Notes to Chapter 15 247
teaching and liturgies, at least as Irenaeus describes them, and in contrast to those of other Gnostics, are very
self-focused). Whether Irenaeus has specific evidence against any of Marcus’s male associates, who he claims
have caused marital ravages on the banks of the Rhone, is another question. They may be a group of libertines
casually breaking hearts and marriages, or they may simply be an attractive target for bored local women.
- See II.30.9, III.24.2, IV.7.4 (the famous “hands of God” passage), IV.20.1-4.
- E.g., III.24.2.
- III.24.1.
- II.12.2.
- II.12.3.
- II.18.1.
- II.18.5-6.
- II.30.1-9.
- Mary Ann Donovan (One Right Reading? A Guide to Irenaeus [Collegeville: Liturgical, 1997] 88, 157)
gives a helpful account of Irenaeus’s teaching on Mary and Eve (as on much else). She also quotes from an
interesting unpublished paper of Rebecca Lyman’s on this topic, given in 1988. The Mary and Eve passages are
found at Hae r. III.22.4 and V.19.1. - III.21.10—22.3.
- I.13.2-3.
- Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 59–60. Having no Irenaean quotation to give to back up her claim regarding
his views on women and the Eucharist, she cites the views of the layman and Montanist Tertullian from a dif-
ferent part of the Empire a generation later instead. - “Through all these things, therefore, they are sinning against the Spirit of God with an unpardonable
sin.” III.11.9. - The Montanists, including the women prophets Priscilla and Maximilla, are likely to be lurking in the
background of this passage. - I.13.4.
- Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology
- Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots of Trinitarian Theology,” TS 49 (1988): 465.
- Ibid., 475.
- Carl Andresen, “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes,” ZNW 52 (1961):
1–39. - Marie-Josèphe Rondeau, Les commentateurs patristiques du Psautier (IIIe–Ve siècles) 1: Les travaux des
Pères grecs et latins sur le Psautier. Recherches et bilan; 2: Exégèse prosopologique et théologie (Rome: Pont. Ins-
titutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982, 1985). - Rondeau, Les commentateurs, 1: 19. Rondeau and Slusser agree that “prosopological exegesis” more
clearly explains this early Christian method of exegesis, because this term implies the identification of speak-
ers in a text. On the other hand, Andresen’s term, “prosopographic exegesis,” suggests a listing or catalog of
speaker(s) in a text. See Slusser, “Exegetical Roots,” 462–63. - Rondeau, Les commentateurs, 2: 13–14.
- Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots,” 466–68. Cf. Dial. 50.1.
- Justin describes this prosopological method in 1 Apol. 36 saying: “Sometimes He [the Logos] declares
things that are to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future, sometimes he speaks as from
the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ; sometimes as from the
person of the people answering the Lord or His Father.” St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, trans.
Leslie W. Barnard, Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Paulist, 1997). In 1 Apol. 37–49, Justin follows the
description of this method with examples of prosopological exegesis. Likewise, Tertullian also describes his
prosopological method in Adv. Prax. 11: “So in these [passages], few though they be, yet the distinctiveness of
the Trinity is clearly expounded: for there is the Spirit himself who makes the statement, the Father to whom
he makes it, and the Son of whom he makes it. So also the rest, which are statements made sometimes by the
Father concerning the Son or to the Son, sometimes by the Son concerning the Father or to the Father, some-
times by the Spirit, establish each several Person as being himself and none other.” Adversus Praxean Liber:
Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas, trans. Ernest Evans (London: SPCK, 1948), 144–45. There is a sense in
which Tertullian’s last statement may hint as Irenaeus’s concerns.