Rondeau, Les commentateurs, 2: 29. Slusser appears to concur with this connection as well. Slusser, “The
Exegetical Roots,” 464. The passage of Dem. 49 reads: “Since David says, ‘The Lord says to me,’ it is necessary
to affirm that it is not David nor any other one of the prophets, who speaks from himself—for it is not man
who utters prophecies—but that the Spirit of God, conforming Himself to the person (prosopon) concerned,
spoke in the prophets, producing words sometimes from Christ and at other times from the Father.” Unless
otherwise noted, translations of the Demonstration are drawn from John Behr, On the Apostolic Preaching
(Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997).
Charles Kannengiesser, “The ‘Speaking God’ and Irenaeus’s Interpretative Pattern: The Reception of
Genesis,” ASE 15/2 (1998): 344. Kannengiesser writes: “Chapter 3 is the most often quoted chapter of Genesis
in Irenaeus.... Thus the detailed quotation of Genesis 3 in Hae r. III and V reveals the same inclination in
Irenaeus’s predispositions to stage the ‘speaking’ God, the ‘deus locutor’ of the biblical narrative. He catches
thereby one of the most dramatic elements in that narrative, and assimilates it to his own theological dis-
course” (“The ‘Speaking God,’” 342).
Hae r. III.8.1.
Hae r. I.8.1.
For a recent discussion of this practice, see Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis
Stories and Early Jesus Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Luttikhuizen borrows from the work of Jauss and
describes how “[T]he response of Gnostics to scripture and early Christian texts was greatly determined by
the relationship of these texts to their own favored traditions. The intertextual tension between the scripture
texts and their Gnostic interpretations betrays that on essential points the thought structure of the inter-
preters differed from what they found in the texts” (Gnostic Revisions, 5).
Unless otherwise noted, translations from Hae r. I are adapted from D. J. Unger and J. J. Dillon,
St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies, Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1992). As we
will discuss later, Slusser notes this passage and briefly discusses a type of christological Gnostic exegesis,
but clearly Irenaeus’s point is not reserved to christological discussions. The “prophecies” must include
the Old Testament, and his point emphasizes the variety of Gnostic deities that are discernable in the
scriptures.
Hae r. IV.35.4.
Hae r. IV.1.1.
Hae r. IV.8.5.
Hae r. IV.18.1.
Hae r. IV.5.4.
Hae r. IV.30.6.
Hae r. IV.30.6.
Hae r. IV.24.1.
See similar use of Isa. 45:5-6: Hae r. I.29.4.
Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots,” 470. Slusser writes: “Neither Origen nor Justin, however, engages in
dividing up the sayings and deeds of Christ and assigning them to two speakers or agents as some other writ-
ers of their time did. The first to do that were the Gnostics, particularly those concerned to distinguish the
Christ from above and the Jesus from below.” Slusser goes on to discuss how Tertullian had a similar practice
that identified particular passages with the divinity or the humanity of Christ, respectively. Cf. Adv. Prax. 27
and 30.
Hae r. I.7.4.
Hae r. III.16.6.
Hae r. III.6.1.
The key prosopological formula “as from a person” (hos apo prosopou) is found throughout the early
Fathers from Justin onward. Slusser, “The Exegetical Roots,” 463–64. Andresen, “Zur Entstehung,” 12–14.
Rondeau, Les commentateurs, 2: 8.
His mentions of scripture include: Psalm 110:1, Gen. 19:24, Psalm 45:6, Psalm 82:1, Psalm 50:1, Psalm
50:3, Isa. 65:1, Psalm 82:6, Exod. 3:14, Exod. 3:8, and Isa. 43:10. He also cites Rom. 8:15.
Hae r. III.6.1.
Irenaeus does discuss the theological implications of the interactions of the Father and the Son,
in Psalm 110:1. This is the Father addressing the Son. Irenaeus argues, therefore, that the Father gives and
the Son receives and the Father subjects and the Son is the one to whom all things are subjected. But the
