5.1.1 The Source of the Hands Motif
His Hand and Wisdom
Minor does not preclude its existence elsewhere, as is evident from its presence in the First Epistle of Clement 33.4, but neither do I desire to make such an argument. I am content, at this point, to show that the possibility of a source from Asia Minor is not without foundation and that it is also possible that Theophilus' source was Jewish.
The existence of a tradition from Asia Minor does not rule out the dependence of Irenaeus upon Theophilus for the Hands tradition. In fact, I believe that sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Irenaeus' acquisition of Autol led to his depiction of the Word and Wisdom, Son and Spirit, as the Hands of God. My contention rests upon three observations. First, the location, or timing, of Irenaeus' first application of hands imagery to either the Son or the Spirit. Second, the particular details surrounding that first incorporation of hands imagery. And third, the point at which Irenaeus links plasma language with hands language. I believe these observations will not only show Irenaeus acquired the Hands tradition from Theophilus, but will also address why he does not refer to the two Hands of God until AH 4—a fact scholars have noted with interest since Robinson drew attention to it.15
5.1.1 The Source of the Hands Motif Irenaeus does not refer to both the Son and Spirit as the Hands of God until
AH 4.pref.4, but he does refer to the Word alone as the Hand of God once in the first three Books of his work, at AH 3.21.10. He writes, 'the protoplast
(protoplastus) himself Adam, from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground" [Gen. 2:5]), received substance (habuit substantium) and was formed (plasmatus) by the Hand of God, that is, by the Word of God.'16 This is the first identification of the Word as a Hand of God. Prior to this passage, a form of manus occurs 38 times in AH,17 none of which clearly identifies the Word as a Hand of God. Nevertheless, two passages that occur after AH 3.8.3, the last point at which we have good reason to believe that Irenaeus had not yet encountered Autol,18 and prior to this selection from AH 3.21.10, merit our consideration.
In AH 3.10.4,19 the first passage, Irenaeus quotes Ps. 95:4-5 (94:4–5 LXX) to establish that the one who made man is the One Creator God: 'In his hand
(manu) are the ends of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are his. For the sea is his, and he himself has made it; and his hands (manus) have formed
15 St Irenaeus, tr. J.A. Robinson (1920: 51).
16 We will examine this passage in detail later.
17 According to a Library of Latin Texts search.
18 For this argument, see the Excursus prior to this chapter.
19 AH 3.10.3 in the ANF edition.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (formaverunt) the dry land.' The use of hands language in this verse could be understood to indicate the creative activity of the Son and Spirit if it occurred after Irenaeus had identified the Word as a Hand of God in AH 3.21.10—or even better, if it occurred after he had identified both the Word and Wisdom as the Hands of God in AH 4, since hands language occurs in both the singular and plural in these verses (as it does in the LXX). But it occurs well before Irenaeus makes these connections, and moreover, Irenaeus' interpretation of these verses refers only to the activity of the One Creator God and never to the creative agency of the Son or Spirit. Thus, the use of Ps. 95:4–5 in this passage should not be considered a reference to the Hands of God tradition.
The second passage, found in AH 3.16.4, is worth a more detailed examination, not only because of what Irenaeus says there but also because of the connection Jean Mambrino found between this passage and Justin's Dial. If Mambrino was correct to say that Irenaeus depends on Justin for his discussion in AH 3.16.4, and if he was correct that Irenaeus first identifies the Word as a Hand of God in that passage, then Justin rather than Theophilus is the source behind Irenaeus' initial appropriation of the Hands tradition.
Irenaeus wrote:
Now these are the works of Christ. He therefore was Himself Christ . . . whom the Magi, when they had seen, adored, and offered their gifts [to Him], as I have already stated, and prostrated themselves to the eternal King, departed by another way, not now returning by the way of the Assyrians. 'For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, father or mother, He shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, against the king of the Assyrians' [Isa. 8:4]; declaring, in a mysterious manner indeed, but emphatically, that the Lord did fight with a hidden hand (absconsa manu) against Amalek [Exod. 17:16 (LXX)].20
Mambrino is interested in Irenaeus' use of the Septuagint's version of Exod.
17:16, and its interpolated 'hidden hand' with which the Lord fights, to support his interpretation of Isa. 8:4 as a prophetic reference to the reception of the gifts of the Magi by the infant Jesus. He tentatively suggests that the bizarre connection of Exod. 17:16 (LXX) with Isa. 8:4 is due to Irenaeus' reliance upon Justin, who both uses Exod. 17:16 (LXX) in Dial 49.8 and links Isa. 8:4 to the reception of the gifts of the Magi in Dial 77.2–3.
I do not agree with Mambrino's assertion that Justin's interpretation of 'hidden hand' (Œæıç fiÆ åØæd) in Dial 49.8 as the 'hidden power of God' (Œæıç Æ
ÆØ F Ł F) indicates Irenaeus first thought of the Hands tradition as an 'intime et éminemment spirituelle' relationship between the Hand and its possessor,21 because Irenaeus himself gives no indication of such an understanding in AH 3.16.4. Neither do I agree with his judgment that Justin relates
20 AH 3.16.4, ANF translation.
21 Mambrino (1957: 356).
His Hand and Wisdom
both the Assyrians and Amalek by giving to them 'le symbole des ennemis de Dieu,'22 because I do not at all see Justin doing that except in the most general of terms. As a result, Mambrino's argument for Irenaeus' reliance upon Justin is less than convincing, because he fails to explain how two separate statements by Justin can explain Irenaeus' unconventional use of Exod. 17:16 to support his interpretation of Isa. 8:4. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that Mambrino is correct insofar as dependence upon these two passages in Justin's Dial does explain Irenaeus' combination of these verses.
The connection that Mambrino misses lies in the fact that both Irenaeus and Justin are using the same verses to the same end. In 3.16.4 Irenaeus is providing illustrations from Scripture which confirm that Jesus was not just
'the receptacle of Christ'23 but that he is the Word who 'became incarnate for our salvation.'24 In Dial 49.8 Justin is completing his argument against Trypho's assertion that 'they who assert that [Jesus] was of human origin, and was chosen to be anointed and became the Christ, propose a doctrine much more credible than yours.'25 Dial 77.2–3 occurs in a series of quotations from Scripture intended to show that the God who appeared in the Old Testament
'could also be born man of a virgin.'26 Therefore, in connecting Exod. 17:16
(LXX) with Isa. 8:4 to support the Incarnation of the Word over against the notion that the aeon Christ descended onto the man Jesus, Irenaeus has selected two texts that Justin used to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the God who became man and not simply the man Jesus who received the hidden power of God at a later point in time.
One could still object that a text collection intended to explain the Incarnation could account for the presence of both texts in Irenaeus and Justin. An additional parallel, however, minimizes the likelihood of this possibility. In AH 3.21.7, as in AH 3.16.4, Irenaeus offers textual support for recognizing a passage in Isaiah as referring to the advent of the Son of God, this time Isa.
7:14. According to Irenaeus, the account in Dan. 2:34 of the rock cut out without the operation (non operantibus) of human hands prefigures the conception of Jesus without the operation (non operante) of Joseph. He concludes by saying, 'So, we should understand that his human advent
(resulted) not from the will of man, but from the will of God.' In Dial 76.1, which is in the same series of quotations as Dial 77.2–3, Justin writes that when Daniel 'calls Christ "a Stone cut out without hands"' he is saying figuratively 'he would become man and appear as such, but that he would not be born of a human seed.' He then concludes, 'for, to affirm that he was cut
22 Mambrino (1957: 356).
23 AH 3.16.1.
24 AH 3.16.2.
25 Dial 49.1; St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (2003).
26 Dial 75.4; Falls' translation.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit out without hands signifies that he was not a product of human activity
(æª ), but of the will of God, the Father of all, who brought him forth.'27
Once again, the presence of Dan. 2:34 in both authors could be attributed to a common text collection, but the identical interpretations provided by Justin and Irenaeus negatethis possibility. According tobothwriters, Dan. 2:34is significant because it shows thatthe birthof Jesus is the result of another-than-human æª or opus, which occurs as the result of the will of God. Therefore, as Mambrino suspected with regard to AH 3.16.4, Irenaeus was utilizing Justin's Dialogue with Trypho as a source for his arguments, at least with regard to the advent of the Son of God, during the period in which he wrote AH 3.16.4 and AH 3.21.7.
Having shown that Mambrino was correct to assert Irenaeus' reliance on Justin, despite the inadequacy of his argument, it is necessary to determine if he was also correct to consider AH 3.16.4 the first instance in which Irenaeus identified the Word as a Hand of God. This is of particular significance for my contention that Irenaeus identified the Word and Wisdom as Hands of God as a result of his contact with Autol. If the Hands motif occurs in AH 3.16.4, then
Justin might be his first source for the tradition. That the 'hidden hand' with which the Lord fights does not, however, refer to the Incarnate Word is evident from the consistent referent of the title 'Lord' in this passage. Irenaeus uses the term 'Lord' before and after the case with which we are concerned.
Both times the title refers to Jesus himself: beforehand he says John leapt in Elizabeth's womb when he recognized that Mary was pregnant with the Lord;28 afterward he introduces the quotation of Luke 24:25 with 'the Lord also said to his disciples after the resurrection.'29
So, then, when Irenaeus states, 'the Lord did fight with a hidden hand against Amelek,' the contextual use of the term 'Lord' suggests he is not referring to the Father but to the Incarnate Word. This reading is confirmed by the fact that he introduces this particular section with the statement,
'Now these are the works of Christ.' This conclusion receives further support from Irenaeus' later use of the Hands tradition. In every case Irenaeus identifies the Hands as the Word and Wisdom, or Son and Spirit, and never as the Incarnate Word, the Son-made-man, or Jesus Christ.30 Therefore, the 'hidden hand' refers to the activity of Christ himself.31 It is the 27 Here, the quotations of Dial 76.1 are from Falls' translation.
28 AH 3.16.4.
29 AH 3.16.5.
30 Note, however, that by emphasizing the continuity of creative activity between the invisible
Word, who is the Hand of God that originally formed Adam and continues to form human beings in the womb, and the visible Word, who as Jesus formed the eyes or vision of the blind man, Irenaeus identifies Jesus as the incarnate Word in AH 5.15.2–16.2.
31 The chronological problem to Irenaeus' argument is obvious, for he is saying that the Incarnate Word fought against Amalek prior to the Incarnation. Irenaeus himself seems to acknowledge this conundrum when he writes that Isaiah declares this 'in a mysterious manner indeed.'
His Hand and Wisdom
'hidden hand' of Christ that fought against Amalek. Christ is not the 'hidden hand' fighting on behalf of the Father. As a result, this is not the first appropriation of the Hands tradition by Irenaeus.
Irenaeus' first utilization of Hands imagery is not, in fact, nebulous—as would be the case if it had occurred in AH 3.16.4. In AH 3.21.10 we read:
And just as the protoplast (protoplastus) himself Adam, from untilled and as yet virgin soil ('for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground'
[Gen. 2:5]), received substance (habuit substantium) and was formed (plasmatus) by the Hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for 'all things were made by Him' [John 1:3], and 'the Lord took dust from the earth and formed (plasmavit) man' [Gen. 2:7]; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth (exsistens), enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.32
Irenaeus' identification of the Word as the Hand of God could not be more straightforward: the Word is the Hand of God that formed Adam from the dust of the earth, a formation that corresponds to the virgin birth of the Incarnate Word.
The present question, then, is whether we can determine if Irenaeus is depending upon Theophilus in this statement. First, it is helpful to point out that while we have shown that Irenaeus had been working from Justin's Dial right before these words appear, Justin's writings evince no familiarity with the tradition that identified the Word and Wisdom, or Son and Spirit, as Hands.
Even the aforementioned discussion in Dial 49.8 does not identify the 'hidden hand' with Christ, but rather places the 'hidden hand' in parallel with the 'hidden power of God' in the crucified Christ. Irenaeus' association of the 'hidden hand' with the activity of Christ in AH 3.16.4 approximates this association in Justin. Second, it is beneficial to recognize that the identification of the Word as a Hand of God in AH 3.21.10 occurs just before the other parallels to Autol identified earlier,33 which is enough to lead us to suspect a connection but not enough to lead us to suggest one. A comparison, though, of AH 3.16.4 with selections from Autol 2.18–19 will provide the necessary evidence to suggest, and even make probable, Irenaeus' reliance on Theophilus. We turn then to Autol 2.18:
For when God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,' he first discloses the worth of man. For God having made all things by the Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the 32 My translation with reference to the ANF.
33 As discussed in the Excursus before this chapter, the other parallels are found in AH 3.22.4,
AH 3.23.5, AH 3.23.6, and AH 3.24.1. They correspond, in order, to Autol 2.25, 2.25, 2.26, and 1.7 and 2.13.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit only work worthy of his own Hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' But to no one else than to his own Word and to his own Wisdom did He say,'Let us Make.'34
Opinion has varied with regard to whether Autol 2.18 can be considered the basis for the Hands tradition in Irenaeus. According to Robinson, Theophilus almost says the Word and Wisdom are the Hands of God, but 'has stopped short of saying it'—though as mentioned above, this does not keep him from declaring, 'we almost seem to be listening to Irenaeus.'35 In contrast,
John Lawson stated, 'there does not appear to be any direct evidence that Theophilus spoke of the Logos as "the Hand of God".'36
It is difficult for me to see how Lawson could make such a rigid statement, given
Autol 2.18. While Theophilus may have 'stopped short' of an explicit identification of the Word and Wisdom as the Hands of God, unless an implicit identification of the Hands with the Word and Wisdom exists, the reader is left to wonder to what or to whom does 'the Hands of God' refer, since Theophilus makes it clear that only God's Word and Wisdom were involved in the creation of Adam.37 The natural reading of this passage is to understand Theophilus as affirming the creative activity of the Hands of God with regard to Adam. He then uses that tradition to interpret Gen. 1:26 as recording the conversation that occurred between the Father and his Word and Wisdom, his Hands, prior to Adam's creation.
Irenaeus' approach to the Hands tradition mirrors that of Theophilus.
Besides the basic identification of the Word as a Hand of God that occurs in both passages, three particular parallels between AH 3.21.10 and Autol 2.18–
19 increase the probability that Irenaeus depended upon this passage in Theophilus for his initial identification of the Word as Hand of God. First, both authors use John 1:3 to support the creation of man by the Word:
Theophilus wrote, 'God having made all things by the Word;' while Irenaeus quotes the text. The second parallel goes beyond Autol 2.18 to Autol 2.19, where Theophilus elaborates upon the creation of man: it is more conclusive because of the distinctive language involved. Irenaeus quotes Gen. 2:5 to state that Adam was formed 'from untilled and as yet virgin soil,' a characterization of Adam's substance that he uses to connect him with Jesus, whose substance came from a virgin as well. His ultimate point is that both the flesh of Adam and the humanity of Jesus, as the second Adam, were formed by God himself.
A quotation of Gen. 2:5 also occurs in Autol 2.19, and Theophilus'
34 My translation with reference to the ANF.
35 St Irenaeus, tr. J.A. Robinson (1920: 59).
36 Lawson (1948: 137).
37 Robinson wrote, 'though [Irenaeus] does not explicitly identify Wisdom with the Holy
Spirit, his language certainly implies that this was his meaning', St Irenaeus, (1920: 54).
His Hand and Wisdom
interpretation of that quotation also emphasizes that the earth remained untilled and that God himself produced that which came from the earth.38
The third parallel lies in their shared conception of the creation of man as a distinctive physical act. Recognition of this correlation in their thought begins with the realization that Autol 2.18 contains a double entendre, a twofold meaning that Irenaeus recognized and then used to develop a significant aspect of his own theological language. Theophilus wrote, 'For God having made all things by the Word (ºªøfi), and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of his own Hands.'
Here, ºª carries two different meanings when considered in light of the first and the second halves of the sentence. The allusion to John 1:3, 'having made all things,' requires that we understand ºª to refer to the second member of the Trinity, the Word. The use of Hands imagery in the second half of the sentence, however, suggests that Theophilus intends to draw a contrast between creation by means of the spoken word and creation by means of hands.
The emphasis that Theophilus places in Autol 2.19 on the creation of God by means of his command ('but the earth produced all things spontaneously by the command of God') confirms that he intended the double entendre in Autol
2.18. When we add this statement in Autol 2.19 to the quotations of Gen. 1:26 and the discussion of 'let us create' that follows the sentence in Autol 2.18 with which we are now concerned, it becomes evident that the second of the two meanings is the focus of Theophilus' thought. In fact, the first meaning serves to set up the contrast Theophilus desires to make by means of the second.
Therefore, though it is there, the contrast is not so much between the Word acting alone and the Word acting in cooperation with Wisdom, especially since Theophilus has already established the creative agency of the Spirit with regard to the world as a whole in Autol 1.7. It centers instead on the notion of physicality attached to the terms 'word' and 'hands.' Theophilus establishes the 'worth of man' by contrasting the creation of 'all things' by speaking with the creation of man by speaking and touching—creation by fiat versus creation by fiat plus manipulation. It is this suggestion, that the notion of physicality marks the creation of man, which finds a parallel in Irenaeus.
Irenaeus expresses the physicality of the creation of man by means of plasma language. John Behr has commented upon the advantages of using
38 Theophilus differs from Irenaeus by stating that production occurs by means of God's command. Autol 2.19: 'By this He signifies to us, that the whole earth . . . had no need that man should till it; but the earth produced all things spontaneously by the command of God, that man might not be wearied by tilling it' (ANF translation). Theophilus' approach to Gen. 2:5 is not identical to Irenaeus', but neither does it need to be. In fact, it is better to think of Irenaeus as utilizing the work of Theophilus as a sourcebook for his own theology—he adopts and adapts ideas that are conducive to his own thought. Irenaeus dropped the reference to the command of God because, as we will see later in this chapter with respect to plasma language, he desired to further emphasize the physical nature of the creative act of the Hands.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit the term plasma to express the creation of man—it emphasizes 'the immediacy of the fashioning of man by God: it is quite literally, a "hands-on-affair";' and it emphasizes 'the materiality of man, the fact that man is made from the earth, from mud.'39 Irenaeus uses plasma language to refer to the creation of man from the earliest chapters of AH.40 However, the terminology does not contain both emphases to which Behr refers until Irenaeus unites plasma language with Hands imagery in AH 3.21.10. Once Irenaeus has joined plasma language to the Hands motif, then his use of that language includes the 'immediacy of the fashioning of man' by virtue of the inference drawn from the picture of molding or forming something by means of one's hands.41 Up to that point, plasma language just refers to the materiality of man and its origin, his formation from dust by God.42 With the exception of AH 1.3.6, the first use
39 Behr, Against Heresies (2000: 38).
40 From AH 1.5.3 on, to be exact. The presence of this language from the beginning of the work until the very end should probably be attributed to his ongoing polemic with the Gnostics, who devalued the physical aspect of humanity. G. Joppich makes this point in the midst of a brief discussion of plasma language (1965: 49–51). Two good examples of the use of plasma language in this polemic can be found in AH 4.pref.4, '[the heretics] come to this at last, they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God's formation (plasmatis), which the flesh truly is;' and AH
5.15.4, 'The Valentinians lose their case when they say that man was not fashioned (plasmatum) out of this earth, but from a fluid and diffused substance (materia)' (ANF translations, both).
41 Plasma language is found in every passage in Against Heresies that refers to both Hands of God: AH 4.pref.4, 4.20.1, 5.1.3, 5.5.1, 5.6.1, 5.28.4; and it also occurs in AH 3.21.10, 5.15.2-4, and 5.16.1, which refer to the Word alone as the Hand of God. Moreover, Robinson found the equivalent of plasma or plasmatio to occur in the Armenian of Prf 11 (St Irenaeus, 1920: 80 n. 2). Mambrino
(NRT 79 1957: 358) also noticed the connection between plasma language and hands imagery.
The consistent presence and use of plasma language in these passages delineates the particular creative activity of the Son and Spirit that Irenaeus intends to highlight by using the Hands metaphor. When Irenaeus refers to the Son and Spirit as the Hands of God, he emphasizes their role in the formation of the physical substance of earth into the flesh of Adam. If we include the references to the Word as a Hand (sg.) of God (I will argue for this inclusion later in this section), then the Hands tradition also refers to their subsequent activity among the rest of the human race, whose materiality stems from that original formation. Thus, Beuzart (1908: 42) and MacKenzie (2002: 101) are correct to draw a particular connection between the Hands motif and the creation of human beings. However, I disagree with the position maintained by some scholars that Hands language applies to all facets of the creative activity of the Son and Spirit, for instance Lawson (1948: 17–18) and Steenberg (2008: 104 n. 11). This undue expansion of the significance of the Hands motif is often connected to or derived from a reading that considers the identification of the Son and Spirit as Hands to hold the principal place in Irenaeus' conception of the Trinitarian relations and to be his principal expression of the immanence of God to creation e.g. Lawson (1948: 122); Steenberg (2008: 81).
42 e.g. Adam is formed from the soil in AH 1.9.3 and AH 3.18.7; in AH 2.7.2 the line Non enim possibile est, cum sint utrique spiritaliter emissi, neque plasmati neque compositi involves a contrast between spiritual emission on the one hand, and physical formation and composition on the other; and in 3.16.6, Jesus is 'man (homo), the formation (plasmatio) of God . . . the invisible being made visible.' More examples occur in Books 4 and 5: in AH 4.41.4, the Father 'gave salvation to his formation (plasmati), which is the substance of the flesh (carnis substantia)'; reading together AH
5.1.3, 5.5.1, and 5.6.1 shows plasma to refer to the physical aspect of Adam, the flesh, and to its formation by God's Hands; and in AH 5.14.2, flesh consists of 'a transmission (successio) of that thing formed (plamationis) originally from the dust' (ANF translation).
His Hand and Wisdom
of the term, and AH 3.6.3, where the term occurs in a quotation of Isa. 44:9–10, plasma language in Against Heresies refers to the creative activity by which man comes into existence, to man as the result of that particular creative activity, or to the One who creates.43
Since Irenaeus uses plasma language prior to the point at which I believe he came into contact with Theophilus, the question arises as to why he chose this particular terminology. There is the possibility that its presence just reflects
Irenaeus' reading of Scripture. A familiarity with the scriptural use of plasma language is already evident by its third usage. In AH 1.9.3 he states, 'the flesh . . . is that formation (plasmatio) of Adam from dust which was made by God in the beginning'—a clear reference to Gen. 2:7.44 Here Gen. 2:7 is the occasion for his use of plasma language, but Irenaeus does not reason from a text of Scripture to explain his use of plasma language until AH 3.21.10, where he states 'the Lord took dust from the earth and formed (plasmavit) man' [Gen.
2:7], in order to justify the formation of Adam by God's Hand, the Word.
In contrast to earlier passages, Gen. 2:7 is used once in AH 4 (4.20.1) and once in AH 5 (5.15.2) to support the formation of man by one or both of God's
Hands. Of these passages, AH 5.15.2 provides the clearest example of the reliance of his plasma language on Gen. 2:7: 'Now the work (opera) of God is the forming (plasmatio) of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by this kind of work (operationem): "And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed (plasmavit) man" [Gen. 2:7].'45 It is clear from this passage that plasma language describes the particular work of God by which he created the first human being. Yet, while the original creation of a human being from the earth is the primary referent of this language,46 Irenaeus does not restrict plasma language to the formation of Adam alone. In the very next section, AH 5.15.3, he writes, 'Now, that the Word of God forms (plasmat) us in the womb, he says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed (plasmarem) you in the womb, I knew you . . . ".'47 Thus, from AH 3.21.10 on, Irenaeus refers to both Gen. 2:7 and 43 AH 1.3.6 refers to the formation of the universe, which Rousseau understands to refer to the formation of the aeons: plasmate universorum; F ºÆ ø. AH 3.6.3 refers to those who form an idol to be a god: Confunditur omnes qui plasmant Deum et sculpunt inutilia;
Isa. 44:10 (LXX): ƒ º Łe. Beyond these two instances, plasma language occurs as described above in 133 passages in AH (according to a Library of Latin Texts search). NB: both exceptions, in AH 1.3.6 and AH 3.6.3, occur prior to AH 3.21.10 where plasma language is connected with Hands language.
44 Cf. AH 3.18.7, where he speaks of the formation of Adam from the virgin soil.
45 AH 5.15.2.
46 e.g. AH 5.14.2: Caro enim vere primae plasmationis e limo factae successio: 'For flesh has been truly made [to consist in] a transmission of that thing molded originally from dust' (ANF translation).
47 Once, in AH 5.15.4, Irenaeus uses plasma language to depict healing as an act of creation in order to identify the Incarnate Word as the creative Hand of God and the revealer of the Father:
'For, from the earth out of which the Lord formed (formavit) eyes for that man, from the same earth it is evident that man was also fashioned (plasmatus) at the beginning. For it were
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Jer. 1:548 as support for the specific referent of plasma terminology to be the creation of human beings.49
The familiarity with the septuagintal usage of plasma language that we see prior to AH 3.21.10 is not the same as the direct scriptural support for plasma language that we see several times following AH 3.21.10. If his theological appropriation of the terminology was based on Scripture alone, then we should see Irenaeus use Scripture to support his terminology far earlier than the later chapters of AH 3. So it seems most probable that sources other than the direct study of Scripture explain his early use of plasma language.
With this in mind, an interesting quotation of Justin's 'book against Marcion' that occurs early in AH 4 might shed light on his use of plasma language prior to AH 3.21.10:
Justin does well say, 'I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made
(fecit) this world and formed (plasmavit) us, and contains and administers all things, summing up (recapitulans) His own handiwork (plasma) in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.'50 incompatible that the eyes should indeed be formed (plasmatum esse) from one source and the rest of the body from another; as neither would it be compatible that one fashioned (plasmasse) the body, and another the eyes' (ANF translation).
48 Irenaeus may also use Gen. 2:8 to support the formation of Adam in AH 5.5.1, but it is less clear since the main purpose of the quotation is to affirm the placement of Adam in Eden. Later, in AH 5.21.1, Gal. 4:4 provides the occasion, though not support, for him to refer to the creation of Eve by means of plasma language, 'And because of this the Lord acknowledges himself to the be the Son of man, recapitulating in himself that original man out of whom the molding of the woman had been brought about (est plasmatio facta est).' The quotation of Gal. 4:4 does not itself refer to the formation of Eve, but rather to the derivation of Jesus' flesh from Eve, so it cannot be said to support plasma language, but is rather the occasion for Irenaeus' use of it.
49 NB: Irenaeus does use other terms to refer to the creation of human beings, but other than the two exceptions referred to earlier, plasma language always refers to some aspect of the creation of human beings.
50 AH 4.6.2; ANF translation. J.A. Robinson has argued that this quotation does not belong to Justin in its entirety. He attributes to Irenaeus all but the one sentence of Justin quoted by Eusebius (EH 4.18.9, though in Greek of course): ipsi quoque domino non credidissem alterum deum annuntianti praeter fabricatorem (Robinson, JTS 31 1930: 374–8). His argument, however, remains unconvincing for several reasons, chief among which is that he fails to observe that the context in which the quotation appears in Ecclesiastical History undermines the starting point and end of his own case.
Robinson desires to prove that Eusebius 'was right in citing as Justin's words no more than he did . . . (because the rest is) the amplification and the comment of Irenaeus himself' (p. 378). Yet, the shortness of the quotations in Eusebius is better explained by his goal to encourage his audience to read Justin's works. Two passages in Irenaeus aid Eusebius in this endeavor. In both of them, Irenaeus expresses his approval of Justin's thought: (1) 4.6.2, Et bene Justinus . . . ait; and (2) 5.26.2, Bene Justinus dixit. A simple explanation, then, exists for why Eusebius quotes only a portion of the entire quotation of Justin in 4.6.2: he excerpts the sentence in which Irenaeus endorsed Justin's writings; he is not interested in quoting the whole passage, because it does not
His Hand and Wisdom
Though this quotation occurs after AH 3.21.10, I am not aware of a reason to think that Irenaeus did not have this particular work prior to its use here.
Moreover, the possibility of his possession of this source prior to AH 3.21.10 finds support in his utilization of Justin's Dial in AH 3 prior to AH 3.21.10 and in his promise in AH 3.12.12 to write his own work against Marcion, which would have been aided by Justin's 'book against Marcion.' We have reason then to think that Irenaeus had, or at least would have wanted to have, Justin's anti-Marcionite treatise on hand, in addition to his Dial, before he acquired the writings of Theophilus. This hypothesis would well explain the following facts: (1) Irenaeus uses plasma language from the beginning of Against Heresies; (2) Irenaeus does not provide scriptural support for plasma language until
AH 3.21.10; and (3) plasma language and Hands imagery are not linked until
AH 3.21.10.
The excerpt from Against Marcion reveals that Justin used plasma language to speak of the activity by which man comes into existence (plasmavit) and to speak of man as the result of that particular creative activity (plasma)—two of the three ways that Irenaeus uses plasma language. The third way that Irenaeus uses plasma language, to indicate the One who creates, could also come from Justin—which would not be difficult to imagine given the other two uses—or it could be the result of Irenaeus' own thought. As I have already mentioned, while Justin uses plasma language, the Hands tradition does not occur in any of his extant works.
Therefore, in Justin we seem to have a source that used plasma language as does Irenaeus prior to AH 3.21.10, and a source that does not connect plasma language with Hands imagery, as Irenaeus does not prior to AH 3.21.10. This suggests that Irenaeus' use of plasma terminology may be derived from Justin.
Taking this language from Justin, rather than from a personal reading of Scripture, would also explain why Irenaeus does not provide scriptural further his own argument. This understanding is supported by the observation that Eusebius' quotation from AH 5.26.2 is also just an excerpt of Irenaeus' longer quotation of Justin (there can be no doubt that the original quotation from Justin extends at least one phrase farther to include quoniam et in parabolis et allegoriis a prophetis de eo sit dictum).
Absent the starting point and end of his argument, Robinson's contention is no longer compelling. Eusebius does not quote what he does because he knows that portion alone belongs to Justin, but because he needs only those words to support his argument. Moreover, the similarities Robinson finds between the language in this quotation and that in other passages of Irenaeus does not have to mean the language in AH 4.6.2 is original to Irenaeus. The similarities can also be explained by thinking of the quotation as containing language with which Irenaeus agrees, and which he utilizes and develops.
Finally, the many examples that Robinson culls from Irenaeus still corroborate his intention to oppose Loofs' characterization of Irenaeus as a '"smaller man" than we had hitherto thought him' (p. 375). The ideas in AH 4.6.2 are integral to Irenaeus' thought, which itself possesses an intellectual unity. Viewing Justin as a source of some of Irenaeus' ideas does not diminish the fact that Irenaeus adopted and adapted them to his own purpose.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit support for plasma language until AH 3.21.10—where we see the influence of Theophilus.
The plausibility of the suggestion that Irenaeus supports plasma language with a particular verse because of his reception of Autol depends on finding a passage in Theophilus' work wherein the use of plasma language is supported by the same particular verse. Just such a passage occurs at the end of Autol
2.19, the same portion of Autol that I have already argued is linked to Irenaeus' thought in AH 3.21.10. Theophilus wrote:
But that the creation of man might be made plain, so that there should not seem to be an insoluble problem existing among men, God had said, 'Let us make man;' and since his creation was not yet plainly related, Scripture teaches us, saying:. . . 'and God formed (ºÆ) man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul' [Gen. 2:7]. From which also the soul is called immortal by the majority of people. And after the formation ( ºÆØ) of man, God chose for him a region among the places of the East. . . 51
This passage follows soon after Theophilus' comments in Autol 2.18. So his reference to Gen. 1:26 entails his previous discussion of the formation of Adam by God's own Hands, the Word and Wisdom, to whom God says 'Let us make'—the discussion which relieved the 'insoluble problem.' He then turns to Gen. 2:6–7 to provide the particulars with regard to the creation of humanity that Gen. 1:26 left out.
We can see that he draws two points from Gen. 2:7. First, the second part of the verse reveals why the soul is considered immortal. Second, the first part of the verse relates the formation of man.52 According to Theophilus, then,
Gen. 2:7 affirms the formation of man, ºÆØ e ¼Łæø , and when combined with Gen. 1:26, that formation occurs by means of the Hands of God. Theophilus uses the same verses to unite plasma language and Hands imagery in Autol 2.18–19 that Irenaeus does in AH 3.21.10. Therefore, reliance upon Theophilus' correspondence Autol by Irenaeus at the time that he wrote
AH 3.21.10 explains why plasma language and Hands imagery become united in his work at that particular moment.
The one seemingly significant difference between AH 3.21.10 and Autol 2.18–19 is that Irenaeus speaks of the Word alone as being the Hand of God, rather than of the Word and Wisdom as being the Hands of God. Yet, a simple explanation accounts for this variation. In AH 3.21.10 Irenaeus desires to demonstrate the connection between Adam and the humanity of the Incarnate
51 Autol 2.19; my translation with reference to the ANF.
52 His mention of 'a region among the places of the East' prepares the way for Gen. 2:8, which he quotes at the beginning of the next section, Autol 2.20. Gen. 2:8 is also quoted by Irenaeus, as I noted above.