Christian Books And Traditions
CHRISTIAN BOOKS AND TRADITIONS
Irenaeus insists that scripture is the basic authority, not Gnostic exegesis, for the latter is built on shifting sand. Gnostic exegetes neglect word-order and context and rely on isolated words and passages. They interpret the clear and obvious by the dark and obscure, out of the most mysterious passages of parables and allegories, adapting ambiguous expressions to their own fictitious creation. You cannot explain one ambiguity through another, he insisted. He suggests ironically that the Gnostics rightly reserved their exegesis for those able to pay for it, since it had cost them such an immense effort to produce it.1
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Minimal acquaintance with Hebrew Irenaeus believed that the Old Testament was a Christian book, for Moses mentioned the pre-existent Son of God in Hebrew at the beginning of Genesis: Bereshith bara Elohim basan benuam samenthares. Somehow he had the impression that this means, "Son (bara) in the beginning (bereshith); God (Elohim) established then the heaven (ha-shammayim) and the earth (ha-arets)."2 Whether or not he got this from an exegetical tradition, bara really means "created" and is not the same as bar, "son."
He tells how the Ophite Gnostics used their own limited knowledge of Hebrew for analyzing inspiration, since they believed that each of the seven planetary angels bore a Hebrew name of God and chose his own herald to glorify him. One would expect, therefore, that they would correlate their theory with the usage of such names by the various prophets.
They could have found a point of departure in Exodus 6:3, where God says to Moses, "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by my name
Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." These Gnostics did not use exactly this correlation, however. They held that the chief angel was Ialdabaoth, the creator, redeemer, and legislator who inspired Moses, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk. The second, Iao, inspired
Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 1:20), Nathan (2 Sam. 7:3–5), Jonah (1:1), and Micah (1:1). The third,
Sabaoth, inspired Elijah, Joel, and Zechariah. Though the name Sabaoth does not occur from Genesis to Judges, the prophet Elijah does refer to Yahweh Sabaoth occasionally (1
Kings 18:15; 19:10, 14) and Sabaoth is named in Joel 2:2–11 and 4:14, Yahweh Sabaoth frequently in Zechariah.
The major inspiration of the major prophets was Adonai ("the Lord"), who revealed his presence in key passages in Isaiah (6:1), Jeremiah (1:6), Ezekiel (2:4), and Daniel
(1:2). Eloeus or Elohim supposedly inspired Tobias and Haggai, but while the name occurs frequently in Job, it does not appear in these prophets. The correlation of Horeus or Oreus with Micah is probably due to God's being called Ôr (light) in Micah 7:8 (and Isaiah
10:17) but the correlation with Nahum does not make sense. Astaphaeus does not seem a meaningful choice in regard to Esdras and Zephaniah, unless perhaps it is a variant of
Irenaeus of Lyons Elyon, frequent in 1 Esdras. Though some of these choices fail because of the ineptitude of either Gnostic or anti-Gnostic writers or scribes, there are still enough correlations to show that the idea had a semi-rational base. (1.30.10–11)
Irenaeus himself claims that the word Eloe in Hebrew means "true God" and Elloeuth means "what contains all." Adonai sometimes means "unnameable" and "admirable," he says, and sometimes with a double delta and an aspiration it means "He who separates the earth from the water so that the water cannot rise up against it." Similarly Sabaôth with omega in the last syllable means "voluntary"; with omicron it means "first heaven." Just so, Iaôth with omega means "fixed measure," while with omicron it means "He who puts evils to flight" (2.35.3). All this is extremely unlikely.
Finally, Irenaeus' account of Hebrew (really Aramaic or Syriac) words used in Marcosian rites is eccentric. He quotes some of their formulas in "Hebrew" but does not notice that his "translations" do not fit them. His first "Hebrew" text, according to Graffin, should read "in the name of Sophia, Father and Light, called Spirit of holiness, for the redemption of the angelic nature" (1.21.3).3 Though some terms are the same, Irenaeus obviously mistranslates: "I invoke what is above every power of the Father and is called Light and Spirit and Life," adding "for you have reigned in a body." Another Greek fragment refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [see below] in the zones of the light of Christ, who lives through the Holy Spirit for the angelic redemption;" here Holy Spirit and angelic redemption recur from the "Hebrew." What Irenaeus says is the translation of the second "Hebrew" fragment is not such, and the real translation is found in the "response of the initiate." The original reads thus: "I am anointed and redeemed from myself and from all judgment in the name of Iao; redeem me, Jesus the Nazarene." The response is translated as follows:
"I am confirmed and redeemed and I redeem myself from this age and everything with it, in the name of Iao, who redeemed himself for redemption in the living Christ." To sum up: the first "Hebrew" text is for an initiator, as the Greek translations indicate, while the second is for the person initiated. Confusion may have arisen because alternative formulas were listed. In any event, Irenaeus could not make sense of the "Hebrew" words. Even his explanation of "Mammon" is wrong.4 Indeed, the Gnostics themselves probably criticized his mistranslations of their liturgical texts, as Hippolytus seems to indicate.5
His errors fit well with his almost complete ignorance of contemporary Judaism. He knows that Jews do exorcisms in the name of the one God (2.6.2), though they still persecute the church (4.21.3) and have lost eternal life by killing the Lord (4.28.3). He may even have discussed some points with them, for he believes that to them the law is like a myth because they do not have a Christian interpretation of it (4.26.1). The law really speaks symbolically when it calls unclean the animals that chew the cud (and therefore have good works) but do not have a cloven hoof (Lev. 11:4). These animals symbolize the Jews themselves, who have the oracles of God in their mouth but are not founded on the Father and the Son and therefore easily slip, since they are less stable than the cloven-hoofed (5.8.3).
Certainly Irenaeus was farther from Judaism than Justin, for example, had been.
Christian books and traditions 23
GREEK VERSIONS
Irenaeus believes that the Old Testament was miraculously preserved in Hebrew and miraculously translated into Greek. Second Esdras told him that long after the books had been burned in 587 BC, God inspired Esdras to rewrite them all.6 As for the Greek version,
Irenaeus begins his account with a matter-of-fact historical setting and proceeds to miracle.
Ptolemy son of Lagos wanted the best books for his library at Alexandria, and when he asked Jerusalemites for their scriptures in Greek they sent seventy linguists to him. To find out if they were concealing the truth hidden in the scriptures, he had them produce seventy independent translations. Every item turned out to be the same, thus proving the divine inspiration of the Greek version. Irenaeus rejected the translation of Isaiah 7:14 made by Theodotion and Aquila, calling both of them proselytes to Judaism,7 and relied on a simple form of the Hellenistic Jewish tradition that necessarily devalued the Hebrew text.8 His story of the translation is nonsensical, even though the author of the Exhortation ascribed to Justin claims to have visited the translators' cells. A real translator like Origen neglected the legend. Another, Jerome, ridiculed it.9 Augustine, below Jerome's level, found it edifying as he defended the Septuagint against Jerome's recent translation from Hebrew.10
Like other patristic authors, Irenaeus fully accepted the authority of the Septuagint.
The idea that the canon should be confined to Hebrew books never occurred to him.11 He therefore used 1–2 Esdras,12 as well as 1 Enoch,13 Baruch (ascribed to Jeremiah)14 and the Greek additions to Daniel.15
THE NEW TESTAMENT
The four Gospels On the gospels Irenaeus seems to combine what Papias said about Matthew and Mark16 with further Ephesian tradition about John. Matthew set forth a gospel among the Hebrews, written in their language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church there. (In other words, the tradition of the Roman church is just as ancient as this earliest Gospel.) After the deaths of these apostles, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted his oral preaching in writing. Papias' comments on Luke and John, if any, have not survived. Irenaeus claimed that Paul's companion Luke set forth Paul's Gospel in a book, and John, the Lord's disciple who reclined in his bosom, produced the Gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia (3.1.1). Irenaeus' hero Polycarp told more about John, who in his old age encountered the heretic Cerinthus at the baths in Ephesus and immediately left, saying, "Let us escape in case the bath falls in, because
Cerinthus, enemy of the truth, is inside." (This tells us nothing about what either John or Cerinthus taught.) In Irenaeus' judgment the Ephesian church, founded by Paul and preserved by John, is a reliable witness to the tradition of the apostles (3.3.4) though his exegesis of John 8:57 ("you are not yet 50 years old") leaves much to be desired. He is convinced that Luke cannot have meant to say that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, because unless he reached "the most necessary and honorable period of his life"
Irenaeus of Lyons he could not have had disciples. John certifies that he was over 40 but under 50. "All the presbyters of Asia who were with John the Lord's disciple testify that John delivered the same tradition to them, for he remained with them until the reign of Trajan" (2.22.4–5).
Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation assured him that in order to save men of all ages Jesus had to "recapitulate" the life of humanity and pass in five stages from infant to child to adolescent to manhood and finally advanced age. His analysis of ages is like what we find in Hippocrates, for whom each of the ages mentioned by Irenaeus occupies some multiple of seven years. One is a child from 1 to the loss of teeth at 7, a boy to puberty at 14, a lad till the trace of a beard comes at 21, a young man until the whole body is grown at 28, then a man from 29 to 49; an elderly man lasts only until 56, and after that becomes an old man.17
Jesus could not have become really mature before reaching 49. Since Irenaeus explicitly dated the birth of Jesus around the forty-first year of Augustus, he cannot have had in mind the real beginning of that emperor's reign in January 27 BC, but must have backdated it to the death of Julius Caesar in 44. If then Jesus was born in about 3 BC he would have reached 49 during the reign of Claudius (41–54), and that is where Irenaeus set his death in his later Demonstration.18
Irenaeus uses further unconvincing analogies to show that there must be exactly four
Gospels as compared with the Gnostics' many books. He begins with natural history (four regions and four principal winds in the world), then turns to theology. For equilibrium the church has to rest on four columns. According to Psalm 79:2, the Logos is seated on the Cherubim, which have four faces and thus point to the four evangelists. Only heretics employ individual Gospels; thus Ebionites used Matthew, Marcion used Luke, Docetists used Mark, and Valentinians used John. Such individual emphases are wrong; instead, all must be synthesized.19
Irenaeus had a rather full collection of the letters of Paul, not quite identical with the one used by Marcion but now including the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The title of his own work echoed 1 Timothy 6:20, "knowledge falsely so called," and his first quotation was from 1 Timothy 1:4.20 He also explicitly named the epistles to Timothy when he showed that Paul mentioned Linus, bishop of Rome.21 Paul's advice to Titus, moreover, gave him basic counsel against heretics. "After a first and a second warning, avoid the heretic, knowing that such a man is perverted and when he sins is self-condemned" (Tit. 3:10–11).22
He apparently refers to Galatians 5:21 as scripture when he says that "the scriptures affirm that 'those who perform [forbidden acts] will not inherit the kingdom of God.'"23 On the other hand he rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, as did Marcion.24 Among the Catholic Epistles he made use of 1 Peter as from Peter, perhaps also of 2 Peter 3:8,25 and of 1–2 John as one letter by John.26 The Apocalypse written down by John, he says, was seen
"not long ago but nearly in our own times, at the end of the reign of Domitian." The book contains the enigmatic number of the Beast (Revelation 13:18), mistakenly given as 616 in some manuscripts, though the correct reading, 666, appears in the oldest manuscripts and is attested by "those who saw John face to face."27 There seem to be no traces of James or Jude. The anti-heretical Jude would have been useful had he known it.28
Scholars sometimes claim that Irenaeus' stand on the New Testament books was decisive for Christian theology. This seems unlikely in view of his devotion to older teaching, as well as the very similar collection in use by his older contemporary Theophilus of Antioch.29
Christian books and traditions 25
AFTER THE NEW TESTAMENT
In discussing apostolic tradition Irenaeus speaks of the successors of Peter and Paul at Rome, as well as those "to this day" who succeeded Polycarp, appointed bishop of Smyrna by apostles in Asia, and those in "the church of Ephesus, founded by Paul, with John continuing with them until the times of Trajan."30 He accepts traditions from the apostles but rejects the Gnostics' "infinite multitude of apocryphal and bastard scriptures," along with their story about the boy Jesus and the mystical meaning of the letters A and B.31 He either rejects or does not know the Gnostic claim to possess traditions from the apostles.
He cannot have known that some of the Marcosian formulas are close to the First Apocalypse of James found at Nag Hammadi,32 or that a saying he ascribes to Basilides appears in a "gospel" from the same collection).33 For him it was enough to see that they were heretical. He mentions various apocryphal books used by the Gnostics, only to reject them absolutely.34
Papias from Hierapolis in Phrygian Asia Christians circulated information about the origins of their literature so that they could exclude alien books, such as "apocryphal" gospels, epistles, acts, and apocalypses, from their collections. Toward the end of the first century (or a little later) the Asian Papias of Hierapolis supplied "tradition" on this point, discussing his memories and even going back to Mark's memories of what Peter taught. Papias considered himself a literary historian, not a critic. He began his book with a positive statement about the tradition from the presbyters and added criticism of rival traditions.
For I did not, like the many, delight in those who say much but in those who teach the truth [as contrasted with the content of the authentic tradition] nor in those who mention outside commandments, but in those who mention the [inside] commandments given by the Lord to faith, and derived from the truth itself.
He himself had collected oral tradition at Hierapolis.
If anyone ever came who had followed the presbyters, I asked about the words of the presbyters—what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples, said, or what Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples, were saying.
"Presbyters" appear to be the equivalent of "Lord's disciples," as may be implied by 2–3
John, while the reference to Andrew, Peter, and Philip suggests that Papias was acquainted with John 1:44–45, where all three appear.35
His oral tradition was better than books. "I did not suppose what came from books would help me as much as what was from a living and enduring voice."36 In spite of his rhetorically balanced phrases, however, Papias tells us next to nothing about his sources and
Irenaeus of Lyons their value. To judge from his eschatological traditions, one might suppose he uncritically recorded tradition, whatever it might be, or perhaps he critically recorded tradition in support of his millenarian views.
How reliable were Papias' presbyters? They related an over-vivid legend about the death of Judas, not to mention some unlikely words of Jesus about the fantastic productivity of vines and plants in the age to come. Eusebius refers to these as "strange parables and teachings of the Savior and some other more mythical accounts." Papias explicitly claimed he had received these words from presbyters who had seen "John the Lord's disciple."37 For Irenaeus and Papias, as well as this John (the John of Revelation?), Jesus was a teacher of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, much closer to the Apocalypse than to the Fourth Gospel, and he insisted that Jesus predicted enormously productive harvests. A vine was going to produce 2,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2.5 sextillion) metretatai of wine (100 sextillion litres). When one of the saints picks a bunch, another bunch will cry to him, "I am better, pick me, and bless the Lord through me!" Similarly the grain of wheat will produce 10,000 sheaves, each sheaf with 10,000 grains, and each grain with five choinixes (at about a litre apiece) of good flour,38 and similarly in proportion for other fruits, seeds, and grasses. All the animals would have a vegetarian diet and live in peace and harmony with one another, subject to humanity. The traitor Judas remained incredulous and asked, "How can God create such fruits?" but the Lord answered, "They who live then will see it" (5.33.3–4).
Papias obviously believed that these events would take place in the near future. Such credulous acceptance of tradition led Eusebius to call him "feeble in intelligence," and to quote only Papias' comments on the evangelists.39 In fact, the measures of production come from the late first-century Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (29.5), not from Jesus, and they have nothing to do with John the Lord's disciple.40
Polycarp of Smyrna in Ionian Asia Irenaeus' strongest witness to tradition was Polycarp, disciple of apostles, who lived with many who had seen our Lord and was appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by apostles. As we have seen, Irenaeus regarded Polycarp as the most important living link between Christ and himself.
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians presents the character of his faith and his preaching of the truth. It refers to the incomparable wisdom, example, and teaching of "the blessed
Paul," and frequently echoes his letters, especially the Pastoral Epistles, though it does not refer to John.41 Polycarp stood so close to the Pastoral Epistles ascribed to Paul that Von Campenhausen ascribed them to Polycarp himself.42 His letter to the Philippians is essentially pastoral, not theological, and it comes not from a monarchical bishop but from "Polycarp and the presbyters with him." Indeed, the term "bishop" does not appear in it, even though Bishop Ignatius called him "bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans."
Though Polycarp does not refer to John, he may well know 1 John (4:2–3; 3:8).
Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is an Antichrist, and whoever does not confess the testimony to the cross is of the devil, and whoever twists the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment is Satan's firstborn.
Christian books and traditions 27 Such an echo of the Epistle suggests that he knew the Gospel as well, even though there is no trace of it in his letter. The expression "oracles of the Lord" recalls Papias' Dominical
Oracles, while "Satan's firstborn" is abuse Polycarp applied to Marcion in person.43
The confusion about John as apostle, disciple, or presbyter arises from the existence of 2(−3) John, handed down with 1 John and therefore with other Johannine literature, addressed by "the presbyter" to his readers. Irenaeus himself cites 1 John and then, referring back to the same epistle, quotes from 2 John (1.16.3; 3.16.5, 8). But though both Papias and Polycarp traced their traditions back to a certain John it is not clear how he was related to the extant Johannine literature, even though in Irenaeus' view Gospel, Epistle (1–2), and Apocalypse came from him.
Other Presbyters (of Asia?) or Pothinus(?) In his fourth book against heresies (4.27.1–32.1) Irenaeus set forth the apostolic teaching of a presbyter whom he had seen.44 This person showed that the same God made both covenants in spite of the moral problems raised by Old Testament personages such as David and Solomon and by Christ's work when he descended into Hades; by the frequent transgressions of the Hebrew people and Paul's teaching about them; by the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the despoiling of the Egyptians, not to mention Lot, whose wife became a pillar of salt. He insists that we must not reproach the patriarchs and prophets for the faults for which the scriptures themselves blame them…but must rather give thanks to God because their sins were remitted at the coming of our Lord; for they themselves give thanks and rejoice for our salvation.45 As for the acts that the scriptures do not blame but are content to report, we must not become accusers of them, for we are not more zealous than God nor can we be above our Master.
(The topic leads into an unusual digression on economics:
The houses we inhabit, the clothing we wear, the utensils we use, and whatever serves our daily life come from what as pagans we acquired by avarice or from pagan parents or relations or friends who got it by injustice—not to mention what we acquire now living in faith.
Irenaeus, or his teacher, also noted that "thanks to the Romans, the world is at peace, so that we may use the roads without fear and sail wherever we will.")
Because of such ambiguities we must seek for the figurative meaning of the text. In other words, a text describing morally questionable acts encourages us to look for a nonliteral meaning, "for no act described in the scriptures without criticism lacks significance"
(4.31.1). Christians sharing this faith must "attentively read the scriptures," as the apologists
Tatian and Theophilus said they did before conversion, not by themselves but, as Irenaeus
Irenaeus of Lyons urges, "with the presbyters in the church, with whom is the apostolic teaching" (4.32.1).
Scripture-reading in isolation is ineffective because the reader may not raise or solve the problems correctly.
Irenaeus even possessed a Christian poem directed at the Valentinian magician Marcus, against whom "the divinely inspired Elder and herald of truth cried out" (1.15.6).
From Rome: Clement, Hermas, and Justin At Rome Irenaeus found two other early Christian writings treated as authoritative. He probably does not refer to them as "scripture" when he calls each graphé. In each instance the word may simply mean "writing" (3.3.3; 4.20.2).46 One was the letter of Clement to the Corinthians. In a list of early bishops of Rome Irenaeus explained that Clement was an eyewitness of the apostles (certainly some Clement is mentioned in Philippians 4:3), whose teaching still resounded in his ears, while their tradition was before his eyes (1 Clement
5:3: "Let us set before our eyes the good apostles"). Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth to put down the dissension among Christians there and, says Irenaeus, recalled them to the apostolic tradition about one God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who fashioned the human race, brought about the deluge, called Abraham, brought the people out of the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, gave the law, sent the prophets, and prepared fire for the devil and his angels (3.3.3).
This description owes little to Clement's letter, much to Irenaeus' own rule of faith. His teacher Polycarp had paid more attention to the text of 1 Clement, frequently echoing it in his own letter.
Early in the second century an ex-slave at Rome named Hermas produced a collection of revelations entitled Shepherd and consisting of Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes or Parables. It is not clear just when he wrote his three books. The so-called Muratorian fragment says that his brother Pius was bishop of Rome, but the fragment is very late and not very reliable. A vision telling Hermas to read his book of visions with "the presbyters in charge of the church"47 must be early, when no monarchical bishop held office. The same vision refers to Clement, probably the author of the epistle, as secretary for the external affairs of the Roman church, and thus points toward the maintenance of tradition at Rome.
What Irenaeus valued in Hermas was his faith in one God the Creator. This is what
Hermas wrote: "First of all, believe that God is one, who created and completed everything, contains everything, and alone is contained by nothing" (4.20.2).48 The formula thus begins with biblical faith but moves toward semi-philosophical theology.
Irenaeus also knew works by Justin, a recent and reliable teacher and martyr at Rome, and used not only his Apology but also his early work Against all Heresies, now lost, for preValentinian sects. This was a text, as Justin indicates in the Apology, in which he attacked at least the heretics Simon and Menander, both like himself originally from Samaritan towns or villages, and Marcion, still at work in Rome.49 Irenaeus took over and developed his idea
Christian books and traditions 29 that heresy began with Simon and Menander, and also referred to a whole treatise by Justin against Marcion. "Justin well said, 'I should not have believed the Lord himself had he proclaimed a God other than the Creator'" (4.6.2). Presumably the quotation ends here, as Eusebius suggests,50 and Irenaeus' reference to recapitulation is his own, as is the reference to eternal fire in the next quotation (5.26.2). This deals with Satan.
Justin well said that before the Lord's advent Satan never ventured to blaspheme God, because he still did not know about his own condemnation, concealed in parables and allegories, but after the Lord's advent he learned clearly from the words of Christ and the apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him [Matt. 25:41].
The reference to eternal fire for Satan is probably Irenaeus' own contribution, as it is in his
"summary" of 1 Clement.
Irenaeus may well have learned from Justin that Revelation was written by "John, one of the apostles of Christ." Papias, another possible witness, is not said to have discussed authorship.51
Justin's authority was weakened by the heresy into which his pupil Tatian fell, but Irenaeus insists that he was not responsible for any of Tatian's errors (1.28.1).
From Antioch: Ignatius and Theophilus What Irenaeus knows about Ignatius is much less significant. Ignatius was a bishop from Antioch whose vivid letters usually insist on episcopal authority and anticipate his own death in the arena at Rome, consumed by wild animals.52 Since he supposed that the Roman church was influential enough to prevent his death, he urged the Romans not to intervene. From his letter to Rome, though without naming him, Irenaeus cited the vivid language used by "one of our people, condemned to the beasts for his testimony to God."
The passage speaks of his prospective sacrifice as "Christ's wheat, ground by the teeth of wild beasts to become the pure bread of God" (5.28.4). Irenaeus makes no use of Ignatius' doctrine of the episcopate.
A later bishop of Antioch, Theophilus (around 180), used rhetorical analysis of Logos as human thought within, speech as expressed outside, to analyze the divine Logos (To Autolycus 2.105 22). Irenaeus rejected the use of such terms about God, and also corrected
Theophilus' language about God's two "hands," his Word and his Wisdom.53 (It seems unlikely that Irenaeus knew Philo of Alexandria, uncertain that Theophilus did so.54)