Bingham—Irenaeus and Hebrews 79Allusions, rather than indicating the incidental function of scripture, indicate its
normative place. But they witness to something else as well. Allusions are selected from
a pool, and selection is interpretation that “occurs mainly for social reasons.”^90 These
social, or cultural profiles “correspond to the present view of reality and of the world.”^91
Therefore, allusions reflect what a culture currently believes to be paramount. Allu-
sions are windows into prominent communal values. They are also windows into the
whole pool of tradition for “even the smallest word or phrase... refers in some degree
to the whole and to the authority that the whole commands.”^92
Irenaeus’s use of Hebrews demonstrates, then, the presence of a text, the language
and ideology of which has seeped selectively and quietly into his polemic. Its pres-
ence is not, apparently, as easily recognized as it was to Eusebius in the collection of
Irenaeus’s writings with which he was familiar but which are no longer available to us.
But present, in Adversus haereses, it seems to be, nevertheless. Its presence, perhaps,
is not more obvious because Irenaeus rejected its Pauline authorship and therefore,
in polemic against the Gnostics and Marcionites, he feels the need to be subtle. This
seems also to hold true for Tertullian, who believed that Barnabas wrote Hebrews
and in On Modesty (20.2) cites Heb. 6:4-8, but who, in Adv. Marc., does not provide a
defense for the apostolicity of Hebrews, although he defends all of Paul’s epistles.^93 He
never cites nor appears to allude to Hebrews in Adversus Valentinianos and never cites
the Letter in his Adversus Marcionem, although there appear to be recognizable allu-
sions to at least Heb. 1:14 and 4:12.^94 Tertullian appears to use it in a subtle way, typical
of Irenaeus, perhaps because Marcion did not recognize Hebrews as apostolic.^95 In
anti-Valentinian and anti-Marcionite polemic, catholic authors do not seem to make
obvious use of Hebrews. But it does inform Tertullian and Irenaeus in their polemics.
Suffice it now to conclude that although perhaps in a different manner than
Eusebius knew it, Adversus haereses also provides evidence of the important place of
Hebrews in the theological work of the bishop of Lyons. Perhaps hesitant to explicitly
cite it in this polemical work, because of his argument’s tie to the apostolic tradition,
he, regardless, has its language and ideology in his mind. It informs his concept of
Catholicity and his response to those who think it appropriate to depart from it.