Steenberg—Tracing the Irenaean Legacy 209
The only thing of which we can be certain is that evidence of Irenaeus’s major work in
its original, for all the influence it clearly had across the Empire, was thereafter known
only in fragments.^55
Potential Further Influences
Thus far I have treated exclusively of direct Irenaean influence; that is, instances in
which Irenaeus is directly mentioned, reflected upon, and his text quoted—and the
above represents fairly well the full extent of that direct testimony. Is this, then, the
extent of the Irenaean legacy?
There are compelling reasons to think that the answer is “no.” Firstly, setting aside
the instances of simple translation, I would like to return to the fact that the patristic
references to Irenaeus mentioned above pay attention almost exclusively to his polemi-
cal and diplomatic significance, or to his testimony to the martyric witness of his day
and locale. With the exception of Augustine, there is almost nothing in the extant wit-
ness that would count as a theological embrace of Irenaeus’s legacy. That is, no extant
quotation or reference in a patristic work that makes specific mention of Irenaeus does
so in a manner that raises those theological topics by which we today would charac-
terize him—recapitulation, trinity, soteriology, anthropology, etc. This is a significant
observation. It would seem to suggest that, among his successors in the patristic era,
the “Irenaean legacy” amounted chiefly to one of polemical and heresiological testi-
mony, and hardly to a theological witness at all.
But this is precisely where the question of the Irenaean legacy becomes more inter-
esting, for if the things that strike us as “Irenaean” today were in fact considered in
the past, but without any ascription to Irenaeus, we can start to see more clearly how
Irenaeus is giving voice to wider tradition, and not simply his own unique expression.
There are passages in Athanasius, for example, that sound as if they could have been
uttered directly from the lips of Irenaeus. This is particularly true of his De incarnatione
Ve r b i, written in the early days of his episcopacy, before his ongoing involvement in
the post-Nicene controversies caused him to adopt a more technical vocabulary.^56 Here
he speaks in a voice that has not been significantly shaped by the anti-Arian disputes,
and that voice sounds surprisingly “Irenaean.”^57 Still, for all such similarities, Athana-
sius does not claim his expressions to have an Irenaean origin (nor does he mention
Irenaeus’s text, even though it existed in Alexandria at the time). This ought to prompt
us to ask just what is “Irenaean” about the “Irenaean theology” we so often explore.
We might today characterize a recapitulative soteriology, a lack of “fall” language and
concept of maturing humanity, and the like, as “Irenaean” themes, but Athanasius can
discuss each of these without tying them to the bishop of Lyons.
This is equally true elsewhere. Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Maximus
the Confessor—all betray signs of “Irenaean” expression but do not link it to Irenaeus.^58
It is interesting (and, as I will demonstrate in a moment, telling) that among those who
specifically identify Irenaeus in their writings, elements of “Irenaean theology” are
rarely if at all mentioned; while among those in whom we identify strong elements of
such theological vision, it is Irenaeus himself who is not mentioned.