2. Luke 7:12.

Luke 7:12.

John 11:39.

Mark 5:41, 43; Matt 9:25; Luke 7:14–15, which Irenaeus conflated in a such a way that it is an unsolvable puzzle, because at the beginning of this paragraph Irenaeus had distinguished the two cases (daughter of Jairus and son of the widow of Naim) and now he so confuses them and the gender of the people involved. See SC (165n1).

John 11:43–44.

John 11:44.

1 Cor 15:52.

John 5:28.

Sophocles, Oedipus the King (Loeb 1, lines 1265ff.).

According to Orbe, this analogy requires no explanation. See his bibliography Orbe 1:617.

1 Cor 15:50.

1 Cor 15:53–55.

Phil 3:20–21.

“As he is able” is in Greek of the Bible: τοῦ δυνάσθαι αὐτόν. Latin Iren. translated that twice by virtutis suae and ut possit. Arm. Iren. has it only once.

Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:53. Orbe 1:631–32.

2 Cor 5:4. This title to the letter is not in the Greek fragment. Harvey judged it to be an interpolation in Lat. Iren., and he infers that this is a clue that the “greater number of such references have come from the margin.” That is too sweeping a statement. In fact, in this very place the fragment of Sacra Parallela could easily have omitted it as useless for its purpose. It is also in Arm. Iren. and so was in the Greek copies prior to Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. We should note Irenaeus’s explicit remark that the soul, not only the spirit, is immortal; cf. chapter 3, note 8 above. Noteworthy, too, is the expression of redemption as victory over death which held man captive; cf. A. Orbe, Antrop. 361–87.

This is a nice expression of man’s ultimate purpose, namely, to praise God. Jossa (196–98) wrongly claims that Irenaeus stresses the actual possession in the Church and obscures the future kingdom, and in so doing does not follow Paul. No, one must use all of Irenaeus to understand any given passage. We do possess salvation now, but we will do so fully only in vision.

1 Cor 6:20.

2 Cor 4:10. “if” (εἰ) is in Lat. Iren., except for Erasmus, who has semper, and in Arm. Iren., though in NT it is “always” (ἀεὶ). How to explain this? SC (177n1) thinks since both Lat. and Arm. have “if,” it comes from Irenaeus himself. Maybe. Irenaeus could have written εἰ, and some scribe changed it before either translation was made. Yet Irenaeus could have written “if” since it is already in such early Greek MSS of the Bible as P46, G, 489, syro.pesch. The Latin si is also in D and in a few minor MSS, and in Tertullian. The conditional sentence would, of course, be incomplete, without a protasis.

2 Cor 3:3.

Phil 3:11. “Likened.” The Lat. Iren. MSS are confused. Clermont has cui honoratus; Arundel and Vatican have cooperatus; Voss has commemoratus; and Erasmus has conformis. This last agrees with Arm. Iren. conformatus, and that fits the NT συμμορφιζόμενος. Arm. Iren. could have adapted to the NT. Lat. Iren. supposes συμφορτιζόμενος (burdened together). This reading, too, is found in some NT MSS. With the data we have it is difficult to say which word Irenaeus had written.

1 Cor 15:32; 13–21.

1 Cor 15:50.

1 Cor 15:53.

2 Cor 4:11.

1 Cor 15:50.

“His human nature” is hominem eius. This expression occurs in three other places in Book 5 (14.4; 21.2, 3) and without eius in two places (21.2 twice). SC (183n2) thinks a good translation is “humanity,” namely, of Jesus. I think the eius could connote the fact that it belongs to him already by creation.

In this paragraph Lat. Iren. uses habere with a complementary infinitive five times. Such a construction was standard in Greek and was used even in Latin. Lat. Iren. is here most likely following his Greek copy. When so used habere can have three meanings: “must or should,” “would” or “was to,” or “can.” Because of the context (Irenaeus is proving the possibility of a resurrection and salvation for the body), the idea of necessity is excluded here for all five; and it is also excluded for the three negative phrases by the fact that when habere is negated, somehow it consistently expresses an impossibility. So it is a toss-up between “would” and “can.” The Greek is not extant. Arm. Iren. translates all five cases by handerzem, which would normally represent the Greek μέλλω, and express a determined future, “would.” Yet the Arm. is no convincing proof that the Greek had μέλλω, especially in all five cases. True, the Arm. Iren. translated habere in the sense of possibility (impossibility) a number of times (cf. 4.9.2; 33.9; 35.3; 5.33.1) with the corresponding ounim. Yet in 5.12.6 (non habebant salvari) was translated by handerzem, although this is definitely a case of impossibility. So, also in our paragraph Arm. Iren. could have used handerzem for impossibility; or it might have misinterpreted the mind of Irenaeus and thought he was speaking of determined future actions. In any case, the Arm. Iren. is here not decisive. Lat. Iren. often translated μέλλω by incipio, and if here he uses habere consistently, it is scarcely probable that the Greek had μέλλω in all the cases or in any of them.

The habere plus infinitive construction occurs in A.H. 34 times. Only once in a positive sense of necessity; ten times of a determined future, but always in a positive sense; 23 times of possibility, 19 of which are negative, and so, of impossibility. According to this pattern the three negatives in this paragraph would express impossibility, not a negative determined future act.

In Book 5 Irenaeus has as main objective to prove the possibility of the salvation of the flesh, that is, of its glorification or reception of imperishability. Since according to him the incarnation of God’s Word was necessary for man’s salvation, this also establishes the reality of Christ’s human nature. The immediate aim of this paragraph is this: Irenaeus’s opponents used 1 Cor 15:50 (that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God) to prove that flesh cannot be saved. Irenaeus explains that this Pauline passage is not speaking of flesh as such, but only of a carnal, immoral way of living. In fact, Paul frequently speaks of flesh and blood for two purposes: to establish the reality of Jesus’s human nature, and to affirm the salvation of our flesh. From the remote context it is certain that this means the possibility of salvation for the flesh. Irenaeus proves this by stating: Si enim non haberet caro salvari, nequaquam Verbum Dei caro factum esset: et si non haberet sanguis iustorum inquiri, nequaquam sanguinem habuisset Dominus. He adduces four Scripture texts to show that the blood of the just would (or could) be vindicated, namely, by salvation through Christ. To introduce some of those texts he states: Et quoniam haberet exquiri sanguis ipsorum, dixit. He tops these Scripture quotations by stating that Christ also spoke of this vindication of blood, which he introduces by: Similiter autem et Dominus his qui habebant eius sanguinem effundere dicebat. Then, after noting that Jesus thereby indicated he would recapitulate in himself all the blood of the just, he concludes: Non autem exquireretur hoc nisi et salvari haberet. Nor, he continues, would he have recapitulated them in himself if he had not become flesh and blood as Adam had.

Now in these uses of habere, it is my sense that the fourth certainly expresses future action (“would pour out”). And since this is similar to this fourth, it too possibly expresses a determined future action, although it seems possible that it might express a possible action. Those two cases were positive. The other three are negative in construction or in sense. As I noted above, according to Lat. Iren. pattern they would not express a negated future action, but impossibility. That is also in keeping with the context about the possibility of salvation for the flesh. The first and second case would be the thesis about the possibility of salvation; the fifth would be the conclusion also about the possibility. The third and fourth cases would be proofs taken from determined future actions (Ab esse ad posse valet illatio).

This paragraph has been a stronghold for those theologians who hold that the incarnation would not have taken place if man would not have sinned and had not been in need of redemption. They translated Irenaeus thus: If it had not been necessary for flesh to be saved, God’s Word would never have become flesh. As I stated above, in the context habere can here not express necessity. Second, these theologians take the word salvation in a narrow sense of redemption from sin. In Irenaeus the word is broad. It means giving imperishability to the flesh. See Orbe, Anthropo 488. Neither were those correct who said flesh is here to be understood of passible flesh, which the Word would not have assumed if man had not sinned. Irenaeus is arguing against his opponents. They denied salvation as possible to all flesh, sinful or not. That is what Irenaeus is refuting. So whether one translates habere here with would or could, the passage is not against the theory that Christ was willed absolutely and from the beginning in our actual world plan. In fact, that view fits excellently into the thought of this paragraph. Flesh can be saved, glorified, and God always intended it to be glorified; but Irenaeus insists that the enfleshment of God’s Word is necessary for such glorification of humanity. So the Incarnate Word was always intended to be part of this plan of salvation; and his human nature would be the first and most important recipient of that salvation.

Gen 4:10.

Gen 9:5.

Gen 9:6. The Arundel and Vatican MSS and Erasmus added sanguis as subject of “shall be shed,” but it is only to be implied, since it is missing also in LXX.

Matt 23:35–36, with part from Luke 11:50.

On the role of recapitulation here, see Orbe 1:667–69.

Only what is related by real succession with the first man, Adam, is true flesh. In Lat. Iren. successio is predicate noun of caro, flesh is the lineage. In my translation I tried to make that clear. Successio, lineage, is an unbroken line by which the identical flesh of the first handiwork is passed on to others.

“Seeking out” is in Lat. Iren., exquisitionem. That supposes ζήτεσις; but Arm. Iren. supposes εὕρεσις for “acquisition.” This is preferred by SC (187n2) because it is said to fit the sequence of thought better, namely, that the Word became flesh and so effected a communion with himself, and this communion effected the “acquisition.” “Seeking out” would not fit so well for “acquisition.” Yet, the relation between communion and exquisitionem is not so direct. Et joins the two, indicating that both the communion and the seeking out are effected by the Incarnate Word. Also in 3.20.1, praeparans adinventionem salutis quae facta est a Verbo, links the “method” of salvation to the Word. Note also 5.1.1: “By his coming, too, he gave us imperishability, securely and truly, through communion with himself.”

True, the entire work of incarnation–redemption was accomplished for man’s salvation; yet that does not militate against the idea that the incarnation as such was planned from the beginning. Irenaeus does not say that man’s salvation was the primary or exclusive reason for the incarnation. Christ’s own glory comes first, or is included as the primary object of the “salvation” of humankind. Cf. A.H. 4.33.1.

Col 1:21–22. Though Irenaeus had been speaking about salvation through recapitulation by the incarnation, he introduces a Pauline text that emphasizes the redemption through death. Irenaeus knows genuine Paulinism, which Jossua (93–102) recognizes but Jossa (121ff.) misrepresents. See also A.H. 4, chap. 5, n22.

1 Pet 2:22. Irenaeus clearly enough teaches that Jesus was without sin, and in that his flesh differs from ours. Cf. Tertullian, De carne Christi 16. (CCL 2.902). In the quotation from Peter, Lat. Iren. has “in his soul,” but Arm. Iren. has “in his mouth,” as in the NT. SC chooses Arm. Iren., and notes that it sees no reason why Lat. Iren. would have taken “soul” since the whole context is about salvation of the flesh. Yet, it seems that the change to anima is so strange it had to be made deliberately. Why? Irenaeus could have had a very good reason. He is speaking about personal sins, which are not in the flesh, but in the soul. Here there is no question about saving the soul or body, but about the sinlessness of Christ, and that was primarily in his soul. Besides, by taking soul instead of mouth he is extending the sins to all, not merely to sins of the tongue. And so, Arm. Iren. again harmonized with Scripture, something Irenaeus had changed deliberately.

“The word about reconciliation” follows more exactly Arm. Iren. than Lat. Iren., which has a genitive reconciliationis sermo. Since Irenaeus quoted Col 1:22–23. at the end of the preceding paragraph and is writing a kind of commentary on it here, he is most likely alluding to those verses here, with the idea both of enmity and reconciliation, though he could still have had a genitive phrase, taken from 2 Cor 5:19, which could then refer more generally to the entire teaching about reconciliation. SC (191n2) sides more with Arm. Iren.

Cf. Col 1:22.

Eph 1:7.

Eph 2:13.

Eph 2:14–15.

1 Cor 15:50.

Rom 6:12–13.

Cf. Rom 6:21–22; 7:5.

Irenaeus uses this construction in the prologue of Books 3, 4, and 5 and just after the prologue in Book 2. See Orbe 1:700.

Col 2:19.

“Human nature” is hominem eius in Lat. Iren. See A.H. 5, chap. 14, n2 on this expression. That emphasizes the reality of Christ’s human nature, which is a theme throughout Book 5. We “accept” that by faith. Excipiens means that here, as recipientibus adventum Filii does in 5.17.2. It does not refer to awaiting the human nature of Christ at the second coming as Harvey and ANF suggest.

Isa 26 (27):19 LXX.

Isa 66:13–14.

Ezek 37:1–10.

This clause is in both Lat. and Arm. Iren., but LXX has only: “Lord, thou knowest them.” SC (199n1) says he has not found the quotation in any early Christian writer as it is in Irenaeus; yet the Bishop certainly favored it, because it shows up the identity of the God who created and the God who will effect the resurrection.

Ezek 37:12–14. For a discussion of the reading and meaning of Irenaeus’s comment after this citation, see A.H. 5 chap. 4, n4.

Isa 65:22 LXX.

“Who each is.” The reading is not certain. Lat. Iren. MSS favor qui est, in place of quid est, as does Arm. Iren. Yet I think the meaning would be practically the same in either. From the whole passage and from A.H. 4.6.3–4, it is certain that qui refers to both the Son and the Father. I tried to bring that out by using “each” instead of “he.”

John 5:14. I inserted “and so” (in keeping with SC 203n4). That clarifies the Latin, which is somewhat obscure.

John 9:3. For a full treatment of Irenaeus’s thoughts on original sin see Orbe, Antropo. 277–314. G. Leroux wrote a dissertation on this subject for the Institut d’Etudes Médiévales de Montréal in 1967 entitled Mythe et Mystère du péché originel au IIième siècle. Contribution a l’étude des origines du dogme du péché originel chez saint Irénée de Lyon, 198 pp. He treats the concept of man in Irenaeus in the first chapter; in the second he deals with the concept of man and of “antecedent” sin according to Irenaeus’s opponents; in the third chapter he details the teaching of Irenaeus on original sin, in contrast to his opponents’ aberrations.

Gen 2:7.

John 9:6.

Cf. also A.H. 5.12.5; 5.24.4, for the Word as Artificer. In Proof 38 he is called the “creative Word.”

Cf. Luke 15:1–17.

Jer 1:5.

Gal 1:15–16.

For this addition, see Orbe 2:52.

“Re-formed” refers to a second formation. The context calls for such an idea. Arm. Iren. has this word, but Lat. Iren. has the simple “formed.”

Titus 3:5.

John 9:7.

“Gave.” SC (211n1) argues that, though Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. have a simple “gave” (donavit), the parallel here between “handiwork, regeneration” of the previous clause and “know the Fashioner, the Lord who restored” calls for “re-stored” and not merely “gave.” That is not certain. Irenaeus is not always so precise in parallels. The agreement of the Latin and Armenian is a strong argument in favor of the simple giving of life at creation. The man who had received his sight (a presage of the resurrection) should recognize the God who created him and gave him the breath of life at creation.

Cf. A.H. 1.5.4. Irenaeus uses the very expressions that his opponents used.

Gen 1.26. For the reference here to the Trinity see Proof 55 and A.H. 4, Preface, n16.

Lat. Iren. reads: ei qui ao Adam caecus erat formavit visionem. Arm. Iren. has caecus natus, and replasmavit oculos. This last point is good. SC (213n1) accepts natus, but still refers this man to man in general, read ab Adam as “since Adam” because man has been spiritually blind since then. However, ab Adam quite certainly means “descended from Adam,” because at the end of the paragraph the whole human race is mentioned; it was to all that Christ manifested himself. So, I think it refers directly to the one man of John 9, who is a symbol of all men spiritually blind. Natus does not seem authentic in Irenaeus. Arm. Iren. introduced it, possibly because that was stressed in John 9:1, 3, 19, 20, 32. See also A.H. 5.15.2, 3; and later 5.16.2.

Gen 3:9.

“Voice” is correct according to Lat. and Arm. Iren. This is the “voice” that Adam heard in the Garden (Gen 3:8, 10), which Irenaeus identifies with the Word. Except for “Voice” in place of “Word” he repeats almost verbatim a line given shortly before. Also in A.H. 5.16.1 and 17.2 the Voice is God’s Son. Thus SC (213n4).

Gen 3:19.

“Very clearly” is vere liquido in Lat. Iren. Arm. Iren. has both words but in inverse order. SC (215n1) thinks that is a doublet translation, which in Greek was ακριβός, because in 4.26.1, certus et liquidus of Lat. Iren. represents the one term in Greek, ακριβεστάτος, for which Arm. Iren. also has only one term. On hands, see Orbe 2:82.

Gen 1:26.

John 1:14.

Both in the natural and the supernatural orders man was made according to the image and likeness of God. Irenaeus refers image to the natural in man, namely, to his body and soul, but likeness to the supernatural to the “spirit” in man. Christ restored this likeness, which Adam had lost.

Phil 2:8. Irenaeus has in this paragraph various elements about original sin. Not only Adam sinned, but we all become debtors to God and his Word because of Adam’s sin. Cf. A.H. 5, chap. 14, n3.

On “Maker and Fashioner,” see Orbe 2:12–135.

1 Tim 2:5. “In the last times” begins, according to Irenaeus, with the incarnation and lasts till the second coming. See also A.H. 5.18.3 and W. C. van Unnik, “Der Ausdruck ‘in den letzten Zeiten’ bei Irenaeus,” Novum Testamentum Supplementum 6 (1962): 293–304; and Jossa 130–47. Other scholars, like Werner, had denied this.

“Came to the aid of” is consolatus in Lat. Iren. ANF took this to mean “cancelled,” which seems a mere guess because of the contrast between disobedience and obedience. BKV has “machte wieder gut”; that catches the idea at least in general. Consolare is used elsewhere: in A.H. 3.9.3, in a quotation from Isa. 41, where the Greek has parakaleo, Lat. Iren. interprets it as advocare, “come to the aid of.” See 5.19.1 on advocata.

Matt 6:12.

“Unknowable,” though Lat. Iren. has incognitus. In the context of his opponents’ “system” and because the Greek ἀγνώστος, which was used for this in his opponents’ “system,” the meaning is not merely “unknown.” Irenaeus treated this problem ex professo in A.H. 4.6.1–4.

Lat. Iren. has “by Scripture,” but Arm. Iren. has “by the Prophets.” The meaning is the same, because for Irenaeus the Prophets could refer to the whole OT. Praedicare is used regularly of the Prophets (about thirty-five times), but rarely of Scripture. In A.H. 2.27.2 we read: universae scripturae et prophetae et evangelia praedicent; in 2.35.4; ipsis scripturis praedicentibus. See the longer Note in SC (223n2).

Gen 3:8, 10.

Matt 9:2; Luke 5:20.

Cf. Luke 1:79.

Matt 9:8.

Matt 9:6.

“On earth” is from Arm. Iren. It is also in NT. SC (229n1) follows Arm. reading but notes a variety of difficulties in explaining how they dropped from the Latin, here and in the comment later; but there are also difficulties in explaining how they were added to Arm. if not original in Irenaeus. A theological reason for their presence might be that they stress that this earth belongs to Jesus—a point Irenaeus’s opponents did not accept.

Cf. Luke 5:21. Lat. Iren. has the plural “men.” Arm. Iren. has the singular, referring to the individual cured, spoken of in #1. SC accepts this. But curabat, the imperfect of continued action, involving more than one case, might indicate that the plural is correct.

Cf. Matt 28:18; John 20:22–23.

SC (229n3) observes that there are several discrepancies between the Lat. and the Arm. Iren. And, of course, SC thinks only Arm. Iren. gives a satisfactory sense. As I translated the Latin, it makes excellent sense. The Armenian translator was not so precise in watching the thought of Irenaeus. Rightly did Irenaeus say Jesus suffered with us (past tense), but that as God he now has mercy on us and forgives our sins, using the present tense here, because that continues as Irenaeus is writing. There is much Christology condensed here. It is interesting that at this early date in Christianity Christ’s divinity was defended explicitly on the grounds that he forgave sins in his own name.

Ps 31 (32):1–2.

Col 2:14.

Per lignum is not in Greek or Arm. Iren., only in Lat. Iren., and yet it must be original because it is needed for the parallel. The axe is a symbol of the cross, as also of the plow in A.H. 4.34.4 because it consists of some wood and iron, joined together to make a whole instrument. It is also a symbol of Christ as Word united with human nature, and in the effect of retrieving God’s word, which men had lost through sin. This symbolism is found already in Justin, Dialogus 86.6 (MG 6.681), from whom Irenaeus could have borrowed it.

Matt 3:10.

Jer 23:20.

Lat. and Arm. Iren. do not have the fourth dimension (depth) but the Greek fragment does. SC (235n1) argues for its omission.

“Stretching out the arms” is according to Lat. Iren. The Greek has “divine arms”; however, reference is not to Christ himself but to the cross. If so, Irenaeus is describing a Latin cross, with the projection above the cross-bar. Cf. Proof 34 for a very similar note.

Cf. Eph 4.6.

Cf. A.H. 4.35.2. Orbe 2:202–3.

“Hidden” is for absconsus of Lat. Iren., while Arm. Iren. has “separated.” SC (237n1) adopts the Arm. version, on the score that the idea of a created world “hidden” from the Father was foreign to Irenaeus’s opponents, but not that it was “separated” from him. And if absconsus is a false reading for abcissus, then the Latin originally agreed with Arm. Iren. Further, since absconsus represents ἀποκεκρυμέμη, this could have been the false reading of the original αποκεκομμένος (cf. 1.22.1; 3.11.1), or of κεχοπρισμένος (cf. 1.26.1; 2.11.1). Yet if absconsa should be abscissa as in Arm. Iren., then there were two terms to express the same idea. That is highly improbable. Besides, since Irenaeus’s opponents claimed Demiurge made the world out of ignorance, it is quite in keeping with their idea that the world was hidden from him and from Father.

John 14:11.

“Bears” is in Arm. Iren. a present participle (portans), with the Father as subject. That way the Father bears the Word, and the Word is borne, but the Word so borne together with the Father would be subject of the finite verb (praestat), and both would bestow the Spirit. SC (239n1) follow that. But I followed the Latin, where portat has the Father as subject, but then the subject of praestat is the Verbum portatum alone. “Spirit” in the context of the Father and the Word is the Holy Spirit, rather than the spirit in man.

This passage reads in Lat. Iren. thus: Verbum...praestat Spiritum omnibus quemadmodum vult Pater: quibusdam secundum conditionem, quod est conditionis, quod est factum; quibusdam autem secundum adoptionem, quod est ex Deo, quod est generatio. It is easier to understand the construction if one remembers that the Latin was handicapped in not having a definite article. Lat. Iren. used the relative pronouns profusely for this. So the six relatives here most probably stand for definite articles. Quod est conditionis was omitted by the Clermont and Voss MSS, but it is demanded by the parallel structure and is guaranteed by Arm. Iren. For Deo Arm. Iren. has Patre, which is probably correct. The antecedent of the quod is πνεῦμα—spirit of the introductory clause. In the first case he is the type that pertains to creation, and he is made; in the second case he is the type that belongs to supernatural adoption, and he is not made, but is a generation, an offspring. From this one cannot argue that Irenaeus thinks of the Spirit as being generated just as the Son is. He simply chooses a word that distinguishes this Spirit from the created spirit. On all this see the long and competent note of SC (241n1).

Cf. Eph 4:6.

1 Cor 11:3.

Col 1:18; Eph 5:23.

Cf. John 7:38–39, and A.H. 3, chap. 17, n13.

Eph 4:6.

John 1:1–3.

John 1:10–12.

John 1:14. “in human nature” is secundum hominem in both Lat. and Arm. Iren., and with secundum it has, here as elsewhere, adjectival force, simply “human nature”; but to make this clear it is better to translate “the economy in human nature.” Compare “coming in human nature” of A.H. 4.38.1; and “a generation in human nature” of 3.11.8; and “economy in human nature” of 3.17.4.

Cf. A.H. 1.28.4. “Prounikos” is in Lat. Iren. “Power of Prounikos,” a genitive of apposition: the power is Prounikos. She was also known as Mother.

That the Word was invisibly present in his creation from the beginning is also in Proof 34. “Inscribed in the form of a cross” is from Arm. Iren. In a long note SC (245n2) cautions against making the mistake of reading the Armenian as xacéceal, an aorist participle from xacém (to crucify). It should be xacaceal, aor. part. from xacanam (to take the form of a cross). SC, with the aid of a better translation of Proof 34, justified in a long note, thinks the Greek word was kechiasmenos. Xiazein means to mark with two lines crossing as an x, or to make a cruciform incision. Lat. Iren. would have gotten only the general idea from the verb, to inscribe, without indicating the special form. So one cannot speak of the Word’s having been crucified. Irenaeus sees in the symbol of the cross (made of iron and wood) the unicity of the Word creating all things and then saving as the Incarnate Word. Cf. Houssiau 107–9. On the cross symbol see above A.H. 5, chap. 17, n18.

“Visible manner.” Both Lat. and Arm. Iren. have invisibiliter, supposing ἀορατος. But the context clearly and certainly demands visibiliter. The Greek text had been tampered with before either translation was made.

Cf. Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30; 10:39.

Eph 1:10.

John 1:11.

Deut 28:66.

John 1:12.

Cf. Matt 28:18.

“Ruling over” is for principans, according to all the MSS and Arm. Iren. It is accepted by SC and Jossua (90n138). It fits the thought very well. Participans, which Massuet and Harvey read, does not fit at all. Cf. also Houssiau 109. “Rational manner” and “intelligent manner” are for rationabiliter and sensuabiliter of Lat. Iren. Rationabiliter supposes λογικός, which was a play on Λόγος. Literally it would mean in a manner befitting the Word. Sensuabiliter has nothing to do with sensually. It supposes the Greek νοήτος which comes from νοῦς, the mind, often translated in Latin by sensus.

Ps 49 (50):3a.

Ps 49 (50):3b–4.

“Was brought the good news.” Lat. Iren. has Mary as subject of evangelisata est, and this is the independent clause of the first parallel about Eve and Mary. Arm. Iren. has a relative qua before, which SC accepts without explanation.

“Was loosed” is according to Arm. Iren., which fits the context of being loosed after having been held bound. The Latin MSS are divided: Clermont and Voss have salvatur; but Arundel and Vatican MSS and Erasmus have solvatur. For “through the virginal disobedience” I followed the Latin, which has it in the nominative case; Arm. Iren has it in the ablative. This is the famous passage of Irenaeus on the antithesis between Eve and Mary, but, as is obvious, it is set within the antithesis between Adam and Christ, or, in other words, in the recapitulation of all things by Christ, as the very first sentence indicates. Mary is introduced here in order to explain how Christ, God’s Son, could have recapitulated and given salvation to Adam. The answer is: he took his human nature—the same human nature that Adam had—from the virgin mother Mary. He states this first in a general way and then develops it in more detail. The general statement is that Eve, though wedded, was yet a virgin and was deceived by an angel (namely, into being disobedient); Mary, also wedded but a virgin, was brought good news by an angel, which she accepted by obedience, and thus undid the evil the first virgin had wrought. This he then explains by steps, contrasting Eve and Mary. Eve was deceived by the angel’s word and was guilty of a transgression of disobedience, with the result that she fled from God: Mary, in contrast, was brought good news, also by an angel; she obeyed this word of God, with the result that she became the bearer of God. This obedience of Mary’s resulted in her becoming the “advocate” of Eve. Again, the virgin Eve’s action resulted in the whole race being put in bondage to death: the virgin Mary loosed those bonds, thus by her virginal obedience counterbalancing the virginal disobedience. Having stated this about Eve and Mary, he returns to his topic about Christ and Adam.

This paragraph has been treated in detail in Unger, ME, 82–89. To the bibliography given there we can now add Aldama 278–93; L. Begnault, DS p. 7.2 (1971), 1952–55. There is a close parallel to this in Proof 33; see also A.H. 3.22.4; 4.33.4. Mary’s role in relation to Christ is clear and certain: she is the virgin mother of the Incarnate Word; he thereby has the human nature of Adam and is able to recapitulate and save all people.

Irenaeus also states an effect of Mary’s being the virgin mother of Christ on Eve and on all the race. That must be analyzed more. Mary became the “advocate” of Eve. This word is taken from the Latin advocare. The Greek is not extant. Arm. Iren. helps us immensely here, because it gives not merely one word but three interrelated words. That does not mean that the Greek had three words. In Proof 34 the Armenian has only one word too. The three Armenian words mean Mary is comforter—consoler, adviser, and defender-advocate. In the detailed analysis of advocatus in A.H. offered in Unger, ME 82–99, Fr. Unger found that for Lat. Iren. advocatus meant a defender, e.g., against accusers (see A.H. 3.18.7; 23.8; 4.34.4); a consoler (A.H. 3.9.3; 17.2; 5.15.1; 16.3). Because of the Greek parakalein and parakletos involved in some of these passages, through scriptural quotations, it is fairly certain that the Greek word Irenaeus used here is παρακλέτος. The ending is masculine only apparently, because for such participles the same ending is used for masculine and feminine genders. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that in the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (which Irenaeus most likely wrote), Christ is called the παρακλέτος of the martyr Epagathos, and this martyr was called the παρακλέτος of the Christians, because he defended them against false accusers.

That much is said of Eve expressly. Now Irenaeus says that Mary by her action released men from the bondage of death, for which Eve had been responsible. That means that Mary was the cause of salvation for the race, as the Bishop states in A.H. 3.22.4. But I believe that what is said of Eve holds also for her race, and what is said of her race holds for her. So the complete statement would be that Mary became the advocate of, and so released from the bondage of death, Eve and her entire race.

Factually, by becoming Mother of the Savior, Mary defended Eve and us against Satan, and in that sense she interceded for us. But since her action was not merely physical, but was accompanied by acts of faith and obedience, these could not have been without a prayerful attitude on her part that “God’s will be done”; and so I think the notion of Mary’s being Eve’s intercessor, and ours too, in a general way is included in the mind of Irenaeus; consequently, in kernel we have here the later, more developed notion of Mary our advocate. Aldama (María, 289) rejects my notion of intercession here; but as I explained it, it seems impossible to exclude it. M. Jourjon, “Aux origínes de la priére d’intercession de Marie,” Bulletin de Société Franc. des Etudes Mariales 23 (1966): 38–42, argues convincingly for the inclusion of intercession in advocate, especially in view of its use for the martyrs of Lyons.

Scholars have discussed the origin of Irenaeus’s teaching about Eve and Mary. He might have got it from Justin, Dialogus 100 (MG 6.709, 712). If he did, he certainly developed it far beyond Justin. Whether Justin had treated the matter more at length in his longer work, Syntagma (now not extant), is simply unknown to us.

Cf. Matt 10:16.

Cf. A.H. 1.6.1.

Cf. A.H. 1.31.4; 2.P.2. Orbe 2:293–94.

There are various churches, scattered over the world; but all are united in one faith and government and worship, as described in the following lines. Compare also A.H. 3.2.2, to which he refers here; and 4.26.2, 4, 5.

For more on harmony and order here, see Orbe 2:298.

Notice here how Irenaeus links the Father, Son, and Spirit with the economy of salvation.

“Structure”—Lat. Iren. has figura ordinationis. Figura is shape or structure; ordinatio is order. So this is structure that results from order. Grabe rightly held that there is in this an allusion to the ordained ministry because the order in the Church is due to bishops and presbyters. Harvey wants to refer it to the constitution of the Church in general and suggests the Greek was καταστάσις. But in the seven other places where originatio occurs in Books 3 to 5, it is always used of an ordering of things in succession or sequence, except in 4.36.6, in the quotation from Rom 8, where it refers to God’s command and the Greek is διαταγή. In three of the other places the Greek is extant as τάξις. So in the present passage it certainly refers to the ordered succession in the hierarchy.

This last sentence is a clever summary of the main tenets of the Church, practically a creed.

Prov 1:20–21.

Cf. Exod 25:37; Rev 1:20. This is a beautiful figure of Christ’s truth as his light.

Cf. A.H. 2.27.1; 3.11.7. Orbe 2:321.

Matt 15:25; cf. Matt 15:14; Luke 6:39.

2 Tim 3:7.

Though there are many churches scattered over the world, as described in # 1, they are all united into one Church, which is unerring in its tradition, to which all people must have recourse. Cf. A.H. 3.3.2.

Gen 2:16.

Cf. Rom 12:3; A.H. 5.21.2; 3.25.7; 4.19.1. Orbe 2:332.

Gen 2:17.

On this point, see Orbe 2:334–35.

Rom 12:3. “Prudence” is prudentiam where the Vulgate has sobrietas.

Eph 1:10.

For more on these key chapters, see Scott D. Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith: Irenaeus and the Structure of the Adversus Haereses (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019), 164–69.

In the past some have read provocans with bellum, but it is certain that this belongs with elidens and governs eum. Provocans means to “call to” something; e.g., to evangelize, as in 3.14.1, in a quotation from Acts 16:6 (Greek has προσκάλειν); or “calls for,” in the sense of demands (3.25.3); or invited to (3.20.3; 5.17.2). So in the context of war it is a challenging. Arm. Iren is somewhat redundant in words here, but it seems this word is translated as “inciting to battle.” Elidens fits in with the idea of defeating the enemy and trampling on him. But Arm. Iren. has vincens here, which SC (263n1) prefers, as more in keeping with the context of victory and in contrast to taking captive. It is interesting to note that the only other place where Lat. Iren. uses elidere, it is used in combination with vincere: in 5.17.2 the Devil is presented as having “conquered man and dashed him to pieces.” In our present passage this kind of defeat is attributed to Christ over Satan. Irenaeus likes to present salvation as Christ’s victory over Satan. Nearly all of A.H. 5.21–30 is on this theme. Cf. Lawson 176–96.

Gen. 3:15. In this paragraph Irenaeus teaches four things in regard to Gen 3:15. (1) The first Gospel speaks prophetically of Christ and the Virgin; (2) St. Paul clearly understood this in Gal 3:19 and 4:4 and practically gave an interpretation to that effect; (3) the woman of Gen 3:15 is Mary, because it was through her mediation that we all receive life, just as we all inherited death through Eve; (4) the woman is a virgin mother, because her child is the offspring of her alone, as is clear from Paul, whom he quotes. See Unger, ME 120–29. A. Orbe, Greg. 1971, 237–38, correctly observes that God, even before Adam fell, thought of his Son as Head of the human race, with a divine headship, as the principle of human salvation. Already since Gen 1:26, Christ, in his glorious flesh, was the one and only efficacious principle of salvation for the human race. God positively chose him, in the flesh, and predestined him for that purpose.

Gal 4:19.

Gal 4:4.

“Justly” on Christ’s part, not as if the devil had any rights over man—Irenaeus denies that emphatically over and over again—but precisely because he had no rights.

This is another classic passage from the ancient Church on the antithesis between Adam and Christ, and between Eve and Mary.

Gen 1:26.

Matt 4:1ff.; Exod 24:18; 2 Kgs 19:8.

“Fasts” is for ieiunantem of Lat. Iren. Arm. Iren. spelled that out more clearly by inedia utentem, which SC (267n1) accepts and translates: “while he abstains from food.”

Matt 4:3.

Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3.

“Satiety” is repletio, which makes good sense. Harvey suggested that repletio represents anaplerosis, which was a misreading for anaperosis, a visitation. But that would seem to make little sense here.

Matt 4:6; Ps 90 (91):11.

Here Irenaeus explicitly links his opponents with Satan. Their interpretation takes its inspiration from him.

Matt 4:7; Deut 4:16.

Lat. Iren. reads: ostendens (Christus) id [quantum] quidem quod est secundum hominem, quoniam non debet homo tentare Deum; quantum autem ad illum, quoniam in eo homine qui videbatur, non tentaret Dominum Deum suum. I inserted quantum to indicate that the Greek construction was most likely more parallel than the Latin indicates. It is clear that there is an introductory clause of limitation to each of the prohibitions. The first clause is clear enough: According to the Law of Deuteronomy that the Devil quoted, man in general is not to tempt God. The difficulty is in the second clause. Who is antecedent of illum, and who, consequently, is subject of the second temptaret? Two opinions have been held. The one takes illum to refer to the Devil, and he is the subject of temptaret: As far as he (the Devil) is concerned, (Christ showed) that he may not tempt the Lord his God in the man here visible before him. This opinion takes illum, supposing auton, in its normal meaning, and it reads the phrase in eo homine qui videbatur quite naturally. However, Arm. Iren. has for quantum…illum: id autem quod ad ipsum est, which seems to refer to Christ speaking, and SC (271n2) defends that. Αὐτὁν can mean “himself,” and so it can mean: as far as the man Christ is concerned, neither he, in the man here visible, may tempt God. It would be against the mind of Irenaeus to think Christ is telling the Devil that he may not tempt God. In fact, Christ reproved the Devil for suggesting that he tempt God. Yet, Christ could have turned tables on the Devil and refuted him by quoting the Law at him directly: You may not tempt God either in the person of myself whom you see here. It seems to me this is still the better interpretation. It was defended by M. Steiner, La Tentation de Jésus dans l’interprétation patristique de Saint Justin á Origéne (Paris: Etudes Bibliques, 1962), 55.

Matt 4:9.

Luke 4:6–7.

Matt 4:10.

For the same explanation of the Devil’s name see Proof 16.

Matt 12:29.

Lat. Iren. is somewhat obscure in its cryptic style, and Arm. Iren. does not help much. My translation follows the Latin as closely as possible. Contraria in sermone (Arm. sermoni) refers back to the discussion about the Devil’s trying to give Christ false advice that is contrary to the Scriptures.

Homo eius quite certainly refers to Christ, precisely in his human nature, or inasmuch as he was in visible form. Eius refers back to Dominus. See long note of SC (277n2).

The devil was fugitive from Christ by refusing him homage in the very first of his apostasies, namely, at his original trial in “heaven.” Ever after, he tried to get people to apostatize from Christ and to have himself worshipped, to arrogate to himself the rights of Christ. See below #4, and 28.2. See also Unger, FS 124–28.

“Thereafter” is postea iam in Lat. Iren.; Arm. Iren. is “for the rest,” supposing the Greek τὸ λοιπόν.

“Commands us to praise.” Lat. Iren. has an infinitive, laudare, which is then, together with servire, controlled by iubet. Arm. Iren. has laudat, and so only servire is subject to iubet. SC (279n2) defends this. However, in the sequel Irenaeus quotes Deut 6, in which there is a command to love, adore, and serve God. That love and adore refers, I believe, to the present laudare and serve to servire. So two things are commanded.

Rom 3:20.

Irenaeus refers to the theory that the Law was supposed to be from Demiurge, and he from Achamoth, and she from Wisdom, who erred through ignorance and degeneracy.

Deut 6:4, 5, 13.

Matt 4:7; Deut 6:16.

“Adversary”: Lat. Iren. has Satanam, which means the Adversary, as Irenaeus explained earlier. Arm. Iren. has Apostasy, which SC (281n1) thinks might have corrupted to Satanam.

Rom 12:16.

Luke 4:6.

Matt 10:29.

Luke 4:6.

John 8:44.

Gen 2:16–17.

Gen 3:1.

Gen 3:2–3.

Gen 3:4.

Cf. Gen 1:5. From the subsequent explanation it is clear that Irenaeus is taking unus to mean one, not first, as actually in Genesis.

Gen 2:17.

Irenaeus is extending his idea of recapitulation to unwarranted extremes in this chronological calculation.

2 Pet 3:6.

“Day of preparation” is caena pura. In A.H. 1.14.6, this same Latin expression is used, but the Greek text has παρασκευή. Caena pura must be a Latin gloss since it is missing in Arm. Iren.

John 8:44.

Matt 4:9; Luke 6:6.

Prov 21:1.

Prov 8:15–16 LXX.

Rom 13:1.

Rom 13:4.

Rom 13:6.

Matt 17:27.

Rom 13:4.

Rom 13:6. Since Irenaeus a little later alludes to 2 Thess 2:4, it seems likely that he does here too, in the sense that the laws are the restraining power mentioned in 2 Thess 2:7.

“Devour each other like fish.” Cf. W. Parsons, “Lest men, like fish,” Tradition 3 (1945): 380–88, who explains that this figure of people devouring each other like fish is in here in a political context. In Athenagoras, Legatio pro christianis 34 (ACW 23.75), it is in a socio-moral context. This metaphor is to have a long history in Christian literature.

I followed Arm. Iren., as indicated by the additions in angular brackets, which parts are omitted in Lat. Iren., possibly because a scribe did not duplicate an identical phrase as he should have. The Latin beginning with Quae from a quotation is abrupt. It could possibly be taken as a causal clause and then the rest would follow. But Arm. Iren. reads well. Besides, though the Greek excerpt is itself not in line with either Latin or Armenian, it does have an “and,” suggesting that the Armenian is correct in the rest too. For the last phrase quoted see Rom 13:1.

Luke 4:6.

Cf A.H. 5.22.2; 5.24.1.

Lat. Iren. and Arm. agree, as I translated. The Greek excerpt has “not” in place of “whose,” which is difficult to explain. See SC (303n3).

2 Thess 2:4. “Begin to serve him” is according to Lat. Iren., for which Arm. Iren. has “they obeyed.” SC (305n1) finds it difficult to see what the Latin translator read in his Greek copy, if that is the original Latin. But the Latin seems to give the correct meaning. If they begin to serve him, he can blind their hearts; if they do not, he can’t. The Armenian might be saying the same thing with “if they listen.”

Eph 2:2. Paul actually speaks of “the prince of the power of the air,” and “the prince of the spirit which now works on the unbeliever.” Irenaeus condensed this into the phrase “the spirit of the air.”

Irenaeus stresses the envy of Satan against man, which was ultimately against the God-Man, whom he not only refused to worship, but whose worship he bought for himself. See Unger, FS 124–28. In the beginning he showed that envy against Adam, but gradually he revealed the real object of his envy, the God-Man. And so man became the test of his sentiments. Lat. Iren. has examinatio sententiae, for which SC gives a too paraphrastic translation: “la pierre de touche de se dispositions intimes,” and justifies the Armenian as better than the Latin (307n1). Arm. Iren. is supposed to have read δοκιμεῖνον. This can have two meanings. The one, simply the testing of something for knowing its value. This material sense was taken by Lat. Iren., which is not too intelligible. Arm. Iren. took the second meaning: a means for testing. I think examinatio can mean that too. It is not merely the action of testing. Besides, to guess that δοκιμεῖνον is the Greek and then argue from it as if it were certain is not scholarly. Lat. Iren. uses examinatio once more in A.H. 1.11.1 for expressing a purpose for the emission of Spirit. It was to test the Aeons and also to make them fruitful. Here the Greek is ἀνακρίσις. I think there is great probability that this was the word Irenaeus wrote in our place. Man is the means against which or by which Satan disclosed his sentiments.

Luke 10:19.

“Impious and lawless” is three terms in Lat. Iren, impius et iniustus et sine lege. Arm. Iren. has only two terms; and in a parallel case in A.H. 5.24.2, there are only two terms: impie et contra legem. So in our present passage iniustus and sine lege may translate one Greek term, possibly anomos (lawless) (cf. 2 Thess 2:8; 2 Pet 2:8). Contra legem may be the same as sine lege, given the penchant of Lat. Iren. to vary his terms. But it could also stand for ἀθέσμος, against the law, unlawful (see 2 Pet 7).

2 Thess 2:3–4. “As God” is from Arm. Iren., which is not in the NT nor in Lat. Iren. It is superfluous because of the ending to this sentence “to be God.” Yet it could have been in Irenaeus’s Bible because it is in some minor MSS of the NT, e.g., in the Syriac Bible, but there it was in place of “of God.” SC (313n2) thinks it easier to explain its addition in Arm. than its omission in Lat. Iren. I kept it hesitantly.

Satan betrays his original intention of refusing worship to the God-Man.

“Order” is dispositio in Lat. Iren.; and Arm. Iren. seems to represent diatage, which means order, more clearly than dispositio does. Dispositio could also suppose διαταγή in Greek. It need not suppose some more general word for arrangement. In A.H. 5.22.2 ordinatio is explained by disponuntur; but in 4.36.6, in a quotation from Rom 13:2, ordinationi represents diatage, the only place where this Greek word is extant in Irenaeus. So there is very little difference between Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren., and both must have read the same Greek word, which seems to have been διαταγή. It should be noted that in the further explanation of dispositio Lat. Iren. uses iussu, in the very similar phrase: cuius iussu hoc quodfactum est templum; above it was templum per dispositionem veri Dei est. That makes dispositio practically a synonym of iussus.

Cf. A.H. 3.6–8.

Matt 24:15–17, 21.

Dan 7:8, 20–22.

Dan 7:23–25.

2 Thess 2:8–12.

John 5:43.

Luke 18:6, and 2–3.

Dan 8:12 (Theodotion).

Dan 8:23–26 (Theodotion).

Dan 9:27.

Matt 24:15.

Luke 1:26–38.

“Sent” is from Arm. Iren., for which Lat. Iren. has the compound praemisit, which seems to be a slavish rendition of even the prefix in ἀποστέλλω. In A.H. 4.23.1 we have the same; but in 4.36.2 we read the simple misit: qui prophetas misit, qui Filium suum misit.

Rev 17:12–14.

Matt 12:25.

Dan 2:33–34 (Theodotion).

Dan 2:41–42.

Sive in Lat. Iren. seems to indicate that efficaces was originally a marginal note explaining agiles, or it is a doublet translation.

Dan. 2:42–43. “Partly” translates the Latin ab ipsa pars, which is a slavish translation of Theodotion’s version ἀπ᾽αὐτῆς ἔσται. LXX has the regular construction of μέρος τι here and also in vs. 33, where even Theodotion’s version has this normal construction. So above ab ipsa means partly.

Dan 2:44–45.

Dan 2:44. Prior to this quotation, the expression “resurrection of the just” may allude to Luke 14:14.

“Economies relative to the human race.” I followed Lat. Iren., which has: secundum humanum genus dispositiones. The prepositional phrase is, in Irenaeus’s style, an adjectival modifier for dispositiones, meaning “human economies.” But to bring out the meaning more clearly I translated as above. “Human race” is correct. Lat. Iren. has the expression forty-three times. In seven of those cases the Greek is extant, and it is always ἀνυρωπότης. So it is quite certain that that was the term here. Lat. Iren. has the plural for dispositiones. This plural, indicating the various smaller economies, is found often; e.g., A.H. 3.11.8; 12.13; 4.20.7; 28.2; 33.7, 15. And so even though he also uses the singular for the one overall economy, and though the Arm. Iren. has the singular, and though the singular occurs in a similar case in A.H. 3.22.4, there is no reason to change the Latin. SC (333n2) followed Arm. Iren.

“Twisting the thought” gives the Latin: secundum eversionem sententiae. That agrees in thought with Arm. Iren. See A.H. 3.12.2, where he gives a longer explanation of this policy of his opponents.

Matt 25:41.

“As if being hidden” is quasi latens Deum. Arm. Iren. has either the infinitive latere or the gerund ad latendum. That is an attempt to bring out the meaning of the Greek, most likely λανθάνον.

The work of Justin referred to is not extant. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.18.9 (GCS 2.1.366), repeats the account, which was used often by the Greek writers of the Middle Ages.

Matt 25:41; Mark 9:42; 2 Thess 1:8.

“To his own free choice” is according to the Greek excerpt, with which Lat. Iren. agrees in a similar case in A.H. 5.27.2. However, at this place it reads: suae voluntati et sententiae.

Matt 10:35.

Cf. Luke 17:34–35.

Cf. Matt 13:30.

Matt 25:32, 33, 34, 41.

Luke 2:34.

Luke 10:12.

Matt 7:21.

Matt 5:45.

In this paragraph the expression “good things with (or from) God” occurs three times, and twice in A.H. 4.39.4. It is not certain whether Irenaeus said they are with God or from him. In Greek the preposition would be the same, but for with the case would be dative, while for from it would be genitive. The Greek is extant in in our present passage, but not in 4.39. Lat. Iren. has apud (with) in the first two cases of the present passage and in the first case of 4.39, but erga in the second case (which is the same as apud); but it has a (from) in the third case of Book 5. Arm. Iren. has “with” in the first case of the present passage and in the two cases of Book 4; it has “from” in the second and third case of Book 5. SC translated all three with “from” according to the Greek (343n1). I think one could see a difference in the cases. In the first case it is a question of the good things enjoyed in beatitude, and that should be “with” God (as Lat. and Arm.). In the second case they are the good things of which the bad have deprived themselves; this should be “from” (as in Arm. and Greek). The third case is a general principle: all good things come “from” God (as in Lat. and Arm. and Greek).

This is certainly a clear description of hell as fashioned by the sinner himself; see also 5.28.1. But heaven, too, is eternal and is given because of one’s free choice, as he noted above.

John 3:18.

Loc. cit.

John 3:19–21.

Cf. Matt 25:34, 41.

2 Thess 2:10–12.

Rev 19:20.

2 Thess 2:11.

Rev 13:2–10.

Rev 13:11–14.

Rev 13:14–18, with some omissions.

Gen 2:1–2.

2 Pet 3:18.

Gen 1:26. “Hands” are certainly the Word and the Spirit, and so Lat. Iren. genitives (Filii et Spiritus) are in apposition to Dei. Lat. Iren. did not give a “contresens” here, as SC remarks (361n1). On creation through the hands of God see A.H. 4, chap. 20, n6. To the bibliography on this we can add Lawson 119–39, who correctly notes that this figure of the hands lends itself well to emphasizing equality of persons, with no semblance of modalism, and at the same time the unicity of God (129–32).

Cf. Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17.

I followed Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren., which have two words (with slightly different meanings), where the Greek has only one λεπτονθέντες. This Greek has a varied meaning from threshing and husking, to grinding and thinning out. Now in this process of making bread that Irenaeus describes, he mentioned first the threshing (paleis abiectis), then putting the grain into the granary (in horreum), next comes this grinding (the one Greek word), then the kneading (conspersi, in Greek one word), and finally the baking (igniti). So, even though λεπτονθέντες could mean threshing, in our set up that is not possible, because that was expressed by a previous word as the first step. It is something done between taking the grain from the granary to kneading it. This can scarcely be thinning out. So it seems Lat. and Arm. Iren. gave a doublet translation to bring out the full meaning of grinding and grinding fine. SC (361n2) suggests that Lat. Iren. brought out the two meanings, which are “broyer” and “aminicir,” but, as I noted, threshing is not part of that concept, and neither is to thin out, which would follow the kneading.

Ignatius, Ad Romanos 4.1 (ACW 1.81–82). According to this, Ignatius spoke of God’s wheat and Christ’s bread, which seems quite logical. Our Lat. Iren. and Arm. have Christ’s wheat and God’s bread, while the Greek excerpt has God’s wheat and God’s bread. SC took Lat. and Arm. Iren. with no comment. Maybe this text was used often and quoted from memory. The Greek would favor God’s wheat, but none of the other witnesses would favor “Christ’s bread.” On this, see Scott D. Moringiello, “Sacrifice, Eucharist, and Love in Ignatius of Antioch.” Studia Patristica 109 (2021): 109–118.

Isa 40:15, 17. Creation is for man, and man is the central figure in all creation, so he should have been grateful to God. See Orbe, Antrop. 39–40.

Matt 24:21.

As noted in the Introduction, recapitulation is a major theme in the Adversus Haereses. Here we see that Irenaeus discusses not only Christ’s recapitulation but also the recapitulation of the Devil. See Orbe 3:222.

Cf. Rev 19:20.

Cf. Gen 6:1ff. For the numerical name 666 see Rev 13:8.

“Living being” cf. Gen 7:23, from which this whole phrase comes. Since it is in the context of the flood, the Greek fragment clearly took ἐχαλέοφων ἀνάστημα from there. In Gen this means every being, or every living being that had arisen on the earth. It is explained there as including men, beasts, reptiles, birds. Arm. Iren. has resurrectionem; since the idea of a resurrection is such nonsense in the context of the flood, one wonders if Arm. Iren. understood the Greek correctly but had no word to express it. This I believe is truer of Lat. Iren., who wrote insurrectionem. This is one of those attempts at a very literal rendition: since resurrectionem would be misleading, the translator added in, which also gave him the effect of the Greek prefix ana-, though that was already in the re- of resurrectionem, but in a different sense. Some Latin scribes had a problem with inresurrectionem, since some MSS (V and A and Erasmus) wrote in resurrectionem: See SC (367n1).

Cf. Dan 3:1.

Cf. Dan 3:20.

“Trustworthy and ancient” follows the Greek fragment. For “ancient” both Lat. and Arm. Iren. have a doublet: antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus (Lat.); veteribus-antiquis (Arm.). Since Greek and Arm. agree in putting “trustworthy” ahead, I think in Lat. Iren. antiquis crept in as a marginal note.

This whole paragraph shows how Irenaeus’s information reaches back to St. John through the disciples. Irenaeus was concerned to have the correct reading of the Scriptures on the number 666. He rejects 616, which is found in some MSS of Rev. Orbe, Greg. 1952, 259–62, notes that Hippolytus, De Antichristo, does not mention 616, so both may be relying on a common source.

“Reason” stands for logos, which is verified by the Greek, Lat. and Arm. Iren. But logos can have different meanings. As SC (371n1) ably shows, Irenaeus had proved that this number comes from the unimpeachable source of Scripture; it agrees with the testimony of the presbyters; and it also fits into the whole theory of recapitulation, that is, it is according to “reason.” That is what he will now show. The number 666 symbolizes the totality of evil that the Antichrist is, which Christ will recapitulate by overcoming it.

“Beginning” is for inciperent, which supposes the Greek idiomatic construction with μελλόντων. That fits into the sentence well. He is contrasting the beginning for correcting the affairs with the strengthening of the kingdom. Arm. Iren. has “imagine,” which supposes δοκούτων, which is a misreading.

Matt 24:15.

1 Thess 5:3.

Jer 8:16.

Cf. Rev 7:5–7.

Orbe notes that Euthanus means “very flowery” and by extension, “various colors.” Euthanus is also one of the children of Dionysius and Ariadne. Orbe 3:267.

According to Overbeck, the name “Teitan” (Titan) is connected with the idea of a vengeful and punitive authority. See Overbeck 452–53.

Irenaeus refers to Roman mythology. This Titan, the grandson of the great Titan, was son of Hyperion, the Sun-god, Sol. Of him, according to Massuet, Cicero speaks in Aratus 60, and Ovid in Metamorphoses 1.10.

Domitian’s regime was AD 81–96, which agrees with the authorities of early Christianity that Rev was written in the last years of Domitian. To be noted is that Irenaeus says John had his vision at this time. He does not say that is when John died. This, then, does not contradict what he says in A.H. 2.225, that John stayed on till the times of Trajan (A.D. 98–117), which is verified if he died in the early years of Trajan. True, as noted by B. Newman, “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis. Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the Contemporary Historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” New Testament Studies 10 (1962/3): 133–39, this latter remark about the Trajan times is not relevant to the date of Revelation. Newman also notes correctly that Irenaeus does not, by his remark on Domitian, suggest that Revelation alludes to the persecution by Domitian, as if Rev were an account of contemporary history. Irenaeus takes it allegorically about all apostasies since the beginning of time, but with special emphasis on his own times.

Rev 17:8.

2 Thess 2:4.

Matt 16:27; 24:64; from Dan 7:13; Luke 23:69.

Cf. Matt 8:11. There is here an allusion to his notion about the millennium, which he will describe at length later.

“Pass over” is in Latin Iren. supergredientes, which is very exact for the idea that these people want to disregard and jump over the various steps upward toward eternal life that God has established. SC translates that with “negligent,” which misses the nuance. For Irenaeus there are two points involved in the process of advancement: order and harmony. These are paired in A.H. 4.38.3; 5.31.1; 36.2. Both ordo (5.31.1) and ordination (4.38.3; 5.36.2) stand for the Greek τάξις. “Harmony” stands for the Greek ῥύθμος which Lat. Iren. rendered variously by convenientiam (4.38.3), modos (5.31.1), and dispositio (5.36.2). Lat. Iren. was not embarrassed by this concept, as SC (389n2) thinks. He merely indulged in his elegant variations.

Cf. Tertullian, De anima 55, 1 (CCL 2.862).

On this apocryphal quotation see A.H. 3.20.4, and A.H. 3, chap. 20, n21.

Matt 12:40.

Eph 4:9.

Ps 85 (86):13.

John 20:17.

Col 1:18.

John 20:20, 27.

Ps 22 (23):4.

Of course, this is the major theme of Irenaeus’s understanding of salvation. See de Andia 321–336, Overbeck 478–492, Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith, 176–80.

Luke 6:40.

“Beginning” is principium in Lat. Iren. SC, guessing that the Greek was προοίμιον (see A.H. 5.1.1), translates it as “prelude.” Arm. Iren. has a kind of doublet using a noun with an adjective: arrhabo praevius. SC (397n1) thinks that means a preamble or a prelude. But that is arguing too strongly from a Greek word that was merely a guess. Arm. Iren. arhauatacem means pignus. Since the genitive that follows (incorruptelae) is a synonym of haereditatis used with pignus (arrhabo) in Eph 2:14, and since Arm. Iren. would scarcely have used this odd word, which needed an explanation, unless it was in his Greek copy, I believe that was the Greek word Irenaeus wrote. So, this resurrection is a pledge of the imperishable life that will follow.

“All men” is from Arm. Iren.; it is missing in Lat. Iren., but SC (397n3) defends it fairly.

Rom 8:19–21. This paragraph, as all the last chapters, is on millenarianism. See G. Bardy, “Millenarisme,” DTC 6, no. 2 (1929): 1760–63; E. Buonaiuti, “Il millenarismo d’Ireneo,” Revista storico delle scienze teologiche 2 (1906): 903–18; Wingren 181–213. V. Cremers, “Het millenarisme van Irenaeus,” Bijdragen 1 (1938): 28–80, attempted to prove by intrinsic reasons, such as the scriptural citations and theological concepts, that the Bishop did not write these millenaristic paragraphs. As Houssiau (130n2) remarks, the literary complexity of A.H. takes the force out of Cremers’s reasoning. M. O’Rourke Boyle, “Irenaeus’s Millennial Hope. A Polemical Weapon,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 36 (1969): 5–16, admits the genuineness of these sections but tones down the imputability of Irenaeus on the score that he had the good motive of defending the unity and goodness of God in salvation history and of all things created, matter included. Irenaeus had the good intention of refuting his opponents’ theory that man should have been perfected immediately and completely in the beginning and unconditionally. In God’s plan man is perfected gradually. However, because of this polemic purpose, Irenaeus interpreted some of the metaphorical passages of Scripture too literally; besides, he did not sift the matter from tradition carefully on this point; further, he pushed his principle of gradually achieving perfection beyond due limits. All this made him fall into the error of millenarianism. He held that at the end of time the just will rise and enjoy themselves with Christ for one thousand years in an earthly kingdom. In consequence, he taught that the souls of the just will not enjoy beatitude in heaven till after the last judgment: see A.H. 2.28.3; 4.37.7; 5.31.1; 32.1; 5.10.1; 20.2. He did, however, make an exception for the martyrs (4.23.9; 31.3), among whom are the Holy Innocents (3.66.4). See also Vernet, “Irénée,” DTC 7, no. 2 (1927): 24–99. Irenaeus’s teaching on this did not involve any of the crass and even immoral practices propounded in some systems. See also Proof 61, where he appeals to the presbyters’ authority for the peaceful era at the second coming of Christ. But here he definitely allows that this is already true in the Church, through the conversion of the barbarian peoples. The same is true in A.H. 5.35. Hence, he seems to have held the metaphorical interpretation of these passages for the Christian era on earth, but still held that these passages would be verified literally after the resurrection in a millenarian age. See another interpretation by Smith, Proof, Note 207.

Gen 13:14–15.

Gen 13:17.

Acts 7:5; Heb 11:13.

Gen 23:11ff.

Gen 15:18.

The last line is from Arm. Iren.; cf. Gen 15:19–21. It is missing in Lat. Iren. but seems genuine. See SC, n.1 to p. 401.

“Relative to him,” that is, Abraham, as Arm. Iren. reads it; and correctly, since Christians are spiritual descendants of Abraham. The context and the quotation from Matt 3:9 make it clear that the reference is to Abraham. Some Latin scribe thought the adoption should refer to God, and so Lat. Iren. has deum in place of eum. The Church is called the offspring of Christ by adoption. She forms one whole with him.

Luke 3:8; Matt 3:9.

Gal 4:28.

Gal 3:16. The offspring is here interpreted to be the historical Christ, not the Mystical Christ, the whole Church.

Gal 5:6–9.

“In all things” is missing from Lat. Iren., but it is in Arm. Iren. SC (405n1) refers to A.H. 5.32.1 and 33.4, as similar cases, but there it is a question of how rich God is, and it is natural to add “in all things.” Here it is a question of being true and reliable. So from the similarity one cannot argue very much.

Matt 5:5.

Matt. 26:27–29. The reading of this quotation as given by Irenaeus is not certain in all parts. Lat. Iren. and Arm. Iren. do not agree. Lat. Iren. has “new” with Testament, as in some codices of the NT, but Arm. Iren. omits it, as in the accepted text of the NT. Lat. Iren. has “this” modify vine, as in some codices of the NT, but Arm. Iren. has it modify “fruit,” as in most codices of the NT. Maybe Lat. Iren. represents the Greek as Irenaeus had written it, while Arm. Iren. touched up the text to make it harmonize with the Bible.

Ps 103 (104): 30.

A too literal interpretation, together with his utter trust in the tradition of the presbyters, led Irenaeus astray into an intermediate realm of the millennium.

Luke 14:12–14.

A conflation of Matt 19:29 and Luke 18:29.

Cf. Gen. 2:2–3. The Bishop has here and in A.H. 5.36.3 (n14) a special view of the seventh day of the week, which is the symbol of the rest in the millennium before that of eternal life. The six days before symbolize the world history of six thousand years prior to the millennium. See J. Daniélou, “La typologie millenariste de la semaine dans le christianisme primitif,” VC 2 (1948): 1–16, who thinks this opinion, which became the Western tradition till Augustine broke with it, started in Pharisaic apocalypses from which it came to the presbyters, from whom Papias picked it up. Because of his authority Irenaeus sponsored it too, and after him Hippolytus and Tertullian. The Eastern tradition was that the seven days were the symbol of the world’s history, but the eighth day was the day of eternal rest.

“Wearisome” is adjusted according to “laborious” in Arm. Iren. Lat. Iren. has terrenum (earthly), which does not fit the picture.

Gen 27:27.

Matt 13:38.

Gen 27:28–29.

Gen 31:41.

Gen 32:33.

Gen 46–47; Exod 1ff.

This clause is according to Arm. Iren., and it seems quite genuine, though it is missing in Lat. Iren.

Here is a case where Irenaeus did not sift carefully the tradition of the presbyters from the truly apostolic tradition. This presbyter was most likely Papias, who is mentioned in the next paragraph.

Papias’s work was known as The Interpretation of the Lord’s Words. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39 (GCS 2.1.284). This is a precious testimony about the relation of the earliest fathers with the apostle John and Irenaeus’s relation to them.

Isa 11:6–9.

Isa 65:25.

Rom 10:12.

Isa 26:19. I did not follow RSV here because it differed too much.

Ezek 37:12–14; the second quotation in Ezek 28:25–26.

The Latin text is here not extant in the Clermont or Arundel MSS. What we have reads thus: Et propter hoc, ut sciamus, quoniam in novo testamento ac veteri <unus sit Deus>, qui ex omnibus gentibus colliget eos, qui salvabuntur, ex lapidibus suscitans filios Abrahae, Jeremias ait. I inserted in angular brackets what I think fell out of the text. The Latin MSS have a veteri or ac veteri (Voss). The first makes no sense, whatever one might think of supplying. The second does make sense. Arm. Iren. does not have this at all. Now let us work backward. Suscitans has as subject God, not the Church of the preceding sentence. That is certain. But the subject of colliget, on which suscitans depends, must be the same God. That justifies the relative qui of the Latin and disqualifies quae of Arm. Iren. Arm. Iren., having omitted ac veteri, tried to patch the matter, very poorly, by inserting haec erunt quae. Since God is nowhere in sight here, but is needed as subject, that word must have fallen out. If we insert it, as I did, we have the simple oft-repeated teaching of Irenaeus that there is one God in the New and the Old Testament.

Jer 23:7–8; 16:14–15. LXX, but not the last phrase. Lat. Iren had dropped a line, restored here in angular brackets from Arm. Iren., a simple scribal error of skipping from one word to its similar lower down.

Irenaeus distinguishes here between salvation from Egypt and salvation from Babylon. Orbe 3:453.

Isa 30:25–26.

Gen 9:27. This is missing in Lat. Iren. It was restored from Arm. Iren. See SC (427n1).

Isa 58:1. “upon the whole earth” follows Lat. Iren. That gets closer to the Hebrew and Vulgate: sustollam te super altitudines terrae. Arm. Iren. has “I will lead you to the goods of the earth,” which agrees with LXX. Since Irenaeus did not use the Hebrew Bible but LXX, it is difficult to decide which is the original in Irenaeus. The fact that Arm. Iren. agrees with LXX is not enough reason to say that is what Irenaeus had written. Yet SC (427n4) favors the Armenian.

Luke 12:37–38.

Rev 20:6.

Isa 6:11–12. LXX.

Dan 7:27. “Of the kings” is restored from Theodotion’s version, as SC (429n2) suggests. Lat. Iren. has in its place eorum quae (the things that); Arm. Iren. is no help with its eorum qui sub regibus caeli, which is a kind of conflation.

Dan 12:13.

“The height” is according to Lat. Iren. I retained that because it seems clear that Irenaeus wishes to contrast this with the “Profundity of error”; and so I think “of Truth” was at least implied if it actually did not fall out. Certainly, I see no reason for translating this with “truth” alone, as did SC (431n1). The contrast would not be obvious or complete.

Jer 31 (38):10–14. “On the islands” is an attempt to interpret. Arm. Iren. has a larger lacuna here. Lat. Iren. has the dative insulis. Maybe the translator read νήσους (as in LXX) with εἰς in the meaning of ἔν, as it often does and translated in insulis, but the in fell out; or he read εἰς (LXX) indicating to whom the announcement was to be made and translated it with the dative. See SC (341n1).

See A.H. 4.8.3. Cf. Matt 13:5, which he uses almost verbatim. Lat. Iren. has profanabant (past tense). NT has present tense. SC (433n2) thinks it should be present in Irenaeus. I see no reason why he could not have put the verb in the past, since he was not quoting and was referring to a past event.

Isa 31:9ff.; Isa 32:1.

Isa 54:11–13 LXX.

Isa 65:18–23 LXX. Arm. Iren., which differs from Lat. Iren., seems better in some points. “My people” in place of “of the people in you” of Lat. Iren.; “make use of” in place of Lat. Iren. “shall grow old.” But “They shall drink wine” (omitted in Arm. Iren.) is retained as in Lat. Iren.

Isa 6:11.

Isa 13:9.

Isa 26:10 LXX.

Isa 6:12.

Isa 65:21.

This is really from Bar 4:36–5:9, which was thought to be part of the Book of Jeremiah.

Bar 5:3.

Isa 49:16 LXX.

Gal 4:26.

Rev 20:11.

Rev 20:12–14.

Matt 25:41.

Rev 20:15.

Rev 21:1–4.

Isa 65:17–18.

1 Cor 7:31.

Matt 26:35.

Cf. Exod 25:40.

Rev 21:56 [sic. Probably Rev 21:5 intended].

Cf. A.H. 5.5.1. Rev 19:11–16. Orbe 3:556.

1 Cor 7:21.

Isa 66:22.

Cf. Matt 13:8; Mark 4:8.

John 14:2.

It is hard to determine the passage to which Irenaeus refers. Grabe thinks it is from the tradition of the presbyters. Massuet holds that he is referring to the parable of the talents. Feuardentius, incorrectly, states the reference is to Matt 20:23. That Irenaeus is referring to one of the parables about an invitation seems indicated by some references here to those parables. But since immediately in the next sentence he definitely alludes to the parable of the royal banquet (Matt 22:1ff.), and since there is talk in it of those invited who were “not worthy,” I believe the reference is to this parable.

Matt 22:2.

“Method” is dispositio, which here most likely translates ῥυθμός, namely, a harmonious plan.

1 Cor 15:25–26.

1 Cor 15:27–28.

Cf. Matt 26:29.

Lat. Iren. omitted a whole paragraph, which was restored from Arm. Iren., because it seems genuine. It runs from here to the end of the paragraph.

John 5:25, 28, 27, 29.

Gen 1:31; 2.1.

On the equation of a thousand years and a day see above A.H. 5.23.2; 28.3.

Pss 131 (132):14; 117 (118):20.

Rom 8:19–21.

1 Cor 2:9, from Isa 64:4.

1 Pet 1:12. God’s will to glorify humanity completely by union with himself through the Incarnate Word is the reason for the incarnation. This mystery is the admiration of the angels themselves.

Gen 1:26. This last passage is a fitting ending to the work of the great Bishop of Lyons: The Son of God Incarnate is the Mediator for the glorification of humanity, and so for the supreme glory of God. The Doctor Catholicus could not have ended on a more optimistic note, against the pessimistic tenet of his opponents, which excludes the whole man from salvation that is imperishability also for the body. Man was made to the image and likeness of God, in glory with the God-Man. Here the key passage from Scripture (Gen 1:26) in Irenaean anthropology reaches its climatic fulfillment. See the fine summation in Wingren (xiv).