Irenaeus

166 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy

their theological analysis of the doctrine of the Trinity and the related concept of “per-
s o n” (proso ̄pon).^6 Although they differ on certain points, it seems the general thesis of
prosopological exegesis distilled by Andresen, Rondeau, and Slusser is sound, and one
does not necessarily have to agree with this method to recognize that this is what is
going on in Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and later Fathers.
It is observable, however, that in these treatments of early Christian prosopological
exegesis Irenaeus receives minimal attention. Andresen, Rondeau, and Slusser each
provide fine treatments of Justin and Tertullian. They all note that Justin has a detailed
description of prosopological exegesis in 1 Apol. 36 and, as Slusser observes, this
method of exegesis is also essential to his “second God” argument in the Dialogue. Jus-
tin uses these dialogical scripture texts to demonstrate the existence of “another God
besides the one who made all things.”^7 Tertullian provides a similar analysis in Adv.
Prax. 11 and supports his analysis with a discussion of several passages of scripture.^8
It is obvious that Irenaeus is aware of this methodology. Both Rondeau and
Slusser mention his use of prosopological exegesis in Dem. 49–50 and the identifi-
cation of the interlocutors in Isa. 45:1 and Psalm 2:7.^9 Rondeau even suggests that
Irenaeus is dependent upon Justin in this section. Furthermore, a recent article by
Charles Kannengiesser reveals Irenaeus’s exegetical preference for dialogical pas-
sages. According to Kannengiesser, Irenaeus frequently cites texts, in this case Gen-
esis, “specifically for staging the scriptural ‘deus locutor.’”^10 Kannengiesser infers that
Irenaeus prefers these dialogical passages because they offer a means to explain his
theological perspective. These very same dialogical passages are the focal texts of the
early prosopological methodology.
Given the breadth with which this practice permeated early Christian exegesis, how
can Irenaeus commit countless pages to argue through detailed exegesis of scripture
texts, especially dialogical texts, and not more explicitly detail and utilize this method?
I would like to suggest that the reason the bishop of Lyons is not more prominent in
these discussions of prosopological exegesis is due principally to his polemical context
and argumentation. Although he utilizes this method to a certain degree, Irenaeus is
not nearly as enamored with it as others appear to be, because he recognizes that this
is the very same method exploited by his Gnostic opponents. In the same manner as
Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, the Gnostics were discerning the speakers in a given
passage and conforming the dramatic dialogical scenes to their theological framework.
Irenaeus’s explicit support for this method would only validate and enhance the Gnos-
tic practice of discerning any number of speakers in scripture.
But it is to Irenaeus’s credit that in the face of competing Gnostic exegesis, he recog-
nizes that any prosopological methodology requires certain theological assumptions.
Irenaeus must take a step back from the methodological discussions to defend the
theological framework underlying the very procedure itself. For this reason, Irenaeus
goes to great lengths to prove that “neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name
another God or call him Lord except the true and only God.”^11 In other words, the only
possible divine referent found in scripture is the one true God and, likewise, any divine
allusion must refer to either Father or the Son. This naturally assumes a kind of theo-
logical framework or regula fidei by which the narratival accounts of scripture might