Irenaeus

165

Chapter FiFteen

Irenaeus and the Exegetical Roots

of Trinitarian Theology

Stephen O. Presley

I

n 1988 Michael Slusser published an important article entitled “The Exegetical

Roots of Trinitarian Theology.”^1 Slusser’s thesis makes a significant contribution to

the development of trinitarian theology in the early church. He calls attention to the

dominance of analytical analysis in trinitarian discussions and reminds us that the

very terms of the debate (proso ̄pon, hypostasis, ousia, and physis) are derived from

the exegesis of scripture. Thus there is a genetic exegetical discussion underlying the

analytical one and the analytical trinitarian debates should recognize their inherited

exegesis. Slusser notes the earliest trinitarian term to gain currency in the theological

exegesis of the early church fathers is “person” (proso ̄pon). The concept of proso ̄pon

became particularly important in the interpretation of dialogical passages of scrip-

ture—such as Gen. 1:26 or Psalm 110:1—which became an exegetical practice that

has now been technically labeled “prosopological exegesis.” Concerning this manner

of exegesis, Slusser concludes, “It was a method of literary and grammatical analysis

of scripture that provided the early Christian thinkers with a way to talk about God

in a trinitarian fashion.”^2

The concept of prosopological exegesis was identified first by Carl Andresen in

his extensive article on the trinitarian concept of person in the early church published

in 1961.^3 According to Andresen, the concept of “person” (proso ̄pon) in the Fathers

was shaped by an exegetical practice he terms “prosopographic” (prosopographische)

exegesis, which is the act of discerning the speaker(s) or proso ̄pon in a given passage

of scripture. This kind of exegesis is highly intensive and the interpreter must attend to

the literary and grammatical nature of the text. In this manner, particular individuals,

pronouns, titles, or names were identified with a particular proso ̄pon of the Trinity.

Following Andresen’s work, Marie-Josèphe Rondeau published a detailed treatment

on the patristic exegesis of the Psalms, which offer some of the premier examples of

divine discourse.^4 Rondeau prefers the term “prosopological exegesis” given that it

more technically describes the practice of identification of speakers in a given text.^5

Rondeau’s work is thorough and lucid, and she finds a widespread early Christian liter-

ary analysis of the Psalms that sought to identify the proper interlocutors within the

fabric of the textual dialogue. Furthermore, the early Fathers utilized this method in