2.7 Conclusion: Irenaeus and the Gnostics' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 1
chapter 2 them to realize they were naked and weighed down by a material body. In their wisdom, though, they knew this would be only for a short time.
In Haer. 1.30.9b Irenaeus continues discussing Gen 4 and the birth of Abel along with details of how the serpent used Cain to slay his brother Abel, and in Haer. 1.30.10–14 he mentions Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets before moving into commentary on Jesus traditions. Eventually the First-Man sends Christ to aid his sister Sophia and announce the unknown Father.95 This summary demonstrates a theological narrative that links scriptural texts to descriptions of the primordial world to Jesus traditions. They follow the general contours of the scriptural narrative that includes a detailed description of the primeval world, the origin of the Creator God and his archons, the creation, disobedience and expulsion of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, and other key events of biblical history that lead up to the Jesus traditions. However, the specific Mosaic account of creation is not normative for the Ophites as they excise key terms and images, conflate them with other scriptural images and key elements of their myth, and incorporate them into their theological perspectives on creation. In the context of Gen 3:1–6, they utilize various styles of intertextuality they carefully reconstruct the narratives. They assume that Jaldabaoth gave the command in Gen 2:16–7, and tried to deceive Adam through the formation of the woman. He was also the one to expel the first couple from paradise.
2.7
Conclusion: Irenaeus and the Gnostics' Intertextual Reading of Gen 1–3 in Haer. 1
In Haer. 1 the Gnostics, including the Valentinians, Marcosians, Saturnius, the Encratites, Tatian, and the Ophites all make use of narratives and imagery in Gen 1–3. The imagery and terminology has particular explanatory power for their system, and they adapt, transpose, or divide passages in order to elucidate their own distinctive cosmology and cosmogony. Irenaeus' presentation of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1–3 shows that they utilize a diverse set of intertextual reading practices including: a literary reading, verbal connections, prosopological interpretation, illustrative application, and gematria. In several ways, this summary mirrors the reading strategies he uses to read these texts with the exception of gematria. At the same time, Irenaeus has two sections that communicate his own reading of these creation texts and begin to show his intertextual reading of these texts.
95 Haer. 1.30.12.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
First of all, the Gnostics provide a literary interpretation of Gen 1–3, where they read specific Genesis texts in correspondence to other texts within their original context as a general description of creation. They understand the genre of these chapters, and, in varying degrees, their interpretation follows the general contours of Gen 1–3, especially Gen 3. However, even though they value the literary nature of these passages as a creation narrative, they reject the accuracy of the details in the text, and absorb key events into their theological perspective. His account must be carefully amended where he does not conform to the Gnostic doctrines. Their fragmentation of the narrative, however, does not preclude the Gnostics from following the broad patterns of the narrative includes: origins of the primordial world, creation of Adam and Eve, and disobedience and expulsion of the first couple.
In terms of the specific literary reading, Gen 1:2 is a pivotal text that stages the creation narrative as a whole. Gen 1:2 is the focal texts in the accounts of origins and subject to a hub of activity from a variety of Gnostic deities. The imagery of the "Spirit," "water," "formless" and "abyss" are the key terms that unite this passage to the activity and characters in the opening scenes of their myth.96 Interestingly, Irenaeus never alludes or cites this passage directly. In fact with the exception of Gen 1:26, Irenaeus rarely mentions any passage from Gen 1. These sections suggest that they are not arguing over the interpretations of individual passages, but broader patterns or networks of texts.
Second, along the lines of the imagery in Gen 1:2, Irenaeus' presentation of Gnosis reveals their use of catchwords or linking terms to unite passages. In many cases these linking terms are explicit, but in other cases they are implied or supplied by the elements of their creation myth. This practice, though, is not widespread since they are more interested in conforming the narrative to their specific cosmological systems, rather than harmonizing the scriptural narrative within itself. For example, in Haer. 1.5.1–4 the Valentinianism account of the formation of Adam uses the descriptive language of "earthly" (choicum,
1 Cor 15:47) to explain the nature of Adam's substance, rather than the plain sense reading of "dust" (limus) or "earth" (terra) in Gen 2:5–7. In Haer. 1.18.2 the Marcosians provide a similar intertextual use of 1 Cor 15:47 in connection to the formation of Adam on the sixth day in Gen 2:7, but they also add that his "fleshy" (carnalem) part was formed on the eighth day in Gen 3:21. The texts of Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19 and Gen 3:21 also provide a set of images that are essential to the Gnostic myth. The terms "image and likeness" in Gen 1:26, the "spirit of life" in Gen 2:7, the dissolution of the "flesh" in Gen 3:19, and the 96 Haer. 1.18.1, Haer. 1.30.1–5.
chapter 2 "skin-like garment" in Gen 3:21 provide the images to explain their anthropological dualism.97
Third, the Gnostics employ a type of prosopological interpretation whereby they identify specific persons in the Genesis narratives with figures in their own mythical system. For example, the Valentinians and Ophites reimagine the divine proclamation of Isa 45:5 as a declaration of the Demiurge in creation that exposes his ignorance and arrogance.98 Other accounts stage the Gnostic deities as the actors in the creation episodes. The Demiurge and his archons are involved in the formation of Adam in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.99 A similar reading is found among the Ophites in Haer. 1.30.1–9. They identify
Jaldabaoth and his angelic sons as the divine beings working in the creation of Adam in Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:17, Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1–6, Gen 3:7, and Gen 3:20.
The dialogical portions, such as "Let us make man" in Gen 1:26, and the decisive actions, such as breathing the breath of life into Adam, are retained and applied, often in modified forms, to specific divine persons. To be sure, these descriptions are often supplemented with non-scriptural background, such as Adam laying flaccid on the ground after his creation, or Sophia assuming the image of the serpent. These contributions supplement the dramatic nature of the prosopological readings of Gen 1–3.
Fourth, the Gnostic use a variety of texts outside Gen 1–3 to serve as illustrations or titles for deities active in creation. In the first instance, the most important illustrative text is Isa 45:5. This passage is highly effective for communicating the wickedness of the Demiurge. There is no passage in Gen 1–3 that supports this type of correspondence or this understanding of the nature of the Creator, instead the Valentinian and Ophite perspective draws out this
Isaianic passage and infuses it into the narrative of creation. In a similar way, the Gnostic accounts link the titles of deities taken from other passages and use them to interpret the divine activity in creation. Much of this is taken up in the discussions on gametria mentioned above, but titles like "Father of all things" (Patrem omnium), "First-Man" (Primum Hominem), "Second-man"
(Secundum Hominem) or "Son of Man" (Filium Hominis), and "First-Woman"
(Primam Feminam) are derived from a variety of New Testament (especially Pauline) texts including Eph 4:6 and 1 Cor 15:47 (cf. Gen 3:20). The sons of Jaldabaoth whose Semitic names are mentioned above, are also described with terms derived from the Pauline list of powers in Eph 1:21 and Eph 6:12.
97 Haer. 1.5.5, Haer. 1.24.1, Haer. 1.28.1.
98 Haer. 1.5.4, Haer. 1.30.6. Cf. Isa 46:9.
99 Haer. 1.5.5–6, Haer. 1.21.1, Haer. 1.24.1–2, and Haer. 1.30.1–9.
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
Fifth and finally, similar to practice of linking terms, the Gnostics use gematria to knit together various texts with equivalent numerological representations. In Haer. 1.14.6 Marcus links the "sixth" (sexta) day of creation in Gen 1:31 with other uses of the number six in Matt 17:1, Matt 27:45, and John 19:14.
Then, in Haer. 1.18.1–2, the Marcosians also link together groupings of four, ten, twelve, and thirty found throughout Gen 1:1–27 that represent the various Pleromic cohorts of aeons. There is even a general use of gematria in the Ophite account with the six sons of Jaldabaoth (Jao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus,
Horeus, Astaphaeus), which borrow from various Hebrew titles for God. This type of reading ignores the immediate context of the passages and the plain sense meaning of a term, preferring instead to focus upon the numbers or quantities represented.
In addition to Irenaeus' summary of Gnostic interpretation, in Haer. 1.9.3 and Haer. 1.22.1 Irenaeus provides instances of his own intertextuality that begin to characterize his reading of scripture which is developed in subsequent books. Like the Gnostics, he uses linking terms and catchwords to unify passages. In Haer. 1.9.3, he links the imagery of "flesh" (caro) in John 1:14 with the substance of Adam's formation in Gen 2:7. In this sense, the images do not contradict, but correspond precisely.100 The substance of Adam's formation is the same substance Christ assumed in the incarnation. Similarly, in Haer. 1.22.1, the term "all things" (omnia) binds together Psalm 32(33):6, John 1:3, Col 1:16, and Mand 1.1. He also follows a general-to-particular argument and contrasts the particular creation of humankind in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.101 Finally, he begins to utilize his prosopological interpretation when he identifies the Creator in Genesis with the Father of Abraham (Exod 3:6) and the Father of Jesus (Eph 1:3), as the same Creator and Father who created all things by means of the Word (John 1:3). Along these same lines, his prosopological reading is reserved to only three divine persons acting in this text: Father, Son, and Spirit.102
He rejects any angelic mediation in creation (Col 1:16), but instead made all things by means of the Son and the Spirit. For Irenaeus it is not possible to imagine the presence of any other divine actor in the creation accounts. This style of intertextual networking becomes more prevalent in subsequent books as Irenaeus develops his own reading of Gen 1–3.
100 Haer. 1.5.5–6; Haer. 1.18.2.
101 For comparison of a similar type of argumentation in Justin see: W.A. Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCK, 1965), 32–33.
102 I have argued this point elsewhere. Presley, "Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots," 169–71.
See also Haer. 3.6.1–5.
chapter 2 Therefore, Irenaeus and the Gnostics both rely heavily upon the creation accounts for the explanation of their theological framework. They approach
Gen 1–3, however, from distinctive theological perspectives and demonstrate dissimilar views on the integrity and authority of the Mosaic account. Whereas the Gnostics amend and correct the Mosaic account, Irenaeus appeals to the authority of this revelation. This distinction will become clearer in the next chapter when Irenaeus appeals to the authority of Moses as the basis for his theology of creation. Even though they have competing theologies, they actually apply very similar methods, with the exception of the practice of gematria. But even when they apply similar methods, the theological perspectives informing their methods compel them to fashion distinctive theological relationships. These contrasting intertextual readings will become more pronounced as Irenaeus' begins to develop his own intertextual reading in the remaining books.