2.1 Introduction
CHAPTER 2
Reading Gnostic Creation: The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Book 1 of Adversus Haereses 2.1
Introduction This study of Irenaeus' intertextual reading of Gen 1–3 begins with Haer. 1, where the Bishop of Lyons composes a protracted critique of the Gnostic communities found in Lyons and throughout the Mediterranean region.1 In the opening lines of Adversus Haereses he explains that he is writing to expose their origin, nature, and doctrine. He begins with the Valentinian thought precipitating in the followers of Ptolemaeus, since he is particularly concerned with the way their teaching had been taking root in the communities surrounding the Rhone Valley.2 Irenaeus reports that he had personal conversations with the disciples of Valentinus and other sects in order to get a firsthand account of their doctrines, and he compiles his understanding of their basic theological assertions.3
Therefore, the texts of Haer. 1 unfolds as a carefully summarized theological catalogue of Ptolemean Valentinianism and other related streams of Gnosticism, with particular attention given to the theological and cosmological
1 Haer. 1.pf.1. Following the contributions of Michael Williams and Karen King, the labels
"Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" continue to be problematic and potentially misleading. Wherever possible I will identify the specific school or community in view. However, I will retain the label "Gnostic," because some of Irenaeus' discussions are intentionally general thus the more inclusive descriptions are necessary as indicators of all the groups Irenaeus' mentions throughout Adversus Haereses. See Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism." Karen L. King,
What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003). For a similar suggestion see Steenberg, Irenaeus, 15. For a discussion of various labels Irenaeus' gives his Valentinian opponents see Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the 'Valentinians' (Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 13–22.
2 Haer. 1.13.7. Grant, Irenaeus, 21.
3 Haer. 1.pf.2. He also mentions Ptolemaeus in Haer. 1.12.1 and Haer. 2.4.1. W.C. Van Unnik,
Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A preliminary survey of the Nag Hammadi find (London:
SCM Press, 1960), 62. See David Tripp, "The Original Sequence of Irenaeus 'Adversus Haereses'
1: A Suggestion," SecCent. 8 (1991): 157–62. Eusebius mentions this work in Hist. eccl. 3.23.3 and Hist. eccl. 5.7.1.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5 | doi .63/9789004294523_003
READING GNOSTIC CREATION
framework of each sect.4 Excluding the preface in Haer. 1.pf.1–2 and the conclusion in Haer. 1.31.3–4, the contents comprise three main sections. First, in Haer. 1.1–9 Irenaeus examines the doctrines of Ptolemean Valentinianism, especially their cosmology and cosmogony. Second, in Haer. 1.10–22 he contrasts the diversity of the heretics' systems with the unity of the teaching of the church. Finally, in Haer. 1.23–31.2 he identifies the origins and ancestry of Valentinianism.5 While Irenaeus' catalog of heretics is clearly dependent upon earlier sources, his summary of Valentinianism and related streams is the oldest surviving account.6
Within this summary, Irenaeus provides several descriptions of the Gnostic reading of Gen 1–3. Though scholars question the reliability of Irenaeus' presentation of the views of his opponents, his analysis of their views is brief and focused.7 His evaluation of their exegesis shows that the Gnostics actually utilize reading strategies that, in many ways, mirror Irenaeus' own intertextual exegesis.8 Beginning with Haer. 1, Irenaeus describes how Gnostic intertextuality unites the texts of Gen 1–3 with other scriptural imagery and extra-biblical material. The style of these intertextual connections can be framed within a set of conceptual categories including: a general literary reading of Gen 1–3, catchwords or verbal connections, prosopological interpretation, illustrative application, and gematria.
The Gnostics, however, are less concerned with the intertextual connections between scriptural passages than with the harmonization of scripture to their various cosmological accounts. In his summary of the Gnostic exegesis of Gen 1–3, Gerard Luttikhuizen makes a similar observation saying, "[t]he intertextual tension between the biblical texts and their Gnostic interpretations betrays that on essential points the thought structure of the interpreters
4 The summary of the contents of Haer. 1 is also found in Haer. 2.pf.1. On the relationship
(or lack there of) between Valentinus and the Valentinians see: Christoph Markschies,
Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur Valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentinus (Tübigen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992).
5 SC 264.28–152.
6 Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 9; cf. Haer. 1.pf.2; 1.13.3; 1.15.6; 3.17.4; 4.pf.2.
7 Haer. 1.pf.2. For a discussion on the reliability of Irenaeus' representation see: Steenberg,
Irenaeus, 11; Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 43–50; Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed,
12–13; Perkins, "Irenaeus and the Gnostics: Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses
Book One," VC 30 (1976): 193–200.
8 BP notes a reference to Gen 1:26 in Haer. 1.15.3, Gen 3:1 in Haer. 1.30.14, and Gen 3:18 in Haer.
1.24.2, but these echoes were not definitive enough for consideration.
chapter 2 differed from what they found in these texts."9 For the Gnostic, the Mosaic account is dubious, because he wrote before the full revelation of knowledge given in their redeemer figure. Thus, while the early chapters of Genesis were essential to Gnostic interpretation, they frequently correct or amend the creation texts when they deviate from their own theological traditions and more recent revelation.10 In this sense Gnostic intertextuality tends toward the conflation of Gen 1–3 with their own myth, where the Genesis language and images are absorbed into a separate mythical system. In the words of Irenaeus,
"they speak the same language we do, but intend different meanings (similia quidem nobis loquentes, dissimilar uero sentientes)."11 The Mosaic terms remain, but they are redefined and redeployed to portray distinct narratives.
In addition to the Gnostic perspective on Gen 1–3, in Haer. 1 Irenaeus also provides a few instances of his own intertextuality and theological reasoning that begins to characterize his intertextual reading of scripture evidenced in the rest of Adversus haereses. These two instances (Haer. 1.9.3, 1.22.1) are part of his broader discussion of the rule of faith, or regula, that punctuate his presentation of Gnosis. In these readings he shows how his scriptural networking competes with the Gnostic interpretation of these creation passages. Their manner of conflating texts is quite similar (with the exception of their use of gematria), thus, the distinguishing feature of Irenaean and Gnostic hermeneutics then is not the particular methods of reading Genesis, but a theological perspective that informs the intertextual relationships each are fashioning.
The Gnostics, Irenaeus argues, amend and correct the errors of the creation accounts with their myth, as well as the apostolic writers, while Irenaeus accepts the authority of the Mosaic account and looks for patterns of continuity between Moses and the apostles. This contrast between Irenaeus and the Gnostics is evident in the nature of the different textual networks that each creates and the rest of this chapter traces these intertextual readings of Gen 1–3 as presented by Irenaeus in Haer. 1.
Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 5. Friedrich Weiss, Frühes Christentum und Gnosis: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008), 500.
10 Giverson, "The Apocryphon of John," 75–6; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus, 61, 101–3; Pheme
Perkins, "Gnosticism and the Christian Bible," in The Canon Debate, ed. L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders, 355–71 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 370.
11 Haer. 1.pf.2.