Irenaeus

Presley—Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology 167

be understood. Justin and Tertullian, it seems, have little concern for this dilemma and

assume the only divine “persons” discernable in the text are the Father and the Son,

who speak in and through the Spirit. But in the face of his Gnostic opponents, Irenaeus

is not free to make this assumption. This keen recognition actually elevates Irenaeus’s

position and significance in these early discussions of prosopological exegesis and the

trinitarian concept of “person.”

Irenaeus on Gnostic Prosopological Exegesis
After completing his initial analysis of Valentinian cosmogony and cosmology in Hae r.
I.1-7, Irenaeus describes their manner of scriptural interpretation as an adaptation
(aptare) of their own sayings to the sayings of the prophets, apostles and the Lord’s
words.^12 While there is an obvious complexity to their adaptation of scripture, at least
according to Irenaeus, there is a clear sense in which an aspect of their method involves
identification of divine titles and characters in scripture with various persons within
the Valentianian cosmological and theological framework.^13 This practice yielded new
meanings and new contexts for these narratival and dialogical passages when they
were incorporated into the mythical thought patterns of Gnosticism. Irenaeus demon-
strates an awareness of this interpretative framework in Hae r. I.7.3 saying: “Moreover,
they [Valentinians] divide the prophecies into various classes: one portion they hold
was spoken by the Mother, another by the offspring, and still another by Demiurge. In
the same manner, Jesus had his prophecies partly from Savior, partly from His Mother,
partly from Demiurge, as we shall show as our work proceeds.”^14
Gnostic exegesis, in this case, Valentinian, included the practice of dividing up pas-
sages of scripture and identifying distinctive portions with different characters. Similar
descriptions are found in Hae r. I.24.2 and Hae r. IV.35.1-4. In many cases, this also
included the practice of inserting new events or dialogue into the accounts of scrip-
ture, thereby imaging new dramatic scenes within the contours of the scriptures. This
description of isolation and identification of scriptural accounts with various Gnostic
characters is clearly a type of Gnostic prosopological exegesis.
In addition to these descriptions of the Gnostic prosopological method, Irenaeus
provides several specific examples that depend upon this method.^15 To begin with,
there is the general use of scriptural titles for distinctive aeons within the Valentinian
theological system. For example, the Ogdoad is composed of eight deities titled: Pro-
fundity, Thought, First-Beginning, Beginning, Grace, Silence, Mind, Only-Begotten,
Truth, Word, Life, Man, and Church.^16 These titles are, for the most part, important
terms found throughout the scriptures. The point Irenaeus makes is that these terms
take on new symbolic meaning for the Gnostics; each term refers to their respective
aeons. A similar example is found in Hae r. I.3.1, where Irenaeus describes the Valen-
tinian claim that any reference to “ages” in scripture, such as Ephesians 3:21, “To all
generations of the age of ages,” actually refers to the aeons of the Pleroma. We find a
similar practice in Hae r. I.8.5, where the individual terms of John 1:1-2 are identified
with distinct aeons. After citing John 1:1-2, Irenaeus writes of the Valentinian interpre-
tation saying, “First, he [John] distinguishes these three: God, Beginning, and Word.
Then he [John] unites them in order to show the emission of each one singly, namely