7.2 Irenaeus on the Gnostic Reading of Gen 1–3
Conclusion reading of these texts apart from the rest of scripture, but instead his reading of creation is consonant with the rest of divine revelation.
In order to study the complexity of Irenaeus' intertextuality, the previous chapters surveyed every verifiable citation, allusion, and echo of Gen 1–3 in Adversus haereses, as well as any text that Irenaeus reads alongside Gen 1–3.
From this analysis, I detected a variety of reading strategies and provided analytical descriptions of these strategies, which delineate precisely how Irenaeus works scripture intertextually. These reading strategies include: a literary reading, prophetic reading, a typological reading, verbal connections or patterns, an organizational function, narratival or creedal arrangements, a prosopological reading, illustrative identification, and general-to-particular reasoning. While previous studies on Irenaeus' exegesis have observed the mosaic of scriptural passages that pervades his writings, this work advances the conversation by evaluating the way his intertextual reading is expressed in his applied exegesis.
This final chapter provides a comprehensive summary of all the reading strategies that developed through the preceding chapters and explains in more detail how Irenaeus uses these strategies to network scriptural texts. I begin with a summary of Irenaeus' presentation of Gnostic intertextual readings of Gen 1–3 discussed in Haer. 1–2. Certainly Irenaeus is not the only ancient interpreter networking scripture, and with the exception of their numerological interpretations, Irenaeus and his Gnostic opponents are employing similar reading strategies. From Irenaeus' perspective the distinction between his reading and that of his opponents is located in competing theological perspectives that inform their views on the authority of the Mosaic accounts and the particular intertexts or narratives they read alongside Gen 1–3. After summarizing Irenaeus' presentation of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1–3, the rest of this chapter details the key aspects and examples of Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 based upon his applied exegesis assembled in the previous books.
For the Bishop of Lyons, the creation accounts are only properly understood within carefully constructed intertextual relationships fashioned with other passages within scripture revelation that best serve to communicate his theological perspective.
7.2
Irenaeus on the Gnostic Reading of Gen 1–3 Irenaeus' account of Gnostic exegesis, described in Haer. 1–2 is, first of all, marked by a competing doctrines of revelation and creation. Both Irenaeus and the Gnostics read Gen 1–3 from different vantage points and with differ-
CHAPTER 7
ent aims. These competing theological perspectives are evident in Irenaeus' defense of the Mosaic account of creation in Haer. 2.2.5. Irenaeus regards
Moses as a faithful servant (Num 12:7, Heb 3:5) and argues that Gen 1–2 accurately recorded the creation of all things by means of the Word and Wisdom of God. This theology of creation expressed in the Mosaic account is the basis for Irenaeus' theology of scripture in particular and theology of revelation in general. In this context, Irenaeus briefly summarizes his theology of creation with an intertextual reading of Gen 1:3, John 1:3, and Psalm 32(33):9 that all testify of the creation of all things by means of the Word. This continuity between the Mosaic text, the psalmist, and the apostle shows the continuity across the scriptures of the work of God in creation.
Irenaeus then contrasts this continuity with the discontinuity of the Gnostic account. The Gnostic reading of creation purposes to amend and correct the Mosaic account based upon the revelation of their Gnostic myth.
For the Gnostic, the revelation given to Moses was insufficient and unreliable in its present form. Thus, they disconnect and dissociate the creation accounts in accordance with the clearer revelation of the Pleromic system.
They reinterpret characters and persons represented in the texts and recast the narratives in light the primordial events that occur even before the Genesis account begins.
Irenaeus and the Gnostics, then, are not arguing over the same individual passages, but over systems and networks of texts. For Irenaeus, there are clearly two contrasting systems of interpretation and two readings of creation.
Irenaeus has no interest in debating the particular interpretations of individual texts, and even regularly ignores texts that are central to the Gnostics reading of Gen 1–3. For example, Gen 1:1–2 provides a seedbed of images and concepts that exemplify the nature of the Pleroma. Significant elements of the Gnostic myth are born out of these verses, but Irenaeus rarely comments on them in any significant way. The days of creation in Gen 1:3–27 also provides another example. Several streams of Gnostics apply numerological interpretations to the days of creation to validate their theological system. Another example is the act of covering with animal skins that were given to Adam and Eve in Gen
3:21. Gnostics use this text to explain their anthropological dualism and how the body of Adam was enwrapped in a fleshy covering. Irenaeus, on the other hand, never develops his reading of this passage, but in every case responds by explaining his own theological system through a series of textual networks that may or may not include passages important to the Gnostic reading. At the same time, the Gnostic system also assumes a detailed Pleromic system informing the events in Gen 1–3, which explains Irenaeus' own hesitancy
Conclusion to comment on God's primordial activity prior to creation, since this is not revealed clearly in the scriptures.
Therefore, Irenaeus and the Gnostics read the same passages with similar reading strategies, but fashion distinctive relationships by connecting different texts through their competing theological frameworks. For Irenaeus, the Mosaic account of creation, not the Pleromic system of the Gnostics, is harmonious with the teaching of the apostles. The Gnostics, on the other hand, associate the passage of Gen 1–3 with the various figures and events in their myth, as well as other (especially Pauline) texts. This contrasting perspective is evident in the types of textual relationships that are formed through the various reading strategies. In his presentation of Gnosis, Irenaeus describes their exegesis of Genesis in ways that also reflects a series of reading strategies including: a literary reading, verbal connections, prosopological interpretation, illustrative application, and gematria. With the exception of gematria, he will employ all of these strategies and below I discuss each of these strategies.
First, the Gnostics offer a general literary reading of Gen 1–3 in the sense that they read texts in light of their immediate literary context. In other words, the Gnostics read elements of Gen 1–3 as descriptions of the events that transpire in creation. In many cases they also read the events in the general sequence as recorded in scripture. However, they are careful to amend the identity of the characters and the arrangement of events. The most developed literary readings of Gen 1–3 include the Valentinians (Haer. 1.5.1–6), Marcosians (Haer.
1.18.1–4), Saturninus (Haer. 1.24.1–2) and especially the Ophites (Haer. 1.30.1–9).
The two essential passages in Gen 1 include Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:26. The key terms "Spirit," "water," "formless" and "abyss" correspond to the characters functioning in the opening scenes of their myth. The narratives in Gen 2–3 have particular explanatory power for clarifying their cosmological and anthropological dualisms through the actions of the Demiurge and his archons.
Second, the Gnostics use catchwords or linking terms to blend passages within scripture. These linking terms are not always explicit, but often implied or even supplied by other elements or persons in the Gnostic myth. This is not a widespread practice, since they are more interested in conforming the narrative to their specific cosmological systems, rather than harmonizing the scriptural narrative within itself. The Valentinians, for example, substitute the substance of Adam's formation with the language of "earthly" (choicum, 1
Cor 15:47), for the "dust" (limus) or "earth" (terra) in Gen 2:5–7 (Haer. 1.5.1–4).
In Haer. 1.18.2 the Marcosians do the same, but add that his fleshy part was formed on the eighth day in Gen 3:21. Other images are taken from a variety of other texts including: Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19 and Gen 3:21. There is
CHAPTER 7
anthropological focus to their use of catchwords and they cite the language of "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 "skin-like garment" in Gen 3:21.2
Third, the Gnostics employ prosopological interpretation in which they identify the figures of their mythological system with different persons working in the Genesis narrative. This type of reading made an impression on Irenaeus and caused him to refine the way he read scripture prosopologically. This type of reading is especially prevalent in the Valentinian and Ophite readings that consistently deploy their own divine beings within the narrative. For example, the Demiurge and his archons are involved in the formation of Adam in Gen
1:26 and Gen 2:7.3 After admiring his creation, the Demiurge proclaims Isa 45:5 as a declaration of his preeminence, which only exposes his ignorance and arrogance.4 The most developed reading is found among the Ophites (Haer.
1.30.1–9). They utilize a variety of Genesis texts (Gen 1:26, Gen 2:7, Gen 2:17,
Gen 2:22, Gen 3:1–6, Gen 3:7, and Gen 3:20), and identify Jaldabaoth and his sons as the divine beings working in these accounts. The dialogical portions, such as the divine proclamation in Gen 1:26, and the decisive actions, such as breathing the breath of life into Adam, are modified and applied to specific divine persons in the myth. These descriptions are also supplemented with other narrative elements that enhance the prosopological readings of Gen 1–3.
Fourth, the Gnostics also use a variety of texts that illustrate or serve as divine titles for deities who are active in the narrative. The most important illustrative text is Isa 45:5, which communicates the arrogance of the Demiurge. In a similar way, the Gnostic accounts link the titles of deities taken from other passages to describe the divine activity in creation. These titles include: "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). These titles are found in several New Testament texts such as Eph 4:6 and 1 Cor 15:47.
Finally, while Irenaeus is concerned to detail the views of their cosmological myth, he objects to their use of gematria, which is a numerological method of interpreting texts. This is an allegorical style of reading scripture that ignores the plain sense meaning of numbers, words, and terms and interprets them symbolically as representing aspects of their cosmology. For example, Marcus and the Marcosians are drawn to 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. But 2 Haer. 1.5.5, Haer. 1.24.1, Haer. 1.28.1.
3 Haer. 1.5.5–6, Haer. 1.21.1, Haer. 1.24.1–2, Haer. 1.30.1–9.
4 Haer. 1.5.4, Haer. 1.30.6. Cf. Isa 46:9.