1.4 Framing the Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus
INTRODUCTION
express a precise aspect of his polemical theology. This most often takes the form of identifying those of his contemporary setting with particular characters and images in the Genesis creation accounts. Ninth and finally, Irenaeus uses the classical general-to-particular style of argumentation. He will often link other passages with Gen 1–3 by the way they depict either the general or particular aspects of a specific theological concept.
Therefore, these reading strategies explain just how Irenaeus reads Gen 1–3 and intentionally coordinates and cross-references passages. As the subsequent chapters unfold, each of these categories will become more developed and clarified. Irenaeus is not, however, beholden to a set of specific strategies, but to particular theological convictions about the apostolic faith. From Irenaeus' perspective, the unity of divine activity throughout both testaments implies the faithful are "justified to use all current methods (allegory, etymology, grammatical analysis, number symbolism, etc.) in order to discover the mysteries of Christ hidden in the text."89
1.4
Framing the Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus 1.4.1
Introduction In order to situate this contribution, below I survey the literature on Irenaeus' reading of scripture in general, and his interpretation of Gen 1–3 in particular.
There is a long stream of analysis on Irenaeus' use of scripture that describes his interpretation of the biblical text, and, in varying degrees, alludes to his intertextuality or scriptural consonance. While references to Irenaeus are scattered throughout the Christian tradition, strongly critical appraisals of Irenaeus pervade the nineteenth century.90 Even in the early twentieth century scholars frequently characterized his thought as confused and incoherent.91 Johannes Quasten sums up this thinking by stating that Irenaeus' work
"suffers from any clear arrangement or unity of thought."92 This perspective 89 Farkasfalvy, "Theology of Scripture," 327.
90 For a summary that is now dated but still helpful see: Mary Ann Donovan, "Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship," SecCen 4.4 (1984). For a brief discussion of the reception of Irenaeus in the tradition prior to the eighteenth century see Steenberg, Of God and Man, 18–9.
91 Orbe, Teología V.1, 5. Steenberg, Irenaeus, 3–4.
92 Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1983), 289. See also Donovan,
"Irenaeus," 222. Some of these studies include: Bousset, Jüdisch-christlicher Schuldetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria,
Justin, und Irenäus (Göttingen, 1915) and Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (Lepzig, 1930).
chapter 1 was challenged by the biblical theology movement in the mid-twentieth century that aimed to focus the discussion on the analysis of Irenaeus' use of the biblical text itself.93 By the late 1960's, following this move toward the biblical text there is a noticeable trend in the positive appraisal of Irenaeus' exegesis, beginning with Peretto's analysis of Irenaeus' reading of Rom 1–8 and Orbe's work on Irenaeus' reading of the Gospel parables.94 Twenty-five years later
Orbe was still advancing the thesis that a closer analysis of the Irenaeus' exegesis is an important avenue into his thought.95 The analysis below, then, is a survey of the works that examined his reading of various Old Testament and the New Testament passages.
1.4.2
Studies on Irenaeus' Reading of the New Testament The majority of studies on Irenaeus' exegesis concentrate on his use of the New
Testament, and of these studies the analysis of the Pauline elements is a wellworn path. Older studies that question the integrity of Irenaeus' use of Paul include Werner (1889) and Aleith (1937).96 Recent studies paint a more positive portrait of Irenaeus' use of Pauline literature, including Bentivegna (1968),
Coolidge (1975), McHugh (1982), Norris (1990), Balás (1992), Olsen (1992), Ruiz (1992) and Tosaus Abadía (1995), Bingham (2005, 2012), Graham (2005), and Blackwell (2011).97 The definitive study is the work of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus
93 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 104.
94 Elio Pretto, "Il pensiero di S. Ireneo su Rom 1:20," RBibIt 8 (1960): 304–23. Pretto, La Lettera ai Romani. Orbe, Parabolas.
95 Orbe, Teología V.1, 15–16. For more general studies on the performance of scripture in Irenaeus see: J Hoh, Die Lehre des hl. Ireäus über das Neue Testament (Münster: Verlag der
Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1919). H. von Campenhausen, "Irenäus und das
Neue Testament," TLZ 90 (1965): 1–8.
96 Johannes Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus (Leipzig, 1889). Eva Aleith, "Paulusverständnis in der alten Kirche," ZNT (1937): 70–81.
97 J. Bentivegna, "Pauline Elements in the Anthropology of St. Irenaeus," StuEvan 5 (1968):
229–33; J.S. Coolidge, The Pauline basis of the concept of Scriptural form in Irenaeus,
The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Berkeley,
California, Protocol of the eighth colloquy, 4 November 1973 (Berkeley, CA: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1975); J. McHugh, "A Reconsideration of Ephesians 1,10b in Light of Irenaeus," in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett, ed. M.D.
Hooker and S.G. Wilson, 302–9 (London: S.P.C.K., 1982); R.A. Norris, "Irenaeus' use of Paul in his polemic against the Gnostics," in Paul and the legacies of Paul, ed. W.S. Babcok,
79–98 (Dallas: SMU Press, 1990); David L. Balas, "The Use and Interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus' Five Books Adversus Haereses," SecCen, 9 (1992); M.J. Olsen, Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics and the Kingdom of God (A.H. Book V): The Debate About 1 Corinthians
15:50 (New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992); G. Ruiz, " 'Ma puissance se déploie dans
INTRODUCTION
als Paulusinterpret, who isolates and evaluates the nature of Irenaeus' allusions and citations of Paul in Haer. 1–5. Noormann is more sympathetic to the nuances of Irenaeus' argumentation and his use of the Pauline material. He provides a strong critique of Werner and concludes that Irenaeus is a rather faithful interpreter of Paul.98 At the same time, his analysis of the extensive number of texts Irenaeus reads alongside Paul is limited. For example, more than one scholar observes Noormann's isolation of Irenaeus' use of Paul apart from his use of other scriptural material, which is essential to Irenaeus' polemical arguments (cf. Haer. 5.13.2).99
Studies on Irenaeus' use of the synoptic Gospels have also been a significant point of focus, especially given that Irenaeus is the first to mention the fourfold Gospel canon.100 As mentioned above, Orbe and Bacq produced several studies on the Gospel parables and Jesus sayings, while studies on particular
Matthean and Lukan texts include: Houssiau (1953), Luckhart (1953), Siniscalco (1967), Czesz (1977), Andia (1984) Bellinzoni (1992, 1998), and Stanton (2003) with many additional studies on the significance of particular events in the life of Christ.101 The most comprehensive is D.J. Bingham's (1998) publication la faiblesse' (2 Cor 12:9): An Interprétation d'Irénée de Lyon," in Recherches et tradition:
Mélanges patristiques offerts à Henri Crouzel, S. J. sous la direction d'A. Dupleix, 259–69
(Paris: Neauchesne, 1992); J.P. Tosaus Abadía, Cristo y el universo: Estudio linguístico y themático de Ef 1:10h en Efesios y en la obra de Ireneo de Lyon, (Salamanca: Universidad
Pontificia, 1995); D.J. Bingham, "Irenaeus reads Romans 8: Ressurection and Renovation," in Early Patristic Readings of Romans, eds Kathy L. Gaca and L.L. Welborn, 114–32 (New
York: T&T Clark, 2005); Susan L. Graham, "Irenaeus as Reader of Romans 9–11," in Early
Patristic Readings of Romans, eds Kathy L. Gaca and L.L. Welborn, 87–113 (New York: T&T
Clark, 2005); Benjamin Blackwell, "Paul and Irenaeus," in Paul and the Second Century:
The Legacy of Paul's life, Letters, and Teaching, ed. Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson,
190–206 (London: T&T Clark, 2011); Bingham, "Irenaeus and Hebrews," in Christology and Hermeneutics of Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation, eds by Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier (New York: Continuum, forthcoming).
98 Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulsinterpret (J.C.B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1994), 1.
99 Annette Yoshiko Reed, "Review of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret," unpublished conference presentation, Presented at the North American Patristics Society,
Annual Meeting Book Session: Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship, May 29, 2004. Pheme
Perkins, Review of Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret, CBQ 58 (1996): 762–764.
100 There are also a number of studies on the four-fold gospel canon including: T.C. Skeat,
"Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel canon," NovT 34 (1992): 194–99; R. Robert, "Le témoignage d'Irénée sur la formation des évangiles," RThom 87.2 (1987): 243–59.
101 A. Houssiau, "L'exégèse de Mt 11:27b selon S. Irénée," ETL 29 (1953): 328–54; R. Luckhart,
"Matthew 11,27 in the 'Contra Haereses' of Saint Irenaeus," RUO 23 (1953): 65–79;
M. Siniscalco, "La parabola del figlio prodigo (Lc 15:11–32) in Ireneo," SMSR 38.2 (1967):
chapter 1 Irenaeus' use of Matthew's Gospel in Adversus Haereses. Bingham's volume is a careful reading of Irenaeus' use of Matthew and, in contrast to Noormann, his discussions of the bishop intertextual reading of Matthew are extensive.
The first point of Bingham's conclusion is the observation that Irenaeus reads Matthew "inter-textually."102
In addition to the synoptic Gospels, several studies discuss the influence of Johannine thought upon Irenaeus including: Ferlay (1984) and Poffet (1990), and more recently Hill (2004).103 Most recently B. Mutschler published Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe, and two years later published a second monograph entitled Das Corpus Johnneum bei Irenäus von Lyon.104 The later volume is a systematic treatment of the use of John's Gospel in Haer. 3 while the earlier work is a synthesis of the Johannine influence upon Irenaeus. He follows the methodology of Noormann, and, in doing so, Mutschler concludes that Irenaeus is the primary Johannine theologian until Origen.105 These studies of Pauline or Johannine features of Irenaeus' exegesis point out various aspects of Irenaeus' scriptural exegesis and observe several examples of intertextuality in Irenaeus' applied exegesis, but they do not give adequate attention to Irenaeus' intertextual exegesis and explain precisely how he navigates the scriptural witness.
The same point is also evident in the studies on his use of the Old Testament.
5326–53; B. Czesz, "La parabola del figlio prodigo (Lc 15, 11–32) in Ireneo," AugR 17 (1977):
107–11; Y. de Andia, "L'interprétation irénéenne de la beatitude des doux: 'Bienheureux les doux, ils recevront la terre en héritage' (Mt 5:5)," StuPat 18.3 (1989): 85–102, originally published "La beatitudine dei miti (Mt. V,5) nell'interpretazione di S. Ireneo," RSLR 20 (1984):
275–86; Bellinzoni, "The Gospel of Matthew in the Second Century," SecCen 9.4 (1992):
197–269; Bellinzoni, "The Gospel of Luke in the Second Century," in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. R.E. Thompson and T.E. Phillips, 59–76 (Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1998); G. Stanton, "Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus," in The Biblical Canons, ed. J. M. Auwers and J. H. de Jonge, 92–109 (Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 2003).
102 Bingham, Irenaeus, 304.
103 P. Ferlay, "Irénée de Lyon exegete du quatrième évangile," NRT 106.2 (1984): 222–34;
J.M. Poffet, "Indices de reception de l'évangile de Jean au IIe siècle, avant Irénée," in Communauté johannique et son histoire, 305–26 (Genova: Labor et Fides, 1990); Charles
Hill, "Irenaeus of Lyon," in The Johannine Corpus and the Early Church, 95–118 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004).
104 Bernhard Mutschler, Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004);
Bernhard Mutschler, Das Corpus Johnneum bei Irenäus von Lyon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2006).
105 Mutschler, Irenäus, 84.
INTRODUCTION
1.4.3
Studies on Irenaeus' Reading of the Old Testament and Genesis Outside of the New Testament, appreciation for Irenaeus' use of the Old
Testament remains scarce. With the exception of Genesis, Irenaeus' reading of any Old Testament passage or book is reserved to a few studies on the Psalms or Isaiah.106 Clearly Genesis has received the most attention and, other than a few studies on key theological issues or persons such as Abraham and Isaac, most studies on Genesis are reserved to the opening chapters.107 Some of the Pauline studies mentioned previously allude to the function of Gen 1–3, but the majority of the evaluations of Gen 1–3 are found in the theological studies, especially works on Irenaeus' anthropology. The work of J.T. Nielsen (1968) was the first to offer critical evaluation of the Adam-Christ typology in Irenaeus.108
Orbe (1969) also published his work on the Bishop's anthropology, which contains discussions of the key Genesis passages.109 After these publications, more recent studies assessed various aspects of the Bishop's theological systems and, in doing so, comment on relevant Genesis passages including: Brown (1975),
Donovan (1988), Constantelos (1989), Fantino (1986, 1992, 1998), Sesboüe (2000), Behr (2001), Weinandy (2003) and Steenberg (2004).110 But these studies
106 J.A. Aldama, "La naissance du Seigneur dans l'exégèse patristrique du Ps 21:10s (=22:10a),"
RSR 51 (1963): 5–29; H.-J. Vogt, "Die Geltung des AT bei Irenäus von Lyon," ThQ 60 (1980):
17–28; C. Basevi, "La generazoine eternal di Cristo nei Ps 2 e 109 secondo S. Giustino e
S. Ireneo," Aug 22.1–2 (1982): 135–47. Lawson provides a general analysis of Irenaeus' reading of Isaiah and select Psalms. Lawson, Biblical Theology, 55–66.
107 D.E. Lanne, "La 'xeniteia' d'Abraham dans l'oeuvre d'Irénée," Irén 47 (1974): 163–87;
R. Tremblay, "La signification d' Abraham dans l'oeuvre d'Irénée de Lyon," Aug 18 (1978):
434–57; J. Roldanus, "L'héritage d'Abraham d'après Irénée," in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijin, ed. T. Baarda, 212–24
(Kampen: Kok, 1998); B.D. Chilton, "Irenaeus on Isaac," in StuPat 17.2 ed. E.A. Livingstone
643–47 (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982).
108 J.T. Nielson, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyon (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1968). See also: J.A. Aldama, "Adam, typus futuri," SE 13 (1962): 266–80.
109 Orbe, Anthropologia.
110 Robert F. Brown, "On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus' Adversus haereses IV, 38," SJT 28.1 (1975): 17–25. Mary Ann Donovan, "Alive to the Glory of God: A key
Insight in St. Irenaeus," TS 14.2 (1990): 99–112; J. Demetrios Constantelos, "Irenaeus of Lyon and his Central Views of Human Nature," SVTQ 33.4 (1989): 351–63. Jacques Fantino,
L'homme, image de Dieu chez saint Irénée de Lyon, (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1986); Jacques
Fantino, "La creation ex nihilo chez saint Irénée," RevueSPT 76.3 (1992): 421–42; Jacques
Fantino, "Le passage de premier Adam au second Adam comme expression de salut chez
Irénée Lyon," VC 52.4 (1998): 418–29; Bernard Sesboüe, Tout Récapituler dans le Christ:
Christologie et sotériologie d'Irénée de lyon (Paris: Desclée, 2000); Behr, Asceticism. Thomas
Weinandy, "St. Irenaeus and the Image Dei: The Importance of Being Human," Logos 6.4
chapter 1 are theologically oriented, and they give more attention to the synthesis of Irenaeus' arguments rather than his applied exegesis. For example, Nielsen's critical evaluation of the Adam-Christ typology only references Irenaeus' use of Genesis in a few instances, even though echoes and allusions pervade nearly all of his citations of Irenaeus.111
Amid these studies, the assessment of Irenaeus' interpretation of Genesis is a recent development. The importance of Genesis in Irenaeus' thought went undetected in earlier works. Lawson, for example, provides a whole chapter of Irenaeus' exegesis and only explores Irenaeus' reading of Isaiah, a few select
Psalms, and Romans.112 According to Lawson, Irenaeus is chiefly concerned with Old Testament prophecy and Paul; there is no substantial reference to the function of Genesis. This view, however, has come full-circle in recent years with the works of Steenberg and Holsinger-Friesen. Holsinger-Friesen even goes so far as to argue that, for Irenaeus, Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 are "peerless" in relation to all other biblical texts.113 Alongside these works, there have been several recent studies that evaluated Irenaeus' reading of Gen 1–3.
1.4.3.1
Studies on Irenaeus' Reading of Genesis: Antonio Orbe, Charles Kannengiesser and Anders-Christian Jacobsen
The first works to consider Irenaeus' reading of Genesis are three articles that examine the Bishop's reading upon these texts from a variety of perspectives.
Orbe composed an article on the complex interpretation of Gen 2:17b in Haer.
5.23.1–2 and later analyzed his use of Gen 3:15.114 His focused treatment on Gen 2:16–17 locates no less than five plausible interpretations that Irenaeus offers of this divine prohibition. Each one proves God is true and the serpent is a liar (John 8:44), because Adam and Eve truly died the day they ate of the fruit. Orbe shows that in the midst of his polemics Irenaeus will provide highly intense readings of particular terms, phrases, and concepts in Genesis that contribute to his theological argument. Given the spectrum of interpretive options, Orbe also demonstrates that Irenaeus is comfortable with any interpretation that proves the truth of the Lord's words in John 8:44 and the veracity
(2003): 15–34; Matthew Steenberg, "Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as 'Infants' in Irenaeus of Lyon," JECS 12.1 (2004): 1–35.
111 Nielson, Adam and Christ, 17, 79.
112 Lawson, The Biblical Theology, 55–86.
113 Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis: A study of Competition in Early Christian
Hermeneutics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 40.
114 Orbe, "Cinco exegesis Ireneanas de Gen 2:17b adv. haer. V 23, 1–2," Greg (1981): 75–113; Orbe,
"Ipse tuum calcabit caput, San Ireneo y Gen 3:15," Greg 52 (1971): 71–127.
INTRODUCTION
of God's prohibition in Gen 2:17. But in this article, as well as his treatment of Gen 3:15, Orbe does not always emphasize how Irenaeus arrives at these various readings or the way that each of them are dependent upon distinctive textual relationships.
While Orbe's article is highly focused, Charles Kannengiesser's article entitled, "The 'Speaking God' and Irenaeus' Interpretative Pattern: The Reception of Genesis," is much more general as it evaluates the function of the book of Genesis as a whole in Irenaeus.115 Kannengiesser's attention to the performance of Genesis discerns several interesting features of Irenaeus' use of Genesis passages including his preference for texts that contain divine discourse and the way Irenaeus' allusions to Genesis follows, more or less, the contours of the biblical narrative itself. However, Kannengiesser states that he
"deliberately ignores the connections established between Genesis and other biblical books and proceeds in a methodological abstraction to postpone more complex inquiries."116 Therefore, his work reveals some key aspects of Irenaeus' interpretation, but purposely ignores the connections between Genesis and other passages which are essential to his reading of Genesis.117
Another significant article surfaced in 2004 by Anders-Christian Jacobsen entitled "The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeus."118
Similar to Kannengiesser, Jacobsen aims for a deeper appreciation of Irenaeus' exegetical strategies as the "unavoidable first step" in the appreciation of his theological framework.119 He argues for the formative role of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus' theological integration of creation and consummation and the anthropological implications of humanity's creation in the image of the divine
Logos.120 Irenaeus' vision of salvation is the fulfillment of the conditions of creation established in the opening scenes of Gen 1–3. He rightly argues that 115 Charles Kannengiesser, "The 'Speaking God' and Irenaeus' Interpretative Pattern: the Reception of Genesis," ASE 15.2 (1998): 337–352.
116 Ibid., 339. This also does not address the fact that Kannengiesser limits his brief investigation to "quotations" rather than considering any allusions or echoes.
117 For example, Irenaeus most frequently cites the dialogical texts in Genesis in continuity with New Testament dialogical texts, such as Christ "speaking" in the Gospels, in order to link the identities of both individuals. See: Haer. 5.17.1 with the allusions to Gen 3:9 and John 9:1–7.
118 Anders-Christian Jacobsen, "The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeus,"
ZAC 8 (2004): 299–316.
119 Ibid., 316. Orbe also shares this general view. Orbe, Teología V.1, 10.
120 Ibid., 299. While Genesis may play a formative role in, say his theological concept of recapitulation, it is not Gen 1–3 alone, but Gen 1–3 in dialogue with other texts (i.e. Eph 1:10,
Rom 5:12, and 1Cor 15:45–47).
chapter 1 Irenaeus explains the central issues of the faith with "biblical key-texts," but Jacobsen does not mention the way Irenaeus reads Gen 1–3 within theological networks or how textual networking constructs his theological vision. Like
Kannengiesser, Jacobsen's general thesis is helpful in the way that it establishes the theological continuity between his protology and other aspects of his theology, but he does not describe how Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 is expressed.
1.4.3.2
Matthew Steenberg and Thomas Holsinger-Friesen on Irenaeus'
Reading of Genesis 1–3 Finally, in recent years there have been two monographs published on Irenaeus' use of Genesis. The first published in 2008 by Matthew Steenberg entitled Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Sage of Redemption.
Steenberg's volume is an analysis of Irenaeus' use of Gen 1–11, with respect to his reading of creation. He attempts to read "the author's varied cosmological and anthropological statements within a larger interpretive framework on creation and the human person."121 Even though Irenaeus has long been regarded as a "theologian of creation," Steenberg's work is the first systematic treatment of Irenaeus' reading of any Old Testament book or extended pericope.122
He also frames Irenaeus' theology of creation within the patterns of early Christian thought and compares his thought with Justin, Theophilus, and the Gnostic literature. Steenberg recognizes, however, that Irenaeus presents no single isolated treatment of the creation accounts, instead his reflections on creation are scattered throughout his work and woven into his varied theological and polemical reflections. Citing the language of C.R. Smith, he sets out to prove that Irenaeus is a "consistent creationist," thereby orienting his analysis of Gen 1–11 toward the "interrelationships" amid Irenaeus' protology and other aspects of his theological perspective.123 Steenberg realizes the fallacy of packaging Irenaeus' theology into isolated doctrines that disrupt the integrated nature of his theology. Irenaeus' Christology and anthropology, for example, are closely aligned with his protology and eschatology.124
121 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 4.
122 Ibid., 5.
123 Ibid., 2, 9. C.R. Smith, "Chiliasm and recapitulation in the theology of Irenaeus [sic]," VC 48
(1994): 313–331, 320.
124 The language "protological" pervades the works of Holsinger-Friesen, Steenberg, Behr, and others. In my view, this modern categorization runs the risk of anachronism and continues to force Irenaeus' use of scripture into rigid categories he does not use. In other words, what Irenaeus conceives as "protological" cannot be reserved to Gen 1–3, but must
INTRODUCTION
However, on one hand Steenberg must acknowledge that Gen 1–11 is "hardly the sole testimony to creation contained in the scriptures," because Irenaeus will fashion his theology of creation without mentioning Genesis, and yet the basis of research remains the allusions and citations to Gen 1–11, even though
Irenaeus uses a range of passages outside of Gen 1–11 to fashion his theology of creation.125 Thus, the object of Steenberg's research is concerned with the "interrelation" of Irenaeus' theology of creation with the rest of his theological perspective, not necessarily appreciating how Irenaeus reads these creation texts in continuity with other scriptures, which continually inform is theology of creation.126 Neither do Steenberg's general summaries of Irenaeus' theology take into account the more fundamental analysis of terms, phrases, images or concepts imbedded in Gen 1–3 and the way these orient the interrelational nature of Irenaeus' exegesis of Gen 1–3 that informs his theological perspective. Steenberg readily acknowledges Irenaeus' tendency to conflate Gen 1–3 with other texts and he also observes that Irenaeus reads Genesis in continuity with the rest of salvation history.127 However, Steenberg rarely scrutinizes the host of scriptural allusions that stand in interpretative relationship with Gen 1–3, because evaluating these scriptural interrelationships is not essential to his methodology.128 What we have in Steenberg, therefore, is not Irenaeus' include reference to other texts with creation themes and concepts. These texts, furthermore, are not altogether disconnected from his use of other theologically and hermeneutically related texts. However, given the prominence of this term in the literature,
I continue to use it here to refer to Irenaeus' understanding of cosmogony.
125 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 61. For example, Psalm 32(33):6 and John 1:1–3 are essential to his theology of creation. Furthermore, Irenaeus can speak about creation or utilize creation imagery and never appear to reference Gen 1–3. See also: Haer. 4.19.2 that alludes to Isa
40:12 and Eph 3:18, 21. Steenberg's monograph is still organized by allusions to Gen 1–11; cf.
Steenberg Irenaeus, 5, 61.
126 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 9.
127 Ibid., 66. He goes so far as to point out that Haer. 1.22.1, Haer. 2.2.5 and Epid 43 all conflate
Gen 1:1 with John 1:1–3 and the immediate context also contain allusions to Psalm 32(33):6 and 9, respectively. He even claims that "no single verse of New Testament writings is of stronger influence on Irenaeus' cosmological considerations than John 1:3." While John
1:3 may be essential, as my analysis shows, it participates in a much broader intertextual reading of Gen 1–3. Ibid., 69.
128 For examples of discussion of scriptural interactions see: Steenberg, Irenaeus, 58–9, 66,
69, and 70–1. Generally speaking, I cannot agree with Steenberg's arbitrary analysis of Gen
1:26. He distinguishes between intentional and unintentional references Genesis in his use of the language "image and likeness." There are no instances where Irenaeus uses this language that he does not, on some level, have the creation accounts in view. Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 217; cf. Ibid., 73–4.
chapter 1 comprehensive theology of creation shaped by all creation passages, or the analysis of interrelated creation texts, but Irenaeus' theology of creation with respect to explicit allusions and citations of Gen 1–11.129 As a result, this present intertextual evaluation will supplement his contribution and extend his exegetical evaluation of Irenaeus' use of Gen 1–3 by showing how Irenaeus networks these creation texts with the rest of the scriptural witness.
In the year following Steenberg's publication, Thomas Holsinger-Friesen published another work on Irenaeus and Genesis entitled, Irenaeus and Genesis: A Study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics.130 His monograph is the inaugural volume of the supplemental series to the Journal of Theological Interpretation and, as the subtitle suggests, is more hermeneutically focused than Steenberg's treatment. Like Kannengiesser, his evaluation of Genesis also attempts to illuminate exegetical methodology in light of his interlocutors.131 Holsinger-Friesen rightly argues that theological investigations of Irenaeus have, by and large, undervalued his more fundamental exegetical methodology.132 But despite the implication of his title, HolsingerFriesen is not concerned with Irenaeus' reading of Genesis as a whole, nor even
Gen 1–2, but with the his reading of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, insofar as they elucidate his "innovative manner of reading biblical texts as Christian Scripture."133
129 While some might object to the validity of certain echoes or allusions to Gen 1–3, it is more responsible to be exhaustive and address all potential references to Gen 1–3. As Bacq has proven, closer scrutiny of Irenaeus' less obvious allusions is necessary for understanding his argument, structure, and exegesis. Bacq, De l'ancienne, 19–20. See also: Orbe, Teología
V.1, 10, Bingham, Irenaeus', 12, and Donovan, One Right Reading?, 17. Louis Painchaud argues the same thesis for the use of scripture in Gnostic literature. Louis Painchaud,
"The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature," JECS 4.2 (1996): 129–47, 130–1.
130 Steenberg also revised a portion of his monograph on Gen 2:16–17 and published an article that extends the previous work of Orbe on the same text. Steenberg, "To Test or Preserve?:
The Prohibition of Gen 2:16–17 in the Thought of Two Second-Century Exegetes," Greg 86
(2005): 723–41.
131 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 106–7.
132 Ibid., x. His work opposes the influence of Adolf von Harnack whose inflated view of Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation, according to Holsinger-Friesen, has dominated scholarly discussions of Irenaeus to the present day. For a similar observation, see:
Jacobsen, "The Importance of Genesis 1–3," 300–1 n2.
133 Ibid., 2. He does not examine all of Irenaeus' uses of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. His evaluation is reserved to the Gnostic uses in Haer. 1.1–7 and Haer. 1.30.1–9 and a few selective uses in Haer. 3.18, Haer. 4.20 and Haer. 5.3–16.2. In contrast, I analyze all uses of these passages throughout Adversus Haereses.
INTRODUCTION
Irenaeus' use of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 is a mere "test-case" to this end and his evaluation of these two texts is highly selective.134
Nevertheless, Holsinger-Friesen is helpful for the way he describes the intricate readings of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 that reveals the utilitarian function of these texts in the interpretive hands of Irenaeus.135 His utilitarian focus provides glimpses of Irenaeus' theological weaving of scripture, and he even observes that Irenaeus' exegesis involves the "conjunction" of texts. However,
Holsinger-Friesen never accentuates these relationships or elucidates the more intricate nature of Irenaeus' textual harmony.136 Instead, he draws on the utilitarian nature of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 within the hermeneutical disputes of the second century, and frequently describes each as a "hermeneutical tool."
This is certainly correct in one sense, but Irenaeus never uses one scripture (or one "tool") to refute the Gnostics. Instead he always uses a collection of scriptures that are linguistically, theologically, structurally, or conceptually bound together in various intertextual relationships. Therefore, while Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 may be pivotal in many instances, they are not "peerless," precisely because they have many scriptural "peers" that join together with them in the contours of his exegesis to refute his opponents.137
At the same time, Holsinger-Friesen's comparison of Irenaeus and the Gnostic's reading of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7 also presumes they are competing over the same particular texts (i.e. Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7), when in reality Irenaeus and the Gnostics are not competing interpretations of the same individual passages, but competing networks or systems of texts that are distinctive, even though they apply similar procedures to explain their reading of creation. In many cases, texts that are crucial to a Gnostic reading of creation, such as Gen
1:2, Gen 1:3–25, and Gen 3:21 are never interpreted by Irenaeus in any substantial way. Instead, Irenaeus defends his reading of creation with distinctive theology of creation that produces distinctive interrelated networks of passages, which may or may not be important to any given Gnostic reading.
134 Ibid., 142, 219.
135 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 218–21. As I argue below there are good reasons to explore
Gen 1–3 as a unit in Irenaeus, and the way these texts contribute to his intertextual argumentation.
136 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 38.
137 Ibid., 40. In the same context he continually refers to them as "focal texts," which also construes the harmonious nature of Irenaeus' hermeneutics and separates Irenaeus' reading of Gen 1–2 from Gen 3, even though there is clear precedent for evaluating these chapters together. Ibid., 33, 38–9.
chapter 1 Finally, Holsinger-Friesen's primary conclusion is what he terms Irenaeus'
"protological orientation" that privileges the theological and Christological application of Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7. This may be a helpful corrective to the earlier studies of Steenberg and Behr who argue that Irenaeus is eschatologically oriented even in terms of his use of Gen 1–2.138 But Irenaeus' exegesis is not altogether protologically oriented, nor is it entirely eschatologically oriented.
Instead, his reading of Genesis is intertextually oriented. He is not concerned with Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 alone at any stage of the unfolding of the divine economy, but instead with Genesis in connection with others texts. At times the texts of Gen 1–3 function as controlling texts ordering his argument, while in other instances Gen 1:26 or Gen 2:7 are supporting texts that buttress his theological positions. In every instance these texts are blended and conflated with other passages. All of these passages, furthermore, participate in a variety of intertextual relationships fashioned through a variety of means. Therefore,
Irenaeus is not concerned purely with the protological matters, but with the way all portions of scripture are ordered and connected as they anticipate the work of Christ, the church, and the eschatological kingdom of God.
1.4.4
Conclusion In conclusion, this stream of studies on Irenaeus use of scripture contributes a variety of aspects of Irenaeus' intertextual reading of scripture in general and Gen 1–3 in particular. The past fifty years have produced an extensive amount of treatments of Irenaeus use of both the Old and the New Testament. Studies on Irenaeus' use of the Gospels, Paul, and Genesis have shown that Irenaeus reads scripture intertextually. These studies also demonstrated various aspects of his theological and exegetical perspective. At the same time, they do not explain precisely how Irenaeus' intertextual hermeneutic is expressed. Thus, there is a need for a closer evaluation of the nature of the Bishop's hermeneutics and his intertextual reading of Genesis in particular. Situated between the emphasis on the theological integration of Irenaeus' thought in Steenberg, and the importance of Irenaeus' hermeneutics in Kannengiesser, Jacobsen, and Holsinger-Friesen, I advance the understanding of Irenaeus' reading of Gen
1–3 by showing the sophistication of his textual networking and the way he orders and connects Gen 1–3 with a variety of other scriptures. Through this
138 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 9. He also suggests Irenaeus' use of "image and likeness" in Gen 1:26 is "eschatologically oriented." Steenberg, Irenaeus, 56; cf. Steenberg, Of God and Man,
42–3. Steenberg will use the language of "protological orientation," but he is specifically speaking of Irenaeus' reading of the creation accounts as the opening scenes of the divine economy, not the reference to Genesis in the latter stages. Steenberg, Of God and Man, 22.