Irenaeus

(Nandana) #1

Notes to Chapter 18 253


Aurelius, A Biography (New York: Routledge, 2000), 152. We do not know precisely when Irenaeus moved
from Rome to Gaul; the earliest specific testimony of his presence there is his conveyance of a letter from the
confessors of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius c. 177. In any case, it is doubtful that he would have left for Gaul prior
to the supposed dating of Justin’s martyrdom.



  1. See Ref. IV.6.2, the famous passage where Irenaeus considers Justin by name, quoting him as a fore-
    bear in articulating a recapitulative soteriology; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV.18.9. On the difficulties
    involved in this passage, see M.C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemp-
    tion, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 17, 18; Grant, Irenaeus, 39. There are many
    other passages where Irenaeus is clearly influenced by Justin, giving evidence also that he knew Justin’s now-
    lost Against All Heresies.

  2. Ref. III.3.2. For an assertion that there was indeed an overlap between Irenaeus and Valentinus in
    Rome, see W.C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A Preliminary Survey of the Nag Hammadi
    Find, Studies in Biblical Theology 30 (London: SCM, 1960), 62.

  3. Irenaeus’ admonitions to his reader-recipient in Ref. I.Praef. seem clearly addressed to someone of
    clerical office and episcopal responsibility. See the useful comments to this end in D. Unger and J. Dillon, St.
    Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies, Book 1, Ancient Christian Writers 55 (New York: Paulist, 1992), 4–6.

  4. Osborn, Irenaeus, 9; after H. Ziegler, Irenäus der Bischof von Lyon (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1871).

  5. Cf. Ref. I.Praef.2, 3.

  6. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V.24.11-14.

  7. Cf. Ref. I.10.1, 2; Dem. 1, 3.

  8. Osborn, Irenaeus, 6.

  9. There are also portions of Ref. V.3.2—V.13.3 in the fourth-century “Irenäus-Papyrus” fragments in the
    Jena Collection (P.Jen.Inv. Irenaeus Frgs.). It is a great boon to Irenaean studies that these fragments are now
    available in good-resolution on-line versions, thanks to Prof. Dr. R. Thiel at the Institut für Altertumswis-
    senschaften in Jena.

  10. Cf. Ref. I.Praef.3.

  11. We should not take the presence of Irenaeus in Africa in his lifetime as evidence that the Refutation
    was written to the Christian community there; there is simply too much evidence of its Italian focus. See
    Unger and Dillon, Against Heresies, 5, 6.

  12. To repeat Unger’s reminder: “Hippolytus wrote in Greek at Rome for the Romans” (ibid., 5).

  13. A view that was first put forward by H. Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum (Oxford: E Theatro Shel-
    doniano, 1689), 400, 401; see also B. Altaner, Augustinus und Irenäus, TU 83 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche,
    1967), 172. Further details on the history of this view are found in Irenaeus, Against the Heresies I, trans. Unger
    and Dillon, 122–23, n.75.

  14. This was strongly asserted by Unger and Dillon, Against Heresies, 14; cf. F. J. A. Hort, “Did Tertullian Use
    the Latin Irenaeus?” in Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensis, ed. W. Sanday and C. H. Turner
    (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), xliv. Unger reminds us, too, of the (indefensible, as he shows) claim put forward by
    Feuardent, that Tertullian himself translated Irenaeus into Latin (cf. PG 1.1340c, d); as well as the (equally inde-
    fensible) claim of Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum, 397–400, that the Latin translator had used Tertullian.

  15. Unger and Dillon, Against Heresies, 14, 15. See Unger’s listing of scholars who have supported this
    earlier dating (121, n.74). These include Grabe, Massuet, Sanday, D’Alès, Hitchcock, Sagnard, and Camelot.

  16. There is significant testimony to the Latin version in the nine manuscripts that survive. For a brief
    survey, see Unger and Dillon, Against Heresies, 12–15.

  17. See Clement of Alexandria, Instructor III.21 (cf. Ref. IV.16.4, 5); Miscellanies IV.13 (cf. Ref. I.5). At
    Miscellanies I.21, Clement contradicts Irenaeus on the interpretation of the “year of the Lord” in Isaiah 61:2
    indicating a one-year duration to Christ’s public preaching (cf. Ref. II.22.5), though it is unclear whether he
    had Irenaeus’s reading in mind when doing so.

  18. See Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies VI.37, 50. The tradition of Hippolytus being Irenaeus’ dis-
    ciple, recounted by Photius (Bibliotheca 121), we can consider spurious.

  19. Cf. Osborn, Irenaeus, 7. For details on various positions argued as to an Asia Minor-Gaul connection, see
    Les martyrs de Lyon (177) (Paris: Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1978).

  20. Osborn, Irenaeus, 6, 7.

  21. It is noteworthy that the praise of Irenaeus as peacemaker, as bringer of unity, comes from Eusebius,
    who, following the Nicene debates and his support of Constantine, was himself wont to identify voices of unity
    from history.

Free download pdf