11. Phil 2:8.

Phil 2:8.

Cf. Matt 3:9.

Lat. Iren. has: Sic enim oportuerat filios Abrahae, quos illi…excitavit Deus, et fecit assistere ei. Arm. Iren. omitted oportuerat and quos illi. SC adopted that. But I believe Arm. Iren. did not grasp the Greek underlying oportuerat, and so simplified what was a more complicated construction. The Latin, as I translated, makes good sense. One need merely supply esse with oportuerat. The parentheses as introduced by Harvey are not correct.

Rom 4:11, 12, 16.

Cf. A.H. 4.5.3–4; 4.7.2; 4.25.1.

Eph 2:20.

Heb 1:3.

Cf. A.H. 3.25.5.

Gen 38:28ff.

Hemmendinger (312) had suggested that some words fell out here to complete the triple phrase: paternaliter et legaliter <a iudicibus, et prophetice> a prophetis. In A.H. 4.20.5 we have the idea: haec prophetice significabant prophetae, where it is a question of gathering witnesses from the Prophets and not from the Law section of the Old Testament. The division of the Old Testament into Patriarchs, Law, and Prophets was current for Irenaeus. In A.H. 4.20.4, we have a trinitarian process of salvation expressed by three adverbs: prophetice, adoptive, paternaliter. That is not the same as in our passage, where the triple adverb would refer to chronological stages. However, I might add that in A.H. 5.21.2 legaliter refers to Christ’s refuting Satan by quoting from the Law (Deut 8:3). Now since Moses was considered a prophet by Irenaeus, maybe legaliter a Prophetis does make sense, and the Latin would be good as it is in the MSS.

John 4:37.

Cf. Isa 55:10; 2 Cor 9:10.

1 Cor 3:7.

Jer 9:2.

John 4:36.

Of course, this is a central theme in A.H., which we have discussed at length. For Irenaeus, all the Scriptures—from the Old Covenant and the New—refer to Christ.

Matt 1:44, 38.

I followed the Greek fragment, which differs from Lat. Iren. It is in keeping with the following where Irenaeus clearly states that the prophecy before its fulfillment is an enigma. Hence the negative is needed. Yet the Latin could be a rhetorical question, demanding a negative answer; it would then have the same meaning as the Greek.

Dan 12:4, 7 (Theodotion).

Cf. Jer 23:20.

Matt 13:44.

Dan 12:3 (Theodotion). A multis iustis is a slavish rendering of the Greek partitive phrase, used as subject.

Cf. Luke 24:26, 46.

Matt 13:52. Irenaeus also quotes this passage at A.H. 4.9.1.

Cf. A.H. 3.3.2.

See Bacq 202n2 on the phrase “certain charism of the Truth” and the scholarly debate on whether this applies just to the bishops or to the Church as a whole.

This passage, which speaks of the entire episcopate, is very similar to that in A.H. 3.3.2, which speaks of the Roman episcopate. For a full discussion of this see A.H. 3, 126n3. Loco (supposing topoi of the Lat. MSS) is surely a faulty reading for modo tropoi, as is clear from Arm. Iren. and from the parallel in A.H. 3.3.2.

Lev 10:1–2.

Num 16:33.

1 Kgs 14:10ff. An emphatic statement on the unity of the true Church.

“Pride of principal succession” would be the Lat. Iren. with successionis. It would be the apostolic succession of the bishops; but that would make no sense here, because the heretics did not pride themselves in that at all. So Arm. Iren. comes to our aid with “the pride of priority seating” (consessionis).

Dan 13:20.

Isa 11:3.

Dan 13:56, 52–53; Exod 23:7.

Matt 24:48–51; Luke 12:45–46. Irenaeus’s variants from the accepted text of the Bible are found in some minor MSS of the Bible.

Doctrina of Lat. Iren. supposes διδαχὴν; but Arm. Iren. has “succession,” supposing διαδοχὴν. SC adopts Arm. Iren., as a remarkable parallel to 4.26.5. But that parallelism is not so remarkable, except in favor of doctrina. Irenaeus does not speak of guarding succession, but he does speak of guarding doctrine and faith, and he has both of these concepts in this paragraph.

Num 16:15.

1 Sam. 12:2–5.

2 Cor 2:17; 7:2.

Isa 60:17 LXX.

Matt 24:45–46.

1 Cor 12:28.

Cf. Titus 2:8. Irenaeus wishes to say that the authentic bishops are found in the Church only; cf. 4.26.2; 3.3.2.

The scholarly literature on Irenaeus has spent a great deal of time discussing the Presbyter in the A.H. See Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp: Identifying Irenaeus’ Apostolic Presbyter and the Author of Ad Diognetum, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Followed by John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). See also Bacq 205–7. Lat. Iren. has: Presbyter cui audierat ab his qui apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant. He himself did not hear the apostles, but he learned from those who had seen them and who had learned from them. Now, are these one group of disciples who both saw and learned from the apostles; or were there two groups, one who saw the apostles, the other who learned from those who saw the apostles? Irenaeus actually knew of two kinds of disciples: those, like Mark and Luke, who saw the apostles (cf. A.H. 3.10.1; 3.1.1; 1.101; 3.12.3; 15.3); and those who lived in the postapostolic age, the presbyters to a great extent, who also had special authority to teach (cf. A.H. 5.5.1; 36.1). Arm. Iren. has the Presbyter seeing the apostles, as I translated; but he also learned from the later disciples. Polycarp was such a disciple. Adolf von Harnack, Der Presbyter-Prediger des Irenäus : IV, 27,1–32,1 ; Bruchstücke und Nachklänge der ältesten exegetisch-polemischen Homilieen (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1907), 138, claims that this section of chaps. 27—32 was the Presbyter’s discourse. W. Bousset, Judisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen Neuen Testaments, N.F. 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915), 273, thinks Irenaeus indicates (e.g., 4.32 at the end: si scripturas diligenter legerit) that he had not merely a discourse of the Presbyter but a treatise on messianic prophecies.

Cf. Acts 10:34.

1 Sam 18ff.

2 Sam 11:27.

2 Sam 12:1–7.

2 Sam 2:13; Ps 50.

Cf. 1 Kgs 3:5, 28; 4:29–34. Lat. Iren. has enarraret sapientiam, which should have been peteret, as in Arm. Iren.

1 Kgs 5–6, and 8.

Cf. 1 Kgs 8:15–53, 55–61.

Ps 71 (72):7–8.

1 Kgs 4:32.

1 Kgs 4:33.

1 Kgs 8:27.

1 Kgs 4:34.

1 Kgs 10:1–10.

Matt 12:42.

1 Kgs 11:1, 4, 6, 9.

1 Cor 1:29. The words are Paul’s not the Presbyter’s.

1 Peter 3:19–20.

Rom 3:23.

1 Cor 10:11; 1 Pet 4.7.

Rom 6:9.

Matt 24:30; 25:31.

Matt 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27; 12:48.

Cf. Heb 6:4–6.

Rom 11:21, 17.

1 Cor 10:1–12. The quotations are from Exod 13:21; 14:19–22; Num 14:16; 25:1–9; 21:5; 14:2, 36.

1 Cor 10:5; cf. Ps 94 (95):7b–11, and Heb 3:7–18.

Matt 22:14. Cf. A.H. 4.15.2.

1 Cor 10:8–10.

Matt 25:41.

1 Cor 6:9–10. Cf. A.H. 4.22.1; 4.27.1; 4.37.4.

1 Cor 6:11.

Cf. Matt 18:8–9.

1 Cor 5:11.

Eph 5:6–7.

1 Cor 5:6.

Rom 1:18.

Exod 14:28.

Luke 18:7–8.

2 Thess. 1:6–10. Cf. A.H. 4.33.11.

2 Thess. 1:9 a facie Domini has usually been interpreted as if the punishment would consist in being separated from the face of the Lord. As SC points out (755n1), Irenaeus interprets Paul by Ps 33:17 (A.H. 4.28.1), in the sense that the source of this punishment, God’s anger, will be the face of the Lord. Irenaeus must have taken a facie in that sense also here. I indicated that by inserting “coming” into the text of RSV.

Rom 1:18; 2 Thess. 1:9.

Ps 33 (34):17.

Cf. Mark 5:19.

Luke 6:49.

Matt 26:24.

Matt 10:15; Luke 10:12. Cf. A.H. 4.33.11

Cf. Matt 15:19; 12:36; Eph 5:4.

Not as if it was not eternal under the Old Covenant, but that in the New Covenant, after rejecting Christ, there is no new era of repentance. Cf. Heb 10:26–31. SC changed solum to iam according to Arm. Iren., which I followed. But Hemmerdinger (318) claims solum is correct.

Matt 25:41.

Matt 25:34.

Lat. Iren. reads: exciderunt sibi, while Arm. Iren. has nec sciverunt se praedictos. The Armenian translator did not understand the Greek, which is correct in Latin, that they “went out of their minds.” It does not mean that they were unawares, as SC (761n1) thinks.

“Forgive,” etc. is demittentem eos quos demittit in Lat. Iren., for which Arm. Iren. has, erroneously, perdentem eos quos perdit. The freeing of the Israelites from Egypt as a figure of the freeing of the Gentiles is also in Proof 46.

Matt 26:50, 55; John 19:34.

Cf. John 15:22; Matt 23:34–35; Rom 11:3.

Cf. Acts 12, and passim.

Cf. 1 Cor 1:18, 23–35.

2 Cor 2:15–16.

Num 14:30.

Matt 2. Arm. Iren. has the bracket addition, which SC accepted with the remark that there is something missing in Latin. Rather, the Latin does read well without the addition, but it would be difficult to explain how this was added in Arm. if it was not in the Greek already.

1 Cor 14:20. Bacq notes a parallel passage at Proof 96. Bacq 211n1.

Exod 9:35.

Matt 13:10–16; Luke 8:10; 10.23; from Isa 6:10. This mixture is also in Arm. Iren. Against his usual practice, Irenaeus here does not quote LXX but the Heb. text, through the use of Testimonies, it would seem.

Cf. A.H. 2.27.2; 4.6.5; 4.39.3; 5.13.2; 5.27.2.

In A.H. 3.7.1, we have the same interpretation.

2 Cor 4:4.

Rom 1:28.

2 Thess 2:11–12.

Exod 3:19.

The Finger of God is the Word.

The theme of the “spoils of the Egyptians” is common in early Christian writings. It becomes a metaphor for early Christian authors to borrow the learning of the Greek and Romans—philosophy, rhetoric, and so forth.—for the proclamation of Christian truth.

Luke 16:9.

Even some of the royal family were Christians at this time. That has been the usual interpretation of this clause by scholars of all persuasions. But G. Clarke, “Notes and Observations: Iren. A.H. 4.30.1,” HTR 59 (1966): 95–97, thinks the reasoning is not convincing. In regali aula need not mean the Roman court. In his letter to Florinus, who need not have been more than a local functionary, Irenaeus speaks of Florinus’s having been in the imperial court, which was simply the governor’s court in Asia Minor. True, but Irenaeus is writing Book 4 in Lyons and would more likely have in mind the Roman Court, from which also the persecutions of the Lyonese people had issued. See A.H. 1, Introd., p. 4, on the date of Book 4.

Exod 1:13–14.

Exod 1:11.

The long protasis in Lat. Iren. was taken as an independent question by Harvey. But ANF and BKV read it as I did in the translation. In the Latin, the Jewish people are the populo, who are accused of taking a few things, while the Egyptians do not blame themselves for ungratefulness to the ancient Jews. Arm. Iren. has the Jews accuse the Egyptians, as the populus, for getting so little, but do not blame themselves for ingratitude toward the pagan nations to whom they owe so much. SC follows that and appeals to 4.30.1 for the same idea, with the remark that the Latin does not fit the context.

There seems to have been a period of peace in the Roman Empire when this was written. See A.H.1, Introd., p. 4.

Matt 7:5.

The Israelites are a type of the Christians.

Matt 7:1–2.

Luke 3:11.

Matt 25:35–36.

Matt 6:3. Cf. A.H. 4.13.3.

Luke 16:9. Cf. A.H. 4.18.6; 5.35.2.

Cf. Rev 15–16. Cf. A.H. 5.35.2.

Cf. Gen 9:25.

Matt 10:24.

The advice of the Presbyter is very edifying.

Gen 19:26.

Gen 10:33, 35.

Gen 19:31–32.

Other churchmen are on record for having excused the daughters.

Deut 32:6.

Matt 11:19.

Ps 3:6.

Jer 21:26, LXX 38.

Matt 5:13. A. Orbe, “Ecclesia, sal terrae, según san Ireneo,” RSR 60 (1972): 219–40, discusses the source of this symbolic application as possibly having been a Jewish Haggadic interpretation made after the Barkocheba War, which the Jewish Christians later adapted, as did also some of the so-called Gnostics. See also A.H. 4.10.2

Cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 4:29.

“By someone else” is ab as an independent agent; e.g., Demiurge; “through someone else” is per, as an instrument of God, e.g., the angels. That is a demonstration of Irenaean precision.

Lat. Iren. has: ne victi salvari periclitentur. I accept SC’s observation that in Greek κινδυνεύσωσιν takes the object σωθῆναι. The reason for the danger to their salvation is rather simple. Their salvation comes through gnosis; so if their theory is refuted, their whole system falls, and they cannot talk about salvation.

“Believes,” according to Lat. Iren. (credat). Arm. Iren. has teneat, which SC adopts. This stresses the contrast better to transmoveatur a factore; and tenens caput is in the Pauline quote. But credat fits too, and I see no need to depart from it.

Gen 1:3. God’s saying was the means of creating through the Word.

John 1:3.

Eph 4:5–6.

Col 2:19.

Eph 4:16.

Lat. Iren. has ei, namely, it is consistent for him. Arm. Iren., which SC (799n3), again accepts has “every word of his will be consistent.” But see a parallel to the dative again in A.H. 4.33.7: omnia enim ei constant.

Cf. A.H. 3.3.2; 4.26.1, 4, 5. Here there is question of episcopal teaching.

This sentence is poorly phrased in Lat. Iren. and in Arm. If in Latin the qui clause is read with hominum, that is, before the parenthetical clause secundum quod Testamenta dabantur, all reads well.

Cf. Book 3, especially cc. 9–15.

1 Cor 2:15. See Scott D. Moringiello, “The Pneumatikos as Scriptural Interpreter: Irenaeus on 1 Cor 2:15,” Studia Patristica 65 (2013): 105–18. Bacq 218–26.

Rom 1:25, 28. Cf. A.H. 2.9.1; 2.27.2; 4.6.6.

Cf. A.H. 4.2.6; 4.7.4; 4.12.4; 4.18.4.

Isa 53:3; 1 Pet 3:23–24.

Zach 9:9.

Ps 117 (118):22; 1 Pet 3:7.

Isa 53:7; cf. 1 Pet 2:19.

Exod 17:11.

Isa 11:12.

1 Pet 4:19. Cf. A.H. 3.20.4, for the noncanonical writing; also A.H. 1 Introd., pp. 8–10.

Dan 7:13; Matt 27:64.

Mal 4:1.

Isa 11:4; cf. 2 Thess 2:8.

Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17. Bacq 219n1 notes the echoes to this type of argument in Justin Dial. 1.8; 32.1–2; 49.2; 53.1–3; 86.1; 110.2; 120.4 and Tertullian Adv Iud. 14.1–19.

Cf. A.H. 1.27.2–4.

Matt 26:27; Mark 14.22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23–24. Irenaeus certainly holds the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Even his opponents admitted that, but quite inconsistently, since they denied the reality of Christ’s body.

Matt 26:24, 64, and parallels.

Cf. John 20:23; Matt 9:6.

Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21. Cf. Tertullian, De Carne Christi 5 (CCL 2.880–83); and passim in Adv. Marcionem (CCL 1.441ff.).

Cf. A.H. 1.1–8.

Cf. A.H. 1.12.3, where the Greek is extant for obstetricasse, and it means first to deliver a child as by a midwife, and second, of a mother herself delivering her child. The first meaning applies here. SC ( 811n1) thinks it is wrong to take this in the sense that Irenaeus’s opponents claimed the profession for themselves. Yet, Irenaeus ironically attributes that to them because they seem to know so much about the emissions from the conjugal couples. They never claimed to have been mothers in confinement either.

Iliad 9.312–313 (Loeb 1.404).

Here Irenaeus seems to be referring to a specific school, not to his opponents generally.

For the other places in which Irenaeus discusses Simon, see A.H. 1.23.1–2; 1.27.4; 2.P.1.; 2.9.2.

Cf. A.H. 1.26.2. Irenaeus is the first to use the word Ebionites. See Bacq 220n1.

Ps 73 (74):12.

Lat. Iren. would make good sense if one were to suppose a verb like transeat (from the preceding phrase) before in novam generationem, as older authors tried to correct the text. However, Arm. Iren. has regeneratur in place of regenerationem; as also relinquent for relinquet. That makes very good sense. A detailed treatment of this passage can be found in Unger, ME 3–108. I shall give a summary of that. The context is this: The Ebionites will be judged because they deny the virginal conception of Jesus, and so deny the reality of his human nature, and so deny the possibility of salvation. To escape from death, incurred by the first generation from Adam, one must believe in the new generation, that is, the virginal generation of Jesus. The Virgin in question is certainly Mary the Mother of Emmanuel. It is not the Church alone, as some have held, nor even the Church together with Mary. Since the incarnation of God’s Son from the Virgin was necessary for salvation, according to Irenaeus, Mary’s faith-filled consent to be the Mother of Jesus indirectly makes her the mother also of all who would be saved by faith in Jesus. The older opinions, based on the Lat. Iren., which held that Mary is directly involved here as spiritual mother of all believers, is not tenable. This is, of course, not the only passage of Irenaeus for Mary’s spiritual motherhood. On the soteriological value of the incarnation by uniting humanity to God, but not being fully achieved except through the Pasch, especially the resurrection, see Jossua 122–40; 271–72. Union with God through the incarnation is a rebirth that makes humanity like to God. That is Irenaeus’s way of saying that humanity is divinized, a term he does not use although it is frequent among the Greek writers. See Lawson, 154–63. For the relationship between the divine and the human natures in Christ, indicated in our present passage, see Wingren, especially 110–12.

Matt 12:41–42.

Matt 22:43; Ps 109 (110):1.

Matt 22:24; Luke 11:21–22.

Cf. A.H. 3.16.6, 7; 18.1–2; 5.1.3, where the bishop speaks still more clearly: humanity was created to the image of Christ, who would become incarnate. Definitely Christ was in God’s plan before Adam was. See Unger, FS 6–9.

Here Irenaeus refers to the so-called Docetists, who believed that Jesus Christ was not truly a human being. See A.H. 1, 164n6, 185n9, and 252n6.

“Parade” is according to perferant, the reading preferred by Massuet, according to the C and V and Q MSS. Earlier editions had proferant, which agrees with Arm. Iren. and was accepted by SC. Grabe, guided by the abbreviation in the A MS, thought it should be praeferant. Already Ignatius of Antioch said of the Docetists: “Surely if those things were done by our Lord as a mere make-believe, then I in my chains, too, am a make-believe” (ACW 1.917).

This is a grand expression of the Mystical Body, especially of its unity. The phrase “the great and glorious Body of Christ” was used by Pius XII in his encyclical letter on the Mystical Body (n.100). For more on the Body of Christ in Irenaeus see Wingren 159–70, but also 147–59 as a preliminary.

Matt 23:24.

This equation between Truth and the Church is excellent. It is true because only the Church has the whole Truth. Cf. A.H. 3.24.1.

1 Cor 8:6.

1 Tim. 2:4.

Cf. John 1:14. I followed the Greek. Lat. Iren. has: “He was present with the human race.”

Irenaeus stresses the antiquity of the Church along with the apostolicity and the catholicity. He contrasts the consistent doctrine of the apostles with the inconsistent doctrine of his opponents. See A.H. 2.19.8; 3.22.1; 4.12.5; 5.19.2.

This important passage on the Church and its doctrinal authority is difficult to translate accurately, though substantially the meaning is certain. To follow the discussion more easily it will be good to see the Latin text before us:

Agnitio vera est apostolorum doctrina, et antiquus Ecclesiae status in universo mundo, et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus illi eam quae in unoquoque loco est Ecclesiam tradiderunt, quae pervenit usque ad nos.

Custoditio [or, custodita] sine fictione, Scripturarum, plenissima tractatio, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens, et lectio sine falsatione, et secundum Scripturas expositio legitima et diligens et sine periculo et sine blasphemia; et praecipuum dilectionis munus, quod est….

Now, as must be apparent, this sentence is rather oddly structured; but because of scribal errors in handing down the text some points are doubtful.

Tractatio should be nominative. Only one MS (Arundel) has the ablative; obviously the scribe tried to make sense out of the whole clause since he read custodita. The really troublesome reading is custoditio or custodita. Custodita is presented by Arundel, Salamanca MSS, and Erasmus, which Harvey adopted. Vatican MS alone has custoditio, which could be a corruption of either the noun or the feminine participle. The Clermont and Voss MSS and Feuardent (accepted by Massuet) have custoditione, which is the closest to custoditio, witnessed to by the Lone Mercier II MS, but the Arm. Iren. agrees with it, and SC accepted it. So from the MSS evidence alone the matter remains doubtful. Grammatically a variety of constructions are possible. If custoditio is correct, it is the first of four nouns explaining agnitio; tractatio, since it is not joined by a conjunction, must be in apposition to it. Sine fictione is an adjective in Arm. Iren, and quite certainly was also in Greek. To catch the effect of the adjective I shall use non-ficta here. Since it is an adjective, the genitive Scripturarum cannot be immediately dependent on it, as if the Scriptures were somehow made fictional. In Irenaeus’s explanations the fictitious element always exists separately from the Scriptures, and these are joined to it by Irenaeus’s opponents. So we cannot read sine fictione directly with Scripture. Hence, Irenaeus could have meant it to read: custoditio [nempe] plenissima Scripturarum tractatio non-ficta. But I doubt that he would call the tractatio (account or course) nonfictional. One could read also: custoditio non-ficta, [nempe] plenissima Scripturarum tractatio. Scripturarum would, of course, be implied with custoditio. I followed that arrangement. One could also read: custoditio Scripturarum non-ficta, [nempe] plenissima tractatio. It seems SC followed this way. Hemmerdinger (319) objects to SC’s comma after Scripturarum and so seems to agree with my reading.

If custodita is the correct reading, it could follow quae-agnitio and end the sentence after usque ad nos. But that is not so likely, because when Irenaeus uses that phrase it is not modified by a participle: pervenit usque ad nos (3.3.3); permanente apud nos (3.5.1). And so, if custodita is correct, it most likely began a new clause and modified tractatio. In that case non-ficta could modify only tractatio.

As far as the word usage is concerned, Irenaeus does not use custoditio, but he has conservatio in 4.31.2, where Arm. Iren. has the same word as it does in our passage. So both Latin words must stand for the same Greek word, and it is quite possible that he used a noun here. Most frequently he uses a verbal construction for this safeguarding, either in the active or passive voice. Since in our passage it would be passive, I note that the present custoditur is used in A.H. 3.2.1 for the guarding of tradition; the past participle conservata in A.H. 3.3.2 also for guarding tradition; custodita itself is used in A.H. 5 Prf. for the guarding of faith. So, whether the noun or the participle was original, both have substantially the same meaning here. For the rest, this passage puts into relief again the apostolicity of the Church and its doctrine, as well as the catholicity.

Cf. 2 Cor 8:1; 1 Cor 13.

Irenaeus here develops the need of martyrs in the Church to testify to her holiness. Then, as now, only the true Church boasts of many, many martyrs. See also A.H. 3.18.5; 4.31.3.

Matt 5:10. The Arm. Iren. amputata perhaps expresses more exactly than the Lat. Iren. debilitata, the idea of the Church diminishing by people martyred but increased by new members.

Gen 19:26; cf. above 4.31.1, 2. Other church Fathers, too, have this idea; cf. Justin, Dialogus 110, 4 (MG 6.729); Tertullian, Adv. Scapulam 5.4 (CCL 2.1132).

Matt 5:12.

Cf. 1 Pet 4:14. The reading is not clear, but the sense remains practically the same. Lat. Iren. has idem Spiritus requiescens, with which Arm. Iren. agrees. Hemmerdinger 319 explains it as a nounal phrase that is normal in Greek. Doutreleau, “A propos d’ Irénée, Adv. haer., livre IV,” 592 considers it corrupt and changed it in SC to eodem spiritu requiescente, getting a hint for this from the Salamanca MS: eo idem spiritu requiescente.

Cf. Matt 23:34, 35, 39.

So the “body of Christ” existed somehow already in the Old Testament times, just as the Church did.

“Performed in advance” is for praeformabant of the Clermont MS, which is backed partially by reformabant of the Voss MS. SC chose prophetabant, seemingly according to Arm. Iren. But in the context, Prophets fulfilled the economies by their actions, which favors praeformabant.

Isa 6:1–4; Ps 109:1; Cf. John 12:41. Irenaeus cites this psalm numerous times. See A.H. 2.28.7; 3.6.1; 3.10.6; 3.12.2; 3.16.3; Proof 49 and 85.

Dan 7:13; Matt 24:30; 26:64.

Zach 12:10; John 10:37.

Luke 18:8.

2 Thess 1:6–8.

Cf. Ps 49 (50):6; Mal 4:1.

Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17.

Matt 25:41.

2 Thess 1:9–10.

Ps 44 (45):2, 7, 3, 4. Irenaeus cites this psalm at A.H. 3.6.1 and Proof 47.

Jer 17:9 (LXX).

Isa 8:3; 9:6.

Isa 7:14.

This text was studied in great detail in Unger, ME 108–20. See also the work of A. J. de Aldama, Maria en la patrística de los siglos I y II (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1970), 218–22. To give the highlights, since the word purus, is used as an adjective three times and as an adverb once, we should note that it means something is intact and/or unblemished. That is the consistent meaning throughout the works of Irenaeus. Three things are said here: The Son of God, become Son of Man, who was himself pure, opened the pure womb in a pure manner; second, that womb regenerates men unto God; third, God’s Son had made that womb pure. Now, who is this woman? It can be no other than the Virgin Mother of the Emmanuel spoken of in the immediate context. A. Müller, Ecclesia-Maria. Die Einheit Marias und der Kirche, 2nd rev. ed., Paradosis 5 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1955), 63–75, made a special effort to show that this woman is Mary and the Church, but unconvincingly. God’s Son is pure, namely, intact and unblemished in his eternal generation. Mary’s womb is pure, too, namely, it is intact and unblemished. Her Son opened that womb. This is a scriptural term that simply expresses the birth of the firstborn of a woman. In its original use it meant, of course, that the mother was no longer a virgin; but in its later usage it could be said of even Mary as ever Virgin (see Luke 2:23). Irenaeus adds that Christ opened that womb in a pure manner (pure), namely, Mary remained intact. This is then an explicit reference to Mary’s giving birth in a virginal manner. Aldama holds that pure does not modify eperiens, but puram. I am not convinced of the sense of that here. Yet, Aldama holds that Irenaeus teaches the virginal birth of Jesus.

The third point the Bishop makes is that God’s Son made Mary’s womb pure, that is, intact and unblemished. One can be said to make something intact even though it was never impure. Besides, there is nothing here that would prevent one from referring this to Mary’s own conception as innocent and pure. And now the second point: that pure woman regenerates men unto God. Since Mary is the woman, she is thus our spiritual mother. She regenerates us in a virginal manner at the same time that she generates God’s Son. This is clear and certain. One cannot reject this on the score that the spiritual motherhood of Mary was not known then. The answer is simple: Irenaeus does know of it, here and in other passages, and he teaches it. See other passages in Book 3 and in Book 5.

Isa 53:8.

Joel 3:16; Amos 1:2.

Ps 75 (76):2.

Hab 3:3.

Cf. A.H. 3.20.4.

Also Matt 2:6; Mic 5:2.

Isa 35:5, 6, 3.

Isa 26:19.

Isa 53:4.

As we have seen many times, Irenaeus believes that the Prophets of the old covenant speak with the voice of Christ.

Isa 53:2–4.

Zach 9:9.

Cf. Isa 53:6–7.

Ps 68 (69):22.

Isa 37:12.

Isa 65:2.

Cf. Ps 21:8, 16, 19.

See SC (829n1).

Amos 8:9–10.

Cf. Matt 27:45.

Jer 15:9.

Cf. Ps 3:6.

Cf. Ps 23:7.

Ps 18:7.

Ps 98:1.

Cf. 2 Thess 1:7.

Matt 24:21.

Isa 50:9.

Isa 2:7.

Cf. Ps 8:7; Heb 2:8.

Jer 31:31–32.

Ezek 36:26.

Isa 43:19–21.

Matt 9:17.

Cf. Rom 3:22.

Cf. John 7:37–39.

Lat. Iren. has per tantem serie Scripturae, and Arm. Iren. does not. The Latin makes good sense here.

Lat. Iren. has a conditione while Arm. Iren has a genesi.

Rom 2:5.

1 Cor 2:15.

1 Pet 1:12. Cf. A.H. 4.11.3.

Matt 5:17–18. Cf. A.H. 4.2.6; 4.8.2; 4.13.1; 34.13.3.

Rom 1:17.

Hab 2:4.

See also A.H. 3.10.5; 3.12.14; 4.16.5; 4.33.14 on Irenaeus’s discussion of the new covenant of liberty.

Isa 2:3–4; Mic 4:2–3.

Matt 5:39.

John 4:37.

“Form” here translates habitu. Perhaps Irenaeus is making a reference to Phil 2:7.

Isa 57.1.

Here Irenaeus is likely drawing on themes in Paul’s letters (cf. 1 Cor, Col). Of course, in doing this he directly takes on Marcion, who argues that Paul obviated the need for the old covenant.

For Irenaeus’s discussion of the Valentinians see A.H. 1.1–8.

1 John 4:6.

Luke 5:36–37.

Of course, Irenaeus here distinguishes between the false god his opponents proclaim and the true Lord that he, following Jesus and the apostles, teaches.

Bacq notes that this is the first time in the text that Irenaeus uses the term “rule of truth.” It also appears at A.H. 4.26.5; 4.33.7–9; 4.33.13. Bacq 231n1.

For the organization of the text, see the Introduction.

Matt 21:33–41. For another place where Irenaeus connects a discussion of the vine with the Spirit, see A.H. 4.33.14 and 5.1.3. And for other places where Irenaeus connects the Holy Spirit with the end times, see A.H. 3.17.2–3; 4.33.15; Proof 89.

Matt 21:42–44; Ps 117:22–23.

Rom 1:30.

Matt 5:22.

Of course, there are numerous passages where this is written.

Jer 7:3.

Zech 7:9–10.

Zech 8:17.

Isa 1:16–18.

Ps 33:14–15.

Matt 21:37.

Arm. Iren has “Spirit of God.”

Jer 7:29–30.

Jer 6:17–18.

Luke 21:34–35.

Luke 12:35–36.

Luke 17:26; Matt 24:37–39.

Matt 24:42.

Cf. Gen 11.

Cf. Gen 19.

Matt 10:15; Luke 10:12.

Matt 11:23–24.

John 4:14.

Cf. Matt 21:19.

Cf. Gen 6:2–4.

2 Thess 1:5.

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

The variant Latin reading here has “believed” (credebant) his doctrine.

Cf. Luke 12:48.

Matt 22:1–14.

Matt 5:35. Cf. A.H. 3.5.1; 4.2.5.

Jer 35:15.

Jer 7:25.

Reading Dominus rather than Deus.

Cf. Isa 11:2.

2 Cor 5:4.

Matt 22:13.

Bacq notes Irenaeus’s connection of the wedding garment with the works of justice. Cf. 4.36.6. Bacq 248n2.

1 Cor 10:5.

Matt 22:14.

John 5:14.

Matt 22:7.

Ps 23:1.

Rom 13:1–7. Cf. A.H. 5.24.1.

Matt 5:45. Cf. A.H. 2.22.2; 3.25.4; 4.13.3; 4.36.6; 5.2.2; 5.27.1.

Cf. A.H. 3.11.8; 4.14.2.

Luke 15:11.

Matt 20:10.

Cf. A.H. 3.17.3.

This is likely a reference to the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. See Matt 20:1–16. The translation here prefers the original Greek ἀποκατέστησεν to the Latin repraesentavit. In the later patristic tradition, ἀποκατέστησεν has salvific connotations.

Luke 18:10–14.

Cf. Matt 21:28–32.

Ps 115:2.

Rom 7:18.

Luke 13:6.

Luke 13:34–35; Matt 23:37–38.

Matt 8:11–12. Cf. A.H. 4.8.1; 5.30.4.

Matt 23:37.

Lat. Iren. has by God (a deo). Arm. Iren has by him (ab eo).

Bacq argues that the “good counsel” of God is equivalent to the teaching of the Prophets. See Bacq 255n1 and 255n2.

We have the original Greek of this sentence from John of Damascus’s Sacra Parallela. There the sentence reads Βία θεῳ οὐ πρόεστιν ἀγαθη δὲ γνὠμη πάντοτε συνπαρεστιν αὐτῶι.

Reading Arm. Iren here rationabiles sunt for Lat. Iren. etenim angeli rationalibes.

Rom 2:4–5.

Rom 2:10. Irenaeus makes a similar argument at Proof 8.

There is a slight difference here between Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. The main point, however, is that Irenaeus stresses that human begins have free will. His opponents, Irenaeus believes, deny that. All goodness, however, comes from God. Irenaeus does not get caught up in debates that would occupy later authors.

Irenaeus has discussed this possibility at A.H. 1.6.1–4 and 1.7.5.

The Greek here is ἐκλογῆς καὶ έπιμονῆς.

The Greek here is τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ αγαθοῦ.

Matt 5:6.

Luke 21:34.

Luke 12:35–36.

Luke 12:47.

Luke 6:46.

Luke 12:45–46; Matt 24:48–51.

Variant Latin reading has talia et suae potestates quae liberum hominem ostendunt. Greek reading is τάυτα τὸ αὐτεξούσιν ἐπιδείκνυσι τοῦ ανθρωποῦ.

1 Cor 6:12.

1 Pet 2:16.

Eph 4:25.

Eph 4:29.

Eph 5:8; Rom 13:13.

1 Cor 6:11.

Matt 9:29.

Mark 9:23.

Matt 8:13.

John 3:36.

Matt 23:37–38.

Here Irenaeus is making an anti-Valentinian argument. See A.H. 1.6.3–4; 1.13.6.

See SC (937n1).

Matt 11:22.

1 Cor 9:24–27. Irenaeus also discusses this passage at A.H. 4.15.2 and 5.29.1.

Cf. A.H. 4.9.2–3; 4.12.2; 4.13.3.

Cf. John 15: 9.

Jer 2:19.

Rom 8:29. Arm. Iren. reads ad conformis rather than ad figuram. See also A.H. 5.6.1.

Irenaeus’s point here is that through the economy of salvation, human beings mature into the image of God. The economy of salvation is one long pedagogy to enable human beings to see (that word again) and comprehend God. Cf. A.H. 3.20.1–2; 4.39.1; 5.2.3; 5.3.1; 5.29.1.

The Latin here reads cum semper sit idem et innatus. The Greek reads ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αύτὰ ὄντι καὶ αγενητῳ ὺπαάρχοντι. Cf. 4.11.2; 3.8.3.

Here Irenaeus echoes a theme found in Paul about human maturity for receiving the Word of God. Cf. 1 Cor 3:2. Cf. A.H. 4.37.6; 4.37.7; 4.38.1; 4.38.2.

Eph 1:10.

Irenaeus continues the theme from 1 Cor 3:2 here, and now he links Paul’s words there to the Eucharist. Irenaeus will quote Paul’s passage below.

Although it is anachronistic to talk about Irenaeus’s trinitarian theology, he certainly sees the work of the Son and the Spirit in human immortality. Cf. A.H. 5.1.1; 3.10.2; 3.16.3; 3.19.1; 3.20.2; 5.36.3.

1 Cor 3:2.

1 Cor 3:3.

Acts 8:17–19.

Cf. Heb 5:14.

SC (951n1) ἀγύμναστα…τὰ αἰσθητήρια. This is an allusion to Heb 5:11–14. Of course, this theme obviously chimes with the theme from 1 Cor 3:2.

Here Irenaeus links Christ’s work in saving human beings with Christ’s humanity. In doing so, he brings together the passages from 1 Cor 3:2 and Heb 5:11–14.

Latin has perseverantia [est] incorruptelae [autem] gloria infecti. Greek has ὺποταγὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία καὶ παραμονὴ αφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγενήτον.

Gen 1:28.

Cf. Gen 1:26.

Cf. Gen 2:7.

Cf. Gen 1:28.

Wis 6:19.

Such people are “insatiable and ungrateful” because ultimately they are irrational. See Bacq 264n4.

Ps 81:6.

Ps 81:7.

Cf 2 Cor 5:4; 1 Cor 15:53.

Gen 1:26–28.

Bacq notes the importance of the word experience (experimentum/πεῖρα) in this paragraph and in A.H. 3.20.2; 5.2.3; 5.21.3.

As Bacq notes, when Irenaeus discusses repentance, he has the biblical idea that it is a change of one’s life. See also 3.5.2; 3.9.1. This is in contrast to his opponents’ views, see A.H. 1.31.3; 3.14.4.

Irenaeus discusses this theme at Proof 14.

This is an important theme in Irenaeus. See also A.H. 4.16.4; 4.20.4; 4.20.8; 5.2.3; 5.35.1.

See also A.H. 4.20.5; 4.29.1; 5.27.2.

Cf. John 14:2.

Irenaeus is keen to stress here that punishment is a result of the choices human beings make. Human beings are free to reject God’s light and dwell in darkness if they so choose. Cf. A.H. 5.27.2–28.1.

Matt 25:41.

Isa 45:7.

Matt 25:32. Cf. A.H. 4.28.2; 5.27.1; 5.28.1.

Matt 25:34.

For other places where Irenaeus discusses Satan, see A.H. 5.21.1–3; 3.23.7, as well as 3.18.1,2,7; 3.23.1; 5.24.4.

Matt 25:41.

Matt 13:40–43. Orbe Parabolas I. 354–386.

Matt 13:28.

Lat. Iren. reads et inimicum illum Deo facere aggressus est. Greek reads καὶ εχθροποιῆσαι αὐτον πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐπεχείρησε.

Gen 3:15.

Gal 4:4 Cf. A.H. 3.23.7.

In Book 3, chaps. 21–22, Irenaeus discusses Jesus’s birth from Mary and how it fits into the economy of salvation.

Matt 25:41.

Matt 13:38. Cf. A.H. 3.23.3.

Ps 33:9. Cf. A.H. 2.2.5; 3.8.3.

See SC (985n1).

Arm. Iren. has a deo, “by God.” Lat. Iren. has ab eo, “by him.”

Cf. John 1:12.

Cf. Matt 12:50.

John 8:41.

Isa 1:2.

Ps 17:46.

Ps 58:3.

Matt 23:33.

Matt 16:6.

Luke 13:32.

Ps 49:21. Cf. A.H. 4.4.3; 5.8.2.

Jer 5:8.

Isa 1:10.

Isa 1:16.

Matt 25:41; Matt 13:38.

“Sent” as in Arm. Iren. This agrees better with tibi, and with the parallel cases in 3 Prf. (misimus tibi), and 4.P.4 (transmittens tibi). There is no need of asking why Lat. Iren. has editi. It is most likely just one of his variations. “Exposed” and “refuted” indicate the twofold aim of the entire work, expressed in the longer title with exposé and refutation. See A.H. 1, Introd., pp. 2–3.

About the writings of Irenaeus’s opponents, see A.H.1, Introd., pp. 5.

“By reasoning that all kinds.” Lat. Iren. has ratio, that is, reasoning or method of argumentation, which fits very well. Arm. Iren. has logos. SC has a long note defending this as better. But if logos was the Greek original, then ratio is not only a possible but in this context a very good translation. “All kinds” refers to the type of argumentation in Book 2 (from reason) and in Book 3 (from the apostles), and in Book 4 (from the Lord’s parables chiefly).

“Safeguard it,” that is, the doctrine handed down to the Church, an idea that is prominent here. It implies the unerring character of the Church as described in A.H. 3.3.2; 4.26.4, 5. See A.H. 3, Introd., pp. 9–11. That the Church hands down the teaching is a commonplace in Irenaeus: see, e.g., 1.10.2; 3.3.4. “Throughout the whole world” comes close to the term catholic since in Greek this was probably καθ᾽τὸν κοσμόν. See A.H. 1, chap. 10, n2.

“Her children”—so the Church is our mother. See A.H.3, Introd., pp. 11–12, and Jossa 202–18.

Those three steps represent the three books already sent: Book 2: “having solved all the difficulties”; Book 3: “having explained the doctrines of the Apostles”; Book 4: “having manifested many things which the Lord said and did in parables.”

In A.H. 1, Introd., pp. 4–6, I indicated from this passage that the reader for whom Irenaeus wrote this work must have been someone in authority, a bishop. And these books were sent to him, so he seems not to have been in the immediate vicinity.

See Acts 6:4; 20:24.

“Make every effort.” See A.H. 1.P.3 (elaboravimus). Arm. Iren. has efferentibus, which is certainly not correct.

It is clear here that Irenaeus intends for his readers to know what he has already written in the previous books. As we will see, he will refer to previous books throughout his argument (as he has done before).

“Immense love”; cf. Eph. 3:19. The idea of God’s becoming man that man might become like God is capital in Irenaeus. It is the summary of his doctrine on recapitulation. It is stressed so much as the purpose of the incarnation that one cannot help but hold that it was in God’s original plan to deify man through the Incarnate Son of God. See Unger, FS 9–14, 18–20.

Cf. John 1:14, 18.

Rom 11:34.

Cf. James 1:22.

Cf. 1 John 1:6 and A.H. 5.27.2.

Cf. Col 1:16.

“A beginning as a creature” as in Lat. Iren., initium facturae, a genitive of apposition. This is not an allusion to James 1:18, where the Vulgate has initium creaturae, but the Greek is first-fruits of creatures. Irenaeus is alluding to what he said in A.H. 4.37–38, namely, that all creatures have a beginning, and are not “un-made,” like the Creator. This whole sentence differs in Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. For a bird’s eye view we print it here, with the omissions of the Arm. Iren. in angular brackets:

Praedestinuti quidem	facturi [autem
ut essemus,	initium facturae accepimus]
qui nondum eramus,	in praecognitis temporibus,
secundum praescientiam Patris	secundum ministrationem Verbi
	[qui est perfectus in omnibus].

From this it should be clear that by omitting the autem, Arm. Iren. lost the balance in the acts (verbs), and most likely omitted the rest because the translator did not understand the construction or content. Contrary to SC, the Latin is not at all incomprehensible and is in fact quite balanced, while Arm. Iren. is not. We were predestined ut essemus; that was de facto realized when we got the initium facturae. We who nondum eramus got existence “in the times that were foreknown.” Just as the predestination was according to God’s foreknowledge, so the beginning as creatures was according to the ministration of the Word. All these ideas are thoroughly Irenaean. Arm. Iren. also omitted qui est perfectus, but incorrectly, because the quoniam phrase needs this phrase, which explains that the Word “is perfect in every respect,” because (quoniam) he is both “powerful Word and true Man.” See A.H. 4.38.3 for a parallel.

Cf. Eph 1:5, 11–12; 1 Pet 1:2. In Irenaeus’s theology the incarnation was needed for bringing the knowledge of God to man because God had planned it so. See A.H. 4, chap. 5, n7.

“Rationally” is in Lat. Iren. rationabiliter, which must have been logikos in Greek, with a nice play on Logos. SC (19n2) argues strongly for this play on words and contends that, besides meaning “rationally,” it also means “in a way befitting the Word.” Yet the deliberate play on words does not necessarily mean that logikos here alludes directly to Logos. That meaning must be got from the context, in which Irenaeus shows that the Word redeemed.

Cf. Col 1:14.

1 Tim 2:6; Matt 20:28. We call attention to Irenaeus’s expression here of Pauline redemption; see A.H. 4 chap. 5, n25.

Lat. Iren. has Dei omnipotentis. That adjective is not superfluous, as SC thinks. Potens with Verbum shortly later is there for a different reason: the Word, because it was potens, was able to redeem us from the devil justly, while God is designated as “all-powerful” because of his creating us.

On man’s not being coerced by God see A.H. 4.37.

Cf. Matt 20:28; Clement, Epistola 1.49.6 (ACW 1.39–40), has the same words.

Lat. Iren. has per, which is certainly correct against the propter of Arm. Iren. Per is contained by the parallel idea in A.H. 5.14.3. The Bishop has a fine combination of incarnational and redemptive salvation. Jossua (especially 63–72) correctly holds that for Irenaeus the incarnation is soteriological and that the salvation is incarnational. Salvation is begun by the incarnation but it reaches its climax only in the Pasch and in our sharing in the Pasch through the resurrection. Likewise he insists that the Savior’s actions were theandric (89–92; 95–97), in other words, the Savior had to be God and man. As Wingren asserts (89), to discard the humanity of Christ would mean a simultaneous loss of the divinity. For salvation as communion with God see González (25–42).

“Spirit-God”: This is not the third Person, but God who is spirit. Cf. Proof 71: “Christ being the spirit of God.” In A.H. 2.13.3; 28.4, Irenaeus argues that God is “total spirit.” Orbe 1:83–84.

Orbe 1:84–85.

Cf. A.H. 1.25.1; 26.1.

Throughout this section Irenaeus is proving the reality of Christ’s human nature, taken from the Virgin Mary on the supposition that the redemption was real, because otherwise we were not really redeemed. See also Proof 32.

“Salvation” as in Lat. Iren. The Greek excerpt and Arm. Iren. has “life.” SC (25n1) thinks this fits better with “exclude,” which in Greek takes the genitive: “exclude life from the flesh.” True, in A.H. 5.12.1 Lat. Iren. also has expulit ab eo vitam; but Arm. Iren. translated that inexactly by “expelled his life.” But in our passage there is a parallel construction between excludant salutem carnis and reprobant plasmationem Dei. Carnis could have been a genitive of separation in Greek, which Lat. Iren. translated literally. Besides, the whole context is about the possibility of salvation for the flesh, which Irenaeus’s opponents deny. If the Greek actually had ζωή, it is difficult to see how Lat. Iren. got σωτερία. Greek excerpts are often inaccurate.

Cf. 1 Cor. 5:7. For this old birth see a different expression in A.H. 4.33.4.

“Refuse” in Lat. Iren. non volentes. Though MS has valentes, which agrees with Arm. Iren., SC (25n3) rightly notes that Arm. Iren could as easily have misread the original as V misread valentes for volentes. Non volentes gets support also from A.H. 5:13:2; 4:33:1; 5:1:3.

Luke 1:35.

“A new birth,” not “the new birth.” This new birth is not only the incarnation; it includes also baptism, through which, together with the incarnation, we receive new life.

Lat. Iren. reads: Reprobant itaque hi commixtionem vini coelestis et solam aquam saecularem volunt esse. The MSS vary considerably here. C has sola aqua saecularem, which is certainly faulty, the accusative at the end would seem to indicate that the other two words should be accusative, as they are in V, which Massuet and Stieren accepted. But since Erasmus has all in the nominative (C had the first two words nominative), and A and Q have sola aqua qua saeculares (sic), Harvey and Joppich (67n61) and SC have the nominative, which agrees with Arm. Iren. In this second reading (nominative) Irenaeus would be saying that the heretics reject the mixture of wine (implicitly holding that they do not wish to be such) and hold that they are only worldly water. In the first reading they would reject the mixture of wine and admit only worldly water; implicitly they could be applying both parts to themselves. I like to think Irenaeus either made the application in both parts or in none explicitly. So I chose the first reading of Lat. Iren. Arm. Iren. could have misread the Greek here as so often. The mixture of the heavenly wine is a symbol of God united with man, which brings salvation; the worldly water is man unredeemed, because he is not united with God. This mixture, of course, took place already in the incarnation itself. The Ebionites and Tatianites used only water for consecration. See Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16 (GCS 1.353). By mentioning the mixture Irenaeus alludes to the offering ceremony in the Church of his day.

Cf. Gen 2:7. Irenaeus’s is a classical definition of man in the early Church. See A.H. 5 chap. 6, n2 below.

The pair of phrases “Father’s Word” and “God’s Spirit” have in Lat. Iren. the verb in the singular (adunituseffecit), which is regular for Greek syntax, namely, that the verb may follow the number of the nearest subject. Hence, as SC (27n5) observes, that is no argument in favor of holding that the Word and Spirit are identical. Immediately after, there is mention of the “hands of God” in a construction that is parallel to the present; but those hands are certainly the Word and the Spirit. So here too they are distinct persons.

Orbe argues that Irenaeus is here making a distinction between the apostolic and Valentinian understanding of the Father. See A.H. 1.2.2 and 2.18.6–7. Irenaeus also discusses this theme at A.H. 4.12.2 and 5.22.1. Orbe 1:109.

Cf. 1 Cor 15:22. Also compare the parallel in A.H. 5.12.3.

Gen 1:26.

Cf. John 1:13.

The “living and perfect Man” is Christ. In God’s plan the incarnation was needed to make man according to the image and likeness of God. See Unger, FS 6–9.

“Snatch away” is diripiens. Since he snatches it for himself, this is a usurpation, which Arm. Iren. expressed literally. See SC (31n1).

“Took back,” assumens. The idea of taking back again might have been contained in the Greek preposition ana if the verb was analaben. Arm. Iren. is suos fructos recondens, which misses the thought totally.

The reason behind Irenaeus’s statement is that all things belong to God through creation. See A.H. 4, chap. 19, n1. On the devil’s rights theory see A.H. 3, chap. 18, n42.

Cf. 1 Cor. 10:16, “cup of blessing,” which is another indication that “blessing” and “thanksgiving” were taken synonymously in the early Church. Here again Irenaeus shows that in his day already the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus was known as the Eucharist. Cf. A.H. 4.18.4, 5; 5.2.3. This paragraph is a clear proof that Irenaeus identified the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Jesus. The wording itself is unmistakable: Christ “confessed” that “the cup, which is from the creation (the wine) is his blood”; and he “affirmed that the bread, which is from the creation, is his body.” Likewise, that real identity and presence emerges from his Pauline statement that we really communicate in the Body and the Blood of Christ. Moreover, his entire argumentation demands that identity and presence, because from it he proves the reality of Christ’s body and blood while he was on earth. See A.H. 4, chap. 17, n24. The Eucharist is also a sacrament that is food for the soul. We are nourished by Christ’s Body and Blood; the Blood of Christ dews our blood, and his Body gives growth to our bodies, not, as is self-evident, in a material sense, but by preparing them for the glorious resurrection.

Col 1:14. This paragraph initiates the theme of this Book: the flesh can be saved. See the full study of this by Joppich and Gonzáles.

Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; Eph 5:30. I followed the Greek construction where the parallels are clearer.

Matt 5:45; cf. Luke 22:28, 19.

1 Cor 11:24–25. Lat. Iren. has qui effusus est, for which both the Greek and the Arm. Iren. have “He confessed.” A scribe must have misread confessus est as quem effusus est, as the Clermont MS has, and that was corrected to qui effusus est. That an expression of affirming is needed is clear from the parallel in regard to the body (confirmavit).

In regard to the effects, both Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. have auget for the blood as well as for the body; but the Greek excerpt has “bedews” for the blood. SC follows the Lat. and Arm. version. I found it difficult to make a decision. Since these two translations agree, maybe the Greek was changed by the excerpter. In Greek auxei (give growth) could be intransitive, with “our blood” and “our bodies” as subjects, as SC translated. But they can also be transitive, with Christ as subject, just as he is subject of confessus est and confirmavit, as I translated.

Cf. A.H. 1, chap. 13, nn5 and 6. “the cup mixed” is what has been prepared for the Eucharist, so “the bread made” should also be what was made by man, not indirectly by God through creation. See A.H. 5.28.4, where Irenaeus speaks of making bread.

“Receive the Word of God.” At first sight one might be inclined to take “Word of God” of the second Person, but on comparing this with percipientia verbum Dei Eucharistia fiunt in the same paragraph later, and with panis percipiens invocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia of A.H. 4.18.5, it becomes clear that this is directly the prayer by which the Eucharist was effected. Yet, one cannot exclude the Word of God from this. It is through his creative power that the Word effects the Eucharist. And if the bread “receives” this word, it must be the Word Incarnate and glorious. See A.H. 1, chap. 13, n5 and A.H. 4, chap. 17, n28.

The Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine are called the Eucharist. See A.H. 5, chap. 2, n 3. The Greek has only “and body.” Quite certainly “blood” fell out. Both are in apposition to Eucharist. The Latin has a genitive construction: Eucharistia sanguinis et corporis. These are genitives of apposition. To be noted is Irenaeus’s stating, here and a little farther down, that the bread and wine “become” the body and blood; so there is a change into the body and blood. Besides, his entire mode of arguing demands that he takes the bread and wine as changed into the body and blood of Christ. The cause of this is our partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which really nourish us and prepare us for this imperishability. Besides, he argues as from a parallel case; just as the wheat is really changed into bread, so our bodies are really changed into imperishable ones, because we nourish them with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is, then, as real as wheat and bread and our own bodies, and that Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Here too the Eucharist is presented as a sacramental food that nourishes and gives growth. If the effect is ascribed to the blood and the body, that is because the glorious resurrection of the body is the visible and tangible effect of the Eucharist on the soul.

“The substance of our flesh” is our corporal nature. “Gets consistency,” namely, that which really holds it together: συνέστηκεν. SC’s “s’affermit” seems weak.

The Eucharist is the pledge of the resurrection, which is God’s gift to the flesh.

Eph 5:30. “of his flesh and of his bones” is not in the critical text of the Bible, though it is in some Greek MSS and in the Vulgate.

Luke 24:39.

Cf. Ezek 15:2, 6; John 12:24; Wis 1:7.

“Of men,” in the plural as in Greek and Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has the singular, but obviously with the same meaning. “Through wisdom” as in Lat. and Arm. Iren. The Greek excerpt has “God’s wisdom.” The Greek excerpter could have tampered with the text. The context is about three steps to the formation of the Eucharist. The third step is expressly ascribed to God; so the other two seem to be God’s action, not man’s. Per sapientiam seems to parallel per Spiritum Dei.

Cf. Phil 2:11.

1 Cor 15:53.

2 Cor 12:9. The Greek excerpt has the future tense for “is made perfect,” which is according to the Latin. This present tense in Latin is correct because all through here the present tense is used.

“Knowledge” is gloria in Lat. Iren., a translation of the Greek doxa. But the meaning here, in context, must be opinion or knowledge, according to the primitive meaning of doxa. This is confirmed by Arm. Iren. See SC (39n2).

2 Cor 12:7–9.

The term word might be a synonym for Scripture; or it could be the Word, who speaks in Scripture.

The construction of this sentence is somewhat obscure. Editors and translators have suggested various changes. I think the translation given catches the meaning without having to change the Latin text.

A longer section of the Jena papyrus is available for A.H. 5.3.2 to 13.1.

Irenaeus makes an interesting distinction here between God’s skill or art or craft on the one hand and God’s power on the other.

Lat. Iren. has universae fabricationis quae est secundum membra hominis, which must be understood in the light of the Greek: [πάσης τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον μελοποίας]. SC (49n2) observes the last Greek word is, according to dictionaries, used only for a musical composition, but that Irenaeus takes the melos in its primitive sense of part. I am not so sure. Irenaeus liked musical terms. He could have kept the musical connotation in the composition of the body, as something quite harmonious. See A.H. 4, chap. 14, n11.

Ps 103 (104):24.

Here and in the next sentence the word art was restored according to the Greek and Arm. Iren. But in the next paragraph the Greek has “artful wisdom.” Joppich (125–38) gives a neat synthesis on the fact that resurrection and imperishability and immortality belong to the essence of salvation for the whole person.

Here Irenaeus draws on 2 Cor 12:9, echoing one of his favorite themes that God’s power is manifested in the weakness of human flesh.

Because of the difference in the witnesses to the reading we are not sure whether Irenaeus’s figure was that of a torch with fire, or of a lamp with light. Lat. Iren. has facula and ignis in both phrases; the Greek excerpt has lamplight in the first phrase, but lamp-fire in the second; the Jena MS has lamplight in the first phrase, but unfortunately the second phrase is missing because of a defective papyrus. Arm. Iren. has lamplight in both phrases.

“Boastingly” follows the Greek and Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has exsultantes (joyfully).

Cf. Rom 8:11.

“More efficient” is missing in Lat. Iren. It was taken from the Greek excerpt.

Lat. Iren. has “by the fact that it is living,” as I translated. That makes good sense in the context; it lines up well with the clause that follows. Irenaeus’s aim was to prove that the body can accept life, because it is a fact that it is now living. He adds: It will live just as much as God wills it to live. If now he wills it a temporal life, that is it; if later he wills it to have everlasting life, fine, that will be it. See A.H. 5.4.2 for the same idea. Arm. Iren. says: “by the very life it is living.” See SC (55n1) on the Greek readings, which seem to agree with the Arm. Iren.

“Long” as in Lat. Iren., which supposes μάκρα, with which Arm. Iren. agrees. But the excerpt of the Greek has μακαρία (happy), seemingly a false reading. In A.H. 4.38.3 both adjectives are found in the same sentence.

Cf. A.H. 1.27.2; 2.1.2 for the Marcionite tenet.

The Greek is not extant. Irenaeus describes his opponents’ view of God the Father with adjectives in three places in this paragraph, but not with the same adjectives altogether or the same number. Besides, Lat. Iren. differs from Arm. Iren. For a better view of the problem, I print the cases in parallel columns.

Case 1		Case 2		Case 3
Latin	Armenian	Latin	Armenian	Latin	Armenian
—	—	impotens	—	—	—
infirmus	infirmus	infirmus	infirmus	—	—
inutilis	otiosum	—	inefficax	—	—
negligens	negligens	—	negligens	—	negligens
invidus	invidus	invidus	invidus	invidus	invidus
lividus	—	lividus	—	—	—
—	—	—	—	malignus	—

When so lined up, one might be tempted to give the right of way to Arm. Iren., as SC did, and judge that lividus (f) is a doublet translation in Latin; that impotens (a) is a variant for “useless,” with an inversion of the order; that malignus represents a false reading for negligens (making it agree with Arm. Iren.), or a variant of lividus. Thus there would be four adjectives in all: infirmus, inutiles, negligens, invidus. The first two would refer to physical powerlessness; the second two to moral defects. But the matter is not that simple if one studies the words in the context, and in their usage throughout A.H. Not only was Lat. Iren. given to variant translations, but so was Arm. Iren. Besides, Arm. Iren. at times translated two words of Irenaeus by one word. Again, Irenaeus himself was not so consistent; he would change words to bring out new nuances. And so I think in case 2 (a) impotens is original. It is the most devastating characterization Irenaeus knows: he simply has no power. Lat. Iren. uses this word often and paraphrases it with non potens: see 2.29.1; 4.37.6; 38.1; 4.35.1. Later in this very paragraph he seems to explain this: Si autem cum possit praestare, non praestat, iam non bonus. Note 2.29.3: invalidum (possibly impotens), infirmum, informem, in efficacem (representing possibly the same word as inutilis). Omitting informem, we have the three first adjectives of my lineup. Infirmus is certain because it occurs in both cases and in both translations. It means being weak, even powerless to act. Inutilis is used by Lat. Iren. in the sense of not-used, not-operative, not-effective; and so, purposeless: see A.H. 2.30.3, 4; 3.6.3; 3.12.6; 5.26.1. From some of these passages it becomes clear that inutilis is practically synonymous with otiosum (cf. 2.30.4). That is the term Arm. Iren. chose for this third adjective in the first and second case. A thing is useless or idle in this Irenaean sense because it was never put to use; there are no effects to show its power. Negligens is certain. It probably fell out accidentally in Lat. Iren. for case two. This indicates a moral fault of being unconcerned and consequently not good. Invidus is also certain, being in all three cases and in both translations. As I noted already, SC thinks lividus is a doublet translation for invidus, because it is missing in Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. does not use his customary sive or id est, but et. So I think lividus is original. If invidus represents the Greek φθονερός and lividus βάσκανος, then this latter has a nuance of being malicious. Possibly then malignus is just a variant translation for lividus in case 3. On the other hand, Irenaeus may have changed to malignus πονηρός, in order to stress this malicious mind, in opposition to being a good God. Πονηρός is the scriptural name for the devil: see A.H. 3.4.3; 4.41.1, 3. There is sharp irony here.

“Spirit and soul” as in Lat. Iren., namely, nominative singular. Arm. Iren. has nominative plural for both. Only –che is extant in the Jena papyrus, but that is enough to make certain that the Greek had the nominative singular, ψυχή. SC (57n2) thinks the grammatical construction demands the accusative here; Arm. Iren. has accusative talia. I fail to see how perseverare could be transitive. It would be tautological for Irenaeus to have said that God continues the spirit and the soul immortal, and then add “because they are given life by the Father.” No, they continue immortal, because they are given life by the Father. See A.H. 5.5.1: perseverabant corpora where also Arm. Iren. has the intransitive. On the immortality of the soul, see chapter 3, note 8 above.

Lat. Iren. has the present here (ostendit) as also a little later (ostenditur). Arm. Iren. has the future in both places, and correctly. SC (57). Only in chap. 15 does he give arguments from the Prophets. And there he repeats the present passage almost verbatim. Compare them:

A.H. 5.4.1: Demiurgo enim et hic vivificante mortalia corpora nostra et resurrectionem eis per prophetas promittente, quemadmodum ostendemus

A.H. 5.15.1: Demiurgo itaque et hic vivificante mortua corpora nostra, quemadmodum videre adest, et resurrectionem eis promittente,

As SC (201n1) observes, if one were to read this in c. 15 in the light only of the immediate context, namely, the citation from Ezekiel, one would say the vivifying and the raising to life are the same thing. But that is not the case. Chap. 15 begins with: Quoniam autem is qui ab initio condidit hominem post resolutionem eius in terram promisit ei secundam generationem. Here we have two stages and two acts: Demiurge creates man, and so vivifies him; and he will bring him to life at the resurrection, as he promised. That is the clue to the interpretation of both passages quoted above. The vivifying of man is at creation, then there is a promise of resurrection too. One and the same God, the true Demiurge, effects both.

Irenaeus alleges that his opponents subject God to necessity. That is, God is not omnipotent, but necessity is more powerful than God in the same way that Fate is more powerful than the Greek gods. See Orbe 1:223 for more on this with bibliography.

Cf. Pss 22 (23):6; 90(91):16.

Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5–6.

2 Kgs 2:11. Orbe has a long and helpful note on this sentence. See Orbe 1:231.

“Spiritual” as in Greek and Arm. Iren, in place of Lat. Iren. partum.

Gen 2:8.

For presbyters see A.H. 4, chap. 26, n12.

2 Cor 12:4.

2 Kgs 2:11.

Jonah 1–2.

Dan 3:19ff.

Dan 3:24–25.

Luke 18:27.

Lat. Iren. has dispositionem, but Arm. Iren. has the plural. SC (71n1) argues for the plural, because it is a question of various instances mentioned as “economies.” But it seems to me that it must be singular, referring to the one just mentioned, by which “all things are subject to God and serve his will.” This one economy has within it many partial economies.

Pss 22 (23):6; 90(91):16.

Cf. Rom 3:3. “Faithfulness” as in Lat. Iren. Arm. Iren. has “gift.”

Cf. Isa 42:1; Matt 11:18. Lat. Iren. has puero, in the sense of servant; but Arm. Iren. has “Son,” which seems correct because the verbs allude to Rom 8:29, unless “Son” would be an interpretation. Man is essentially composed of body and soul. See also A.H. 5.8.; 9.1; Proof 2; and the next note.

According to Irenaeus the whole person is composed of body and soul and spirit. The spirit in his theology is the Holy Spirit with his grace, which spiritualizes man, and so he becomes spirit. That is, of course, already St. Paul’s thinking; cf. 1 Cor 15:42ff. SC (73n2) thinks that animaet Spiritus, should be translated “the soul united with the Holy Spirit.” But see the next note of SC, too. The soul is in the natural order, while the “spirit” is in the supernatural order, spiritualizing the whole man, not merely being united with his soul. Thus also SC (73n3). Pars hominis is according to the MSS of Clermont and Vatican. The Voss and Arundel MSS have paree, which I should judge to be a corruption of partes; and that would agree with Arm. Iren. SC (73n3) accepts this. But pars is correct. It fits into the context well. He wishes to say that man, if made of body and soul, is still not the whole man, but only a part. He does not say that each of these is a part of man, and so the two together are parts of man. That the body of man was made according to the image of God himself is theologically correct, because God is the ultimate exemplar of all things. Irenaeus, however, does not have that in mind. It is the incarnate Word of God who is the exemplar of man’s body. As a consequence from this Irenaean thought, God had to intend the incarnation prior to intending Adam; see Unger, FS 9.

1 Cor 2:6.

1 Cor 2:15; 3.1.

In this area, obviously, Irenaeus takes flesh not of the whole person but of man’s bodily nature, which Irenaeus’s opponents said could not share in salvation. SC (77n1) argues correctly that “man’s spirit” and “God’s Spirit” are terms taken from 1 Cor 2:11. This illustrates how deeply Irenaeus’s thought was rooted in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit’s role in the sanctification of man is stressed here and passim in the following sections. See the fine article of A. d’Alés, “La doctrine de l’Esprit en Saint Irénée,” RSR 14 (1924): 497–538. For the “spirit” in man see A.H. 5, chap. 6, n12. For salvation as possession of the Spirit see González 59–68. And for an excellent monograph on the role of the Holy Spirit in Irenaeus’s work, see Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Lat. Iren reads: animalis, <est> vere qui est talis, et carnalis derelictus imperfectus erit, which I followed in my translation, with est (in brackets) added. A man whose soul lacks the “spirit” is only ensouled, and so, being left carnal, is imperfect. Arm. Iren. has the same words without est after animalis, supposing, as SC (77n2), that derelictus governs animalis as well as carnalis, as if we should read: “Such a one, who is left truly ensouled and carnal, is imperfect.” “To be left truly ensouled” makes little sense. But it makes sense to say: “to be truly ensouled,” that is, without the Spirit, and so “to be left merely carnal” is good logic and Irenaean theology. The Latin has correctly caught that meaning. If the Greek suggested by SC is correct, that too can be read in this meaning by putting a comma after ψυχικὸς ὄντος ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ σαρκικὸς καταλειφθεὶς.

The same idea about the complete man is found in Tertullian, De carnis resurrectione mortuorum 14, 10–11 (CCL 2.937).

1 Thess 5:23. Lat. Iren. does not support the translation I have given of this Scripture, because the adjective integer can modify only Spiritus. In the Greek of Paul the adjective has a neuter ending and could modify πνεῦμα, but that would make little sense. The neuter seems to be an adjectival noun—meaning totality or “whole self.” That is how Irenaeus interpreted it immediately after. That also fits his thought above about all three elements being needed for the whole man. Arm. Iren. changed the verb to the active voice: God keeps the whole spirit blamelessly.

“To be preserved as a whole” is literally “to be a whole preservation,” but that is rather clumsy and unintelligible without an explanation. The meaning is that the three elements are the whole man and should be preserved together. Arm. Iren. has integram totam, which is obviously an allusion to the Scripture text just quoted, where integer is holokleron. Now this adjective can mean both “whole” and “complete.” So there is no problem with integer. But perfectum in Irenaeus translates holokleron in 5.12.5, and perfecte represents holokleros. So both in Latin and in Armenian there seems to be a doublet. Thus SC (79n2).

My translation is according to the Latin, which fits the context. Paul knew, Irenaeus wishes to say, that all three elements of man had one and the same salvation, and that was the restoration and the union of all three, not merely of two. SC translated as if Irenaeus were saying that Paul knew two things: that all three elements had to be restored and reunited, and that they had one and the same salvation. That translation does not show the relation of the two things as Lat. Iren. puts it. “Restoration” is in Lat. Iren. redintegratio, which most likely translates ἀποκατάστᾰσις, as it does in 1.14.1, and as reintegratio does in 1.17.1, and as restauratio does in 1.21.3. In other words, Lat. Iren. used three words for the one Greek. He did the same with the verb ἀποκαθίστημι which is given by redintegrare in 1.2.5; 5.3.2. This Latin occurs also in 5.12.5, 6; 21.3 (where the Greek was most likely the same). In 5.32.1; 33.1 reintegrare obviously stands for the same Greek, and so does restaurare in 2.31.2; 3.5.3; 23.2; 5.2.1. Now in all these cases of the nouns and the verbs the meaning is the same, namely, to restore to a pristine state, according to a pristine design. So I cannot agree with P. Siniscalco, “apokatastasis e apokathistemi nella tradizione della Grande Chiesa fino ad Ireneo,” Studia Patristica 3 (TU 78, 1961): 380–96, who claims that Origen was first to use them in the sense of a restoration to a primitive state, and that for others it meant a liberation. For Irenaeus liberation may be involved, but the restoration was to a primitive state that had been designed prior to the need of liberation.

See A.H. 5, chap. 6, nn11 and 12.Irenaeus does not teach the false notion of trichotomy. Elsewhere, such as in A.H. 2.29.3; 33.5, he holds clearly that the natural man is composed of two parts only. The spirit he speaks of is the supernatural principle in the supernatural life, which comes from the Holy Spirit and his grace. See also 5.12.2; Proof 11; and especially A.H. 8.2; 9.1. Cf. J. Bainvel, “Âme,” DTC 1 (1930): 984–85; and A. Orbe, “La definición del hombre en la teología del siglo II,” Gregorianum 48 (1967): 522–56. That Irenaeus’s notion about man is based on Pauline thought is the contention of J. Bentivegna, “Pauline Elements in the Anthropology of St. Irenaeus,” Studia Evangelica 5 (TU 103 [1968]): 229–33. The last sentence has a number of difficulties due mostly to variant readings in the different languages. Lat. Iren. reads: Perfecti igitur qui et Spiritum in se /semper/ perseverantem habent Dei, et animas et corpora sine querela servaverint, hoc est, illum quae ad Deum est fidem servantes et eam quae ad proximum est iustitiam custodientes. In the Jena Papyrus three letters are extent (-r-sm-o-) for the word that is represented by perseverantem. So that Greek had to be προσμένον and not παραμόνεν, which is found in 4.38.3. In place of in se Arm. Iren. has semper. There is some warrant for semper in 4.38.3: τὴν εἰς ἀεὶ παραμόνεν. SC (81n1) thinks in se is a corruption of semper. But it could just as well be the other way around. Really, in the whole paragraph it is a question of the Spirit being within the human being and spiritualizing it. In se, as “within themselves,” fits excellently. The verb servaverint is active in Latin, governing animas et corpora, with sine querela as an adverbial phrase. That makes good sense in the context, and is according to the quotation from 1 Thess, where amemptos is an adverb and not a nominative adjective. But Arm. Iren. has it as a predicate adjective with the verb in the passive voice, namely, “they stay blameless” in regard to body and soul. The last expression is an accusative of limitation. The verb seems verified by the Jena Papyrus, which has these letters STOTES, which must have been estotes. Thus SC. But that would have been translated differently by Lat. Iren., who made it active with the adverbial phrase modifying it, as in the Greek of 1 Thess, though in 1 Thess the verb is passive. Did Irenaeus find his reading in 1 Thess or did Lat. Iren. adjust his translation to the Bible? The first case is quite probable; Irenaeus could have changed to the active voice, because he so argued in the paragraph. Then Lat. Iren. would represent the original. SC discards servaverint, because there are too many verbs here that express the same idea. But the Greek verb for custodientes was most likely different, e.g., διαφυλάσσοντες, while the others came from τέρειν.

1 Cor 3:16–17.

John 2:19–21.

1 Cor 6:15.

1 Cor 3:17.

1 Cor 6:13–14.

John 20:25, 27.

1 Cor 6:14.

Rom 8:11.

Gen 2:7.

“Not even,” according to Lat. Iren. In the context Irenaeus is showing that the mortal bodies are not souls, nor are they the spirit. Under the first point (they are not the souls) he subdivides: they are not the souls, because these are not bodies; nor are they mortal. Lat. Iren. agrees completely with this context. So ne mortalem quidem is correct. If it were neque mortalem, as Arm. Iren. has, with SC (87n1) accepting it, this would be the second member coordinate with sed neque Spiritum as a third member. But that is not the thought of Irenaeus here.

Ps 21 (22):31.

For more on “substance” and “immortality,” see Orbe 1:333–34.

Cf. Rom 8:11.

1 Cor 15:42, 36.

1 Cor 15:43.

Cf. Gen 3:19.

1 Cor 15:44.

1 Cor 13:9, 12.

1 Pet 1:8. SC (93n1) recalls its long note in Book 4 where it was “proved” that the Arm. Iren. is more faithful than Lat. Iren. in giving the original Irenaean text for Scripture quotations. Lat. Iren. is said to adjust to his current Bible. At present SC has a long justification of its restoration, mostly by conjecture, of the Jena Papyrus at this place. In both A.H. 4.9.2 and 5.7.2, Arm. Iren. omits the negative before the first videntes, and also diligitis, then joins the first videntes to the rest in this way: “When you will see him, whom you, without seeing now, believe, you will rejoice.” As can be seen, that curtailing changes the construction considerably. Now in 4.9.2 it is certain that Irenaeus had the diligitis phrase in his text, because before quoting it he indicates for what he is quoting it: in quem credimus, quem et diligimus. It seems certain that it was also in 5.7.2. Arm. Iren. either read a defective Greek MS of Irenaeus or tampered with the text, as in numerous other places. This passage is no proof that Lat. Iren. adjusted to his Bible, while Arm. Iren. gave the original text of Irenaeus.

“Part of his Spirit.” For Lat. Iren. the Clermont and Voss MSS have a prepositional phrase, a Spiritu eius; while the Arundel, the Vatican, and Erasmus MSS have Spiritus, a partitive genitive. The meaning is the same. In this life we have only a partial participation in the Spirit; only in the next will we have a full participation. See SC (93n2).

Lat. Iren. reads: sumimus ad perfectionem et praeparationem incorruptelae. One might be tempted to say these nouns should be inverted: preparation comes before perfection. SC (93n3) observes that Arm. Iren. demands that one retranslate into Greek: εἰς προκαταρισμόν τε καὶ, and that Lat. Iren., which must have read this same Greek, gave a poor rendition by perfectionem. SC used two verbs; “nous disposeret nous preparer.” Maybe. But since Irenaeus has been talking very much about man’s being perfect by receiving the Spirit (cf. especially 5.6.1; also 4.12.2; 5.1.3), which happens already in this life, though final perfection comes through imperishability (cf. 4.11.1; 4.37–38), I think he is here saying that through the reception of the Spirit we are “perfect” initially, and that very thing prepares us for the final perfection of imperishability. See 5.12.6: sanum et integrum redintegravit hominem, perfectum eum sibi praeparans ad resurrectionem. The Greek suggested by SC can mean perfection; or Irenaeus’s regular word for perfection could have been used here. What Arm. Iren. read is not certain. This would be just one more case where Arm. Iren. did not follow the thought exactly.

Eph 1:13–14. Irenaeus’s explanation of “pledge” is very good. It is a kind of down payment on eternal life, not a pawn.

Cf. 2 Cor 5:4.

Rom 8:9.

Rom 8:15.

Irenaeus’s use of “pledge” here likely comes from Eph 1:14. For more see Orbe 1:374.

Cf. 1 Cor 13:12.

This is a beautiful picture of our resurrection and eternal life in the Holy Spirit. For the resurrection as the climax of salvation see González 256. The best treatment of Irenaeus’s understanding of salvation is Ysabel de Andia, Homo Vivens: Incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenée de Lyons (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1986).

The meaning of complectens in se is not clear. In se must refer to pignus, which stands for the Spirit. Complectens is used twice later in a similar context, but about becoming part of a harlot, by “embracing her” (5.6.2). The Greek there was most likely a compound of πλέκω, e.g. πομπλέκω, as in A.H. 1.4.1; 14.7. But that could not have been the verb in our passage, because the Jena papyrus has the last six letters, which demand a compound of λαμβάνω. In 5.12.2 circumdans translates περιλαβόν, also in 5.35.1, in the sense of surrounding, e.g., with clothing. That verb and meaning could fit here. SC (95n2) prefers συμπεριλαμβάνων. However, since throughout this section of chaps. 6—12, the Bishop is speaking about the Spirit taking to himself and uniting with himself man, or man taking to himself and uniting with himself the Spirit, and since that is frequently expressed by assumens, for which at times προσλαμβάνων is the Greek; e.g. 5.12.2, 3, also 4.38.3; 5.13.3), I opt for this as the Greek. In any case the meaning is the same, and is certain: the Spirit, as a pledge, takes man to himself, unites him with himself and fairly surrounds him.

The image and likeness after which man was created will reach its final perfection only in glory, as Irenaeus states often. For salvation is likeness to God; see González 82–89. Cf. Gen 1:26–28. For an extended study on Irenaeus on this theme see Jacques Fantino, L’homme, image de Dieu, chez Saint Irénée de Lyon (Paris: Cerf, 1986).

Cf. 2 Cor 1:22.

Cf. Rom 8:9.

“Constitute” is perfecit in Lat. Iren., which can mean either “make complete” or “constitute.” Either meaning is correct here. And so Arm. Iren. in the sense of “constitute” agrees with Lat. Iren. There is no point in rejecting perfecit as a broad translation or a corruption, as does SC (97n1).

Cf. 1 Cor 3:3.

Cf. Rom 8:5.

Jer 5:8.

Ps 48 (49):21.

Irenaeus shows how man who lives a carnal life is irrational like the animals. In his thesis (8.2) and in his conclusion (8.3) he calls them pigs and dogs. Then he adduces proof for this from the Prophets, who brand them as wild horses (Jer.) and iumenta-beasts (Ps. 48 [49]). In the summation of 8.3 he calls them iumenta (referring back to Ps 48) and feras (referring to Jer.). In this summation Arm. Iren. calls them pecora et feras. Pecora is not exact. Judging from Ps 48 the Greek would have been κτενώδεις; for feras the Greek is extant in the Jena Papyrus as θεριώδεις. We can brand these two classes as beasts and (wild) brutes. Again, in his proofs (8.2) he appeals to custom that brands such men as: iumenta et pecora irrationabilia. For this Arm. Iren. Has pecus et castratum (pullum). The second is simply wrong and the first is not exact. But the point is that there are only two groups. Now, also in the summation (8.3), custom speaks of only two groups: pecora and irrationabiles. So in 8.2, according to custom, there may be two irrational groups: iumenta et pecora; or iumenta et pecora irrationabilia; or iumenta should not be there (it slipped in from the preceding), and there would be pecora et irrationabilia, as in the summation. This last I accept. In the summation Arm. Iren. Has only one term for custom, namely, castratum (pullum), which does not match its own two in 8.2. The Arm. Iren. Is therefore less reliable here. So, I think, Irenaeus himself called them pigs and dogs; the Prophets called them beasts and (wild) brutes, custom called them cattle (or herds) and simply irrational; the law called them unclean (8.3); and the apostle calls them carnal and animal. SC (99n2) does not agree with all these points.

SC (101n1) observed that Clement of Alexandria must have used this passage about clean and unclean animals because of the great similarities to Stromata 7.8 (GCS 3.77–78). The parallel printed of SC makes it easy to see this.

See Orbe 1:388–90; Lev 11:1–17.

Lev 11:2ff.; Deut 14:3ff.

Ps 1:2.

Literally “they do not have the firmness of their root fixed in the Father and the Son.”

“Nearly” comes from the Jena Papyrus and Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has videlicet.

Luke 6:46. “call me,” in place of “say to me,” as in the Lat. Iren., comes from the Jena Papyrus and Arm. Iren. See SC (105n1). Cf. also 4.37.3, where SC had agreed to “say to me,” because of the agreement of Lat. And Arm. Iren. Now SC thinks it should even there be “call me.” This reading is found in some NT MSS and could very well have been in Irenaeus’s Bible.

Cf. 1 Cor 3:3 and 1 Cor 2:14.

1 Cor 15:50.

Cf. A.H. 5.6.1, and A.H. 5, chap. 6, n2.

I followed Lat. Iren., which has elevatur ab eo. That supposes the Greek ἀντστιαμένης. Arm. Iren. has “flies upward,” which supposes ἀνιπταμένης. SC (109n1) defends Arm. Iren. On the score that such a misreading occurred elsewhere. True, the idea of flying upward was correct when speaking of his opponent’s understanding of Christ. But in our context the question is about the resurrection; so flying upward is out of context, and being raised up is alone correct. Further, elevatur ab eo is in contrast to decidit in terrenas. “Fly from” could be in contrast to “fall to” the earth. But “fall into the earth” is more naturally contrasted with “be raised up.”

Luke 9:60.

Cf. Matt 5:8; 1 Cor 2:15; 3:1; Rom 6:11.

This is a wonderful idea on living God’s own life through the grace of the Spirit. Cf. A.H. 4, chap. 20, n6.

Matt 26:41.

“Willing to do” is according to in promptu habere of Lat. Iren. This is according to the context, and the Greek verb, most likely προθύμειται as SC suggests (111n1), must be taken in the light of Christ’s saying about “being willing and able” to do. So SC’s translation: “avoir a sa disposition,” or “avoir sou la main” is not acceptable.

“As an impetus” follows ἐγκεντρίδος δικὴν. Stimulus would represent ἐγκεντρίδος. Arm. Iren. read “insertion” or “graft.” Since much of chap. 10 is about the graft of a wild olive on a domestic one, one could think that Irenaeus anticipated that idea here, which Arm. Iren. translated correctly. SC (111n2) remarks that Robinson and Lundström took that meaning. SC stays with the Latin. I do too, hesitatingly. “Willingness of the Spirit” is something active and calls for an active impetus. Yet, one could argue in the whole context there is question of the resurrection due to “a communion” with the Spirit, that is, a graft.

“On account of” as in Lat. Iren. (propter), which supposes διὰ with the accusative in Greek. A.H. 5.11.1. has the same reading. Arm. Iren. read “through,” namely, διὰ with the genitive. In the context it is “through communion with” that the flesh will be raised up, and so even if “on account of” was written, it means not merely “because of” as final cause, but as efficient cause. The error could have occurred in various ways: either a Latin scribe could have changed per to propter, the Latin translator could have misread a genitive as an accusative, or Arm. Iren. could have misread an accusative as a genitive.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of martyrdom in Irenaeus’s thinking. On this see John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 198–203.

Irenaeus clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit makes man a spirit, and so he does not teach tricotomy for the natural man. He rightly stresses the operation of the Spirit in the soul. For this he leans heavily on St. Paul, as was pointed out earlier; cf. A.H. 5, chap. 6, n5. In this matter Wingren (23–24) says beautifully: “There is hardly any passage in Irenaeus of greater importance than the one in which he describes in detail how it is only the man who receives the Spirit that is truly man.” On this, see Ysabel de Andia, Homo Vivens : Incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyons (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1986).

Ps 21 (22):5.

1 Cor 15:48.

Cf. Rev 6:10; 19:2.

1 Cor 15:49.

Cf. Rom 6:4.

The Greek excerpt has: “Flesh by itself in the blood cannot inherit.” That is scarcely correct. Arm. Iren. has “with the blood,” which SC accepts and even corrects the Greek excerpt to “with.” Lat. Iren. has as I translated, which is the most natural in the context. Irenaeus had written this correctly so often that he can scarcely be accused of adjusting to Scripture.

Matt 5:5.

“The servants” belong to Christ. See the same in A.H. 4.13.3. The opening of the NT is ascribed to the Holy Spirit also in 3.17.2.

We call attention to this beautiful doctrine on the indwelling of the Son and the Spirit. See Col 3:16; 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7.

“The graft on to the Spirit” is in Lat. Iren. insertionem Spiritus. In the context it becomes clear that man is being grafted to the Spirit; so this is an objective genitive. Both the Latin insertionem and the Greek ἐνγκεντρίσμον can be the act of grafting, or the passive reception of a graft.

Cf. Rom 11:17, 24.

Matt 7:19.

“Produced” is according to the Jena Papyrus. As SC (125n1) notes, Lat. Iren. may have chosen germinaverint to avoid the clumsy fructificationem fecerint.

For this sentence and the one before, see Orbe 1:470–72.

Matt 13:25.

Matt 24:42; 25:13; Mark 13:3ff.

Gen 1:26.

1 Cor 15:50.

Rom 8:8.

1 Cor 15:53.

Rom 8:9.

Rom 8:10–11.

Rom 8:13.

Rom 8:13–14.

On flesh and spirit here, see Orbe 1:496–97.

Gal 5:19–20.

Cf. Rom 8:4; 2 Cor 10:2; Rom 6:10.

Gal 5:22–23. I did not translate animositates and irritationes because there are simply doublet translations.

1 Cor 6:9–11.

Cf. Rom 8:13.

1 Cor 15:49–50.

1 Cor 6:11.

Cf. A.H. 5.6.1 in regard to the handiwork as the image.

“Ceases” for interit. That present is backed by Arm. Iren. and the Greek excerpt (ἀμαιρεῖται). But the Jena Papyrus read the perfect ἀνήιρηται. SC (141n1) argues hesitatingly for this perfect. The scribe of the Papyrus could have changed because he found the present odd, as did SC.

Cf. Rom 6:10–11; A.H. 5.12.6; 5.17.1; Orbe 1:530–31.

Isa 25:8 LXX.

Cf. Gen 2:7 and 1 Cor 15:45. Orbe 1:537–39.

Isa 42:5.

Isa 57:16.

Acts 2:17.

1 Cor 15:46.

1 Cor 15:45.

Luke 15:1–7.

Col 3:5.

Col 3:9.

Cf. Gal 1:15.

Phil 1:22; cf. 1:11.

Phil 1:22.

Col 3:9.

Col 3:10.

Gal 1:15–16.

Acts 9:4; Gal 1:13.

A.H. 3.12.7; 15.1.

Luke 6:6ff.

Mark 5:22. Lat. Iren. has “daughter of the High Priest,” but “servant of the ruler of the synagogue” is correct, as in Arm. Iren. SC (163n1) follows the Latin. But then one cannot find an episode in the Gospels to fit. Reference must be to Matt 9:18; Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41, where the daughter of Jairus is sick. So Arm. Iren. has “servant” incorrectly. But the father is a ruler of the synagogue, which can be written as one word, and was so written by Mark: ἀρχισυναγώγος. Now, either Irenaeus wrote correctly here, as he did in A.H. 1.8.2, and a scribe misread it as ἀρχιερέως, or Irenaeus himself made the mistake.

11. Phil 2:8.

Chapter 25

Chapter 26

Chapter 27

Chapter 28

Chapter 29

Chapter 30

Chapter 31

Chapter 32

Chapter 33

Chapter 34

Chapter 35

Chapter 36

Chapter 37

Chapter 38

Chapter 39

Chapter 40

Chapter 41

Book Five

Preface

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13