27, 359; E. Scharl, “Der Rekapitulations-begriff des hl. Irenäus und seine Anwendung an díe Körperwelt,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 6 (1940): 400–401. This view was presented already by Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958), 2.220, n1; and it is considered possible by Wingren 81. This is of some importance. In the second opinion Irenaeus would have gotten the kernel of his teaching on recapitulation from Justin but developed it extensively. In the first opinion Justin is not a source of Irenaeus for the doctrine on recapitulation.

Irenaeus uses the phrase “good pleasure of the Father” many times in the A.H. See, e.g., 4.6.3; 4.6.4; 4.7.3; 4.20.4; 4.20.5; 4.20.6.

Lat. Iren. has et indeterminabilem after invisibile, which is missing in Arm. Iren. The Armenian seems to be the original, as more balanced: “knows…invisible…ineffable…declares.”

Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22. Bacq connects Matt 11:27 with John 1:18. The plural quibuscumque of Lat. Iren. is matched by the simpler quibus in Arm. Iren.

“What he is” is according to Arm. Iren., for which Lat. Iren. has sicut est. In A.H. 5.15.2 there is a parallel case, in which Arm. Iren. again has quid sit, while Lat. Iren. has quidem, which seems a corruption. See SC, note to p. 445.1.

On “Gnostics” see the introduction to this volume.

See A.H. 1.2.5.

Cf. chap. 6, note 16 below on revelation of God through the Incarnate Word as part of God’s original plan.

The idea that a sinner makes his own punishment is prominent in Irenaeus: see A.H. 2.34.3; 4.39.4; 5.27.2.

Irenaeus speaks of having a natural knowledge about God through the Word, because he and other churchmen considered creation itself as an image of the Word; the Word left his traces on creation. So all knowledge about God, natural as well as supernatural, is ascribed to the Word.

Cf. John 11:9.

The Greek is not extant. Lat. Iren. is very cryptic: invisibile etenim Filii Pater, visibile autem Patris Filius. Literally: whatever of the Son is invisible is the Father; whatever of the Father is visible is the Son. Arm. Iren. seems to have struggled with the construction and placed the second clause first. It seems to have caught the correct meaning but expressed it rather clumsily. According to SC’s Latin version: videri enim filium patris est, non-videri autem patrem filii. Etenim indicates that this double, contrasted phrase is an explanation of what preceded, where we read: “all saw the Father in the Son.” Hence, I think it better, as in my translation, to take Pater and Filius as subjects, and invisibile and visibile as predicates, not the other way round. As a key we must remember that the Father is in himself invisible, but he can be revealed, made visible, in and by the Son, and so the Son contains in himself what is invisible of the Father. As such the Son Incarnate is visible, and as such he can reveal the Father. Hence the Son is the visible element of the Father. This is the passage that gave the title to Ochagavia’s study on revelation according to Irenaeus. For revelation of the Father by the Word see also Houssiau 63–128; González 43–59; 141–160; and the dissertation (of which only one chapter was published) by J. T. Ford, “St. Irenaeus and Revelation. A Theological Perspective” (Notre Dame, IN, 1962). This dissertation was done at the Gregorian University in Rome. One would wish the whole dissertation could have been published. The author treats the subject from a theological, not an apologetic point of view. “Chooses to reveal” has, according to A.H. 4.6.7, the Father as subject; but according to Matthew it is the Son, as Irenaeus has elsewhere. Actually both are true. See SC 100, 451n1. See also Bacq 71n1 for further bibliography.

Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34.

Mark 4:3; Luke 4:3.

My translation follows the extant Greek, with which Arm. Iren. agrees. Latin Iren. has comprobatur. This too can be brought in line with the Greek if one takes that as a variant translation, as it may be taken, of testimonium accipere.

Even non-Christians have testified to Christ, as for instance, Josephus, though the extent of his testimony is disputed. See Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy. The New Jerome Bible Handbook (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 68, 116; and G. Ricciotti, The Life of Christ, trans. Al Zizzamia (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1944), 81–82.

Lat. Iren. MSS have singulaca testificationis, which has always created a problem and given rise to many guesses; e.g., Massuet chose singularia, which was used by BVK and ANF. Grape already took sigilla and it makes good sense; but signacula is a better guess, which, according to SC, is found in Ottobonensis MS. Arm. Iren. reads: “according to your testimony,” which makes no sense. Harvey wrongly suggested “single witnesses.”

Cf. 1 Cor 15:27.

Cf. 1 Cor 15:25–26. “The enemy” is the Devil; cf. Matt 13:39. Note also the expression of man’s union with God in Christ.

“The Son’s administration for the Father may not be twisted to imply a subordination to the Father, because Irenaeus clearly teaches the eternity and strict equality of the Son with the Father.” Cf. Unger, 1973.

Lat. Iren. has: Agnitio enim Patris Filius, agnitio autem Filii in Patre et per Filium revelata. The in Patre creates a problem. One would expect a perfect parallel in construction, and so it should be Pater. But Irenaeus did not want such a perfect parallel, because he could indicate better that our knowledge about the Son comes from the Father. Arm. Iren. has “by the Father,” which SC accepted. Ochagavia changed to Patris. I think that even in Patre can have the same meaning, namely, that the Father sends the Son and so gives us knowledge of him. Cf. A.H. 3.11.6: et iterum Pater per Filium, Filii sui dat agnitionem his qui diligent eum.

Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22. Irenaeus had quoted it exactly before; why he now says it was written this way is not clear.

Cf. Eph 4:6.

Cf. Gen 14:22. But “as the stars” is from Gen 22:17; 15:5.

“Apparition” is repraesentatio in Lat. Iren., which I think genuine, referring to the apparition of the three messengers who appeared to Abraham, one of whom Abraham worshipped (cf. Gen 18:2–3). Repraesentatio is used in A.H. 1.29.2 in the sense of image or likeness, that is, of a great light. According to SC, Arm. Iren. does not have a word equivalent to repraesentatio. It rendered the passage so: “having learned of the coming of God’s Son among men.” That missed “a man.” SC thinks Arm. Iren. correct, and that Lat. Iren. used two words (repraesentatio and adventus) for the one Greek word, παρουσία, to avoid an ambiguous reference of per quem to Filius or adventus. No, I think Arm. Iren. did not grasp the reference to the apparition of messengers to Abraham, by which he learned of the Son’s coming. Repraesentatio is scarcely a synonym for adventus. Praesentia would be; cf. 2.18.8. Harvey thought that because of the preceding scriptural allusion, this refers to the interview with Melchizedek.

Gen 17:17; John 8:56. See A.H. 4.5.5; 4.20.8.

Luke 2:32–33, where Lat. Iren. has oculorum for the Vulgate gentium, which is certainly erroneous for populorum, as Grabe already suggested. Arm. Iren. has “people.” Cf. 3.16.4, which confirms the view that Irenaeus considered Christ himself the Light and the Glory.

Luke 2:10.

Luke 1:46ff. Lat. Iren. ascribes the Magnificat to Elizabeth in the Clermont and Voss MSS, as does Arm. Iren. Since two important MSS of the Latin agree with the Arm. Iren., the evidence is strong that this was already in the Greek copy. So the question arises: Did Irenaeus himself write it, deliberately or inadvertently, or did a later scribe write it? Since this reading is not in the Greek or the Armenian Bible, the scribes could not have taken this from their Bibles. Maybe the Lat. Iren. was influenced by his Old Latin Bible in which three MSS have Elizabeth. But how did it get into the Arm. Iren.? Inadvertently? That would be an odd coincidence, but not impossible. Certainly, Irenaeus has Mary in all the MSS of 3.10.2., see A.H. 3, chap. 10, n10. So his Bible had the correct reading. SC sides with Elizabeth here.

Luke 2:8, 17.

John 8:56.

Cf. 1 John 1:1. “Touchable” is from Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has passibilis, which seems an evident scribal error. The pair visibilis et palpabilis is found also for the Ptolemaic Savior’s body in A.H. 1.6.1; 9.3; of the Word in 4.6.6; 24.2. Interestingly, in 1.6.1 passibile is a third term.

Cf. Gen 22:17; 15.5.

Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8.

He drew us away from idolatry, from worshipping stone statues. Cf. Proof 92; and Book 3, chapter 6, note 22.

“Ideas” follows cogitationibus of Lat. Iren., which fits the context quite well, about false ideas in idolatrous religions over against true knowledge of Christ. Because of the idea of kinship to Abraham in the previous context the Arm. Iren. got “relationship” in here. If that was original, it is hard to see how Lat. Iren. could have got ideas from it. As far as sense is concerned, faith would scarcely transfer us from unfruitful kinship; but faith could draw us away from unfruitful ideas.

Rom 4:12, 16; 9:8; Gal 4:28.

Cf. A.H. 3.3.4; 3.4.3; 3.11.2.7.9; 3.12.5.12; 3.14.4; 4.6.4; 4.33.2–3; 4.34–5; 5.26.2.

Phil 2:15.

Matt 5:14; cf. Dan 12:3.

John 14:6–7. Irenaeus uses this passage in a similar context at A.H. 3.13.2.

Gen 18:1.

Exod 3:7, 8. Irenaeus also speaks about Moses’s encounter with the Word at 4.5.2. For another use of the expression descendi liberare, see 3.6.2. Bacq 76n3.

“For giving form…for disposing.” Lat. Iren. has ad fabricationem et dispositionem. Et was inserted from Arm. Iren. Cf. A.H. 4.20.1: “the angels neither created nor formed us.” Dispositio does not mean “economy” here, as SC takes it, but “dispositing,” shaping up and arranging.

SC in the French translation and the restored Greek put “His hands”/in place of figuratio. Hemmerdinger (315) supports that again. However, Daniélou in RSR 57 (1969): 87, with support from Orbe, insists on retaining figuratio. And rightly so, the plural “His hands” would not fit the pair: “His Offspring (obviously the Word) and His hands.” This pair is explained immediately with another pair “the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Figuratio is a name for the Spirit, just as figura in 4.20.1. Other second-century writers, as Daniélou notes, used figuratio for the Spirit. SC’s idea that “Offspring” is a collective noun and so matches the plural hands is chimerical. The Fathers thought of the Spirit as the likeness of the Son just as the Son is of the Father.

See Bacq 76n4 on the difficulty of this passage.

Heb 1:13; 2:5ff. Thus is indicated the equality of the Son and Spirit as God, whom the angels serve. Angels were not only not needed by God in creating; they must even serve God’s Word and Spirit. See also Proof 10.

Cf A.H. 1.27.3.

Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Gen 15:6.

Matt 3:9; Gen 15:6.

Luke 13:29, but “of heaven” is from Matthew’s account (8:11).

Luke 13:28. As Bacq notes, in arguing against Marcion, Irenaeus draws on Luke’s Gospel, which Marcion did not accept. See also A.H. 1.27.2; 3.11.7.9; 3.12.12. Cf. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 4.1.1 CCL p. 544; Epiphanius Panarion, 42, 9; GCS, 104–5. Irenaeus then joins this to a passage from Paul, which Marcion does accept. Bacq 77n3.

Irenaeus clearly holds that the people of the Old Law belonged to the Church of Christ. Lat. Iren. reads: semen eius quod est Ecclesia, per Christum Iesum cui et adoption redditur. The antecedent of cui is not Christus Iesus, but Ecclesia. It is not unusual for Lat. Iren. to have the antecedent of a relative some distance away. Arm. Iren. agrees with that in general, but it has “which receives adoption.” SC points out a close parallel in 5.32.2 and remarks that the adoption here is not the divine adoption but one relative to Abraham. That idea needs being completed. A pagan becomes an adopted son of Abraham through Christ. But such an adoption through Christ must be one of faith and grace. There is no other adoption through Christ.

Luke 13:13–15.

For Irenaeus on circumcision see also A.H. 4.12.1 and 4.16.2.

John 7:22–23.

Irenaeus gives three notes of this miracle: it took place at Siloam; cures were effected there often on the Sabbath; many people sat around waiting for a cure. But what is the exact translation? Harvey and ANF would change etiam to et iam, because they think Siloam is definitely an ablative of place. However, in John 5 the waters of the pool did the curing in the unusual miracle, while Christ cured the lame man with a mere command. So Siloam, the pool, can be the subject of “cured,” even though a few sentences earlier Christ is subject of curans. Really, Irenaeus is proving that the Law did not forbid all work on the Sabbath, and he gives instances of works done by the Jews prior to Christ. Among these were the frequent and customary cures at the pool of Siloam. If Irenaeus had said that Christ worked many miracles there on the Sabbath, he would have been begging the question. It is the Law which is represented as not forbidding those works. The Law, here as in the preceding and the following, is the subject of curavit. And then reference is definitely to John 5, and Irenaeus merely confused the name of the Probatic pool with that of Siloam. Siloam was involved in the miracle of John 9. But the circumstances of John 9 do not fit those given by Irenaeus here. In John 9 only one cure is recorded, and Christ did not find the man at the pool waiting for a cure; but he sent him to the pool from elsewhere; further, there were no crowds at the pool waiting. So of this cure in John 9 nothing fits the case of Irenaeus except the name Siloam. In John 5, however, Christ cured a man lame for many years, at the pool of Bethsaida, on a Sabbath. There were crowds waiting for a cure. So John 5 fits the case described by Irenaeus, except for the name of the pool, which is Probatic, not Siloam. It seems certain then that Irenaeus had in mind John 5, and that he got the wrong name of the pool (as Massuet held), or some transcriber exchanged the names. Grabe’s suggestion that Irenaeus had knowledge of a tradition about many cures at Siloam is useless guesswork.

Lat. Iren. has reliquo terreno actu (deed); Arm. Iren. reads reliqua terrena arte (skill). SC, without any explanation, accepts Arm. Iren. I am not so sure that is correct. Irenaeus has often spoken of deeds, actions, or practices, but not of skills. Here, as a complement to “business,” it would seem quite correct. These are deeds of the body, paralleled below by deeds (opera) of the soul. Actu and opera could stand for the same Greek πράξις.

Cf. Matt 5:17.

Here Unger follows the Armenian, which is an explicit allusion to the old covenant. See Bacq 81n3.

“Exiled.” Arm. Iren. has the same idea, but a slavish analysis of the Greek ἐξαφορισθεὶς, a word that is unusual, found only in Irenaeus, to my knowledge. It is supposed, according to SC, also in 4.4.3; and 4.27.4. It is attested for 4.20.12 by a fragment.

Num 35:25; Josh 20:6. This is a clear expression of redemption by appeasement, by a propitiatory death.

Luke 6:1:3–4 [sic. Probably Luke 6:1–4 intended]; from 1 Kgs 21:4ff.

“Recognized” is scitus in Lat. Iren., which in itself could come from scio (I know) or scisso (I decree or appoint). Harvey claims it comes from scisso and means that God appointed David as priest. But the Bible has no record of such appointment. Nor does BVK’s “kundiger Priester” give the precise meaning either. It seems Irenaeus wished to say that David was recognized before God as a priest because he was a just man, even though Saul persecuted him, since Irenaeus adds as reason (enim) that every just man is of priestly rank. So there is no question of an appointment, but of a recognition.

Matt 12:3–4; Luke 6:3–4; cf. 1 Sam 21:4–7.

Deut 33:9. Novi agrees with the Vulgate nescio; LXX and Arm. Iren. have non vidi. Because of scribal adaptations or mistakes it is impossible to know what Irenaeus had originally. Cf. A.H. 4.16.1.

Num 18:20; Deut 10:9, but not verbatim.

Deut 18:1.

Phil 4:17.

Cf. Matt 10:10.

Matt 12:5, which has the present tense (violant…sunt). Arm. Iren. also has the present. SC (477n1) has a long explanation in favor of the Arm. present. I still believe Irenaeus was quoting directly and verbatim, but he changed the tense because he was taking it as a historical witness.

Num 15:32, 36.

Matt 3:10; 7:19; Luke 3:9.

1 Cor 3:17.

For a brief commentary on A.H. 4.9.1–3 see M. F. Berrouard, “Servitude de la Loi et liberté d’´Evangile selon S. Irénée,” Lumiére et Vie 61 (1963): 41–45.

Matt 13:52.

Lat. Iren reads: servis quidem et adhuc indisciplinatis. The et was dropped by SC because it is not in the Voss MS and seemingly not in Arm. Iren. Yet it is sufficiently attested in Latin, better, in fact, than in the next line, where SC retains it. In both places there seem to be two groups, with two modifiers: Servi…indisciplinati: liberi…justificati. In Paul (cf. Gal 4:1–2) servants and children under a tutor are the same in relation to justification, so here too. “undisciplined” could represent ἀπαιδεύτους, as 2 Tim 2:23. Slaves, even when instructed, would not be free.

As Bacq notes, for Irenaeus the servitude of the law is replaced by freedom thanks to the coming of Christ. See 4.13.2; 416.5; 4.28.2; Proof 96.

Matt 23:24.

Pss 95 (96):1; 97(98):1.

Isa 42:10,12, as in LXX, and not a quotation from memory as Harvey notes.

Jer 31:31–32, as in LXX, but the words in brackets were skipped, and the phrase “on mount Horeb” is a shortened form of what is in LXX about leading the Israelites by the hand out of Egypt. See also A.H. 5.34.3.

Cf. Rom 6:4; 5:15; 17,20; Gal 4:31.

Matt 12:6.

According to SC, Arm. Iren. has “the grace of liberty is therefore superior to the law of servitude,” with reference to John 1:17, where the law is said to have come from Moses, but grace from Christ. In A.H. 3.12.11 the Law is of Moses; but grace, of the N.T. I am not sure that Arm. Iren. is correct. It could have been adjusted to the N.T. idea. Irenaeus actually could have spoken of the law for slaves (namely, of the O.T.) and of the “precepts” for the N.T. The illustrations aqua ab aqua, lumen a lumine suppose the same noun in both parts of the comparison, that is, the law in the O.T. and the law in the N.T.

Cf. Matt 12:6, 42, 41. See also A.H. 3.20.1 where Irenaeus talks about the sign of Jonah.

John 1:50. The promise Christ made to Nathaniel alone is given by Irenaeus as made to all the disciples.

Phil 3:12.

1 Cor 13:9–10.

Matt 5:8.

Isa 25:9 LXX.

1 Pet 1:8. Lat. Iren. has: Quem non videntes diligitis, inquit, in quem nunc non videntes credidistis. Arm. Iren, according to SC, amounts to: videntes inquit in quem non videntes creditis. SC prefers this and translates: “Lorsque vous verrez celui en qui, sans le voir encore, vous croyes.” Cf. A.H. 5.7.2: Quem cum non videritis diligitis, in quem nunc quoque non videntes creditis. The Greek of Peter has a present participle for creditis (of Vulgate) as well as for videntes, and both modify a present tense verb. So it seems creditis is correct.

Rom 8:15. See also A.H. 5.8.1.

Cf. 1 Cor 13:12. Paul has “face to face,” as does Lat. Iren., but Arm. Iren. has the equivalent of the supposed Greek αὐτοψίᾳ, which SC accepts. The context is different in 1 Cor and in Iren. In 1 Cor it is about “seeing”; in Irenaeus it is about enjoying. So it would have been natural for Irenaeus, though alluding to 1 Cor 13, to change to αὐτοψία. Lat. Iren. would have harmonized Irenaeus with Paul because of the allusion. So argues SC. To me that is not convincing. Arm. Iren. could just as easily have done the adjusting. Lat. Iren. has muneribus, while Arm. Iren. has bonis, which SC prefers. Yet donat and donans in the context here, and muneribus in #3 make this word just as probable at this point. One should take note of the equality here of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.

See also, A.H. 4.6.3.

That God gradually led man to perfection through various steps is an idea dear to Irenaeus in this Book 4 particularly; see chap. 38.

As Bacq notes, this is a sort of preview of A.H. 4.12–16

Cf. 2 Tim 3:7.

There is subtle irony in this allusion to the Profundity who is incomprehensible.

Matt 15:3–4. As Bacq notes, this is, in effect, Irenaeus’s argument against the Jews. See also A.H. 4.2.6; 4.11.4; 4.12.4; 4.33.1. Bacq 92n1.

Matt 15:6.

John 5:39–40.

For the Greek here, see Bacq 93n1. Irenaeus uses the same word at A.H. 3.12.7; 4.23.1. See also SC (291n1).

John 5:46.

Irenaeus agrees with the many ancient writers that Christ was spoken of in the entire O.T., and that very often.

Gen 18:5. See Bacq 93n2–6 for the many references Irenaeus makes here.

Gen 6:15.

Gen 3:9.

Gen 18:13ff.

Gen 31:11ff.

Exod 3:3ff.

Ipsa quae has no expressed antecedent, which must be feminine. SC rightly took dies, which occurs both before and after this sentence. It is taken as a masculine before in Latin, but ipsa quae, feminine, follows the Greek syntax where it was feminine. Irenaeus, as many other ancient church writers, seems to have included the idea of suffering in the term Pasch. See Tertullian, Adv. Iudaeos 10.18 (CCL 2.1380); Gregorius Nazianz., Oratio 45, de Paschate (MG 36.636C). Harvey denies this for Irenaeus, claiming that he knew Hebrew, about which he is certainly wrong; and he overlooks the fact that the reference need not be seen in a relation between pascha and paschein. It is rather in the circumstances of the Pasch, and not in the accidental play on words, much less in the real etymology.

Deut 16:5–6.

Gen 49:10–12, according to LXX; but the cui repositum is in the singular, whereas the regular LXX text has the plural. Laetifici oculi eius a vino is according to the Alexandrian recension of the LXX. The Vatican MS has the comparative with “above” as in the Hebrew. See also Proof 57. Justin Ap 32.1–3. Bacq 92n1.

Deut 32:6.

Deut 28:66.

Deut 32:6.

Matt 13:17.

Cf. 1 Pet 1:4.

Gen 1:28.

“Growing and maturing” is adiectionem et augmentum. SC omits adiectionem, according to Arm. Iren. But the pair occurred at the end of #1, augmentum et incrementum; and a little lower in #2 we read: homo vero profectum percipiens et augmentum. Without the Greek original, it is difficult to say whether the same Greek pair were involved always. SC supposed akme for augmentum. Daniélou (RSR 57 [1969]: 87) says that does not fit the idea of a constant growth. See also Bacq 96n2.

Cf. A.H. 1.12.2; 2.13.3; 2.28.4. Clement Strom. 8.1.5.5.

Cf 3.19.3. Bacq argues this may be an allusion to Phil 3:9–10; Bacq 97n1.

Matt 25:21, 23.

God offers more grace but not more knowledge. That is, Christ does not offer secret knowledge that was previously unavailable.

Cf. A.H. 4.9.2; 4.11.4; 4.34.1 Bacq 98n2.

Ps 34 (35): 9. Irenaeus views this as prophetic of the sufferings of Christ.

Lat. Iren. reads: Omnes qui errant in via David in dolore animae, as if it should mean: “All who were in the David Street with sorrowful soul.” The cryptic in via David makes little sense, and in dolore animae does not fit the context of rejoicing. Arm. Iren., according to SC, reads: Omnes in via qui a David ardentes desiderantes anima (erant). The two participles are a couplet that seem to emphasize the desire. That would mean: All people who followed David in a strong desire. With that clue I believe the Latin can support the same idea: all who were on the way of David, that is, who followed David, without any reference to a street. The idea of desiring is in keeping with the remote context of chap. 11 and the proximate of #3 about seeing Christ, as SC observes. “Desiring in soul” is found in Ps 41:2 and in Ps 83:3: ἐπιποθεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου and in Ps 119:20 as ἐπεπόθησεν ἡ ψυχή μου. As SC has it, Irenaeus’s Greek must have been the same as this last. If that was misread as ἐπιποθοῦωτες τῆς ψυχῆς, it is easy to see how in dolore animae got into the Latin.

Matt 21:8–9; Cf. Ps 117:25–26.

Cf. Matt 18:29–30; Luke 16:1ff.

Matt 21:16; Ps 8:3; Luke 19:38.

Here Irenaeus stresses that Christ is part of the economy of salvation. Of course, this is a central part of his argument in Book 4. If Christ is part of the economy of salvation, if Christ’s Father is the creator of the universe, then those who would say Christ does not belong to the created order are wrong.

Ps 8:2.

Cf. Col 2:17; Heb 10:1.

“More diligent.” Lat. Iren. has: tanquam diligentiam suam etiam ipsi Deo praeferentibus: that, they place their own diligence above God’s, Arm. Iren. gives that clearer by a comparative: diligentiores ipsis de Deo: “as if they were more diligent than God.” It is not clear to me whether Lat. Iren. does not represent the original Greek, which Arm. Iren. tried to clarify.

Cf. Matt 23:25, 28.

Isa 1:22 LXX.

Arm. Iren. has nothing corresponding to: id est aggredientes legem adulteram et contrariam legi.

Matt 15:3.

This is an important passage for Irenaeus to raise. Obviously, he is in favor of the tradition of the Church. But, like Jesus, he wants to discern what the proper tradition is.

Lat. Iren. does not have a noun with “Pharisaical” but it seems evident that this should be lex, which is found at the end of the paragraph. “Transgression” stands for praevaricationem. One might have expected Irenaeus to say that they set at nought God’s law by their tradition, instead of by their transgression. But it amounts to the same thing, as is indicated at the end of the paragraph, “for transgressing God’s precept by the tradition.” By following their tradition they transgressed God’s law.

“Especially” is singulariter in Lat. Iren. Coming between utuntur and magistri, its reference is doubtful. I read it with magistri, as did SC. But BKV has “besonders dienen.”

Cf. Gal 3:24. Bacq points out how these two Pauline passages go together. A.H. 4.2.7; 4.12.5; 4.13.2; 4.13.3–4.16.5. Bacq 107n1.

Cf. John 7:22–23.

“Precept” is in Lat. Iren. praeceptum, which in Greek had the definite article. In #2 it is explained as “the first and greatest precept.” The presence of “precept” in #2 almost demands its presence in #1, otherwise something of the sense would be missing. SC inserted praecipium in place of praeceptum from Arm. Iren. in the sense of “the essential of the Law.” Again, I believe Arm. Iren. did not understand the Greek. Either the Latin praeceptum by itself, according to all MSS, is correct, or praecipium as an adjective implies its noun praeceptum. I opt for the first: They transgressed the precept of God and did not have the precept of the Law.

Arguably, Irenaeus’s most important point is that the identity of God in the old and new covenants rests on love.

Matt 22:37–40.

Arm. Iren. does not speak of the precept as being God’s, but simply as being the Legislator’s. Lat. Iren. has: non eo (praecepto) uti quod a Deo Legis fuisset datum. SC finds this surprising, since Irenaeus has a stereotyped expression “the Law by Moses.” Yet, in #1 Irenaeus constantly stresses this as God’s Law, against the man-made traditions. So it is not surprising to speak of this precept as being given by the God who gave the Law. Again, Arm. Iren. did not grasp the construction or the thought, nor did SC.

Rom 13:10.

1 Cor 13:13.

1 Cor 13:2ff.

Cf. A.H. 4.9.2; 4.11.2.

Matt 23:2–4.

Arm. Iren. has “devoid of love,” supposing a longer expression than Lat. Iren. has sine dilectione. In 4.33.7 even Lat. Iren. has this longer form: qui sunt inanes, non habentes Dei dilectione. So, maybe here too the Greek was longer, and Lat. Iren. had difficulty expressing it.

Isa 29:13 LXX.

Rom 10:3–4.

Exod 3:7–8. Cf. A.H. 4.7.4.

Matt 19:17.

Matt 19:18–19.

Matt 19:20.

Matt 19:21.

Irenaeus has discussed all of this in Book 1. See AH 1.1–8.

Luke 19:8.

The place of the Law in Irenaeus’s thought is important. His opponents want to argue that the Law has no place in Christian life or in Christian history. In contrast, Irenaeus argues that the Law is part of Christian life and history and that Christ has fulfilled the Law. Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Iudaeos 2. 6–7 (CCL 2, 1342) for a similar idea.

Matt 5:21, 27–28.

Matt 5:21–22.

Matt 5:33, 34, 37. Lat. Iren. has: Sit autem vobis sermo, etiam etiam, et non non, which is close to our Greek Bible. But Arm. Iren. has “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.” SC claims that could not have come from the Arm. Bible, and since Lat. Iren. tends to harmonize Irenaeus with the Bible, Arm. Iren. could have attempted to clarify the matter without regard to the exact wording of the Greek, as it did in other cases.

Matt 5:20.

Cf. Matt 23:3.

“Corporal means” is simply corporalia, namely, the external ceremonies that affected the body more directly than the soul.

“Serve” is according to Lat. Iren. servire Deo. Arm. Iren. has assentire Deo. That would mean to obey God, and there would be a tautological duplication: obey God…obey the commands. Yet, just below we have sequi Deum, and in 4.13.4 assentire et assequi. So Arm. Iren. could be correct.

Cf. A.H. 4.14.2–3; 4.15.1.

Matt 5:21–22.

Matt 19:21.

Matt 5:43–44.

Luke 6:29, 30, 31.

Matt 5:41.

Matt 5:45. Cf A.H. 4.36.6; 5.2.1; 5.2.2; 3.25.3.

See a parallel in Justin, Dialogus 93.3 (MG 6.697). B. Alfonsi, “Su un passo di Ireneo (Adv. haer. 4.13.4),” VC 12 (1958): 225–26, thinks Irenaeus borrowed and adapted this from Caecilius, who wrote: homo homini deus est, si suum officium sciat, or, since Irenaeus knew Greek, possibly from Menander, Caecilius’s predecessor.

John 15:15.

Cf. Jas 2:23. Cf. A.H. 4.5.4.

Irenaeus addresses this theme in other contexts. See A.H. 14.1.2.3; 4.16.4; 4.17.1; 4.18.1.3.6. See also Philo of Alexandria Spec Leg 1.271; Clement of Rome Cor 52.1; Barnabas. Ep 2.; Athenagoras, Supplique pro Christianis 13; Ep to Diogenes 3.4; Justin, 1 Apol 13; Dial. 22.1; Clement Strom. 7.3.14.6–15.1.

“Imperishability.” The noun is correct. Arm. Iren. has incorruptibiles fiunt. This adjective suggests the correct noun incorruptibilitas not immortalitas. Iren. did at times misread athanasia for aphtharsia. In A.H. 1.4.1 the Greek is “imperishable” but Lat. Iren. has immortalitas.

This paragraph contains some beautiful Irenaean theology; for instance, that God’s salvific will began with the creation of humanity. See for this A. Bengsch, Heilsgeschichte und Heilswissen: Eine Untersuchung zur Struktur und Entfaltung des theologischen Denkens im Werke Adversus haereses des hl. Irenäus von Lyon, Erfurter Theologische Studien 3 (Leipzig: St Benno-Verlag, 1957), 91–108; González 152–55; 160–61; Berrouard, “Servitude de la Loi et liberté de l’évangile,“ 41–60. This is an old idea in Christian theology that is gaining favor again today. See General Catechetical Directory, 51. That God’s goodness is the reason for man’s creation is taught also in # 2, and in A.H. 2.25.3; Proof 4, 5, 6. See François Vernet, “Irénée (saint),” Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, 7.2 (Paris: Letouzey, 1927), 2476–78.

John 17:5.

Arm. Iren has a pair of active verbs (illuminant et illustrant) that match the other pair, illuminantur et illustrantur, and so are probably authentic. See Hemmerdinger 315.

“Demands” as in Lat. Iren. exquirit. This idea occurs also in 5.2.1, 4 (3 times). It is certainly correct against Arm. Iren., which has the idea that God needs service from man. SC explains that the Greek most likely was χρἠζει, which bears both meanings. This is another case where the Arm. Iren. did not understand the clear teaching of Irenaeus.

John 15:16.

John 17:24.

Isa 43:5, 6, 7 LXX.

Matt 24:28.

The idea of man’s bearing God’s Spirit is also in A.H. 4.20.6, and Proof 7.

Cf. Luke 15:22–23.

“Symphony” is for consonantia, which quite probably stands for συμφωνία. Since immediately before this there is an allusion to the story of the prodigal son, SC rightly suggests that this term comes from that story (cf. Luke 15:25), where it has a musical meaning. Irenaeus seems to have had a musical meaning here too, since he speaks immediately after of the voices of the many waters of Christ, which he adds as an explanation of the preceding. The idea is truly beautiful: the entire plan of salvation is a harmonious whole, a symphony, literally and musically, giving glory to God.

Rev 1:15.

In Scripture the Spirit’s gifts and graces are referred to several times as water or an effusion of water; cf. John 4:14; 7:37–9. See Unger, Laur. (1972): 313–14.

“Rich and abundant” is according to Lat. Iren., but for “abundant” the Latin is magnus. Arm. Iren. has “multiple.” That seems correct since the pair “rich and abundant” occurs elsewhere: 3.10.6; 16.7. In A.H. 4.20.11, “abundant” is used alone with the Word. A.J. de Aldama, “Polypousios dans le Protoévangile de Jacques et l’A.H. de s. Irénée,” RSR 50 (1962): 86–89, thinks this is a hendiadys, meaning “very rich.”

“Purifications” is from Arm. Iren. Most of the Lat. MSS read monitiones; Voss has munitiones. But these are scribal errors out of context.

Exod 25:40; Heb 8:5.

1 Cor 10:4.

1 Cor 10:11.

Irenaeus’s discussion of types—and the difference between types and allegories—is important. See Scott D. Moringiello, “Allegory and Typology in Irenaeus of Lyon,” in SP 93(Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 255–64.

In Lat. Iren. “training” is before “prophecy,” but in Arm. Iren. the order is inverted. SC follows the order of the Arm. Iren., on the score that that is the order announced just before and the order followed thereafter in cc. 15ff. On the contrary, just before this sentence, Irenaeus stated per typos, ergo discebant timere Deum. That refers to the learning-training process. Then all of chap. 15 is about the precepts given for their training. Only in chap. 16 does Irenaeus begin discussing the signs, which were, typically, also prophecies. So Lat. Iren. does have the correct order. On Irenaeus’s use of 1 Cor 10, see Bacq 120n2. Cf A.H. 4.14.3; 4.11.4; 4.19.1; 4.32.2.

Deut 5:22.

Ezek 20:24. “The desire of their heart” of Irenaeus is neither altogether according to LXX or the Hebrew. The Hebrew Bible has: “after the idols of their fathers.” The LXX, by reading the consonants for “idols” differently, got: “after the desires of their fathers.” Irenaeus made desire singular, and, by a different reading of the consonants for “fathers,” got “of their heart.” But how Irenaeus, who knew very little Hebrew, got to that reading is a mystery. There is no MSS evidence for it in the Hebrew Bible or LXX. Maybe the book of Testimonies is responsible for this too.

Stephen is a key figure for Irenaeus. Stephen’s speech in Acts before his martyrdom recounts the entire economy of salvation. Bacq connects 14:4–15:1, p. 119–21.

Acts 7:38–43. Lat. Iren. retained the transcribed martyrium, which seems to indicate that already at so early a date this common word for witness had acquired the specific usage of witness by shedding of blood. The earliest references to this meaning given by A. Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Françaís des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), s.v., are Tertullian and Cyprian.

Exod 33:2–3.

Matt 19:7–8.

Cf. Heb 3:5.

1 Cor 7:12.

1 Cor 7:6.

1 Cor 7:25.

1 Cor 7:5.

I followed Arm. Iren., which in the Latin of SC reads: salutarem Decalogi absorbentes hamum et detenti ab eo. That differs considerably from Lat. Iren.: salutem Decalogi observantes, munera dent ei, et detenti ab eo. These changes were possibly made at different times. Observantes is a misreading for absorbentes. I can offer no explanation of how hamum became munera dent ei.

Matt 20:16.

Matt 7:15.

“Would be crowned” is from Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has honorentur. Here too Irenaeus stresses human free choice and its bearing on eternal punishment and reward.

Gen 17:9, 10, 11.

Ezek 20:12. See also, A.H. 3.12.11; 4.15.1; 4.16.3.

Exod 31:13.

Col 2:11.

Deut 10:16 (LXX).

Cf. A.H. 2.22.2; Proof 96.

Rom 8:36, from Ps 43 (44):22.

A.H. 4.8.2; 4.8.3; 4.30.3; 4.18.2 Proof 96.

Cf. Matt 6:19.

A.H. 4.33.2; 5.34.3; 4.20.10.

Jas. 2:23; Rom 4:3; Gen 15:6.

Gen 19:17.

Gen 9:27, and chap. 10. Even Scripture gives the impression that the human race had a second beginning with Noah at the head. Hemmerdinger (311) thinks mundi secundae generationis is an interpolation. The sense would be complete without them, and the Arm. Iren. does not have them. Arm. omitted the conjunction sed et and took secundum (for secundae) as an adverbial conjunction. But Daniélou (RSR 57 [1969]: 87) insists on retaining them and thinks this was inspired by Clement, Epistola 9.4. (ACW 1.14).

Cf. Gen 5:22, 24; Heb 11:5. “a legation to the angels” is from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, sect. 2., c. 71. 5–17 (R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press,1893], 184–85.) Hemmerdinger 308 thinks this reference to Enoch indisputable. That the angels who sinned fell to the earth seems a certain reference to Rev 12:9: “he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

Deut 5:2–3.

1 Tim 1:9.

Cf A.H. 4.12.2–3.

Exod 3ff.

Deut 8:3. Cf. 1 Cor 10:3–4

Deut 5:22.

Deut 10:12.

Cf. Rom 3:23. Irenaeus will speak of God’s glory at much greater length below at A.H. 4.20.7.

Deut 30:19–20.

Cf. A.H. 4.16.3; 4.12.5.

Cf. A.H. 4.13.1; 4.13.3.

Deut 4:14. “disciplining” is from Lat. Iren., eruditioni sive castigationi, where the second noun is the translator’s explanation, as Arm. Iren. confirms.

Cf. Proof 26.

Cf. 4.36.2, 4.26.5, Proof 96.

Matt 12:36.

Matt 5:28.

Matt 5:22.

Cf. A.H. 3.25.2.

1 Pet 2:16.

Cf. A.H. 1.6.1–2; 3.15.2; 3.25.4; 4.37–39.

1 Sam 15:22.

Ps 39 (40):6.

For a chart showing prophetic antitheses, see Bacq 132n2.

Bacq connects A.H. 4.17.1 with 4.17.4 132n1.

Ps 50 (51):18–19.

Ps 49 (50): 9–13.

Ps 49 (50):14–15.

Isa 1:11.

Isa 1:16–18 LXX.

This is a partial quotation from Ps 50 (51):19, but the rest is in no canonical Scripture. It is not from Eccl 39:14 LXX as Massuet suggested, because the only thing in common is “odor of sanctity.” It is quoted also by Clement of Alexandria in Pedagogus 3.12.90 (GCS 1.286). But it is found already in Ps–Barnabas 2.10 (ACW 6.39). H. Windisch, Der Barnabas Brief (Tübingen, 1920), 313, thought Irenaeus took it from Ps–Barnabas. That was accepted as certain by L. Froidevaux, “Les trois textes cités par saint Irénée,” RSR 44 (1956) 418. SC (581n1) observes that some wish to attribute this to the Apocalypse of Adam (cf. James, The Apocrypha [1893] 145), but that attribution is unfounded. Now it was Hemmerdinger (309) himself who put that into his MS for SC 100. Yet both Irenaeus and Ps–Barnabas could have gotten it from the book of Testimonies. This is confirmed by the fact that here Irenaeus, whose authority is normally the LXX, follows the order of the OT Books according to the Hebrew canon. Thus A. Benoit, “Irénée Adv. haereses IV, 1–5 et les Testimonia,” Studia patristica 4 (TU 79, 1961.2): 20–27.

Jer 6:20 LXX.

Jer 7:2–4 LXX.

Jer 7:21–25.

Jer 9:24.

Isa 43:23–24 LXX.

Isa 66:2 LXX.

Jer 11:15 LXX.

Isa 58:6–9 LXX.

Zach 7:9–10 LXX. The Twelve Minor Prophets were treated as a special group and quoted as such by Irenaeus. See also paragraph 5 below.

Zach 8:16–17 LXX.

Ps 33 (34):12–14.

Hos 6:6.

Matt 12:7.

“First-fruits” is evidently used here of the Eucharist. But how is the Eucharist called so? Harvey thinks it is because it is the Easter offering, just as the “first-fruits” of the Old Law were the Paschal offerings. But that was really the offering for the Pentecost; cf. Exod 23:14, 16, 19; 34:22; Num 28:26. It seems that the eucharistic offering is called the first-fruits because it is an offering of wheat, the first-fruits of which were offered to God in the Old Law, and which were most pleasing to God and, in a sense, the best offering. Yet, Christ himself is called the first-fruits offering because of his offering on the cross. It seems quite probable that Irenaeus calls the Eucharist the first-fruits offering because it does contain Christ and reproduces the offering on the Cross.

Cf A.H. 4.17.5; 4.18.1; 4.18.3; 4.18.6.

Matt 26:26; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor 11:23ff. Irenaeus remarks for both the bread and the wine that these are from our creation. In other words, against his opponents, he is saying that the earth and its products are good, coming from the good God. They are worthy of becoming the very Body and Blood of the Lord and then serve as food of our souls as well as the finest sacrifice to God. That is the theme of A. W. Ziegler, “Das Brot von unseren Feldern: Ein Beitrag zur Eucharistielehre des hl. Irenäus,” in Pro Mundi Vita, Festschrift zum Eucharistischen Weltkongress (Munich, 1960), 21–43.

In this passage Irenaeus teaches several points about the Eucharist. a) The elements are bread and wine. b) The offering of these by Christ at the Last Supper was a true sacrifice because it was in place of the sacrifices of the Old Law, and he calls it a first-fruits sacrifice and speaks of the offering of wine as “a new oblation of the new covenant,” and because he quotes Mal 1:10–11, where there is certainly question of a true sacrifice, and because he says as a comment on Malachi that the Old Law sacrifices have ceased, but that there is an offering of a clean sacrifice in every place. c) Moreover, this sacrifice of Christ is continued in the Church; in other words, the eucharistic sacrifice of the Church is a true sacrifice: it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered, and it “is offered in the whole world.” In #6 the Bishop states that the Church offers an oblation in the whole world according to the instruction of the Lord, which is a certain allusion to “Do this in memory of me.” In 4.18.2, he contrasts the Old Law sacrifices with that of the New, making it plain that this is as real as those. d) This sacrifice is also received in communion because he says it is given to us by God “as nourishment.” He does not speak ex industria at this point about communion, concerned as he is with the idea of sacrifice. e) The bread and wine are Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrifice. For the bread Irenaeus simply quotes the words of Christ, “This is my Body.” But the identity of Christ with what appears as bread is thereby asserted most evidently. In regard to the wine he makes the identification explicitly: “Christ acknowledged (the chalice) to be his blood.” It is a clean sacrifice not because it remains bread and wine, but because it becomes the Body and the Blood of Christ. See also A.H. 4.18.4,5; 5.2.2,3. These studies may be consulted: A. Scheiwiler, “Die Elemente der Eucharistie in der ersten drei Jahrhunderten,” Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte (1903): 17–26, 43–56. P. Radopoulos, “Irenaeus on the Consecration of the Eucharistic Gifts,” Kyriakon, Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Munster: Aschendorff, 1970), vol. 2:844–46, who stresses the realism of Irenaean eucharistic teachings. F. R. M. Hitchcock, “The Doctrine of the Holy Communion in Irenaeus,” Church Quarterly Review 129 (1939.40): 206–25, who, in keeping with the tenets of his church about the Eucharist, denies that Irenaeus taught the real presence of Christ by a change of the elements and that it was a sacrifice.

Didache 14.1–3; Justin Dialogue 12.8.41 & 117. Mal 1:10–11 (LXX). Irenaeus considers this prophecy fulfilled in the Eucharist of the Church.

John 17.

Lat. Iren. reads: Et quoniam proprii Filii eius est et ab eo factus est homo, suum illum vocat. At first sight homo seems justified, for homo is in the context immediately before it occurs in et homo glorificatur. But that makes the sense of the whole clause obscure and complicated. Most of all, Irenaeus gives an illustration of this, as a policy, below and in it “the image” illustrates “name,” but “image” both belongs to the son and was made by the king. And so in our clause “name,” which belongs to the Son, was also made by the Father. Nomen is subject of factum est. SC, 595n1, gives an explanation of how homo entered the text; but I think it simpler to hold that because homo is in the preceding clause, seemingly calling for entrance into the explanation, homo was introduced as the subject.

God “made” the name of his Son “Jesus” by having it written into Scripture. There is here an evident allusion to Matt 1:21, where God, through Matthew, wrote the name and gave as an explanation of the name that he was to be Savior of humankind. See also Luke 1:31; and Acts 4:12.

Lat. Iren. has: et in deo omnipotente per Iesum Christum offert Ecclesia. Arm. Iren. agrees with that. Scholars, however, have found the construction odd. It would mean that the Church offers by (in) the power of God. So changes have been suggested. SC inserts, from the context of Mal 1:11, quoted as an explanation, omni loco. Thus: in <omni loco> Deo omnipotenti per Iesum Christum offert Ecclesia. I accepted that in my translation. In the context the offering is made to God, not by the power of God. See #6: nomini meo; and 18.1.

Mal 1:11.

Rev 5:8.

Matt 5:24–25.

Deut 16:16.

This is a puzzling sentence. Lat. Iren. reads: ut in quibus gratus exstitit homo, in his gratus ei deputatus, eum qui est ab eo percipiat honorem. One senses something is wrong. What? Arm. Iren. has, in place of gratus exstitit, ingratus factus est. SC rejects that as unacceptable, because it expresses an idea that is completely foreign to the context: in no part of this chapter is there even an allusion to human ingratitude. Yet, I think a more careful reading of chaps. 17 and 18 shows that Irenaeus is proving that God did not need man, and he uses as proof that God rejected the sacrifices of the Old Covenant. The rejection of these sacrifices is stated at least sixteen times in chap. 17. They were not acceptable to God because of the sins of the people; and so the people (“man”) was not acceptable to God either. God demanded sinless conduct. See especially chap. 17.3–4, and chap. 18.2. Now, in order that man might not remain fruitless spiritually and be unaccepted, God has him offer the Sacrifice of the New Covenant (17.5); but not because God is now in need.

So there is more than enough reference to the fact that man was unacceptable, and even the idea of being displeasing can be seen in the term ingratus. In classical and ecclesiastical Latin gratus has as first meaning “pleasing,” not “grateful”: and ingratitude is displeasure; ingratus, displeasing. So in the context about people who were displeasing to God, this meaning is quite correct. Arm. Iren. is, then, quite accurate, and Lat. Iren. should read: in quibus ingratus exstitit.

This is a certain statement that the Church has a true sacrifice. See chap. 17, n27.

Lat. Iren. has: nihil enim otiosum neque sine signo sive argumento. Argumento is the translator’s explanatory addition. Cf. 4.21.3: nihil enim vacuum neque sine signo. Also 4.16.1: non autem sine symbolo erant signa, id est, sine argumento, neque otiosa. Here too sine argumento seems to be the translator’s note. A signum is a symbolum inasmuch as it has significance and can be used as a proof. In 4.21.2, non sine significatione non inanes, significatione must represent the same Greek as σύμβολον.

Cf. Proof 96; A.H. 4.13.2–3.

Luke 21:4; also Acts 2:44–45. In my preceding sentence, Lat. Iren. has non in the phrase dantes ea non quae sunt minora, as if the lesser things were not to be offered. But Irenaeus is actually stressing the giving of lesser goods, as the widow’s mite. So Arm. Iren. is correct in omitting that non.

Gen 4:4–5.

Gen 4:7 LXX.

See Bacq’s remarks on love and the Eucharist. Bacq 140n1.

Lat. Iren. reads: Sec cessatio mali, quod est intus conceptum, ne per assimilatam operationem, magis autem peccatum, ipsum sibi homicidam faciat hominem. What is the subject of faciat? Certainly not hominem, though BKV translated that way. Nor can cessatio mali be subject, since that is something good, whereas the subject of faciat is bad, a murderer. The more remote subject is quod est intus conceptum, sc. malum; not its simulated, that is, external, operation, but the inner sin; so the proximate subject is peccatum. This inner sin is what makes a man a real homicide, a murderer of a brother man. Thus Harvey and ANF. There is no question here of suicide, as ANF implies. The whole context is about killing another. And Irenaeus’s explanation below makes it clear it is the inner sin that makes a man a killer. Mere external offerings make a man a hypocrite who hides jealousies that will cause someone’s death. SC, following Arm. Iren., omits magis autem: but it is needed for the full understanding of the sentence. H. Elfers, Die Kirchenordnung Hippolyts von Rom (Paderborn 1938) 262–78, explains how Irenaeus’s spiritual living ties in with his teaching on the Eucharist. God does not need us at all, but we need God and are obliged to even heroic obedience in offering ourselves in service for others.

Matt 23:27–28.

Cf. Jas. 5:6. Grant, in a review of SC 100, VC 22 (1968): 143, claims the reference is rather to Acts 7:52. I do not think so. In Acts Stephen is speaking directly about their killing the Prophets. In James the direct object of the killing is the Just One.

Cf. A.H. 4.11.3.

Matt 23:26.

Jer 22:17 LXX.

Isa 30:1 LXX.

Gen 4:7.

John 19:11.

Cf. A.H. 4.18.5.

Isa 66:3 LXX.

Phil 4:18.

Irenaeus insists that the Church’s eucharistic offering is a true sacrifice, and that the Church alone has such a sacrifice. See chap. 17, n27: “Of his creation,” that is, the bread and the wine. “with thanksgiving” is an allusion to the prayer of consecration. But it also refers to the offering as one of thanksgiving. Cf. below where, in contrast, the heretics are said to offer God an insult.

Cf. Isa 1:15.

Because C and V omit per before quod, Massuet and BKV dropped it, with the result that the Word is offered. But it is in the other MSS, and Harvey retained it. It is also confirmed by Arm. Iren.

Cf. Mark 4:27–28, though with some transposition of words. Irenaeus informs us that the heretics attempted to offer a eucharistic sacrifice with bread and wine, and that they believed this to be the body and the blood of Christ. See also 4.18.5. But they were inconsistent in holding that it was not the body and blood of the Son of God, or of the Word, but of the Demiurge. Indirectly, Irenaeus states his faith, and that of the Church, in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “The chalice is his blood” is according to Arm. Iren., which has sanguinem, making this construction parallel to that of the bread. Lat. Iren. has sanguinis, namely, the chalice is of his Blood, which also gives good sense.

The Eucharist as Communion is contained in the words: “the flesh is nourished by the Lord’s Body and Blood,” not by the bread. And so those words also imply the real presence of Christ. Irenaeus is arguing ad hominem against the heretics: if Christ is really present in communion, as the heretics admit, how is it possible that the body of the communicant will not share in the everlasting resurrection of Christ himself?

My translation follows the Latin, with doctrina as subject and Eucharistiae as indirect object. The Greek excerpt has Eucharist as subject and doctrine as indirect object. That misses the contrast intended. The Bishop wishes to say that our doctrine that the Word-Christ is the Creator of the elements of the Eucharist harmonizes with the idea that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Word-Christ. And the fact that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Word-Christ confirms the doctrine that he created the elements. That is splendid recapitulation. Irenaeus uses the word “Eucharist” for the Sacrifice and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Cf. Th. Schermann, “Eucharistia und eucharistein in ihrem Bedeutungswandel bis 200 nach Christus,” Philologus 69 (1910): 375–410.

“Harmoniously” is congruenter, and ἐμμελῶς in the Greek excerpt. The idea Irenaeus wishes to convey is that there is harmony here as he had just stated. What does he mean by the union of the flesh and the spirit? The enim in the following gives the clue. There he says our bodies, mortal in themselves, become imperishable through the Eucharist. If that is to be a parallel case to what he had just said, then flesh is our natural selves, mortal in themselves; spirit is our supernatural selves. This is a regular Irenaean idea. It fits in with Pauline theology as expressed in 1 Cor 15. Spirit is the whole person endowed with the grace of the Spirit. In the rest of the paragraph Irenaeus applies his point to the body and does not mention the spirit. Instead he speaks of the Eucharist, supposing that either the Eucharist in us is the “spirit” or that it gives the Spirit, who will entitle us to imperishable bodies. Cf. A.H. 4.20.4: ut complexus homo Spiritum Dei in gloriam cedat Patris.

“Invocation” follows the Latin invocationem, which supposes the Greek ἐπίκλησις, used elsewhere by Irenaeus (cf. A.H. 1, chap. 13, n6). But the Greek fragment has εκκλήσις, which editors generally take as a scribal error. Yet M. Jugie, “La forme du sacrament de l’Eucharistie d’aprés saint Irénée,” Mémoriale Chaine (Bibliothéque de la Faculté catholique de théologie de Lyon 5 [Lyon 1950]), 223–33, claims that this is the original reading and that it refers to the formula of consecration, which is simply Christ’s words identifying the Eucharist as his Body and Blood. That these words are the eucharistic formula according to Irenaeus I agree. See also A.H. 4.33.2. But that is true even if one does not accept ἐκκλήσις as the original reading, because ἐπἰκλησις would at that early date not refer to a specific prayer of invocation to the Word or the Spirit, nor even to the whole anaphora. On the epiclesis see also A.H. 1, n311, and the study of J. P. de Jong, “Der Ursprüngliche Sinn von Epiklese und Mischungsritus nach der Eucharistielehre des hl. Irenäus,” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 9 (1965): 28–47; de Jong, “Epiklese,” LTK 3 (1959): 935–37.

This sentence has been a crux interpretum, chiefly because of the difficulty of identifying what the earthly and what the heavenly is in the Eucharist. Irenaeus offers this parallel as an illustration (enim) of what preceded, and that was this: Flesh and spirit are happily united through the Eucharist, namely, in the resurrection. Just as the Eucharist which is Christ’s Body (glorious, of course) is made up of a double element, bread and God’s word that it receives, so the imperishable body is made up of the mortal body made imperishable in hope by the Eucharist it received. The parallel cannot be expressed perfectly because the imperishable body is not effected immediately by the reception of the Eucharist; that will come only at the final resurrection. Now it exists in hope. Nor could Irenaeus say that the imperishable body consists of an earthly and a heavenly element, because the glorious body is not the earthly element, nor does the mortal body exist any more as the earthly part. The mortal body is only the subject matter from which the imperishable was made; and in that sense it could be the earthly element, namely, in the state of becoming. In the accomplished state of the imperishable body the Eucharist is not a component part; only its effect continues in the imperishable body. And so, if Irenaeus meant the contrast of earthly and heavenly to be applied to the imperishable body in the accomplished state, this can be true only in the sense that something of what was the mortal body remains, but it was changed.

At this point we need say no more about the change of the bread into the Body of Christ, and not merely a coexistence of Christ with the bread, an impanation. Such a theory does not do justice to the wording of Irenaeus, here and in A.H. 5.2.2–3. Irenaeus’s emphatic identifying of Christ’s Body with the bread before him, and his saying explicitly that it is no longer common bread, demand a change of the bread into the “no longer common bread,” but Christ’s Body. See also A.H. 4.33.2 on the explicit identification of the bread and wine of the Eucharist as Christ’s Body and Blood. See Bacq 143–46.

“Give thanks for the gift.” Authors claim there is here an allusion to the introductory prayers to the Preface of the Mass, a hymn of thanksgiving. We are certain that at St. Cyprian’s time such introductory prayers existed: cf De dominica oratione 31 (CSEL 3, part 1. 289). Maybe Irenaeus is alluding to such prayers. But maybe he is alluding in general to the Canon of the Mass, which was known as actio gratiarum in Tertullian’s day; cf. Adv. Marcionem 4.9.9 (CCL 1.560).

“Gift” is according to the A and S MSS, which have donationi as a dative of means. Arm. Iren. has de donatione, which might have the same sense. SC accepts that. The C and V MSS have dominationi, which could give a correct meaning, namely, that we give thanks for God’s lordship over us. That would be expressive of a very profound note about adoration. I took the dative as one of advantage, donationi.

Prov 19:17.

Matt 25:34–6.

As is clear from the next sentence, introduced by ergo, the altar here is a symbolic altar in heaven. The oblationes that are to be offered up frequently are prayers and other things mentioned. But since Irenaeus has been speaking at length about the eucharistic sacrifice, this may also be included in this admonition about offering frequent sacrifices.

Cf. Rev 11:9. In the Roman Canon in the prayer that begins supplices after the consecration there is mention of carrying the gifts to the heavenly altar. Could it be possible that St. Irenaeus is here alluding to such an idea? But he may be alluding merely to Rev 11:9. See Ignatius Martyr, Ad Philadelphenses 4 (ACW 1.86); Gregory Nazianz., Oratio 42, in Pascha 23 (MG 36.656B).

Rev 11:19.

Rev 21:3.

For “Moses on the Mount” see Exod 25:40. For “glorified among the nations” see Mal 1:10–11, of which there is an evident allusion here, and so the glorification of God in the Church is through the Eucharist, because Irenaeus is speaking of the sacrifices of the Old Covenant as mere types of that of the New. This was, of course, stated more clearly before, with an explicit quotation from Mal 1:11.

Lat. Iren. has sermo, which stands for Logos. Arm. Iren. skipped the whole phrase. SC (619n1) thinks this sermo refers to the Scriptures, which are in fact being quoted. Yet Irenaeus also knows that the Word spoke in the Scriptures, as did the Spirit. And so this Sermo-Logos could very well be the Word.

Isa 40:12. In the next sentence the underlined words could be alluding to Eph 3.18. “circumference” is for circummensurationis, which is well authenticated in the Latin MSS. It supposes the Greek περιμέτρου, which is found in A.H. 1.17.1. Arm. Iren. has de mensura, and so Hemmerdinger 311 thinks this could be a marginal title, in Greek περί μέτρου, which slipped into the text.

Of whose heart and mind is Irenaeus speaking: God’s, or man’s? ANF thought it is man’s, here and in #3; namely, God cannot be measured by the heart of man or comprehended by his mind. BKV refers these words to God, and rightly so, because there is a contrast here: God’s hand cannot be comprehended, much more so cannot he himself be comprehended in his heart or mind. It would be a strange contrast if he had said: “God’s mind cannot be comprehended, much more so can he not be comprehended by man’s heart and mind.”

A rather graphic picture of God’s immensity.

Eph 1:21.

Cf. Jer 23:24.

Cf. Dan 3:55.

Cf. Dan 3:55.

Jer 2:23–24, also Acts 17:27.

Cf. Rev 2:23. From this it is clear that the personified Hand of God is the Word. Cf. chap. 7, n22.

God is in his nature so immense that man cannot know him as such even naturally; but when God in his love permits, man can know him through his creatures. So Irenaeus is here not denying to man a natural knowledge of God. Naturally, man can have only an indirect knowledge of God through creatures. Cf. A.H. 4.20.4.

Hemmerdinger 308 says he had suggested that this sentence from “and it is He who…” is from Hermas, but SC did not accept that.

Gen 2:7.

For “Word of God” Clermont MS has Verbum Domini while the Salamanca has Verbum Dei Arm. Iren. with its verum Deum suggests Dei as correct; but Verbum of Latin is quite likely correct. Irenaeus is pairing the Word and the Spirit with various figurative titles.

Gen 1:26.

Since the Hands are the Word and the Spirit, it seems, in context, that the Exemplar is the Word, and the Shape is the Spirit, because elsewhere the shaping of things is ascribed to the Spirit. See #2: He “made all things by his Word, and adorned them by his Wisdom” (the Spirit). Cf. also A.H. 4.20.4; 3.24.2; Proof 5. For the Incarnate Word as the ideal Man, the image after which man was made, see A. Orbe, “El hombre ideal en la teología de s. Ireneo,” Greg. 43 (1962): 449–91; and Orbe, Antrop. 89–148. On God’s creating through his hands see Orbe, Antrop. 34–47; Laurence Regnault, “St. Irénée de Lyon,” Dictionnaire de La Spiritualité 7, no. 2 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1971), 1938–69.1944. Irenaeus does not teach pantheism when he says that God took from himself the substance of the creatures, because in the next paragraph he says explicitly that God created out of nothing. What he means is that the substance of creatures comes simply from the omnipotent will of God who creates out of nothing. In scholastic terms, he is the efficient cause, not the material cause. Through his Word he is also the exemplary cause.

For a full discussion see Bacq 166n2 This quotation is found in The Shepherd of Hermas Book 2, Similitudo 1. Irenaeus introduces it as Scripture. Authors have long concluded that Irenaeus considered it part of the Bible. That is a false inference. In Proof 4, Irenaeus also quotes Hermes, Mandatum 1, verbatim, but he adds “the Father” to “God,” which he does not have here or in 4.20.2. Smith (ACW 6, n28) claims it is a question in Proof 4 of God’s immensity, not of his incomprehensibility. True, but spatial incomprehensibility is also Irenaean. As the parallel in 4.20.2 shows, it is not a question of sustaining all things, as Barthoulot has in Proof 4. See Smith, 138n28. In Lat. Iren. the three verbs connected by “and” (constituit et consummavit et fecit) would seem to give a false sequence of actions, putting creation out of nothing after “establishing and adorning or arranging.” The Greek excerpt preserved by Eusebius stops after the first two verbs, which are aorist participles. If the third is also an aorist participle, it could indicate time prior to the other two verbs, as I have translated it, and then the sequence would be good: creation out of nothing, then establishing things (through the Word) and arranging or adorning them (through the Spirit). For consummavit the Arm. Iren. Has adaptavit, which is more exact. Cf. A.H. 1.15.5; 1.22.1; 2.10.2; 2.30.9; 4.20.1; 4.20.2, 3, 4, and 6. Proof 4.

Mal 2:10. The two clauses are inverted in RSV and in Irenaeus.

Eph 4:6.

Matt 11:27.

Clearly, since God created through the Word, the created things belong to the Word and not to someone else, as Irenaeus’s opponents held. See also A.H. 5.2.1; Proof 3.

Cf. Heb 2:8.

Acts 10:42.

Rev 3:7.

Rev 5:3, 6, 9, 12.

John 1:14. “By the God” is according to the reading suggested by Hemmerdinger (316) in keeping with the Arm. Iren. ab eo Deo, which Lat. Iren. wrote incorrectly as ab odem.

Cf. Col 1:18, where the Vulgate has primatum, but Lat. Iren. principatum.

1 Pet 2:22.

Col 1:18. The idea of triple dominion agrees with the threefold realm expressed in Phil 2:10.

See also A.H. 3.9.1.

Bacq argues that the “Father’s light” is given as the incarnation of the Son. Bacq 167n2.

This is a beautiful idea about Christ as the mediator of our glory. Note that it was first given to Christ, namely, for his own glory. Then from Christ it passes on to us. From this we can rightly conclude to the Absolute Primacy of Christ in God’s plan of creation and salvation. Moreover, Irenaeus tells us that the incarnation took place that men might “see their King”; that is, Christ was intended as the mediator of man’s knowledge of God on earth and in glory. See Unger, FS 14–18. On the incarnation as a new mode for being led gradually to the vision of God, see E. Lanne, “La vision de Dieu dans l’oeuvre de saint Irénée,” Irenikon 33 (1960): 314–20.

On the preexistence of the Son see also 2.25.3; 2.30.9; 3.11.1–6.

The eternal existence of the Holy Spirit is given here in unmistakable terms; so he must have been divine in the strict sense.

Prov 3:19–20.

Prov 8:22–25, as in LXX for its punctuation of vs. 23 and the beginning of vs. 24. “Lord” is according to Lat. Iren.; Arm. Iren. has “God.”

Prov 8:27–31 LXX, with some phrases omitted.

This is an important theme in Irenaeus. Ultimately, creatures know God through his love.

Cf. Bar 3:27.

Proof 12: “And so fair and goodly was the Garden, the Word of God was constantly walking in it; he would walk round and talk with the man, prefiguring what was to come to pass in the future, how he would become man’s fellow, and talk with him, and come among mankind, teaching them justice” (ACW 16.55). Irenaeus stresses the truth that the incarnation took place so that man could be united with God on earth and in heaven and actually see him. He stresses this in such a manner that he must have considered it part of the original plan of God. See Unger; ES 13–14, 17.

Luke 1:71.

Luke 1:75.

Irenaeus did not define a prophecy by its most basic function, namely, speaking in God’s name (as the Hebrew nabi’ and the Greek προ-φήμι pro-phemi indicate etymologically), but by a frequent function of speaking for God about the future happenings. See also A.H. 4.20.12; Proof 34.

Matt 5:8.

Exod 33:20. “Ineffable” (supposing inenarrabilem) is according to Arm. Iren., against Lat. Iren. with mirabilem.

Vision is an important, if understudied, theme in Irenaeus’s writings. See Scott D. Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith: Irenaeus and the Structure of the Adversus Haereses (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019) for connections between Irenaeus’s discussion of vision and the Greco-Roman rhetorical context in which Irenaeus wrote. See also Bacq 169–72.

Luke 18:27.

The steps to perfection are found again in A.H. 5.36.2, and Proof 7. Human life develops only in communion with the triune God. The triple adverbial construction (prophetice…adoptive…paternaliter) had to be changed in order to get a readable translation.

See Bacq 328.

“By men” is according to Arm. Iren. and Lat. Iren. The Greek excerpt has ζωοποιήσῃ. There is a textual difficulty in the number of terms and their order. Arm. Iren. is the most complete and has the three positive terms in the same order as the matching negative terms. Someone might suspect that Arm. Iren. adjusted the text to be so consistent. But the number of the terms in Arm. Iren. is correct. Lat. Iren. omits invisibile, which is quite certainly authentic since it is in the Greek and Arm. Iren. The Greek excerpt omits visibile, which is carried by Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. As for the order, if we suppose the order of the negative terms in the Greek to be original, with which the Latin agrees, once we have restored invisibilis in third place, incomprehensibilis would be the middle term, just as in the positive side comprehensibilis is the middle term. If on the positive side we restore visibilem to the Greek in first place as it is in Arm. Iren. and Lat. Iren., then we could have the end terms inverted on the positive side, with the whole forming a kind of chiasmus, as in my translation. This was the suggestion already of G. M. Lee, “Notes on Irenaeus (Adv. haereses 4, 34.6),” VC 25 (1971): 29–30, and is followed by SC 100, in the French translation. All this is beautiful and harmonious doctrine. That the true life of a creature consists in partaking of the Creator’s life is a masterful thought.

“Who bear the Spirit,” see chap. 14, n9.

Deut 5:24 LXX; but Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. both have “we see,” in place of the Bible’s “we know.”

Matt 6:10.

Hos 12:11. See also A.H. 3.2.13.

1 Cor 12:4–7.

John 1:18. Lat. Iren. has unigenitus Filius, which seems an adaptation of the Latin translator, because Arm. Iren. has “only-begotten God,” which Lat. Iren. also has two times in A.H. 4.20.11. Introducing this quotation, Lat. Iren. has in evangelio scriptum est, while Arm. Iren. has “the Lord says.” SC defends this Arm. reading as “incontestably original,” noting that in A.H. 4.20.11 both Lat. and Arm. Iren. have this two times. SC thinks if the Greek had had “in the Gospel” it would be difficult to see how Arm. Iren. got “the Lord says”; but it can equally be retorted: if the Latin translator had in his Greek copy “the Lord says,” it is difficult to explain how he got in evangelio scriptum est. SC’s suggestion that Lat. Iren. did not understand how this quotation, actually a statement by the evangelist John, could be ascribed to the Lord, so he changed it. That is not convincing at all. He would have had to make the same change twice in A.H. 4.20.11. So either reading could have been original here.

For more on “only Begotten” see Bacq 324.

Cf. 1 Cor 12:4–7. A.H. 3.16.7.

Cf. A.H. 2.6.1.

See Bacq 174n1 and 320. See also A.H. 3.6.1; 4.5.1.

“Disciplined” renders praemeditaretur.

Tertullian, De carnis resurrectio, 28.1 (CCL 2.957); Sicut vocibus, ita et rebus prophetatum est. Augustine, Contra Faustum, lib. 4, c.2 (ML 42.219): Ita illorum hominum non tantum lingua, sed et vita prophetica ait.

Isa 6:5.

Ps 21 (22):15.

Exod 4:6–7 LXX.

Num 12:8; Exod 33:11.

Exod 33:21, 22, 20 (LXX, with some omissions, but with the addition of “high places”!).

Matt 17:3.

1 Kgs 19:11–12 (LXX, with the omission of “on the mountains.”)

Isa 42:3.

See also A.H. 5.35.1; 5.35.2; 5.36.2. And compare these texts with A.H. 4.9.2; 4.20.10; 4.26.1.

“Perfectly” is according to Arm. Iren., which seems certain, since Irenaeus here alludes to 1 Cor 12:9–12, about partial knowledge. Lat. Iren. has proprie. See 1 Cor 13:12 and A.H. 4.9.2.

Ezek 1:1, 5–25.

Ezek 2:1.

John 1:18. Cf. A.H. 4.20.6.

Loc. cit.

Cf. AH. 1.10.3.

Cf. A.H. 3.21.7.

Dan 3:92.

Dan 2:34.

Dan 7:13–14.

Cf. A.H. 4.33.1; 4.33.11.

Rev 1:12–17 “in the revelation” is not the title of the book, as SC notes, but the revelation that was accorded to John and recounted in Rev. He did not see in his book, but in the visions.

Exod 28:4; Lev 8:7. For more on types see chap. 19, n1 above.

2 Pet 3:7.

Rev 1:17.

Exod 33:20.

John 13:25. Irenaeus identifies the disciple who reclined on Christ’s bosom with John the apostle as the author of the Fourth Gospel and of Revelation.

Rev 1:17–18.

Rev 5:6.

Rev 19:11–17.

Lat. Iren. has visus. SC’s critical apparatus is not complete here. It printed usus in the text, seemingly on the authority of Arm. Iren. But God did not use the Prophets through visions and speeches and in actions. He was, however, seen by the Prophets (dative of agent in Greek) through visions and speeches and in actions. Hence the change to the preposition in. The burden of the entire section before this is that the Son was seen by the Prophets in those visions and words.

Hos 1:2–3.

1 Cor 7:14.

Bacq wonders whether Christ is the faithful husband and the Church the unfaithful spouse. See Bacq 180n1.

Hos 1:6, 9.

Rom 9:25–26; Hosea 1:10; 2:23. “It was said.” Eliberata of Lat. Iren. (liberata in Clermont MS) must be wrong. Arm. Iren. (and SC followed that) omits it. Grabe already recommended omitting it as a marginal explanation to “might obtain mercy.” Massuet and Harvey claim it supposes ἐρρύθη (“was freed”), which was a false reading for ἐρρέθη (“it was said”), in that case a doublet.

Cf. A.H. 1.10.3.

Exod 2:21.

Rom 11:17.

Irenaeus teaches the ancient doctrine that the Word entered into nuptials with the Church. Hence, the Church is the mother of the Gentiles. I translated “the Church which is from among the nations.” That is what Lat. Iren. and the Greek have, and the context speaks of the Church and not of a calling. But Arm. Iren. has “the calling of the Gentiles.” That supposes ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν καλλέω in place of ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλεσία. In Proof 21 the same idea and words occur. Smith (ACW 16. Note 114) thinks this was correct also in our place. Hardly; in our place there is no mention of a call in the context, and that would scarcely fit into the construction. In Proof the call had been mentioned in the previous context, and so it could be correct there. But it could also have slipped into the second place by a mistaken reading of the Greek.

Num 12:10–14.

Jos. 2.

Matt 21:31. Likewise an odd accommodation. Irenaeus, just like Clement and Justin, makes Rahab the Church; but Origen and Cyprian took her house for the Church. Cf. J. Danielou, “Rahab, figure de l’Eglise,” Irenikon 22 (1940): 26–45. See also A.H. 4.20.12; 4.30.4.

Gal 3:5–9.

See also A.H. 4.5.3–5; 4.7.2; 5.32.2.

Rom 9:10–13.

Gen 25:23. Other Fathers give the same explanation. See Tertullian, Adv. Iudaeos 1.4 (CCL 2.1340); Origen, Hom. in Gen 12.1 (GCS 6.107 Bährens).

Dan 13:42.

Rom 9:13, from Mal 1:2.

Gen 25:26.

Rev 6:2. Cf. A.H. 3.23.7.

Gen 25:32.

Cf. Col 1:15. On the “first born” see Bacq 331.

John 19:15.

Gen 35:16ff., only eleven sons were born to him outside of Palestine; Benjamin was born near Ephrata.

The earth is the foreign land of Christ. The twelve-pillared foundation is the apostles, since they are people, the verb generate is quite correct.

Gen 30:32ff.

Ps 2:8.

Lat. Iren reads: Et quoniam multitudinis filiorum Domini prophetae fiebant Iacob, necesse fuit ex duabus sororibus eum filios facere. Multitudinis is according to the Clermont and Voss MSS; the other Latin MSS have multitudines. Neither can be correct. Arm. Iren. has multitudine, which makes sense; and fiebant should be singular, with Jacob as subject. Thus also SC.

Cf. Gen 30:3, 9 and Gal 4:31.

Cf. John 6:64; 1 Cor 15.45; 2 Pet 3:18; Justin, Dialogus 134 (MG 6.785, 788).

Gen 29:17; Cf. Song 1:15.

Cf. Eph 5:32.

Gal 4:4, 7. Cf. A.H. 3.22.4.

Isa 4:4.

John 13.5.

On the phrase “heir to God” see also A.H. 4.21.3.

In this sentence the phrases have been variously separated and joined, with a variation of meaning. Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. agree on: Hic est enim finis humani generis heredificantis Deum, uti quemadmodum sic in vitam veniant Dei. SC (685n1) gives a conjectural Greek original and then interprets it as meaning: “the end” is “to inherit God,” and the uti clauses are result clauses. That would mean that heredificantis would be a genitive absolute with humani generis as the noun. But that is impossible because humani generis is a subjective genitive controlled by finis. Nor can the present participle (also in Greek) be a purpose clause, meaning “which would inherit God.” Arm. Iren. is of little help here. So the simple solution seems to be: “the end of the human race” is not “to inherit God,” but “to come to the life of God.” “First men” are certainly Adam and Eve, because they are said to be the ones through whom we inherited “the debt of death.” “The last men” are rightly judged by SC to be the apostles, the foundation of the “last times.” (SC, 687n1). Yet, in #2, there is a contrast between “the first” and “we.” So maybe the “last men” include not merely the apostles but all people in the apostolic era, that is, till the end of time.

This is a spurious passage, not contained in any canonical book. For a full note on this, see Bacq 186n2. Irenaeus refers to Pseudo-Jeremiah six times (A.H. 3.20.4; 4.22.1; 4.33.12; 5.31.1; Proof 78). There is also an attribution in Justin, Dial. 72.4.

Matt 26:40ff.; Mark 14:37ff.; Luke 22:45ff.

Eph 4:9.

Matt 13:17; Luke 10:24.

Cf. Titus 2:12.

I followed Lat. Iren., taking primo…quam reliquos as a comparative expression. The Arm. Iren. ex aliis seems to be the same. SC (689) suspects that there is here a hint of millenarianism. I doubt that very much.

Rom 3:30.

Lat. Iren. has deformari. That has no pejorative sense here. See A.H. 4.25.3, in a similar context: secundum formationem Christi.

John 4:35–36.

“Instructed by the prophets” (Lat. Iren.) and “confused by the Scriptures” (Arm. Iren.) are both partly wrong. “Confused” should be corrected to “instructed” as SC does. “Scriptures” is correct, because the examples given come not merely from the Prophets but also from the Gospels and the Acts. Besides, at the end of chap. 24 we read: sine instructione Scripturarum. And at the end of c.23.1, it is the Scriptures of which they are said to be ignorant.

Matt 1:20–21.

Matt 1:22–23.

Isa 7:12. A very clear statement that shows Irenaeus considered Isa 7:14 a literal and exclusive prophecy about Mary the Virgin.

Matt 2:14, 21–23.

On this phrase, see also A.H. 3.16.2.

Luke 3:23.

Luke 4:18. That was obviously at Nazareth. Yet both Lat. and Arm. Iren. have Capernaum; so that must have been in the Greek copy from which they translated, and even in Irenaeus’s original. His memory could have failed him. See also, A.H. 3.9.3; 3.17.1; 3.18.3.

Luke 4:21.

Acts 8:26–39. Arm. Iren. adds “apostle” to Philip’s name. SC (695n2) thinks that was an error of Irenaeus. But why then was it not also in Lat. Iren.?

Cf. A.H. 3.12.8.

Here and in A.H. 4.24.1 Irenaeus clearly indicates that catechizing before baptism was a practice of the Church at that time.

Matt 10:6.

Matt 16:17.

Acts 2:41; 4:4; he is really using the entire section of Acts 2–4.

1 Cor 15:10.

Cf. Luke 16:31.

Col 1:18; Rev 1:5. On catechizing before baptism see chap. 23, n13.

Acts 3:15; 5:31. SC (701n1, pp. 258–61) has a long and interesting note about Irenaeus’s combining the texts from Col 1.18 and Acts 3.15, to stress the primacy of the risen Christ, the conqueror of death, the source of divine life for humankind. Having compared the four places where Irenaeus uses this combination (sc. AH. 2.22.4; 3.22.4; 4.24.1 [present passage]; Proof 39) he concludes that there is continuity of thought but also progress in insight. In 3.22.4, he does not have “the Author of life” but he does have “unto life of God” and “the beginning of the living.” “Beginning” here comes from Col 1:18, the very text that has “Firstborn of the dead.” And so “the Beginning of the living” is actually a profound insight into “Firstborn of the dead.” Combining these texts is not chance, but the result of a personal reflection on them by the Bishop of Lyons. SC shrewdly observed that the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons also used this combination, and almost verbatim as in 4.24.1 and Proof 39. For the author of the Note in SC this is a good indication that Irenaeus wrote that Letter.

Exod 17:10.

Cf. Num 21:9 and John 3:14–15.

See A.H. 3.13.

Lat. Iren. has: reformasse quidem humanum genus, destruxisse autem et vicisse, as I translated. Arm. Iren. has: pugnavisse pro humanitate, vicisse autem, which SC adopted, but which does not seem correct.

Cf. Mark 10:19.

Eph 1:21.