SOURCE: An introduction to St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies, Paulist Press, 1992, Vol. I, pp. 1-18.

[In the following essay, Unger provides an overview of Irenaeus's Adversus haereses and argues that with the composition of this treatise, Irenaeus earned the right to be called the founder of Christian theology.]

1. An earlier volume in this series presented a translation of the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching,¹ one of the two works of Irenaeus which have survived in their entirety. With this volume the series begins publication of Irenaeus's principal work, his Exposé and Overthrow of What Is Falsely Called Knowledge. It is this work, commonly called Adversus haereses, or, Against the Heresies, which establishes Irenaeus as the most important of the theologians of the second century and merits for him the title of founder of Christian theology.²

2. The Adversus haereses is a detailed and effective refutation of Gnosticism, and it is a major source of information on the various Gnostic sects and doctrines.³ In recent years this aspect of Irenaeus's writings has received increased attention, stimulated in part by the discovery in 1946 near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt of a large collection of ancient Gnostic texts in Coptic.⁴ Included in this find were some previously lost works which Irenaeus and others used in their polemical anti-Gnostic writings, as well as some works not hitherto known even by title or description. The richness of this find has not yet been fully explored. Studies thus far, however, substantiate the centuries-old belief in the reliability of Irenaeus as a source.

3. The importance of Irenaeus as a writer of the early patristic era lies, of course, not so much in what he tells us of the Gnostics as in his clear and convincing descriptions of the doctrines of the Church, and in the fact that he is the first Christian writer to give a relatively complete and systematic treatise on theology.⁵ Certainly, he does not have the systematic development of doctrines found in the scholastic or modern theologians; but in view of the early times in which he lived, he treats systematically what today we call the treatises on the One and Triune God, on Creation, on Christ the Savior, on the Church, on Salvation, and on the Resurrection. In many cases he has a rather coherent and unified treatment of individual doctrines; e.g., his treatise on the Church and on tradition in Book 3. Particularly noteworthy is that Irenaeus had a pivotal topic which unified all his other teachings—Jesus Christ as universal Recapitulator. He really placed Christ as the cornerstone of his theological edifice. This put a marvelous unity into all his theological thought.⁶ Another source of unity is his constantly recurring theme of the salvation of men and women, which is a continuous and gradual process until it reaches the magnificent glory of the body. Of course, the truly basic and ruling idea levelled against the Gnostics in the total work of Irenaeus is the existence of only one, true, and all-perfect God. The Adversus haereses, composed in five books over a number of years, was written to show the errors of the Gnostics. At the same time, however, Irenaeus, who was a firm believer in the teaching authority of the Church, in the importance of apostolic succession, and in a primacy of Rome, followed the principle that a clear presentation of the truth is itself a forceful refutation of error. The fact that Irenaeus was a loyal follower of tradition did not make him stagnant; no, his was a creative genius. Some scholars write as if there were no development possible in theology according to Irenaeus.⁷ But development is certainly possible and, actually, Irenaeus made great strides over his predecessors; for instance, in and because of his doctrine about recapitulation of all things in Christ. His is not merely a restatement pure and simple of Scripture and tradition. While he is not generally known as a great stylist, he accomplished his purpose remarkably well.

TITLE AND AUTHENTICITY

4. The short title for Irenaeus's main work, Adversus haereses, was known in Greek to Eusebius, Basil, Maximus, and Photius.⁸ That short form, however, was not the original title, which Eusebius gives as Elegkhos kai anatropě těs pseudōnumou gnōseōs.⁹ Irenaeus himself says in the prefaces to Books 2, 4, and 5 that this longer form is the title, and there are allusions to the longer form in his Books 1 and 2.¹⁰ The anatropě in the title obviously refers to “overthrow” or “refutation” of the heresies by the use of arguments based on reason, Scripture, and tradition.¹¹ From Irenaeus's purpose and procedure in Book 1, it is equally clear that elegkhos, which can be translated either “exposé” or “refutation,” here means a refutation by exposure of the errors. The final phrase of the title, těs pseudōnumou gnōseōs, “of the falsely called knowledge,” or, “of what is falsely called knowledge,” is found in 1 Timothy 6.20.

5. Irenaean authorship of the Adversus haereses is firmly established and universally accepted.¹² There are many citations of, and quotations from, the work in the writings of others, from Hippolytus and Tertullian, contemporaries of Irenaeus, to St. John of Damascus. The original Greek text has long been lost, but the work, as we have it, preserved in an early and quite literal Latin translation, is the complete work, and all parts of it are genuine.¹³

TIME OF COMPOSITION

6. The years in which Irenaeus wrote the Adversus haereses cannot be determined precisely, and at most some general indications may be noted of the periods in which at least some parts of the work were composed.

7. It is clear that Irenaeus did not write the work all at one time, and that the period of composition extended over a number of years. The reading of the heretical books which Irenaeus consulted entailed much labor. Each book of the Adversus haereses supposes a slow process of elaboration of many elements.¹⁴ There are in the work some signs of interruption. Irenaeus sent the books singly to a friend of his as each was finished. From the preface to Book 3 it is certain that he had already sent Books 1 and 2 to his friend. Similarly, the preface to Book 4 indicates that Book 3 had already been sent, and the preface to Book 5 indicates that Book 4 had been forwarded. And since Irenaeus at the end of his Book 1 promises another book, it is probable that he dispatched Book 1 before doing Book 2.

8. Some parts of the work give the impression of having been written during a period when the Church was spared from external persecution. There seems to be an indication in 4.30.1 that Christians were at the Emperor's court; and in 4.30.3 the Christians were enjoying a peace that seems to be credited to the Romans. In fact, the composition of a work of such proportions would almost seem to require a period of cessation from political persecutions. There was such a period during the reign of Emperor Commodus (180-92), that is, in the latter half of Pope Eleutherius's pontificate and the first part of Pope Victor's. In the famous catalogue of the Roman bishops given by Irenaeus in 3.3.3, Eleutherius is the last one mentioned. It is a safe assumption that Eleutherius was still reigning and that Book 3 was finished before the completion of Eleutherius's pontificate in 188 or 189.

9. Some historians believe that Book 2 was written during a persecution, that is, under Marcus Aurelius (161-80), because in 2.22.2 Irenaeus writes of persecutions of the just as if they are then going on. Books 1 and 2, then, may have been written before 180. The fact that in 3.21.1 Irenaeus speaks of the Greek version of the Old Testament done by Theodotion would not upset such a dating. Though authors have usually held that Theodotion's version appeared around 180,¹⁵ modern scholars are sure that what goes by the name of Theodotion's version is not all from him at that late date. The revision of the Septuagint (hereinafter LXX) began already in the first century,¹⁶ and so Irenaeus could have used Theodotion's version prior to 180.

IRENAEUS'S READERS

10. The friend to whom Irenaeus sent the books of Adversus haereses had asked him to write this work because he had for a long time desired to study Valentinianism.¹⁷ This friend was most likely a bishop. Irenaeus admits that his friend is in many ways more competent than he, and he speaks of him as having the obligation of stemming the tide of error.¹⁸ Irenaeus promised this work as a help to safeguard those who are with his friend, to whom his friend can explain the matters in more detail.¹⁹ This supposes someone with a flock to care for. In the preface to his Book 5, Irenaeus writes of obeying the precept of his friend. This would seem to indicate that his friend was at least of equal rank. But it is clear that this friend was not the only one Irenaeus hoped would read his work. Near the end of Book 1 he writes: “You, too, and all those who are with you are now in a position to examine what has been said and to overthrow their wicked and unfounded doctrines …”²⁰ In the preface to Book 5 he speaks of his friend and “all who will read” the book.

11. Neither the name nor the region of the friend addressed by Irenaeus is known. The friend obviously knew Greek, for the Adversus haereses was written in Greek. Seemingly, he was also in a place where Greek was used generally, and where the Ptolemaean and Marcosian versions of Gnosticism were raging. Since Irenaeus wrote in Greek, some have suggested that his addressee was not in Gaul or in Rome, but somewhere in the East, perhaps in Alexandria or in Asia Minor. But if Irenaeus had been writing to someone in the East, he would scarcely have spent so much time on Western Gnosticism. Moreover, he often refers to the traditions of the presbyters of Asia Minor in language suggesting that these were not known to readers. In 1.13.5 he narrates an incident about “a certain deacon from among our people in Asia,” by which he seems certainly to imply that his readers are not in Asia. In 1.26.1 he reports that Cerinthus taught in Asia; again, the implication is that his readers are not in Asia. For a similar reason, the references to Antioch and Alexandria in 1.24.1 would seem to exclude those places.

12. Gaul as well would hardly seem to be the locale of the readers—not because Irenaeus wrote in Greek, but because he probably would not have spoken of the people of Lyons as barbarians²¹ if he had been writing to someone near there. He wrote at great length about the Marcosian heresy because it had become quite rampant in the Rhone valley, and he was able to study it in detail. But he seems to have written for people in some other area where that heresy had infiltrated.

13. That other area may well have been Italy, perhaps even Rome itself. Rome cannot be excluded because of the Greek language. Hippolytus wrote in Greek at Rome for the Romans. The fact that Hippolytus not very many years after the composition of the Adversus haereses used that work as a main source and quoted from it at length, could be an indication that Irenaeus sent his work to Rome or somewhere near there. It is a fact that Irenaeus wrote several letters to Rome. Also, his manner of referring in 1.25.6 to the heretic Marcellina and her influence in Rome may be another indication that Irenaeus's readers were there.

PURPOSE AND PLAN OF ADVERSUS HAERESES

14. Irenaeus intended to offer his friend means for refuting the Gnostics. Since he believed that a clear exposition of error is in itself a refutation of that error,²² he devoted Book 1 of the Adversus baereses entirely to exposing the heresies. In the other four books of his work, he advanced positive arguments against the heresies. Though the whole work is essentially a refutation of heresy, it contains much positive theology about divine revelation.

15. Some scholars seem to hold that Irenaeus initially had in mind only a short work, and that he changed his plans as he proceeded.²³ Irenaeus observes in 1.31.4 that his exposé of the heresies has been long, and he promises a “subsequent book.” But there is no sign there of change in plans. He had intended from the start to give an exposé of the heresies and then to refute them positively. At the end of Book 2, he speaks of several other books that will follow.²⁴

16. The basic plan of the Adversus haereses has already been noted. An exposé of the heresies is given in Book 1. In Book 2 there is a refutation of the heresies, chiefly the fundamental tenets of the Gnostics about two gods, by arguments drawn from reason. The next two books continue the refutation, Book 3 with arguments drawn mainly from the words of the apostles, Book 4 with arguments based mainly on the Lord's words. In Book 5 Irenaeus deals mostly with the salvation of the body, a doctrine which the Gnostics sharply denied.

17. This present volume contains only Book 1. The first eight chapters of the book give an account of Valentinianism as taught by Ptolemaeus. Chapter 9 is a short refutation of that heresy, and Chapter 10 presents a summary of the Catholic Rule of the Truth. Chapter 11 is an exposé of the errors of Valentinus and his disciples. Chapters 12-22 contain a long treatment of Marcosianism. Then, beginning with Simon Magus, the arch-heretic, there is a description of the heresiarchs of various branches of Gnosticism and their disciples in Chapters 23-27. Finally, Chapters 28-31 describe the errors of sects that do not seem to have had definite heresiarchs.²⁵

STYLE

18. In the preface to Book 1, Irenaeus apologizes for his style: “From us who live among the Celts and are accustomed to transacting practically everything in a barbarous tongue, you cannot expect rhetorical art, which we have never learned, or the craft of writing, in which we have not had practice, or elegant style and persuasiveness, with which we are not familiar.”

19. He underrates his abilities. It is true that his writing is frequently marred by prolixity, repetition, and involved constructions. Even so, his prose has a number of excellent qualities. In general his style is simple and forceful. He is precise in the choice of words, as can be seen, for example, in this series of clauses in 2.30.9: “… whom the Law announces, whom the prophets herald, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles hand down, in whom the Church believes.” He is noted also for his variety. He uses four different words to express the idea of preaching, and at least eight different verbs, with various shades of meaning, to express the fact that one thing is a copy of another. In Book 1, to make sure that the reader is aware that he is describing erroneous doctrines and not his own view, he uses phrases such as “they say” very often, but he employs at least fifteen different verbs for this. He is a master of figurative language and concrete illustrations, which are always apt and concise. Book 2 in particular abounds with examples. At times he rises to heights of genuine eloquence.²⁶ Scattered throughout the five books one finds many concise statements that have become classic, many of them jewels. Here are some examples: “He might indeed have been invisible to them because of His eminence, but He could by no means have been unknown to them because of His providence” (2.6.1); “God's friendship bestows imperishability on those who strive for it” (4.13.4); “… so that He might become the Son of man, in order that man in turn might become a son of God” (3.10.2); “Where the Church is, there is God's Spirit; and where God's Spirit is, there is the Church” (3.24.1). There are all shades of irony in Irenaeus, from light pleasantry to caustic thrusts,²⁷ as well as some very severe condemnations of heretics. Nevertheless, his general tone is one of calmness and modesty. As has already been indicated, the general plan of the work as a whole is clear and methodical. The same can be said of the plan of each book, despite the author's frequent digressions.

20. What Irenaeus lacks as a stylist, he makes up for in thought. He displays a broad knowledge of Catholic doctrine and a clear and sure grasp of it. Though he gives us a disclaimer about writing ability, his work in fact merits the praise that St. Jerome gave when he referred to the Adversus haereses as a work of “most learned and eloquent style.”²⁸

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

21. For Irenaeus, the main witnesses to the Truth are Scripture and tradition.

22. The divine inspiration of the Scriptures is stressed time and again.²⁹ “The Scriptures are perfect, inasmuch as they were spoken by God's Word and Spirit” (2.28.2); “one and the same Spirit who heralded through the prophets … He Himself announced through the apostles” (3.21.4); “the Word … gave us the fourfold Gospel” (3.11.8); “the Scriptures are divine.”³⁰ Not only the prophets, but the entire Old Testament is prophetic,³¹ because the Holy Spirit spoke through all the writers just as He did through the prophets; the writers were His instruments. Moreover, the New Testament is as inspired and divine as the Old Testament, being equally the word of the Spirit.³² The Scriptures are without error, “perfect,” and “the mainstay and pillar of our faith.”³³

23. Though Irenaeus does not mention a list or canon of the books of the Bible, one can make a fairly complete list from his citations.³⁴ He cites all the Old Testament books except Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Tobit, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. But from a passage in Book 1 it is clear that he knew of Tobit, Nahum, and Haggai.³⁵ He also knew of the twelve minor prophets as a unit.³⁶ Of the New Testament, Irenaeus quotes or uses every book except Philemon and 3 John. Although some scholars have questioned whether he used James, Jude, and 2 Peter, in notes to the pertinent passages, I shall show that it is more than probable that he did.³⁷

24. In Book 4, Irenaeus cites a sentence from Hermas (Mandatum 1), introducing it with the formula “the writing (graphě) says.”³⁸ Because of the graphě, a word frequently used for Scripture, some scholars have concluded that Irenaeus considered the work of Hermas to be part of the Bible. The conclusion is not warranted. Irenaeus uses graphě also with reference to the letter of Pope Clement.³⁹

25. Except perhaps for the use of Henoch in 4.16.2, Irenaeus did not use apocryphal books. But he actually quotes an apocryphal text on Christ's descent into “hell” six times, variously ascribing it to Jeremiah, to Isaiah, and to “the prophets.”⁴⁰ He also quotes two sayings attributed to Jesus which are not in the canonical books.⁴¹

26. For Old Testament passages, Irenaeus generally used the Septuagint, though at times his text approximates the Hebrew more closely. For the New Testament, the Greek of the excerpts and the Latin version of Irenaeus have a Scripture text different from that of modern critical editions. Irenaeus's Bible text seems to have been substantially that of the Western family. Still, it is difficult here to be certain of readings. In Book 1, in which we have long passages in Greek, when Irenaeus quotes Scripture he often is quoting the heretics, and hence these passages are not sure guides for the text of Irenaeus's Bible. Moreover, the Greek text is from excerpts of Irenaeus in the works of other authors, who may have adjusted the scriptural quotations to their scriptural texts. For Books 2 and 3 we have for the most part only the Latin version. The Latin translator, as Dom Chapman has proved, made his own translation from the Greek of Irenaeus, following the Greek slavishly even in word order.⁴² Similarly, the Armenian translator of Books 4 and 5 translated the Greek of Irenaeus, though at times later scribes made some adjustments in the scriptural passages.⁴³

27. Harvey strongly defended the theory that Irenaeus was acquainted with the Scriptures in the Syriac version and translated from that into Greek. There would seem to be no solid reason for that. The Western readings in the Old Syriac came by way of Tatian's Diatessaron. But Irenaeus appears to have used the Western text which was current in the West and which came to be used everywhere in the second and third centuries.⁴⁴ The difference in readings can at times be explained by the use of a harmonized version of the Gospels. Irenaeus probably made use of some kind of harmony in the Gospels, but whether he used Tatian's is disputed.

28. Irenaeus at times quotes the same scriptural passage in different ways; for instance, he cites Matt. 11.27 three different ways in Book 4.⁴⁵ Such variation could have been due to citation from memory; or it is possible he used various manuscripts of the Bible. He may also have had a kind of hexapla, as the Hebrew transcriptions of Gen. 1.1 in Proof 43 might indicate.⁴⁶ For the Messianic texts of the Old Testament, he need not have quoted the Bible directly, for there were collections of such texts for use by Christian writers.⁴⁷ Possibly Irenaeus took these texts from Justin's Syntagma, a work now lost. The use of Testimonia collections might account for false attributions by Irenaeus such as that of Numbers 24.17 to Isaiah in A.H. 3.9.2 and that of the Magnificat to Elizabeth in 4.7.1.⁴⁸

29. Usually Irenaeus insists on the literal sense of Scripture. He holds that it is wrong to twist texts from their natural meaning by combining them with other texts that do not fit.⁴⁹ Truth itself must be the ultimate rule of interpretation.⁵⁰ One must have regard for the style of the Scriptures. Even the punctuation must be correct.⁵¹ Obscure passages of the parables must not be interpreted by other obscure passages, but by such as are clear and certain.⁵² The Gnostics indulged in exaggerated allegorical interpretations, and Irenaeus at times uses their weapon against them. But with him the allegorical interpretations are just ornaments added to the solid literal witnesses. The Scriptures are so vast in meaning that one should not be perturbed if he or she does not understand them all.⁵³

30. Scripture, then, is an excellent source for the Rule of Faith. It is divine and must be believed. But the Scriptures are not always clear, nor did all of Scripture exist from the beginning. Hence it is not an absolute Rule of Faith.⁵⁴ Scripture is ultimately subject to the criterion of tradition, of the doctrine of the Church, of the Rule of Truth itself.

31. Irenaeus uses a variety of names to designate tradition, a variety based on the various aspects of the same reality: tradition, tradition of the apostles, tradition which derives from the apostles, tradition of the Truth, the preaching, the preaching of the Truth, the body of the Truth, the Rule of the Truth, or of the Faith, the doctrine, the doctrinal system.

32. Tradition must be derived from the apostles.⁵⁵ Any tradition outside this apostolic tradition must be resolutely rejected.⁵⁶ The condition and warranty for this is uninterrupted succession of bishops throughout the Church from the apostles and their disciples⁵⁷ so that every church throughout the world teaches one and the same unchangeable doctrine—tradition must really be catholic.⁵⁸ Moreover, the apostolic tradition must be verified in particular in the church at Rome, because that church has a preeminence over the others, and for that reason all the other churches, if truly apostolic, must agree with the Roman.⁵⁹

33. Since tradition existed before the writings of the New Testament⁶⁰ it is an absolute source of revelation. It is the teaching of the living Church, which would have existed even if nothing had been committed to writing.⁶¹

MANUSCRIPT HISTORY

34. It is to be regretted that we do not have the original Greek for this important work. What of the original Greek we have today has been saved in the works of other writers who copied long passages from Irenaeus.⁶² Much of Book 1 has been preserved by Epiphanius, who tells us that he copied verbatim and notes the fact when he merely condenses. Hippolytus used Irenaeus extensively and made sizable extracts from him. Eusebius has preserved some precious snatches, as has also Theodoret of Cyrus, who used Irenaeus copiously for his treatise on heresies. Some passages are extant in St. John of Damascus's Sacra parallela, and a few in the Catenae. There are several fragments in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 405 and some longer but corrupted sections in the Jena papyrus. References to these various sources and to other minor sources are provided in the notes on the passages in question.

35. The loss of the complete text of Irenaeus's Greek is a mystery to scholars. The Greek text was available to the translators of the Armenian version in the sixth century, and in the eighth century when it was excerpted for the Sacra parallela. In the ninth century Photius read a copy at Baghdad; this copy could have disappeared in the sacking of Baghdad in 1258.⁶³

36. For the Adversus haereses, then, we are for the most part dependent on the ancient Latin version, which provides for us the entire text. There are nine manuscripts, though not all are complete.⁶⁴ The manuscripts can be grouped into two distinct families. The oldest family is represented by the Clermont, Voss, and Stockholm manuscripts. The second family is represented by the Arundel and other manuscripts.

37. The Clermont manuscript (C), which was found in the Jesuit college of Clermont, is now in the Preussische Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. It originated in the ninth century in the monastery of Corbie. Its Irish script is accounted for by the fact that St. Columbanus founded the monastery at Luxeuil around the year 590, and the monks of that monastery established the monastery of Corbie around the year 660. This monastery has all five books of the Adversus haereses, but ends at chapter 26 of Book 5. Thus it lacks the final ten chapters of the work. There is also a rather long lacuna from chapter 13.4 to chapter 14.1 in Book 5.

38. The Voss manuscript (V) is in the library of the University of Leiden. It was at one time owned by Sir Thomas Voss, an English humanist. Written in 1494 in England, it has the last ten chapters of Book 5, but it has the same lacuna as the Clermont manuscript in chapter 13 of Book 5.

39. The manuscript (H [Holmiensis A 140]) kept in Stockholm was bought by Queen Christina of Sweden in 1650. Written at the end of the fifteenth century, it is judged to be a copy of the Voss manuscript.

40. The Arundel manuscript (A) is in the British Museum. It was written in 1166 from a model in La Grande Chartreuse and for which a Florus of Lyons (d. 859/860) wrote a prologue, which is extant in this Arundel copy. The manuscript is incomplete, ending with chapter 31 of Book 5.

41. The Vatican Library has four manuscripts with the Latin version of the Adversus haereses. Vatican manuscript Latin 187 (Q) was written in 1429 or shortly before; it belongs to the second family of manuscripts. Vatican manuscript Latin 188 (R) depends on Latin 187 and was written during the pontificate of Nicholas V (1447-55). Another manuscript, Ottobonensis (Latin 752), normally designated O, which also depends on Latin 187, was copied between 1429 and 1440. The fourth manuscript at the Vatican, Ottobonensis (Latin 1154), normally designated P, was written around 1530.

42. The manuscript of Salamanca (Latin 202), normally designated S, was written before 1457, when John of Segovia gave it to the University of Salamanca.

43. The three manuscripts that Erasmus used are lost; they certainly belonged to the second family.⁶⁵ The humanist Passerat, who edited Book 1 and the beginning of Book 2 of the Adversus haereses, is said to have used a “very ancient manuscript.” Loofs thought that this was simply the Voss manuscript, and that Passerat had not read it directly but through Feuardent, who, Loofs thought, had also used the Voss manuscript. M. L. Guillaumin has written that this is by no means certain. Rather, it seems to her that both Feuardent's vetus codex and Passerat's codex antiquissimus differed from each other and from the Voss manuscript. More recently L. Doutreleau has argued that Loofs's views should be upheld in this matter and that the codex Passeratii is nothing more than an illusion of the past.⁶⁶

44. The relative value of these families and their manuscripts is somewhat in doubt today. The editors of Books 4 and 5 of the Adversus haereses in the Sources chrétiennes series made a careful study of the Armenian translation and compared it with the Latin manuscripts. They found that the Arundel manuscript is much more often in agreement with the Armenian version than are other Latin manuscripts. Since they thought the Armenian version was very faithful to the original, they preferred also the Arundel manuscript.⁶⁷ Prior to this, scholars quite generally, including F. Sagnard, who originally had edited Irenaeus's Book 3 for Sources chrétiennes in 1952, gave preference to the Clermont manuscript. And I am not so sure that this view should be altogether disregarded. I agree with B. Botte, who submits that the Clermont manuscript merits first place and can prevail even against both the Voss and Arundel manuscripts, but needs to be controlled in every case by, and at times corrected in favor of, the Armenian version and the Arundel manuscript.⁶⁸

45. All in all the Latin text of the Adversus haereses is preserved as well as virtually any ancient document. There was no second Latin version, though some were misled on this point by a citation in Agobard's De iudaicis superstitionibus,⁶⁹ which differs from the normal translation. The quotation in Agobard is in fact a fragment that Rufinus had translated from the Greek of Eusebius.

46. The old Latin version of Irenaeus is noted for its slavish literalness. For this reason, though it is not without translator's errors and copyists' mistakes in the manuscripts, it is valuable for establishing the original text of Irenaeus. In many cases one can grasp the real sense of the Latin only by first translating it back into Greek.⁷⁰ The Latinity is of a corrupt kind, abounding in barbarisms and solecisms. It is clear that at times the translator did not understand the meaning of the Greek. Though scholars are not agreed on how well the translator knew Greek or Latin, it would seem on balance that he knew Greek but did not know Latin very well. The Latin text frequently retains the syntactical construction of the Greek, even to the point of attempting the Greek definite article with a demonstrative or relative pronoun construction. Had the translator known Latin well, he would scarcely have done that unless he was intent on preserving for posterity the language structure as well as the thought of Irenaeus. This does not seem likely.

47. Some scholars have suggested that Irenaeus himself made the Latin translation.⁷¹ Irenaeus, however, would hardly have missed his own meaning, as the translator did in fact do at times. Some have also suggested that Tertullian made the translation. The language of the Latin version, however, is simply not that of Tertullian, but rather of a barbaric type, Celtic in origin.⁷² Tertullian seems to have used the translation, for there are passages from it, some of them verbatim, in his Adversus Valentinianos. When the ancient version has a faulty rendition, so does Tertullian, even in minute peculiarities, so that the agreement cannot be explained by mere accident.⁷³ The instances in which Tertullian agrees with the Greek against the Latin do not militate against this remark; rather, these instances would seem to indicate that Tertullian at times saw the errors in the Latin and corrected them, apparently with the aid of a Greek copy.

48. The Latin version seems to have been made not long after Irenaeus's time, that is, in the earlier decades of the third century, when Gnosticism was still a force to be reckoned with, since there would appear to have been little reason for making such a translation except as a weapon against Gnosticism. The majority of scholars have held to this early dating.⁷⁴ In more recent years it has been suggested that the translation was made in the latter half of the fourth century, probably in North Africa. The argument here is that Augustine quotes from the translation and is the first to do so.⁷⁵ Obviously, this involves contradiction of the evidence noted above regarding Tertullian's use of the translation. In any case, the translation could have existed, and have been used for some time, without having been quoted verbatim. Moreover, it seems almost incredible that a translator of the fourth century would have used so many archaic expressions, with which the Latin version abounds, and slavishly retained so many Greek constructions.

49. Armenian version. In the sixth century the entire Adversus haereses was translated, from the Greek, into Armenian. Only Books 4 and 5 of the work are extant.⁷⁶ We will discuss this version more at length in the Introduction to Book 4. There are also some important independent fragments in Armenian for other parts of the work. For a discussion of the Armenian fragments of Book 1 see SC 263.101-7.⁷⁷

50. Syriac version. Some parts of the Adversus haereses, but not the entire work, were translated into Syriac.⁷⁸ Some fragments of this version are extant; in general the help they provide in establishing the text of Irenaeus is minimal. For a somewhat different evaluation of the Syriac fragments, at least for Book 1, see Doutreleau's remarks in SC 263.109-11.

PRINTED EDITIONS

51. Erasmus was the first to put out a printed edition of the Adversus haereses, in 1526 at Basel. It is the Editio princeps, but it has only the Latin text, without any Greek fragments. In addition, it lacks the last five chapters of the work. A number of reprints were made of this edition during the next half century, till 1571. Nicolas Desgallards (Gallasius) published an edition in 1570 at Geneva in which he included the Greek excerpts found in Epiphanius. At Paris in 1575, F. Feuardent published a new edition; he used only the Latin but added the last five chapters from the Voss manuscript and supplied the text for a number of the lacunae in Erasmus's edition. For a later edition, in 1596 at Cologne, Feuardent added over forty Greek fragments found in various Greek writers. Meanwhile in 1575, J. de Billy (Billius) made a new translation of the first eighteen chapters of Book 1 as preserved by Epiphanius. His translation is printed in the seventh volume of Migne's Patrologia graeca below the older Latin version.

52. More than a century later, in 1702, J. E. Grabe, a learned Prussian who had settled in England and changed from Lutheranism to Anglicanism, put out an edition at Oxford, adding many Greek fragments. He introduced the use of the Arundel manuscript in printed editions.⁷⁹ A few years later, in 1710, the Benedictine R. Massuet put out an edition at Paris. He used the Clermont manuscript and preferred its readings. N. Le Nourry had already noted the existence of the Clermont manuscript in 1697.⁸⁰ Massuet used all the Greek fragments available and added a scholarly introduction. The Massuet edition became the popular edition, especially through its inclusion in Migne's Patrologia graeca 7.

53. Efforts were subsequently made to issue a more critical edition. First A. Stieren put out a two-volume edition between 1848 and 1853 at Leipzig. Then in 1857 W. W. Harvey put out one in Cambridge. Harvey had the advantage of the newly discovered Greek text of Hippolytus's Refutation of All Heresies, and a good number of Syriac fragments as well as a few Armenian fragments. He collated the three main manuscripts (Clermont, Voss, Arundel) of the Latin version. Though the Harvey edition has a number of defects, it was used quite generally by scholars.⁸¹ In 1907 U. Mannucci began a still more critical edition at Rome, but only the first two books ever appeared. Another edition of the first book appeared when J. S. A. Cunningham submitted a doctoral dissertation in May 1967 at Princeton University entitled, Irenaeus: Adversus haereses I: A New Edition of the Latin Text. The excellent French series of patristic writings, Sources chrétiennes (hereinafter SC), has published a critical edition of the Latin text, together with all the excerpts and fragments extant, and with a French translation and ample scholarly notes. The series began with Book 3 which was published in 1952 by the Dominican F. Sagnard (SC 34). When Sagnard died, the work was taken over by a team of several scholars. Here is the publishing history of this acclaimed text and French translation:⁸²

SC 100 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 4, edited and translated by A. Rousseau, B. Hemmerdinger, C. Mercier, and L. Doutreleau, 2 vols., 1965.

SC 151 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 5, edited and translated by A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier, vol. 1: Introduction etc., 1969.

SC 152 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 5, edited and translated by A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier, vol. 2: Text and translation, 1969.

SC 210 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 3, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 1: Introduction etc., 1974.

SC 211 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 3, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 2: Text and translation, 1974.

SC 263 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 1, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 1: Introduction etc., 1979.

SC 264 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 1, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 2: Text and translation, 1979.

SC 293 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 2, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 1: Introduction etc., 1982.

SC 294 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies. Book 2, edited and translated by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau, vol. 2: Text and translation, 1982.

54. In preparing the present translation of Book 1, I have used the edition of Harvey, always comparing it where pertinent, however, with Holl's critical edition of Epiphanius.⁸³ In the notes to the text I have added the references to the various works in which the excerpts and fragments of the Greek can be found.

55. The divisions of chapters and paragraphs in this translation are based on those in the editions published by Massuet, Stieren, and Rousseau and Doutreleau. Although the chapter headings are for the most part my own, I have tried to fit the wording of the chapter headings to the contents of the chapter as far as possible. Past editors of the Latin text have kept the tables of contents and the chapter headings as found in the manuscripts for their historic value, even though they have little value for understanding Irenaeus. They do not come from Irenaeus himself. The tables of contents for the first four books were, however, already in the Greek manuscripts before the Latin and Armenian translations. The chapter headings were added later, possibly in the fifth or sixth century, and then not always correctly or exactly. The manuscripts for Book 5 do not have a table of contents or chapter headings. These were introduced for Book 5 in the edition of Desgallards in 1570, but later editors made various changes.⁸⁴

56. Of the modern translations, the following were consulted: 1) the German by E. Klebba in Bibliothek der Kirchenväter² 3-4 (Munich 1912); 2) the following English translations: first, by A. Roberts and J. W. H. Rambaut, as revised and annotated by A. Cleveland Coxe, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 (Buffalo 1886)—this translation is quite faulty in places; and second, the translation of principal passages, with notes and arguments, published by F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, The Treatise of Irenaeus of Lugdunum against the Heresies (2 vols., London 1916); 3) the Italian by Vittorino Dellagiacoma in S. Ireneo di Lione. Contre Le Eresie (I Classici Cristiani, 2 vols., Siena 1968²).⁸⁵

Notes

1. Translated by J. Smith, this volume (ACW 16) was published in 1952. Hereinafter the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching will be referred to as Proof.

2. Tertullian, Adv. Val. 5 (CCL 2.756). See also H. B. Swete, Patristic Study (London 1902) 36. For recent scholarship on Irenaeus see the following: C. Kannengiesser, “Bulletin de théologie patristique: Ignace d’Antioche et Irénée de Lyon,” RechSR 67, no. 4 (1979) 610-23; T. P. Halton and R. D. Sider, “A Decade of Patristic Scholarship: Volume 1,” CW 76, no. 2 (November-December 1982) 96-101; M. A. Donovan, “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship,” SCent 4, no. 4 (Winter 1984) 219-41. Donovan mentions several Irenaean works published after this article in “Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St. Irenaeus,” ThS 49 (1988) 283. For very recent surveys on Irenaeus see H.-J. Jaschke, “Irenäus von Lyon,” TRE 16.258-68; A. Orbe, “Ireneo,” DPAC 2.1804-16. In addition, see recent issues of Bibliographia patristica, ed. W. Schneemelcher (Berlin [and later Bonn and New York] 1959-) and L’année philologique.

3. The following works can be consulted on Gnosticism: W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (Göttingen 1907); idem, “Gnosis,” RE 7.2.1503-33; idem, “Gnostiker,” RE 7.2.1537-47; H. Leclercq, “Gnosticisme,” DACL 6.1.1327-67; G. Bareille, “Gnosticisme,” DTC 6.2.1437-67; “Gnostizismus,” LTK² 4.1021-31 has five articles by as many authors: K. Prümm, K. Schubert, R. Schnackenberg, H. Rahner, K. Algermissen; P. T. Camelot, “Gnose chrétienne,” DSp 6.509-23; E. Cornelis, “Le Gnosticisme,” DSp 6.523-41; G. Quispel, “Gnosticism,” Encyclopedia Brittanica 10.505-7; K. Berger, “Gnosis/Gnostizismus I,” TRE 13.3-4. 519-35; R. McL. Wilson, “Gnosis/Gnostizismus II,” TRE 13.3-4. 535-50; J. Lebreton, Histoire du dogme de la Trinité 2 (Paris 1928) 81-121, treats both pre-Christian and Christian Gnosticism; Lebreton-Zeiller 1.355-59, 2.617-53; L. Cerfaux, “Gnose pré-chrétienne et biblique,” DBS 3.659-701 is particularly valuable for the origins of Gnosticism; C. Colpe, “Gnosis II (Gnostizismus),” RAC 11.537-659; G. Filoramo, “Gnosi/Gnosticismo,” DPAC 2.1642-50; Sagnard Gnose, passim; Quasten Patr. 1.254-77, gives a handy classified bibliography; Sagnard, SC 34.44-70; H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, 2d ed., Structure and Growth of Philosophic Systems from Plato to Spinoza 3 (Cambridge, Mass. 1964) 1.495-574; H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity, 2d ed. (Boston 1963); G. Van Groningen, First-Century Gnosticism: Its Origins and Motifs (Leiden 1967); J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago 1971) 68-97; K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. P. W. Coxon, K. H. Kuhn, R. McL. Wilson (Edinburgh 1984; also in paperback edition, San Francisco 1987; hereinafter Rudolph, Gnosis). H.-M. Schenke, “The Problem of Gnosis,” SCent 3, no. 2 (Summer 1983) 73-87.

4. See the following items on Nag Hammadi: J. M. Robinson, “The Coptic Gnostic Library Today,” NTS 14 (1968) 356-401; M. Krause, “Der Stand der Veröffentlichung der Nag Hammadi Texte” in Coll. Messina 61-89; G. Filoramo, “Nag Hammadi (scritti di),” DPAC 2.2329-32; J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Gnostic Manuscripts Discovered at Chenoboskion, trans. P. Mairet (London 1960); J. Dart, The Laughing Savior (New York 1976); F. Wisse, “The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists,” VC 25 (1971) 205-23; J. M. Robinson, “The Jung Codex: The Rise and Fall of a Monopoly,” Religious Studies Review 3 (1977) 17-30. An English translation of the documents can be found in The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. J. M. Robinson et al. (3d rev. ed. with an afterword by R. Smith, San Francisco 1988). Important information is also available in D. M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948-69, Nag Hammadi Studies 1 (Leiden 1971), which is updated in annual supplements in Novum Testamentum.

5. See Quasten Patr. 1.294.

6. See D. J. Unger, “Christ's Rôle in the Universe according to St. Irenaeus,” Franciscan Studies 5 (1945) 3-20, 114-37 (with bibliography); F. Beuzart, Essai sur la théologie d’Irénée (Paris 1908); A. M. Clerici, “Incontro tra la storia biblica e la storia profano in Ireneo,” Aevum 43 (1969) 1-30. W. Widmann, “Irenaeus und seine theologischen Väter,” ZTK 54 (1957) 156-73, examined what is proper to Irenaeus and not borrowed from predecessors, and correctly says it is his thought of a total economy of God for humankind, centered on Jesus Christ as the Beginning and the End, who recapitulates humankind's whole history and whole being. This same thought emerges from the study of G. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus, trans. R. MacKenzie (Edinburgh 1959) xiv, 26-27, 79-87, 122-28, 131, 170-75, 183, 191-202, 212, and J. Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London 1948) 140-98. Benoît 202-33 discusses the following as main themes in Irenaeus: the unity of God; the economy, which is universal and one; recapitulation; and gradual progress in salvation.

7. D. van den Eynde, Les normes de l’enseignment chrétien dans la littérature patristique des trois premiers siècles (Paris 1933) 163, writes as if there was no development in the doctrine of Irenaeus. A. Harnack was of the same mind; see his History of Dogma, trans. from the 3d German edition by N. Buchanan, 2 (Boston 1896) 312.

8. See Eusebius, H.e. 2.13.5; 3.28.6 (GCS 2.1.136, 258). St. Basil, Spir. 29.72 (SC 17².506). St. Jerome, Vir. ill. 35 (TU 14.1.a.25). St. Maximus Confessor, Schol. e.h. 7 (MG 4.176C). Photius, Cod. 120 (MG 103.401), who placed this short title after the longer one. The definite article in the English translation is warranted by Eusebius and Basil and the contents. See Massuet, Dissertatio (hereinafter Diss.) 2.2.46 (MG 7.220-22).

9. Eusebius, H.e. 5.7.1 (GCS 2.1.440).

10. See A.H. 2 Prf. 2; 4 Prf. 1; 5 Prf. Irenaeus also alludes to it in A.H. 1.22.2; 1.31.3; and 2.24.4.

11. See euersio huiusmodi aedificationis (A.H. 2.27.3) with reference to doctrine.

12. Irenaean authorship is indicated particularly in view of the many citations and long quotations from this work, beginning with his contemporaries St. Hippolytus and Tertullian till St. John Damascene. J. S. Semler denied the Irenaean authorship in Dissertatio I from his edition of Tertullian (5 [Halle 1770-76; reprinted 1824-29] 245-90). He was amply refuted by G. F. Walch, Commentatio de authentia librorum Irenaei adversus haereses (cf. MG 7.381-404).

13. Grabe, Prolegomena 1.2.6 (MG 7.1358), held that the work is incomplete. Cf. Massuet, Diss. 2.2.54 (MG 7.235). W. Bousset, Jüdischchristlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin, und Irenäus (Göttingen 1915) 272-82, claimed the following sections are not genuine: 4.20.8-12, 21, 25.2, 33.10-14, 37-39; 5.21-36.

14. Sagnard Gnose 84, n. 4.

15. See A. Vaccari, S.J., Institutiones Biblicae, 6th ed. (Rome 1951) 1.283.

16. See R. E. Brown, D. W. Johnson, K. G. O’Connell, “Texts and Versions,” NJBC #68, nn. 70-74, 82.

17. A.H. 1 Prf. 2; 1.9.1; 1.31.4; 3 Prf.; 4 Prf. 1; 5 Prf.

18. A.H. 1 Prf. 3; 4 Prf. 1.

19. A.H. 1 Prf. 2-3.

20. A.H. 1.31.4.

21. 1 Prf. 3.

22. A.H. 1.31.3.

23. See Dufourcq Irénée 74.

24. A.H. 2.31.2; 2.35.2. See also A.H. 3.12.12.

25. For a more detailed breakdown of Book 1 see SC 263.113-64.

26. See A.H. 1.15.4-5. Sagnard Gnose 72-74 rightly praises his rhetorical ability.

27. See A.H. 1.4.4; 2.6.3; 2.14.7.

28. Jerome, Epist. 75.3 (CSEL 55.33).

29. See Bonaventura ab Andermatt, O.M.Cap., “Sancti Irenaei doctrina de Sacrae Scripturae inspiratione atque inerrantia,” (S.T.D. diss., Gregorian University, Rome 1937) passim; W. S. Reilly, “L’inspiration de l’Ancient Testament chez Saint Irénée,” RBibl 14 (1917) 489-507; he does not always have a correct evaluation of Irenaeus's thought. J. Hoh, Die Lehre des hl. Irenäus über das Neue Testament (NTAbhand 7.4-5 [1919] 62-75, 90-109).

30. A.H. 2.27.1; 2.35.4; 3.21.2.

31. A.H. 1.8.1; 2.2.5; 2.34.1; 5 Prf.; Proof 98.

32. A.H. 3.24.1.

33. A.H. 2.28.2; 3.1.1; also 3.5.1; 3.14.2-4.

34. A. Camerlynck, St. Irénée et le canon du Nouveau Testament (Louvain 1896) 26-27; T. Zahn, “Kanon des Neuen Testaments,” RPT 9.768-96; idem, Introduction to the New Testament, 3d ed., trans. M. W. Jacobus and J. M. Trout (Edinburgh 1909) 2.295, 301, 310 n. 9, 387, 393-94, 433-34; 3.201 n. 14, 205 n. 27, 254 n. 6, 445, 448 n. 5.

35. A.H. 1.30.11.

36. A.H. 4.17.3; 4.17.5.

37. See Vernet 2416; Camerlynck, Saint Irénée 38-39; Benoît 103-47.

38. A.H. 4.20.2.

39. Irenaeus uses graphě in reference to the letter of Pope Clement at A.H. 3.3.3. Benoît 146 agrees that Irenaeus does not consider Hermas as strict Scripture. See also SC 100.248-50 on the question of whether or not Irenaeus considered Hermas as canonical Scripture as indicated by his use of graphě.

40. Twice he ascribes it to Jeremiah (A.H. 4.22.1; Proof 78); once to Isaiah (A.H. 3.20.4); three times to the prophets (A.H. 4.33.1; 4.33.12; 5.31.1). In Proof 4 he quotes this passage also, but he does not refer it to Hermas. There he adds “the Father” after “God,” and changes “brought everything into being out of what was not,” to “brought being out of nothing.” See ACW 16.137 and n. 28. See SC 100.255, 687 n. 2 for a different view on A.H. 4.33.1; 4.33.12 and 5.31.1.

41. A.H. 5.33.3-4; 5.36.2. See E. Jacquier, “Les sentences du Seigneur extracanoniques (les Agrapha),” RBibl 15 (1918) 129-31.

42. See J. Chapman, “Did the Translator of St. Irenaeus Use a Latin N.T.?” RB 36 (1924) 34-51. See also K. T. Schäfer, “Die Zitate in der lateinischen Irenäusübersetzung und ihr Wert für die Textgeschichte des Neuen Testaments,” Von Wort des Lebens: Festschrift für Max Meinertz zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres 19. Dezember 1950, ed. N. Adler (Münster 1951) 50-59.

43. See SC 100.89-92.

44. See F. G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, 3d ed. rev. A. W. Adams (London 1975) 169, 182; idem, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. rev. A. W. Adams (London 1958) 166-78.

45. A.H. 4.6.1; 4.6.3; 4.6.7 are texts where Matt. 11.27 is cited three different ways. See H. J. Vogels, “Der Evangelientext des hl. Irenaeus,” RB 36 (1924) 25 and A. Merk, “Der Text des Neuen Testamentes beim hl. Irenaeus,” ZKT 49 (1925) 307.

46. Such is the contention of B. Hemmerdinger, “Les Hexaples et Saint Irénée,” VC 16 (1962) 19-20.

47. J. R. Harris and V. Burch, Testimonies (Cambridge 1920). P. Prigent, Les Testimonia dans le christianisme primitif: L’épître de Barnabé I-XVI et ses sources (Paris 1961), made a detailed literary study to discover patterns of citation that show up in preexisting documents. J.-P. Audet, “L’hypothèse des Testimonia: Remarques autour d’un livre récent,” RBibl 70 (1963) 381-405, disagrees with Prigent and sides with C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (Welwyn 1952) 28-60, that the Testimonia were not collections of merely short proof texts but fairly extensive passages. R. A. Kraft, “Barnabas' Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis,” JBL 79 (1960) 336-50, argues that the matter is not as simple as Harris had presented it. In the late Jewish and early Christian period there was a Schulbetrieb which produced short and independent documents of a testimony page. Greek and Semitic communities handed down similar note pages which were eventually gathered into larger units that resulted in various recensions of the same testimony. A. Benoît, “Irénée Adversus haereses IV 17, 1-5 et les Testimonia,” Studia patristica 4 (TU 79 [1961], 20-27), makes a good case that Irenaeus used Testimonia for this section of A.H.

48. Thus Hemmerdinger, “Les Hexaples,” 19-20; see also idem, “Remarques sur l’ecdotique de Saint Irénée,” Studia patristica 3 (TU 78 [1961] 70). Hemmerdinger incorrectly assigns the false attribution of Isaiah to A.H. 3.9.3; it should be 3.9.2.

49. A.H. 1.9.4.

50. A.H. 2.28.1.

51. A.H. 3.7.1-2.

52. A.H. 2.10.1; 2.27.

53. A.H. 2.28.3.

54. A.H. 3.1.1; 3.4.1-2; see A. J. Coan, “The Rule of Faith in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the First Two Centuries: An Historico-apologetical Investigation” (S.T.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1924) 69-93. N. Brox, in his careful introductory study of Irenaeus, Offenbarung: Gnosis und gnostiker Mythos bei Irenäus von Lyon: Zur Charakteristik der Systeme (Munich and Salzburg 1966) 69-103, holds that, according to Irenaeus, the Scriptures are perfect and complete, namely, as a source of revelation. But he must then modify somewhat his theory.

55. A.H. 3.1.1; 3.2.1-2; and passim.

56. See van den Eynde, Normes de l’enseignment 159-87.

57. A.H. 3.2.2; 3.3.1-3; and passim.

58. A.H. 1.9.4; 1.10.1-2; 3.1.1; 3.4.1-2; 3.24.1.

59. See Book 3 for a full discussion of A.H. 3.3.2., a justly famous passage.

60. A.H. 3.1.1.

61. A.H. 3.5.1; see van den Eynde, Normes de l’enseignement 261-80.

62. For a detailed study of the Greek for Books 1 to 5, see SC 263.61-100, SC 293.83-100, SC 210.49-132, SC 100.51-87, SC 152.64-157.

63. See SC 100.15 and L. Doutreleau, “Saint Irénée de Lyon,” DSp 7.2.1934.

64. See SC 263.9-59, SC 293.17-82, SC 210.11-48, SC 100.15-50, SC 152.27-63. The following studies on the Latin text may be consulted: F. Loofs, Die Handscriften des lateinischen Übersetzung des Irenäus und ihre Kapitelteilung, Kirchengeschichtliche Studien H. Reuter gewidmet (Leipzig 1888) 1-93 (printed separately Leipzig 1890); O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur 1 (2d ed. Freiburg 1913) 500; Nouum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, ed. W. Sanday, C. H. Turner, A. Souter et al., Old-Latin Biblical Texts 7 (Oxford 1923) xxv-xxxv; W. Sanday, “The MSS of Irenaeus,” Journal of Philology 17 (1888) 81-94; F. C. Burkitt, “Dr. Sanday's New Testament, With a Note on Valentinian Terms in Irenaeus and Tertullian,” JThS 25 (1923) 56-67; E. Köstermann, Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Handschriften des Irenäus, ZNTW 36 (1937) 1-34; Sagnard Gnose 12-15; J. S. A. Cunningham, Irenaeus: Adversus haereses I: A New Edition of the Latin Text (Ann Arbor, Michigan 1968) xvii-xix (Microfilm).

65. For an attempt to discover the identity of one of Erasmus's MSS see J. Ruysschaert, “Le manuscrit ‘Romae descriptum’ de l’édition Érasmienne de Irénée de Lyon,” Scrinium Erasmianum, ed. J. Coppens, 1 (Leiden 1969) 263-76. Cunningham (Irenaeus xxi) believes that the editio princeps by Erasmus should have a claim on our attention as a witness to the tradition as his variants are just as valuable as those in the other recentiores.

66. See M. L. Guillaumin, A la recherche des manuscrits d’Irénée (Studia patristica 7.1 [TU 92, 1966] 65-70). For Doutreleau's views, see SC 263.319-27.

67. See SC 263.319-27 and SC 152.55-57 n. 1. I have not listed the Mercier MSS, because they are really not independent MSS.

68. See B. Botte, “Notes de critique textuelle sur l’Adversus haereses de saint Irénée,” RTAM 21 (1954) 165-78. Cunningham (Irenaeus xxiv) also believes that C should be the MS against which the others should be compared.

69. Chap. 9 (ML 104.85). G. Mercati first held that there was a second translation, but later changed his mind. On this see G. Mercati, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica, Studi e Testi 5 (Rome 1901) 241-43. C. H. Turner, “Mercati on Cyprian and Irenaeus,” JThS 2 (1901) 143-48, holds that there is no second translation.

70. Sagnard Gnose 18. Burkitt, “Sanday's New Testament of Irenaeus,” 63: “The more I study the Latin Irenaeus the more I feel that its importance lies chiefly in what it tells us about the original Greek text of St. Irenaeus.” The Armenian version of Books 4 and 5 prove that the Latin is in general a faithful translation of the Greek original. S. Lundström has made four helpful studies on the Latin version: Studien zur lateinischen Irenäusübersetzung (Lund 1943) (hereinafter Lundström Studien); “Textkritischen Beiträge zur lateinischen Irenäusübersetzung,” Eranos Löfstedianus: Opuscula philologica Einaro Löfstedt A.D. XVII Kal. Iul. Anno MCMXLV dedicata (Uppsala 1945) 285-300; Neue Studien zur lateinischen Irenäusübersetzung (Lund 1948); Übersetzungstechnische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der christlichen Latinität, (Lund 1955).

71. Feuardent, Commonitio ad lectores de sua quinque librorum D. Irenaei editione (MG 7.1340C-D).

72. See Massuet, Diss. 2.2.53 (MG 7.233-34).

73. A. Merk, “Der Text des Neuen Testamentes beim hl. Irenaeus,” 304, claims that the dependence of Tertullian on the Latin of Irenaeus is not proved, but that the end of the fourth century for the Latin translation is too late.

74. See Grabe, Prolegomena, 1.2.3 (MG 7.1356); Massuet, Diss. 2.2.53 (MG 7.234); W. Sanday, “The Date of the Latin Irenaeus: A Fragment,” in Nouum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, ed. W. Sanday et al., lvii-lxiv; Harvey l. clxiv. See also A. D. Alès, “La date de la version latine de saint Irénée,” RechSR 6 (1916) 133-37; F. R. M. Hitchcock, Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A Study of His Teaching (Cambridge 1914) 44, 347-48; Sagnard Gnose 12. P. T. Camelot, “Eirenaios,” LTK² 3.774, admits that it saw the light of day perhaps around the year 200, but certainly before 396. It is difficult to admit Henry Dodwell's idea that the Latin translator made use of Tertullian. See H. Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum (Oxford 1689) 397-400.

75. Augustine seems to have used Irenaeus, or at least was influenced by him, for a number of years. See B. Altaner, “Augustinus und Irenäus: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung,” ThQ 129 (1949) 162-72. This was published again in the author's Kleine patristische Schriften, TU 83 (1967) 194-203. Augustine quotes A.H. 4.2.7 and 5.19.1 in C. Iul. 1.3.5 (ML 44.644). He mentions Irenaeus by name when he sums this up again in 1.7.32 (ML 44.662). Augustine wrote this work in A.D. 422. So the Latin of Irenaeus had to exist then, at least. But Augustine might have used Irenaeus in earlier works. He might have used A.H. 1.23.1 in Haer. 1 (ML 42.25); and A.H. 4.33.10 in Catech. rud. 3.6 (CCL 46.125). But it is more certain that he used A.H. 4.30.1 in Doctr. christ. 2.40.60 (CCL 32.73-74). This last work was written for the greater part in 396-97 and so Altaner infers that the Latin translation of Irenaeus was made shortly before this, since it had not been quoted by anyone else. See Altaner, “Augustinus und Irenäus” 172, which is also reprinted in TU 83 (1967) 203. Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum 400-401, seems to have been the first to present this later date for Lat. Iren. It was accepted also by H. Jordan, “Das Alter und die Herkunft der lateinischen Übersetzung des Hauptwerkes des Irenäus,” Theologische Studien: Theodor Zahn zum 10. Oktober 1908 dargebracht, ed. N. Bonwetsch et al. (Leipzig 1908) 133-92; also by F. J. A. Hort, in “Did Tertullian Use the Latin Irenaeus?” Nouum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, ed. Sanday et al. xliv, and Burkitt, “Sanday's New Testament of Irenaeus” 56-67. Lundström (Lundström Studien 90-109) reexamined the data for both sides, and concluded that the arguments for the early date were scarcely convincing. Yet he rejects Souter's claim that the translator was the same person who made the Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew, which was made between A.D. 370-420. Dodwell also suggested that the occasion for the translation was the refutation of Priscillianism. See Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum 405-7. B. Hemmerdinger (SC 100.16) is of the opinion that Dodwell's view has not received sufficient attention. He refers to his own review article, “Saint Irénée évêque en Gaule ou en Galatie?” REG 77 (1964) 291-92. In his translation with notes of Firmicus Maternus's The Error of Pagan Religions (ACW 37), C. A. Forbes calls attention to some parallels in Firmicus to Irenaeus and remarks: “The passages cited in this and the preceding notes argue for the probability that Firmicus knew the writings or at least the views of Irenaeus” (ACW 37.213, n. 470). He cited A.H. 3.18.1; 5.16.3; 5.17.4; 5.18.3 as parallels to The Error chap. 25.2 (ACW 37.101) and chap. 27.3 (ACW 37.105). He might have cited also A.H. 3.19.1; 3.19.3; 3.21.10; 3.22.3; 5.19.1; 5.21.1. Possibly there is a borrowing in chap. 21.2, where Firmicus speaks of the Lernean Hydra, from Irenaeus, A.H. 1.30.15. To be noted also is that, according to Forbes (ACW 37.31-32); “Vecchi sees a clear proof of Firmicus' discipleship to Irenaeus in his invariable attribution of the authorship of the Old Testament to the Holy Spirit.’” See A. Vecchi, “Guilio Firmico Materno e la ‘Lettera agli Ebrei,’” Convivium 25 (1957) 641-51 (in particular, 650 n. 1). The ideas are certainly Irenaeus's; but the parallels in phrasing are not so strong that one can be certain that Firmicus used Lat. Iren. If his use of Lat. Iren. were proved, since Firmicus's work was written in A.D. 346-47, we would have an argument for a somewhat earlier date for Lat. Iren.

76. The text was discovered in 1904 by K. Ter-Mekerttschian and published by E. Ter-Minassiantz in TU 35.2 (1910) viii-264.

77. See also on this J. B. Pitra, Analecta sacra 4 (Paris 1883) 33, 304. H. Jordan, Armenische Irenaeusfragmente mit deutscher Übersetzung nach Dr. W. Lüdtke zum Teil erstmalig herausgegeben und untersucht (TU 36.3 [1913] viii-222), gives twenty-nine Armenian fragments with a German version.

78. See Vernet 2403. Harvey 1. clxiv, following Massuet (Diss. 2.2 [MG 7.237A]), believes that there was no complete Syrian version. The fragments referred to are in Harvey 2.431-53 and Pitra, Analecta sacra 17-25, 292-99. A. Houssiau, “Vers une édition critique de S. Irénée,” RHE 48 (1953) 143, agrees that the Syriac fragments do not come from a full translation of A.H., but from Syriac works, such as Severus of Antioch and Timothy Aelurus.

79. Cf. SC 100.39-40.

80. Cf. SC 100.39.

81. Cunningham (Irenaeus xxvii) contends that Harvey's debt to Stieren is much greater than is generally realized.

82. The chronology of publication is set forth by A. Rousseau in SC 293.7-14, which is summarized in Donovan, “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship” 220. M. Geerard, CPG 1.110, refers to the SC edition as an “editionis laudatae.”

83. Before the Reverend Dominic J. Unger died in July, 1982, he asked me to update and complete the work that still remained before this translation could be published. He regretted that he had not able to compare his translation with the text published by A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau in SC 263-64 in 1974. His translation has been checked against the SC text and modified where this was deemed necessary. I want to thank the Capuchin Province of Mid-America for the opportunity to work on this translation and also thank three of his confreres: the Reverend Blaine Burkey, O.F.M.Cap.; the Reverend Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap.; and the Reverend Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap., for helping me on numerous occasions. Thanks are also owed to the Reverend Gerald O’Collins, S.J.; Doctor Margaret Schatkin; the Reverend Daniel Mindling, O.F.M. Cap.; and the Reverend Paul Watson for bibliographical assistance. Finally, I am grateful to the members of the Mother of God Community, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for their support and assistance (Ed. Note).

84. On this problem see SC 100.186-91 and SC 152.31-34. See also SC 210.47-48 where L. Doutreleau takes issue with what F. Sagnard had written in SC 34.77-78.

85. D. J. Unger was not able to review Irenäus: Gott im Fleisch und Blut ausgewählt und übertragen von Hans Urs Von Balthasar (Einsiedeln 1981). This work is a translation of selected passages of the Adversus haereses and the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching organized around six themes: the Sign of the Son of Man, the True God and the False God, Faith and Gnosis, Salvation History, Incarnation as Recapitulation, and Fulfillment in God. Von Balthasar's introduction to this volume presents a perceptive and sympathetic overview of Irenaeus's theological concerns. This volume is now available in English: The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies, introduced and selected by H. U. von Balthasar, trans. J. Saward (San Francisco 1990) (Ed. Note).

List of Abbreviations

ACW: Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, Md.-London-New York-Paramus, N.J.-Mahwah, N.J. 1946-)

ANF: The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, N.Y. 1885-96; repr. Grand Rapids, Mich. 1951-56)

Athanasius, Ar.: 1-3 Athanasius, Orationes tres adversus Arianos

Augustine, C. Jul.: Augustine, Contra Julianum libri 6

Augustine, Catech. rud.: Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus

Augustine, Civ.: Augustine, De civitate Dei

Augustine, Doct. christ.: Augustine, De doctrina christiana

Augustine, Haer.: Augustine, De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum

Basil, Spirit.: Basil, Liber de Spiritu sancto

Benoît: A. Benoît, Saint Irénée: Introduction à l’étude de sa théologie (Paris 1960)

Bibl. Stud.: Biblische Studien

BKV: Bibliothek der Kirchenväter² (Kempten and Munich 1911-31)

BLE: Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique

Caesar, Gall.: Caesar, De bello Gallico

CBQ: Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CCL: Corpus christianorum, series latina

CE: Catholic Encyclopedia (New York 1907-14)

Cicero, De orat.: Cicero, De oratore

Cicero, Rab. Post.: Cicero, Pro C. Rabiro Postumo oratio

Cicero, Tusc.: Cicero, Tusculanarum disputationum liber

Clement of Alexandria, Ecl.: Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae ex scripturis propheticis

Clement of Alexandria, Exc. Thdot.: Clement of Alexandria, Excerpta Theodoti

Clement of Alexandria, Paed.: Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus

Clement of Alexandria, Str.: Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis

Coll. Messina: The Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina 13-18 April 1966, ed. U. Bianchi (Leiden 1970)

CPG 1: Clavis Patrum Graecorum, vol. 1: Patres Antenicaeni, ed. M. Geerard (Turnhout 1983)

CSCO: Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium (Paris et alibi 1903-)

CSEL: Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum (Vienna 1866-)

CW: The Classical World

Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech.: Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis

DACL: Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris 1907-53)

DBS: Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément (Paris 1928-)

DCB: A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines (London 1877-87)

DHGE: Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques (Paris 1912-)

DPAC: Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane (Casale Monferrato 1983-88)

DSp: Dictionnaire de spiritualité (Paris 1932-)

DTC: Dictionnaire de théologie catholique (Paris 1903-50)

Dufourcq Irénée: A. Dufourcq, Saint Irénée, Les Saints (Paris 1904)

Dufourcq Pensée: A. Dufourcq, La pensée chrétienne (Paris 1905)

Epiphanius, Haer.: Epiphanius, Panarion seu Adversus lxxx haereses

Eusebius, H.e.: Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica

Eusebius, P.e.: Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica

Filaster, Haer.: Filaster, Diversarum haereseon liber

GCS: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipzig 1897-)

Gk. Epiph.: The Greek text of Irenaeus's Adversus haereses contained in Epiphanius (ed. K. Holl, GCS 25 [1915], 31 [1922], 37 [1933])

Goodspeed: Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen, ed. E. J. Goodspeed (Göttingen 1914)

Grabe: The edition of the Adversus haereses by J. E. Grabe (Oxford 1702)

Harvey: The edition of the Adversus haereses by W. W. Harvey (Cambridge 1857)

HERE: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings (New York and Edinburgh 1908-26)

Hermas, Mand.: Hermas, Mandata pastoris

Hippolytus, Haer.: Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium sive philosophoumena

Hippolytus, Trad. ap.: Hippolytus, Traditio apostolica

Homer, Il.: Homer, Ilias

Homer, Od.: Homer, Odyssea

HTR: Harvard Theological Review

Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrn.: Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Smyrnaeos

JEH: Journal of Ecclesiastical History

Jerome, Ad Jovin.: Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum libri 2

Jerome, Epist.: Jerome, Epistula

Jerome, In Tit.: Jerome, Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ad Titum

Jerome, Vir. ill.: Jerome, De viris illustribus

JThS: Journal of Theological Studies

Justin, Dial.: Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo

Justin, 1, 2 Apol.: Justin, Apologiae

Klebba, BKV: Des heiligen Irenäus Fünf Bücher gegen die Häresin, trans. E. Klebba, BKV 3-4 (Kempten 1912)

Lampe, PGL: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Oxford 1961)

Lat. Iren.: The Latin version of Irenaeus's Adversus haereses

Lebreton-Zeiller: J. Lebreton and J. Zeiller, History of the Primitive Church, trans. E. C. Messenger (New York 1942-47)

LSJ: A Greek-English Lexicon compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott revised and augmented by H. Stuart Jones and R. McKenzie et al. (Oxford 1940)

LSJ Suppl.: H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon: A Supplement, ed. E. A. Barber et al. (Oxford 1968)

LTK: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg 1930-38)

LTK²: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2d ed. (Freiburg 1957-67)

Lundström Studien: S. Lundström, Studien zur lateinische Irenäusübersetzung (Lund 1943)

Mannucci: Irenaei Lugdunensis Episcopi Adversus Haereses Libri Quinque (Rome 1907)

Marius Victorinus, Adv. Arrium: Marius Victorinus, Adversus Arrium libri 4

Marius Victorinus, Gen. div. verb.: Marius Victorinus, De generatione divini verbi

Maximus Confessor, Schol. e.h.: Maximus Confessor, Scholia in Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De ecclesiastica hierarchia

MG: Patrologia graeca, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris 1857-66)

ML: Patrologia latina, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris 1844-64)

M. Polyc.: Martyrium Polycarpi

NCE: New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York 1967)

Nilus the Ascetic, Ep.: Nilus the Ascetic, Epistula

NJBC: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. A. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1990)

NRT: Nouvelle revue théologique

NT Abhand.: Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

OCD²: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2d ed. (Oxford 1970)

ODCC²: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2d ed. (Oxford 1983)

Origen, Cels.: Origen, Contra Celsum

Photius, Cod.: Photius, Bibliothecae codices

Plautus, Most.: Plautus, Mostellaria

Pliny, Nat.: Pliny, Naturalis historia libri 37

PO: Patrologia orientalis (Paris 1904-)

Proof Saint Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. J. Smith, ACW 16

Ps.-Tertullian, Haer.: Ps.-Tertullian, Liber adversus omnes haereses

Quasten Patr.: J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Westminster, Md., Utrecht, and Antwerp 1950-60; repr. Westminster, Md. 1983)

RAC: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950-)

RB: Revue bénédictine

RBibl: Revue biblique

RE: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll (Stuttgart 1893-)

RGG: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3d ed. (Tübingen 1957-65)

RHE: Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique

RPT: Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig 1896-1913)

RSPT: Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques

RechSR: Recherches de science religieuse

RSRUS: Revue des sciences religieuses

RTAM: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale

Rudolph Gnosis: K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. P. W. Coxon, K. H. Kuhn, R. McL. Wilson (Edinburgh 1984; also in paperback edition, San Francisco 1987)

Sagnard Gnose: F. Sagnard, La gnose valentinienne et le témoinage de saint Irénée (Paris 1947)

SC: Sources chrétiennes (Paris 1942-)

SCent: The Second Century

Stieren: The edition of the Adversus haereses by A. Stieren (Leipzig 1848-53)

Tacitus, Ann.: Tacitus, Annales (ab excessu divi Augusti) libri 16

TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich and trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1964-76)

Tertullian, Adv. Marc.: Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem

Tertullian, Adv. Val.: Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos

Tertullian, Anim.: Tertullian, De anima

Tertullian, Praescr.: Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum

Tertullian, Spec.: Tertullian, De spectaculis

Theodoret, Ep.: Theodoret, Epistula

Theodoret, Haer.: Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium

Theophilus of Antioch, Auto.: Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum

ThRdschau: Theologische Rundschau

ThS: Theological Studies

TRE: Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin 1976-)

TU: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig-Berlin 1882-)

VC: Vigiliae christianae

VD: Verbum Domini

Vernet F.: Vernet, “Irénée (Saint),” in DTC 7.2.2394-2533

ZKT: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ZNTW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums

ZRGG: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

ZTK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Abbreviations for books of the Old Testament and New Testament are those found in The Chicago Manual of Style: The 13th Edition of A Manual of Style Revised and Expanded (Chicago and London 1982) 388-89. Where a given book of the Bible is differently designated in the New American Bible (NAB) and in the LXX (and Vulgate), both forms are given. But the NAB designation is given first. For example, 2 Sam. (2 Kings), Sir. (Ecclus.), Rev. (Apoc.). When Psalms are cited, the Septuagint enumeration is given first. For example, Ps. 138(139).13.

Finally, a word about the citation of the justificative notes found in SC 263.167-316. There are often several justificative notes per page. To avoid confusion, the following system of citing these notes is used throughout this volume: SC 263.167 (SC 264.19 n. 1). This indicates which justificative note on p. 167 of SC 263 is meant (i.e., the first note on p. 19 of SC 264).