2.5 Irenaeus on Creation and the regula veritatis: Haer. 1.22.1 (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7)
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
Josh 3–4, 1 Sam 9:22, 1 Sam 20:1–42, 2 Sam 23:13, 1 Kgs 11:21, 1 Kgs 18:31, 1 Pet 3:20 and John 20:24. They assemble any passage that could be used to represent the various elements of their Triacontad.47 The anthropological texts in Genesis, as well as the imagery of human formation are also mined for the ways their numeric representation.
In the same context the Bishop of Lyons summarizes the complex Marcosian understanding of human formation. He observes competing Marcosian interpretations of Adam's formation that, in different ways, read the creation narratives of Gen 1–2 sequentially as two separate stages. He reports that most believe Adam was formed on the eighth day, representing the Ogdoad, but some distinguish between the "earthly" (choicum, 1 Cor 15:47) part that was formed on the sixth day from the "fleshy" (carnalem) part that was formed on the eighth day.48 The earthly part (1 Cor 15:47) refers to the formation in Gen 2:7, while the fleshy part is the covering of sensible skin applied in Gen 3:21. This reading is similar to the anthropological dualism of the Valentinian interpretation, and renders Adam's formation in a progressive manner that transpires over a series of stages throughout Gen 1–3.49
Other Marcosians, according to Irenaeus, partition the creation of Adam into two separate accounts with the formation of two distinct types of persons.
The spiritual man was made bisexual after the image and likeness (Gen 1:26) and the earthly man was formed from the earth (Gen 2:7).50 This distinction implies that some Marcosians view Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 as successive stages in the formation of Adam, while others understand them as two distinct accounts forming two types of human persons. These narratives are woven into Gnostic perspectives on redemption and the salvation of the spiritual man that is saved through knowledge. But in terms of the Marcosian intertextual methods, they focus upon the numerological and spiritual readings that reconcile the scriptural account of creation with their own Gnostic myth.
2.5
Irenaeus on Creation and the regula veritatis: Haer. 1.22.1 (Gen 1:1, Gen 2:7) Like Haer. 1.9.3, Irenaeus' own reading of Gen 1–3 surfaces again in Haer. 1.22.1.
This is a significant section due to the discussion of the regula veritatis/fidei,
47 Haer. 1.18.3–4.
48 Haer. 1.18.2.
49 Haer. 1.5.5–6.
50 Haer. 1.18.2.
chapter 2 which he previously mentioned in Haer. 1.10.1.51 His theology of creation is an essential prolegomena for the theological structure of the regula that forms the prelude to the divine activity throughout the scriptures. His description of the regula comprises echoes to the creation of the world in Gen 1:1 and the formation of Adam in Gen 2:7 alongside a host of intertexts including: Hermas,
Mand 1.1, Psalm 32(33):6, John 1:3, Col 1:16, 2 Cor 4:18, Exod 3:6,52 and Eph 1:3.
These passages are united through the catchwords and narratival arrangement that binds together texts within the contours of Irenaeus' interpretation of the divine economy.
The regula begins with a general reference to God as the Creator of all things.
The meaning of "all things" (omnia), he reasons, must include both the world and humankind. Contrary to the Gnostic cosmological dualism, Irenaeus offers this apologetic for the universality of creation under the administration of God. In a general-to-particular style of argumentation, he begins with citations of the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand 1.1, Psalm 32(33):6, and John 1:3, but then interprets these texts with the particular passages of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, and Col 1:16. Noormann observes that the theological concept of creation by means of the Word links these texts together, but technically speaking, it is actually the creation and administration of "all things" (omnia).53 All three opening passages (Mand 1.1, Psalm 32(33):6, and John 1:3) share the common linking term "all things" (omnia), and Irenaeus brings them together because he wants to prove that God the Father by means of the Word created all existing realities.
In the words of Irenaeus, "From this all nothing is exempt" (ex omnibus autem nihil subtractum est).54
Irenaeus supports this general postulate of the creation of all things in Mand 1.1, Psalm 32(33):6, and John 1:3 with a rejection any angelic mediation in creation and a narratival framework that stresses the continuity between the Father's creation and administration over all things. First, Irenaeus' emphasis on the creation of all things, means that God did not create by means of independent Angels or Powers (Col 1:16), but instead made all things by his own Word and Spirit. Naturally, this implies a "foundational paradigm" or "hypothesis" where God the Creator creates as a triunity of Father, Son, and Spirit.55 But in this case, the echo of Col 1:16 works to support his argument by 51 While the regula is arguably more prominent in Haer. 1.10.1, I did not include it because it does not contain any discernible allusion or echo to Gen 1–3.
52 Matt 22:29–32.
53 Noormann, Irenäus, 85.
54 Haer. 1.22.1.
55 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 67.