1.1 Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Toward an Appreciation for Irenaeus'

Intertextual Reading of Genesis 1–3 1.1

Introduction The city of Lyons, France is nestled in the heart of the Rhone valley, which has always been an important inland trading route from the bustling seaport in Marseilles. Along this route, Lyons is strategically positioned at the confluence of the mighty Rhone and Saone Rivers that converge in the heart of the city center. Travelers to Lyons, both ancient and modern, who wished to cross these rivers, must rely on a complex series of intersecting bridges spanning the waterways at various points. When I visited Lyons for the first time, I experienced the challenge of navigating around the city firsthand. At the same time,

I could not help but observe that this network of bridges crisscrossing Lyons, serves as a fitting metaphor for the nature of biblical interpretation employed by the second century Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. Like the intricate network of roadways connecting Lyons city center, Irenaeus' interpretation is characterized by the convergence of scriptural texts flowing together through a variety of methods of interconnectivity and intertextuality. This study gives attention to the ways that Irenaeus reads scripture, particularly Gen 1–3, intertextually. The basic premise guiding this study is that the reception of any particular passage of scripture in Irenaeus necessarily includes the reception of theologically and hermeneutically interrelated passages. Irenaeus receives and interprets texts in relationship. Even beginning with opening events of creation, the scriptures, for Irenaeus, are entirely consonant. This intertextual method of reading scripture is not imposed upon him, but clearly reflected in his descriptions of the exegetical task and applied exegesis. These textual relationships, furthermore, are formed and shaped through a series of reading strategies that circumscribe precisely how Irenaeus' works scripture intertextually. These reading strategies are rather diverse and fashioned through highly intensive readings of scripture within particular theological and exegetical debates.

The appreciation of Irenaeus' intertextual scriptural interpretation was overlooked in previous studies that were working on the basis of the assumptions and methods intrinsic to Higher Criticism. When these critical assumptions were applied to Irenaeus' use of scripture, they naturally disconnected the texture of the scriptural networks in attempts to extract isolated sources

chapter 1 from isolated texts. Hans Frei summarizes the reductionistic effects of the historical-critical method upon pre-critical exegesis saying, "As the realistic narrative reading of the biblical stories broke down, literal or verbal and historical meaning were severed and literal and figural interpretation, hitherto naturally affiliated procedures, also came apart."1 However, within Irenaean scholarship,

Gustaf Wingren, among other scholars, criticized the generation source critics in the early twentieth century that dissected Irenaeus' theological framework.

Lamenting their divisive tendencies, Wingren remarked, "one fact is beyond dispute: none of the modern theologians who have broken up his [Irenaeus'] theology into two or more sections comes anywhere near Irenaeus as a systematic theologian."2 Contrary to those who disparaged Irenaeus' "primitive exegesis and obscure ideas" and applied an "atomistic system of exegetics," Wingren argued for a more systematic structure to Irenaeus' thought by means of closer attention to his biblical theology.3 He credited Irenaeus with the unique ability to fuse the scriptures and various authorities of the early church into a "harmonious whole."4 However, even Wingren's search for the fundamental unity of Irenaeus' theological framework did not take into account the unifying features of his exegetical practice itself. The same tendency was perceivable in John Lawson's work that also touted Irenaeus as a biblical theologian and aimed to clarify the "biblical character" of Irenaeus' theology in a more systematic manner. He remarked that even the most casual reader of Irenaeus cannot fail to observe that "chapter after chapter is nothing other than a mosaic of Biblical quotations."5 Like Wingren, he also disparaged Irenaeus' exegesis as "most commonly allegorical."6 As a result, his sympathetic inquiry into the patterns of Irenaeus' thought also continued to partition the harmonious nature of his scripture interpretation. Nevertheless, the legacy of their appreciation for Irenaeus' use of scripture incited a new direction in Irenaean scholarship that resulted in a greater appreciation for Irenaeus as a scriptural exegete.

Following the work of Wingren and Lawson, by the late 1960's Irenaean scholars began reevaluating the performance of scripture in the Bishop of 1 Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century

Hermeneutics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 6–7. The early chapters of Genesis in particular (along with the Gospels) received the most intense criticism. Ibid., 17.

2 Gustof Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus

(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1947), 104. See also Ibid., xi, 106–10. Antonio Orbe,

Teología de San Ireneo: Comentario al Libro V del «Adversus haereses» (Madrid: Biblioteca de

Autroes Crisianos, 1985), 15. Hereafter: Teología V.1–3.

3 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, xxi, 104.

4 Ibid., xvi.

5 John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: Epworth Press, 1948), 23.

6 Ibid., 23.

INTRODUCTION

Lyons as a new avenue into his thought. Although the study of Irenaeus' use of scripture extends back to Werner's contribution in the nineteenth century, modern treatments began to flourish after the early 1970's beginning with Antonio Orbe's study of the Gospel parables and Peretto's analysis of Romans 1–8.7 These exegetical works were less concerned with the individual sources behind Irenaeus' writings, and focused more on appreciating Irenaeus' contribution to the history of biblical interpretation. They frequently focused their treatments on his reading of individual books, chapters, passages, phrases, or terms (especially in the New Testament). This trajectory gained momentum in the 1980's and 1990's and in the twenty-first century it has shown no signs of slowing down. Consistently, these studies expose the intricacies of Irenaeus' scripture reading of particular portions of the bible and, in varying degrees, have shown that Irenaeus reads scripture intertextually. This study is indebted to these previous works and contributes to this stream of reception history. However, the purpose of this study is not merely to explain Irenaeus' interpretation of Gen 1–3, but to describe precisely how Irenaeus networks these passages with the rest of scriptural witness. For this reason, this analysis begins with an assessment of his hermeneutics rather than an argument for the importance of the creation texts in Irenaeus' theological framework. To be sure, his dependence on creation passages is indisputable. It is not unusual to find Irenaeus labeled a "theologian of creation."8 The passages of Gen 1–3, however, are not the only texts that contribute to Irenaeus' theology of creation.

Irenaeus interprets all of these Genesis texts within carefully constructed scriptural networks of interrelated texts.

This analysis of Irenaeus' intertextual reception of Gen 1–3 shows that his theological assumptions are shaped in and through the nexus of scriptural passages. To be sure, these reading strategies have some correspondence with methods of Jewish midrash and Greco-Roman rhetorical traditions, but no single hermeneutical background can account for the breadth of Irenaeus' intertextual exegetical practices.9 This study will show that when Irenaeus read Gen 1–3, his mind is actively engaged in surveying the entire corpus of 7 Orbe, Parabolas evangelicas in San Ireneo, 2 vols (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos,

1972); Pretto, La Lettera ai Romani, cc. 1–8, nell' "Adversus Haereses" d'Ireneo (Bari: Istituto di

Litteratura Cristiana Antica, 1971).

8 Matthew Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 4.

9 Hays makes a similar argument for Paul's hermeneutics. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 10–14.

Steenberg also discusses Irenaeus' general approach to the interpretation of Genesis under three "interpretive backdrops" termed: "discernment of the motivation or reasons behind

God's creative act," "the conception of creation ex nihilo," and "the chiliastic vision of the eschaton." While these interpretive backdrops are certainly represented in Irenaeus, they all participate in Irenaeus' hermeneutical interest in scriptural harmony. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 21.

chapter 1 scriptural material as he applies a variety of reading strategies and united disparate texts together.10 The strategies that circumscribe how Irenaeus works

Gen 1–3 intertextually include: literary readings, typological readings, prophecy and fulfillment, verbal connections, organizational functions, illustrative applications, narratival or creedal, prosopological interpretations, and general-to-particular connections. There are also various permutations of these methods within each classification, and I will define each of these more clearly below. These reading strategies are informed by his theological framework and demonstrative of highly intensive scripture reading. Each of these methods is also influenced and shaped by the content of the particular texts in view and their situatedness within the unfolding of the divine economy.

At the same time, his scripture reading and application of these reading strategies is also fashioned by a theological polemic that is engaged in refuting the theological claims of Gnosticism. Thus, in Haer. 1–2 Irenaeus presents the Gnostic reading of Gen 1–3 that shares both similarities and differences with Irenaeus' intertextual reading. In many ways, the Gnostic textual networking Irenaeus describes in these books resembles the same reading strategies that he employs—with one exception. Irenaeus presents Gnostics as applying similar styles of verbal connections, prosopological interpretation, and even a general appreciation for the literary context, but he explicitly rejects their use of gematria. Though they use similar techniques in interpretation, these competing theological perspectives of Gen 1–3 motivate them to appeal to different authorities to clarify or correct the Mosaic account, which naturally yields different types of particular intertextual relationships. There is no doubt that Irenaeus' theological polemic contributes to the selections of intertextual relationships he fashions and shapes his polemical arguments. But Irenaeus is interested in clarifying the Mosaic account with the rest of the scriptural witness, while the Gnostics appeal to both scripture and their myth to correct the errors in the Mosaic account. This appreciation for the way Irenaeus reads Gen 1–3 in response to Gnosticism and in harmony with the rest of the scriptural witness will serve to establish a framework for a much more comprehensive understanding of the complex performance of these passages in his polemical theology. It will also clearly establish how Irenaeus networks

10 I prefer the language of "interscriptural" instead of "intertextual" because I feel that it provides a more appropriate description of Irenaeus' hermeneutical perspective. The language "interscriptural" highlights Irenaeus' self-understanding as a Christian interpreter that grounds his scriptural networking. But due to the prevalence of "intertextual" and "intertextuality" I continue to use these terms and I will define them more carefully below.

INTRODUCTION

scripture and the key features of the manner in which his textual networking is expressed.

Beginning in chapter one I consider the nature of Irenaeus' hermeneutical orientation based upon studies of patristic exegesis and his own descriptions of the exegetical task. I show that Irenaeus purposes to interconnect texts in his refutation and exegesis and I formulate a methodology that can appreciate this intertextual reading of Gen 1–3. I also explain how this book extends the previous theological and exegetical works on Irenaeus' use of Genesis in the contributions of Orbe, Jacobsen, Kannengiesser, Steenberg, and HolsingerFriesen. This book confirms that every time Irenaeus' appeals to the events in creation, he reads them in continuity with the rest of the scriptural witness and does so though a discernable set of reading strategies.

In chapters two-six, I provide a careful literary analysis of every verifiable echo, allusion, and citation of Gen 1–3 in each book of Adversus Haereses. In each case I isolate the performance of every reference to Gen 1–3 and any corresponding intertexts and explain the nature of their hermeneutically symbiotic relationships. Chapter two, and in some instances chapter three, however, are unique in that they present Irenaeus' interpretation of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1–3 that shares both similarities and differences with Irenaeus' intertextual reading. Irenaeus' scripture reading and application of these reading strategies is also fashioned by his theological polemic. In many ways, the Gnostic textual networking Irenaeus describes in these books resembles the same reading strategies that he employs—with the exception of their use of gematria.

The distinction between Irenaeus and the Gnostics readings of Gen 1–3 is not procedural, but distinctive theological perspectives that have distinctive views on the integrity of the narratives in Gen 1–3 and the authority of their teaching.

Chapters four-six detail Irenaeus' use of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 3–5 that jointly construct the framework of Irenaeus' intertextual reading of creation. While there is considerable overlap in the reading strategies of each book, working through them successively allows his voice to be heard more clearly and ensures that no use of Gen 1–3 is omitted from analysis. Chapter four looks at Gen 1–3 in Haer. 3, which also serves as a pivotal turning point in his refutation of the Gnostics as he shifts from refuting doctrines of the Gnostics in Haer. 1–2 to defending the apostolic faith in light of scripture and tradition in Haer. 3–5. The argument of Haer. 3 makes a case for the continuity of the activity of one God from creation to incarnation, and the general thrust of the book discusses the uniqueness of God the Father, Creator of the heaven and earth, and the person and work of Christ, the Son of God. These claims impose a theological pressure upon Irenaeus' interpretation of scripture and contribute to the performance of Gen 1–3 in the context of his intertextual exegesis.

chapter 1 When he reads Gen 1–3 in Haer. 3, Irenaeus coordinates texts in a narratival relationship both internally and externally, so that the work of God in Gen 1–3 initiates the unfolding of the divine economy. At the same time, Irenaeus also uses Gen 1–3 generally to order and structure his work, especially in the form of a series of chiasms in the second half of the book. He also uses philological connections between Gen 1–3 and other texts and various kinds of typological relationships to explain aspects of his theological framework. Alongside these reading strategies, he uses a style of interpretation called prosopological interpretation where he identifies the activity of divine persons functioning in Gen 1–3 and other related passages. A similar style also includes an illustrative application of texts, where he uses elements within a passage to exemplify a theological argument.

Chapter five involves the analysis of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 4 that aims to prove the continuity of divine activity throughout the course of the history of salvation. He discusses the way that the divine economy is constructed for the growth and maturity of the faithful, and these arguments often include the use of narratival arrangements and typological connections. In other instances he applies the different reading strategies mentioned above. Not all of these categories are mutually exclusive, but often work in harmony as he reads creation. In addition, two references to his predecessors (Justin and the Presbyter) frame the book as a whole and contribute to his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3.

In each instance, Irenaeus continually returns to the language, imagery, and events of Gen 1–3 as a means to interpret other passages and images within the rest of the scriptural witness.

Chapter six, which analyses the use of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 5, offers the culmination of Irenaeus' intertextual resourcefulness of these creation texts. This is by far the longest chapter and provides the most extensive treatment of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus' work. The number of references to Gen 1–3 in Haer. 5 is extensive, and this book is especially important for understanding how his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 contributes to his anthropology and eschatology. Like the previous books, his scriptural networking is expressed through a series of reading strategies that support the classifications described in previous chapters, but there are also a number of unique textual relationships such as the extensive number of allusions concerning the formation of Adam and the prophetic reading of the seventh day of creation.

Finally, in chapter seven, I conclude with a summary and cumulative evaluation of Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3. This includes a summary of the continuity and discontinuity between Irenaeus and the Gnostic readings of creation. I argue that Irenaeus and the Gnostics are not arguing over the same individual passages, but over systems and networks of texts fashioned

↑ Back to top