1.5 Methodology and Qualifications
INTRODUCTION
analysis, I classify the variety of reading strategies mentioned above. This study will be sensitive to Irenaeus' intertextual scriptural interpretation, and evaluate not only his reading of Gen 1–3, but also the other scriptural texts that exist in various interpretative symbiotic relationships with Gen 1–3. From this evaluation I will explain how the Bishop of Lyons networks texts as he defends his understanding of the apostolic faith beginning with these creation texts.
1.5
Methodology and Qualifications 1.5.1
Introduction Given Irenaeus' supreme concern for the proper integration of scriptural revelation, this inquiry into Irenaeus' reading of scripture will explain the nature of the harmonious interplay of scriptures in his thought and argumentation. Gerard Luttikhuizen makes a similar observation from his evaluation of Gnostic readings of Genesis. Citing the contribution of Grivel, he writes:
"Reading is an act of 'intertextualization,' because during the reading process, the reader's knowledge of other oral and written texts is constantly activated.
If we want to know how a given Gnostic text is understood by ancient or modern readers, we should therefore try to find out what are the texts in the light of which it is read."139 In a similar way, I recognize that the appropriate way to understand Irenaeus' reading of scripture is to identify the intertexts he reads alongside any given text and determine how he utilizes a variety of intertextual interpretive strategies to arrange these textual relationships.
In order to survey Irenaeus' intertextual hermeneutic, this work will proceed in a systematic fashion through the entire corpus of Irenaeus' principle work, Adversus Haereses, and explain the way that he reads Gen 1–3 intertextually within the contours of his scripture hermeneutic. Given that this method could be applied to any portion of Irenaeus, I have chosen Gen 1–3 for several reasons. First, the material of Gen 1–3 is cited considerably throughout
Irenaeus' corpus. Following Isaiah and the Psalms, it is the most frequently cited portion of the Old Testament.140 Due to the extensive range of allusions, Kannengiesser remarks that reading through Adversus Haereses gives the impression that Gen 1–3 appears to sit at the forefront of Irenaeus' mind.141
139 Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 162. See also: C Grivel, "Thèses préparatoires sur les intertexts," in R. Lachmann, Dialogizität, Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und der schönen
Künste, 237–48 (Munich: Fink, 1982).
140 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 4 n. 14.
141 Kannengiesser, The 'Speaking God', 350.
chapter 1 Therefore, I have many and various textual relationships to compare. Second, the creation accounts have long been recognized as central to Irenaeus' theological framework.142 If creation is essential to Irenaeus' thought, this concentration on the intertextual reception of Gen 1–3 will provide an array of scriptural texts that are essential to his theological framework. Third, he presents a series of interpretations of the concept of "day" in the divine command in Gen 2:16–17 and appears sympathetic to the view that all the events of Gen
1–3 transpire on the same "day of creation."143 He presents one reading of "day" that interprets the creation of Adam and Eve, their disobedience, and their expulsion (Gen 1:26–3:24) take place on the sixth day of creation, since the seventh day is only interpreted eschatologically. Given this position there is a conceptual unity to the events of Gen 1–3. Fourth, Irenaeus' doctrines are inundated with references to creation. He is interested in the notions of the divine economy of salvation and the economic connections between creation and eschatology. As Steenberg puts it, "Nowhere in his thought will Irenaeus consider the later events of the economy-the incarnation, the passion, the resurrection-without explicit reference back to the first moments of God's creative act."144 Finally, Irenaeus' chiliastic vision of the cosmos helps him to read the "beginnings" and the "ends" of scripture together. This aesthetic parallelism fashions decisive scriptural harmonies between Gen 1–3 and the unfolding of divine drama of salvation.145 Furthermore, in Haer. 5.28.3 Irenaeus states explicitly that he reads the creation accounts in two senses. They are indeed a literal account of creation, but also a "prophecy of what is to come" ( futrorum prophetia). So, while Irenaeus is concerned with the order, connection, and harmony of all scriptures, he is particularly concerned with the relationship of Gen 1–3 to the rest of scripture. Given these arguments, Gen 1–3 is a good starting point for understanding the way Irenaeus links these texts to the rest of the scriptural witness.
1.5.2
Methodology The methodology of this study follows closely with a precedent established by other studies in related fields of Biblical Studies.146 For the intertextual analysis
142 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 1.
143 Haer. 5.23.2. Iain MacKenzie, Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological Commentary and Translation (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 119.
144 Steenberg, Irenaeus, 21.
145 Smith, "Chiliasm," Steenberg, Irenaeus, 49–60.
146 James W. Voelz, "Multiple Signs and Double Texts: Elements of Intertextuality," in Intertextuality In Biblical Writing: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel (Uitgeversmaatschappij
INTRODUCTION
of scripture, Ellen Van Wolde proposes the following procedure: (1) identify a particular intertextual relationship between two or more texts and study each text on its own, (2) compose an inventory of the repetitions of the compared texts, (3) analyze the new network of meaning generated from the meeting of the two texts. S.D. Giere follows a modified version of Van Wolde's criteria.
Giere's study is also a diachronic analysis assessing a broad range of ancient texts. My analysis on the other hand, is a focused synchronic examination of a singular pericope throughout the work of a single author. In this present study
I will apply a revised version of Van Wolde's procedure, which has other similarities to Giere.
First, I have identified all the allusions to Gen 1–3 in Adversus Haereses.147
The basis for this identification is the indices of the critical editions in Sources
Chrétiennes (SC), and I have also cross-referenced these allusions with those cited in Biblia Patristica (BP) to ensure that all relevant texts are identified.
I have also compared these allusions with the passages identified in Antonio Orbe's translation and commentaries of Haer. 4 and Haer. 5.148 BP is more generous, and not all suggested allusions could be verified or accepted. I have noted these instances in the introduction to each appropriate chapter.
Second, I have identified the intertexts that are hermeneutically and contextually linked with the allusions to Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus. In most cases these intertexts are scripture passages, but there are also several extra-biblical references. The identification of these intertextual allusions will rely again upon SC and BP. The references to Gen 1–3 and the intertext(s) form the intertextual relationship(s) that are the focus for this study. As I will show, the relationship between Gen 1–3 and the intertext(s) sheds light upon the "meaning and function" of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus.149 I readily admit that this notion of "text" and "intertext" are imposed upon Irenaeus, and the use of "text" or "intertext" does not assume priority or hierarchy within the rhetorical argumentation
J.H. Kok: Kampen, 1989); Ellen Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives," BibInt 5.1 (1997); S.D. Giere, A New Glimpse of Day one: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1:1–5 (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin,
2009). Van Wolde is effectively a simplified version of Voelz's more detailed approach and Giere follows Van Wolde with some modifications. Stead synthesizes a diachronic and synchronic approach in his " 'contextual' intertextuality." Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, 18–9.
147 I have identified all the uses of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus' Epideixis, which I will mention wherever appropriate. However, I will reserve the comprehensive evaluation of the intertextual performance in the Epideixis for a separate publication.
148 Orbe, Teología IV, V.1–3.
149 Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue", 7.
chapter 1 of Irenaeus.150 Nor does "text" assume that Irenaeus is interpreting the entire verse or passages in its original context. Furthermore, most scripture references involve key terms or phrases and do not assume the passage as a whole.
Third, I have identified theological, structural, or linguistic markers or patterns uniting the texts.151 Similar to Van Wolde's second step, these repetitions and intertextual markers or patters including various "signs" such as: words, semantic fields, concepts, imagery, structures, themes, characters, actions, or narratological representations.152 The most consistent means of connection are what Philippe Bacq terms "linking words" or mot chrochets.153 However, not all textual connections can be attributed to philological connections. Some are more conceptually, theologically or structurally related. I have discussed each of these wherever appropriate, and discussed the theological implications of whatever intertextual strategy Irenaeus' is applying. Understanding the literary, rhetorical, or theological nature of these textual relationships serves to explain the meaning and function of these texts in his thought. However, if I cannot identify any type of intertextual relationship, or if the relationship is not conceptually or contextually apparent, I will not make any case for intertextual connections, and I will not argue that these texts contribute to Irenaeus' use of Gen 1–3. This step protects this study from the charge of arbitrary connections that extend ad infinitum.
Fourth, similar to Van Wolde's third step, I will analyze the "new network of meaning" that originates from the connection of Gen 1–3 and the intertext(s).154
However, this study is distinct from Van Wolde (but similar to Giere's) in that I am not imposing a notion of intertextuality to create new meanings, but using intertextuality as a "foundational lens through which to make 'new' observations of 'old' exegesis."155 Furthermore, I am not merely concerned with the "new meaning" generated from the union of texts, but the nature of the networks that Irenaeus creates. This step allows us to make new observations of the meaning and function of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus and examine how his networking of scripture shapes his theological perspective. Irenaeus has already worked Gen 1–3 intertextually, and I intend to describe precisely how he per150 Cf. Clark, Reading, 5.
151 Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue", 7; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
152 Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue", 7–8; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12. Voelz refers to this as "matrixed" saying, ". . . textual events or ideas are matrixed with other textual events or ideas." Voelz, "Multiple Signs," 30.
153 Bacq, de l'ancienne, 20.
154 Van Wolde, "Texts in Dialogue", 8. Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
155 Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.
INTRODUCTION
formed the task. Finally, I conclude each chapter with a summary description of Irenaeus' scriptural networking framed by a set of conceptual terms that define the multiple aspects of his intertextual reading of Gen 1–3.
1.5.3
Categorical Qualifications This methodology requires a few categorical qualifications regarding the nature of the scriptural references and interpretive perspective. First, in order to identify direct and indirect references to the scriptural material, I followed Stanley
Porter's classifications that distinguish between echo, allusion, and citation.156
Generally speaking, "echo" is reserved for language that is thematically related to a particular text, while "allusion" has a greater degree of specificity with identification of particular terms or concepts associated with an identifiable source. A "citation" has even more specificity, and is identified by an explicit grouping of parallel language and terms. As Patricia Tull has argued, these classifications are located on a spectrum of identifiability from unknown to certain.157 In light of this fluidity, I proceed with caution in applying these labels stringently. Typically any more than three parallel terms qualifies as a citation.
To be sure these classifications are not without implication in Irenaeus. In certain instances a simple echo can carry the full force of a direct citation, given that an echo can reveal the way a passage has already been absorbed into a theological framework. Even though it is worthwhile to analyze the nature of the particular echoes, allusions, or citations, I am more concerned with the intertextual connections between texts than with the qualitative nature of the textual reference or similarity of texts to their original sources.
Second, I intentionally avoided distinguishing typology and allegory in Irenaeus' interpretations. The discussion on these terms is extensive and the definitions are far from settled. In many cases, the intertextual relationships I identify in Irenaeus could be classified as typological or even possibly allegorical. Some Irenaean scholars, such as Orbe, continue to argue for the distinction between typology and allegory in Irenaeus, but the Bishop's use of scripture is
156 Stanley E. Porter, "Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New
Testament," in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, eds.
T.L. Broder, D.R. MacDonald, and S.E. Porter, NTM 16, 98–110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2007); S. Porter, "Allusions and Echoes," in As It Is Written: Studying Paul's use of Scripture, 29–40 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
157 Patricia Tull (Willey), Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 61. See also Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah, 20–21.
chapter 1 much more complicated.158 It is especially problematic when Irenaeus composes intricate networks of highly conflated echoes and allusions to distinct texts covering both testaments.159 Peter Martens has also made the strong case that the distinction between typology and allegory is unhelpful and potentially misleading.160 He proposes the need for alternative labels for the various forms of non-literal interpretations. In light of her discussion on intertextuality, Young also suggests the normative categories of "literal," "allegory," and "typology" are inadequate to describe the practice of patristic exegesis.161
Instead, she describes patristic exegesis as "an intertextuality of imaginative and creative play, far removed from the historicism of modern interpretation."162
Irenaeus does speak of Paul's Adam-Christ typology, but he also repudiates the use of allegory–even though he appears to utilize allegory on occasion– because allegory is characteristic of Gnostic exegesis. Therefore, intertextuality simply emphasizes the more general observation that, for Irenaeus, texts exist in relationship and I have formulated a group of conceptual categories that explain how Irenaeus arranges these intertextual relationships.
1.5.4
Potential Limitations This methodology also raises some potential limitations. First, I am not concerned with influence or dependence, even though this may be implied from my analysis. While this is an important discussion, identifying dependence in the ancient world is a highly involved task in its own right and well beyond the scope of this study. I have already noted several works that labored to find Irenaeus' sources and produced nominal results.163 In addition, given the nature of Irenaeus' intertextual orientation, there is greater need for closer scrutiny of Irenaeus' contributions and appreciation of his own argumentation. Second, some scholars have claimed that intertextuality is a dubious category because intertextual connections extend ad infinitium. There is merit to this critique and it is true that these intertextual connections can digress into unmanageable and unconvincing relationships. Therefore, I have limited the intertextual connections to the texts and intertexts in the immediate context linked through some kind of identifiable conceptual relationship. In most
158 Haer. 5.35.1; Orbe, Teología V.1, 12–3.
159 For example see: Haer. 3.23.1–8 and Haer. 4.20.1–4.
160 Peter Martens, "Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen, "JECS
16.3 (2008): 283–317, 315–6. See also: De Lubac, "Typologie' et 'allegorisme" RSR 34 (1947):
180–226. Ayres, Nicaea, 31. Clark, Reading, 70–78.
161 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 116.
162 Young, The Art of Performance, 128.
163 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, xvi–ii.
INTRODUCTION
cases this involves the connections to the chapter and paragraph of Adversus Haereses in SC containing the allusions to Gen 1–3. However, in a few instances
I include an additional paragraph, either before or after, if it is closely related to the same line of argumentation. This analysis also demands close attention to Irenaeus' overall polemic and the structure of his argumentation. The works of Donovan, Bacq, and Orbe were important for locating the structure of Irenaeus' work and determining the flow of argumentation that links these texts. As I mentioned in step three of the methodology above, if there is no specific or discernible relationship, there is no textual relationship discussed.
Third, I consistently try to balance any discussion between Gen 1–3 and the related intertexts. While in certain instances it might appear as though Gen 1–3 recedes into the background of this study, it is because I believe the intertexts are essential for understanding the way Irenaeus reads Gen 1–3. That being said, I have made every effort to only discuss passages that in some way inform
Irenaeus' reading of Gen 1–3 and serve to explain how Irenaeus works scripture intertextually.
1.5.5
Conclusion Therefore, the contemporary discussions on intertextuality in Fishbane,
Boyarin, Hays and Young have recognized a greater appreciation for intertextuality in the ancient world and Irenaeus in particular. In addition, Irenaeus' own descriptions of the exegetical task argue for a general intertextual manner of reading scripture. Previous studies on Irenaeus' use of scripture observed many important aspects of Irenaeus' hermeneutical perspective and his penchant for reading scripture intertextually. In terms of Genesis, Orbe, Kannengiesser, and Jacobsen turned our attention to his reading of Genesis and the significant contribution of this book to Irenaeus' theological vision. Following these studies, Steenberg highlighted the theological integration of Irenaeus' thought with respect to his use of Gen 1–11. Irenaeus' views on creation are consistent with the entire thrust of this theological framework. Finally, Holsinger-Friesen, in concert with Kannengiesser and Jacobsen, continued to evaluate the importance of studying Irenaeus' scripture hermeneutic. Building upon these studies, this study demonstrates Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 by means of the textual relationships he fashions with these protological texts, and outlines the specific reading strategies he employs to fashion these specific textual relationships. With the passages of Gen 1–3 as my textual landmark, I will show how Irenaeus utilizes these texts in continuity with other scriptural passages through a series of reading strategies. This mode of enquiry is more sensitive to Irenaeus' expressed methods of exegesis and the range of studies on his exegetical methodology, and this manner of intertextual inquiry will reveal a deeper appreciation for his reading of Gen 1–3 than any study to date.