Notes to Chapter 12 243
the Gospel of John is to be included in the Memoirs known to Justin, but whatever Justin’s knowledge of the
Gospel, it left no discernible mark on his description of God as Father.
- Tim. 29e in Haer. III.25.5 (SC 211: 486).
- For an analysis of the conception of divine fatherhood in the writings of Origen and Athanasius, see
Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000). - SC 294: 114–16.
- SC 100: 640–44. Greek citations are from the fragments collected in the SC edition of Hae r.
- SC 294: 362.
- Origen discusses the issue of names and God in Contra Celsum VII.42-5 and elsewhere. In Commen-
tary on John XIX.5, he appears to regard “Father” as one of the names for God. In De decretis 22 and de Synodis
34-5, Athanasius maintains that the name “Father” signifies God’s essence itself. - 1 Apol. 61.10-11.
- Haer. III.17.1 (SC 211: 328–30); Dem. 3. The translation of Dem. used in this study is that of John Behr,
On the Apostolic Preaching (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997). - In Dial. 4.1, in the course of describing the Platonic understanding of how human beings come to a
knowledge of God, Justin alludes to a collage of the Platonic texts commonly referred to by Middle Platonists
in their discussions of divine ineffability. - In dial. 5.5-6.
- One of three ways to approach a conception of God set out by Alcinous in Didaskalikos 10.5-6.
- Autol. I.3-4.
- SC 294: 60.
- He had charged his opponents with this misinterpretation earlier, in I.20.3, but did not give a reply
there. Here, Irenaeus introduces the discussion in IV.6.1 by explaining that Christ made the statement to
reprove the Jews, who thought that they had the knowledge of God while nevertheless rejecting the Word
through whom he is known. The question of the nature of the Jewish knowledge of God will arise again below. - SC 100: 436-8. See the discussion by Rousseau in SC 100: 207-8, and, with reference to the occurrence
of the verse in Haer. I.20.2, in SC 263: 266. Justin Martyr also knew the verse with the verb in the aorist rather
than in the present ( 1 Apol. 63.3), but does not comment on it. Irenaeus appears to have been unconcerned
about the order in which the words Father and Son appear in the verse, as he himself used both orders (cf.
Hae r. II.6.1; IV.6.3; IV.6.7). - Hae r. IV.6.1 (SC 100: 438).
- Hae r. IV.6.6 (SC 100: 448). One might have thought that Irenaeus would have appealed to the occur-
rence of references to God as Father in the Old Testament to help make his point. He certainly knew texts in
which God is described as Father—he quotes Malachi 2:10, for instance, in Haer. III. 20.2. That he does not
may simply reflect that fatherhood usage is not something about which he has a deliberative sense. Origen, on
the other hand, makes the references to God as Father in the Old Testament a matter of discussion. Despite
his concern to refute Marcionism, Origen downplays the significance of the references in the Old Testament
in favor of his contention that the incarnation brought about an intimacy in the addressing of God as Father
not seen in the Old Testament. God, according to Origen, is not addressed as “Father” in prayer in the Old
Testament (ComJn XIX.26-8; Prayer 20.1, 22.1). - Hae r. IV.6.2 (SC 100: 438).
- Hae r. IV.6.6 (SC 100: 448).
- Dem. 8.
- SC 211: 478–80.
- SC 153: 220–22.
- SC 100: 534–36.
- SC 100: 570–74.
- SC 211: 370–74.
- ComJn I.29.201-2.
- ComJn XX.17.135-9.
- A point he makes on a number of occasions. See ComJn XIX.5.26-28; Prayer 22.1; Hom. in Lc., frg. 73.
- For instance, in Haer. II.9.1 (SC 294: 82); V.17.1 (SC 153: 222). Irenaeus did not make prayer a topic of
discussion in his writings, whereas, of course, Origen did. - SC 211: 364–66.