Steenberg—Tracing the Irenaean Legacy 201history did not have the same lasting intensity and focus of an Athanasius, a Basil,
or a Cyril. Comparatively speaking, we have far less material that bears witness to a
direct Irenaean influence than we do for any of these; and when we examine this mate-
rial as a whole, we find in it a curiously lopsided presentation of Irenaeus’s work and
significance. While a paucity of later testimony is hardly an uncommon situation in
the patristic heritage, it does make the contours of Irenaeus’s influence on later genera-
tions more difficult to trace out. It requires some digging to discover, some assembly to
interpret, and—all the risks notwithstanding—some speculation to advance.
It is in this that I would like to engage, in the present paper; and I would like to
do so under three broad headings. First, there is the question of the legacy Irenaeus
himself inherited: the theological stream in which he stood as a pastor and theolo-
gian of the church. Understanding his influences and personal contexts is a necessary
foundation for seeking out his heritage and influence. Second, I would like to examine
that influence in its more or less immediate context, as well as slightly further afield in
the patristic witness. Who read Irenaeus? Who knew of him, and who articulated the
Christian vision of God in “Irenaean” terms? And then, third and finally, I would like
to explore the question of an abiding Irenaean legacy in that context for which he so
consciously felt himself a defender and supporter throughout his life: the ecclesiastical
milieu of the worshipping church.Past Networks, Inheriting a Legacy
A writer who bears authentic witness to Christian life and thought is always one who
inherits a legacy rather than creates it—at least its substantive measure. This is itself
part of the testimony of Irenaeus, who spends considerable time rebuking those who
have fashioned a tradition and heritage of their own devising.^7 If we are to assess his
legacy, we cannot then but start with his background. This is, however, an area that
will not require too much space in our present study, as consideration of Irenaeus’s
theological ancestry and background has formed part of many of the investigations of
his person over the past century and a half. What is necessary here is a brief reminder
of the major contours.
First, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. This is a well-known, well-worn fact, yet
one of essential significance in understanding Irenaeus’s whole theological and eccle-
siastical framework. His Johannine emphasis has a clear cornerstone here, as does his
consideration of much of what scholars call the “Asiatic tradition” of eschatological
thought (particularly with regard to his chiliastic comments in Ref. 5). But beyond
this, the significance of Irenaeus’s connection to Polycarp is that he learns the faith
as a traditio, a thing “handed down,” person to person, from the incarnate Christ to
every generation of the faithful. He encounters the faith at the feet of his elder,^8 who
had encountered it at the feet of his, who had encountered it at the feet of Christ. This
experience grounds Irenaeus’s lifelong insistence on theological creativity as a danger-
ous game, played primarily by heretics. Continuity is what demarcates true Christian
expression.
This continuity, however, is chiefly of substance. Its expression Irenaeus is more than
willing to embrace as a manifold, varying thing. So he treats of the fourfold expression