2002 Reed Vc-libre

7252019 2002 Reed Vc-libre

httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2002-reed-vc-libre 136

EUAGGELION ORALITY TEXTUALITY AND THE

CHRISTIAN TRUTH IN IRENAEUSrsquo ADVERSUS HAERESES

by

ANNETTE YOSHIKO REED

Irenaeus and the Formation of the New Testament Canon

In Adv haer 3118 Irenaeus describes the Gospels of Matthew MarkLuke and John as the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo (tetrlsaquomorfon tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion )likening them to the four-faced cherubim upon which the Logos sitsenthroned (cf Rev 47 Ezek 1014) and asserting that ldquoit is not possiblethat the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they arerdquo

As the rst extant defense of the unique authority of the four now canon-

ical gospels this text has proved pivotal for the reconstruction of the earlystages in the development of the NT canon Although interpretations of its exact signicance diV er most scholars seem to agree that in the wordsof T C Skeat

Every study of the Canon of the Four Gospels begins and rightly beginswith the famous passage in which Irenaeus writing about the year 185 seeksto defend the Canon by nding a mystical signicance in the number four1

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2002 Vigiliae Christianae 56 11-46

This article owes much to the insightful comments and kind encouragement of Elaine Pagels with whom I have had the pleasure to share many lively and fruitful dis-cussions of Irenaeusrsquo thought For their helpful feedback on earlier drafts I would alsolike to thank Yannis Papadoyannakis John Gager Adam Becker Kirsti Copeland andthe editors of Vigiliae Christianae as well as my brilliant and beloved husband DoveSussman

1 T C Skeat ldquoIrenaeus and the four-gospel canonrdquo Novum Testamentum 34 (1992)194 For instance Bruce Metzger cites Adv haer 3118 to conclude that ldquothe GreatChurch by the time of Irenaeus had ceased to recognize any but the four Gospelsrdquo andthat ldquofor Irenaeus the Gospel canon is closed and its text is holyrdquo (The Canon of the New

Testament [Oxford Clarendon 1987] 154-55 so also Skeat ldquoIrenaeus and the four-gospel canonrdquo 198-99 Graham Stanton ldquoThe Fourfold Gospelrdquo New Testament Studies

43 [1997] 322 Alain Le Boulluec ldquoLrsquoEacutecriture comme norme heacutereacutesiologique dans lescontroverses des IIe et IIIe siecles [domaine grec]rdquo in G Schoumlllgen and C Scholteneds Stimuli Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum Festschrift fuumlr Ernst Dassmann

[Muumlnster AschendorV sche 1996] 72) The issue of whether Irenaeus in fact aims to



Consequently Irenaeus has often been understood as a seminal gurewho marks a decisive turning-point in the history of the Church Characteristicis Hans Von Campenhausenrsquos assertion that Irenaeus signals

the transition from the earlier period of belief in tradition to the new ageof deliberate canonical standardizationmdasha transition in the direction of laterorthodoxy in which the Canon of the Old and New Testament was rmlylaid down2

The dichotomy of Scripture and Tradition however proves problem-atic in light of the importance of tradition (parlsaquodosiw ) within Irenaeusrsquoown thinking as well as his many comments defending the authenticity of

the oral traditions that unify the universal Church (eg 1102 341-25201-2)3

12 annette yoshiko reed

promote a canon in the later sense of that term will be discussed in length belowConcerning the assumption that Adv haer 3117-9 presupposes an already establishedldquoGospel canonrdquo the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment here proves critical If oneaccepts the traditional second century dating of this text (eg Stanton ldquoFourfold Gospelrdquo322-25 Metzger Canon of the New Testament 193) Irenaeusrsquo comments might reect the

proto-orthodox consensus at his time However following A Sundberg GeoV

rey MarkHahneman has recently argued against the traditional dating of this Fragment propos-ing a fourth century dating (The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon [OxfordClarendon 1992] 215-18) Even if Hahnemanrsquos thesis does not prove wholly conclu-sive many scholars now agree that his arguments are convincing enough that we can-not base our reconstruction of the early development of the NT canon too heavily uponthis one document (eg Lee M McDonald The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon

[Peabody MA Hendrickson 1995] 209-20 Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels

[London SCM Press 1990] 243) Without the corroborating evidence of the Fragment

however it becomes problematic to assume that Irenaeus simply presupposes an estab-lished ldquoCanon of the Four Gospelsrdquomdashrather than attempting to defend the authorityof these texts (see Hahneman Muratorian Fragment 100-105)

2 Hans von Campenhausen The Formation of the Christian Canon translated by J ABaker (Philadelphia Fortress 1972) 182 Although his subsequent analysis of Irenaeusis more sophisticated than this sweeping generalization suggests (see eg pp 182-83) itremains signicant insofar as it is frequently quoted (eg McDonald Formation of the

Christian Biblical Canon 164-65 Helmut Merkel Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien

Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin [Tuumlbingen Mohr1971] 51) See also Frances M Young Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture

(Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1997) 290-913 Andreacute Benoit ldquoEacutecriture et Tradition chez Saint Ireacuteneacuteerdquo Revue drsquoHistoire et de Philosophie

Religieuses 40 (1960) 32-43 esp 36-37 41 John Lawson Biblical Theology of Irenaeus

(London Epworth 1948) 87-93 Denis Minns Irenaeus (Washington DC GeorgetownUniversity Press 1994) 116-22 also Alain Le Boulluec La notion drsquoheacutereacutesie dans la litteacutera-

ture grecque II e -III e siegravecles Tome I De Justin agrave Ireacuteneacutee (Paris Eacutetudes Augustiniennes 1985)236 idem ldquoLrsquoEacutecriture comme norme heacutereacutesiologiquerdquo 72-73 76



4 On the origin and meaning of this phrase see Emmanuel Lanne ldquolsquoLa Regravegle dela Veacuteriteacutersquo Aux sources drsquoune expression de saint Ireacuteneacuteerdquo Studia Anselmiana 79 (1980)59-70 Heinz Ohme Kanon Ekklesiastikos Die Bedeutung des altkirchlichen Kanonbegri V s (Berlin

Walter de Gruyter 1998) 61-77 Bengt Haumlgglund ldquoDie Bedeutung der lsquoregula deirsquo alsGrundlage theologischer Aussagenrdquo Studia Theologica 12 (1958) 4-19 In his Epideixis Irenaeus uses the related phrase kanAElign tdegw pUcircstevw (ldquoRule of Faithrdquo) For a discussionof the signicance of such formulae for the development of doctrinal creeds see also J N D Kelly Early Christian Creeds (London Longmans Green and Co 1950) 76-8295-96

5 This sense of kanAringn is consistent with its use in a wider Greco-Roman context tomean a ldquocriterion or standard (Latin norma ) by which the rectitude of opinions or actionsmay be determinedrdquo (Metzger Canon of the New Testament 289-90)mdashas well as Paulrsquos use

of this term in Gal 616 (cp 2 Cor 1013-16) See further Ohme Kanon Ekklesiastikos 21-60

6 According to Metzger ldquothis use of kanAringn was late in developing so far as we haveevidence it was not until the second half of the fourth century that kanAringn and its deriv-atives were applied to the Scripturesrdquo (Canon of the New Testament 292 see alsoMcDonald Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon 13-18) Athanasius appears to be therst author to make this association referring to the books of the Old and NewTestaments as kanonizntildemena (ldquocanonizedrdquo Epist Fest 39 see also Decrees of the Synod of

Nicea 18 see David Brakke ldquoCanon Formation and Social Conict in Fourth-CenturyEgypt Athanasius of Alexandriarsquos Thirty-Ninth Festal Letterrdquo Harvard Theological Review

874 [1994] 395-419)7 Young Biblical Exegesis 18-21 (also The Art of Performance Towards a Theology of Holy

Scripture [London Darton Longman and Todd 1990] 46-53) Guy Stroumsa Hidden

Wisdom Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism (Leiden Brill 1996) 82-84 Joseph Lienhard Bible the Church and Authority The Canon of the Christian Bible in History

and Theology (Collegeville MN Liturgical Press 1995) 49-52 See also Mary Ann DonovanOne Right Reading A Guide to Irenaeus (Collegeville MN Liturgical Press 1997) 11-17

Here it is especially important to note Irenaeusrsquo own use of the termkanAringn Although this term would later come to denote a list of authorita-tive texts he himself never uses it to refer to written works Rather hespeaks of the kanAElign tdegw lhyeUcircaw (ldquoRule of Truthrdquo)4 solely with referenceto authoritative teachings (194 221 2252 271 281 283 31514354 see also 1101 322 41 51 144 4321 338)5 The majorityof scholars rightly acknowledge that this second century use of kanAringn

remains distinct from its later meaning6 However many overlook the epis-temological signicance of this distinction For Irenaeus the kanAringn func-tions as an extra-textual criterion for distinguishing true doctrine fromheretical speculations authentic texts from spurious compositions and proper

Scriptural interpretation from ldquoevil exegesisrdquo (see eg 1 praef 1-2 36 8191-5 2 praef 1)7 As such his kanAElign tdegw lhyeUcircaw diV ers markedly from the

EUAGGELION orality textuality and the christian truth 13



T F Torrance ldquoThe Deposit of Faithrdquo Scottish Journal of Theology 36 (1983) 4-8 13-15 cf Lanne ldquoLa Regravegle de la Veacuteriteacuterdquo 69-70

8 According to Harry Gamble the shift from Scripture to canon ldquoaltered the basic

conceptions of the nature and authority of scripture instead of being the churchrsquos tra-dition of testimony to the revelation the scripture is now seen as Godrsquos revelation tothe Church instead of being the words of the apostles it is now seen as the word of God mediated through the apostlesrdquo (ldquoChristianity Scripture and Canonrdquo in The Holy

Book in Comparative Perspective edited by Frederick Denny and Rodney Taylor [Universityof South Carolina Press 1985] 50) Similarly Lawson suggests three stages in canon-ization [1] the formation of written records [2] the attribution of increasing authorityto these records which ldquoare set apart from other by virtue of repute (but) are stillof authority on account of their authorshiprdquo and [3] ldquothe converse process The works of these authors are declared to be of authority because they are in a recognized Holy Book rdquo( Biblical Theology 32-33) For some interesting suggestions concerning the earliest stageof this process see D Moody Smith ldquoWhen Did the Gospels Become Scripturerdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000) 3-20

9 Eg Adv haer 111-3 36 81 91-3 2911 2 praef 1 101 273 31212 2134261 5135 Ohme Kanon Ekklesiastikos 77 see also Elaine Pagels ldquoIrenaeus thelsquoCanon of Truthrsquo and the Gospel of John lsquoMaking a DiV erencersquo through Hermeneuticsand Ritualrdquo forthcoming in this journal

kanAringn of later tradition which attributes a self-legitimizing degree of sanctityto a certain group of texts8 Although Irenaeusrsquo comments about the fournow canonical gospels may reect a similar tendency he never equateskanAringn directly with any texts at all Rather his articulation of this conceptwithin Adversus haereses privileges the issue of proper interpretation over theissue of text selection consonant with its primary aim to denounce theValentinians and their devious derivation of false beliefs from true Scriptures9

Just as an understanding of Irenaeusrsquo concept of kanAringn must distinguishbetween diV erent stages in the Christian development of this term so thereis also much danger of retrojectively reading his defense of tetrlsaquomorfon tograve

eeacuteaggiexcllion in Adv haer 3118 through our knowledge of subsequent devel-

opments misinterpreting its original purpose within Irenaeusrsquo own workas if this were simply identical with its later inuence on orthodox ChristianityBefore considering its signicance for early Church history it is necessaryto locate this passage within Adversus haereses as a whole Towards this goalthis inquiry will consider Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion throughout Adversus

haereses Analyzing and categorizing every occurrence of this term I willattempt to demonstrate how Irenaeus draws upon the full range of its pre-

vious meanings and often combines them in artful new ways This patternof usage reects his primary concern not to establish the canonicity of these four gospels but rather to defend the singular Gospel message against




10 Indeed as James Barr reminds us ldquo the fact that a writer or theologian con-cerned himself with questions of the canon does not necessarily mean that they were

very important to his basic thinkingrdquo (Holy Scripture Canon Authority Criticism [PhiladelphiaWestminster 1983] 59)

11 Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 4-7 ldquoWritten Gospel or Oral Traditionrdquo 293-9512 Koester Anci ent Christian Gospels 1-4 7-18 22-23 ldquoFrom the Kerygma-Gospel to

Written Gospelsrdquo New Testament Studies 35 (1989) 365-73 Robert H Gundry ldquoEUAGGE-LION How Soon a Bookrdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996) 321-25 also PhemePerkins ldquoSpirit and Letter Poking Holes in the Canonrdquo Journal of Religion 762 (1996)322-23 On the absence of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion in the Gospel of Luke Gospel of Johnthe Johannine Epistles Shepherd of Hermas Gospel of Thomas and Polycarprsquos Letter (withthe exception of the postscript probably a later addition) see Koester Ancient Christian

Gospels 9-10 18-21 On eeacuteaggiexcllion in the Pauline letters see Werner H Kelber The

Oral and the Written Gospel The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition

(Philadelphia Fortress 1983) 144-5113 khraeligssein Matt 423 935 2414 2613 Mark 114 1310 149 1615 Gal 22

Col 123 1 Thess 29 eeacuteaggelUcirczesyai 1 Cor 98 151 2 Cor 117 Gal 111 Rev146 Barn 59 Gosp Mary BG 8502 818-22 96-10 1815-21 cf 1 Clem 472 koaeligein Acts 157 Col 123 Eph 113

a multiplicity of heretical deviations10 Irenaeus neither articulates norassumes a ldquoChristian Canonrdquo in the later sense of that phrase Insteadbuttressing the Church on all sides against the threat of heresy he weavesa sophisticated argument about how multiple authoritative Christian doc-uments (ie ldquogospelsrdquo) can paradoxically bear witness to an essentially sin-gular Truth (ie the ldquoGospelrdquo)

Towards Mapping a Semantic Range of Meaning

As Helmut Koester has demonstrated the earliest Christian use of theterm eeacuteaggiexcllion occurs in the Pauline Letters and reects its status as a

ldquotechnical term for the Christian message and its proclamationrdquo prob-ably rooted in missionary activity11 This Christian specialization of its moregeneral use to denote ldquogood newsrdquo or ldquonewsrdquo in Greco-Roman literatureinuenced Matthew Mark Acts and the Deutero-Pauline Epistlesmdashas wellas other rst century and early second century writings both proto-ortho-dox (eg 1 Clement Barnabas Didache the letters of Ignatius) and ldquognosticrdquo(eg Gospel According to Mary Gospel of Truth )12 Always occurring in the sin-

gular our earliest examples of this term refer to a message that is pro-claimed (khraeligssein ) preached (eeacuteaggelUcirczesyai ) and heard (koaeligein )13 Itsdenotation of the Christian teaching in a general sense is shown by itsfrequent use in the genitival phrases such as the ldquoGospel of Godrdquo ldquoGospel




14 ldquoGospel of Godrdquo Mark 114 Rom 11 1516 1 Thes 22 8 9 1 Pet 4171 Tim 111 ldquoGospel of Christrdquo Rom 1519 1 Cor 912 2 Cor 212 913 1014 Gal17 Phil 127 1 Thes 32 also Mark 11 Rom 19 2 Thess 18 2 Cor 44 ldquoGospelof our Lordrdquo Did 154 see also Gosp Truth NHC I 1811-19 ldquoGospel of the KingdomrdquoMatt 423 935 2414 Gosp Mary BG 8502 818-22 96-10

15 Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Canon 129 see also Le Boulluec La notiondrsquoheacutereacutesie I 194-96

16 Following Gundry who concludes that ldquo subapostolic literature borrows frombooks that became canonical but does not use eeacuteaggiexcllion for any of those booksrdquo(ldquoEUAGGELIONrdquo 322) Also Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 15 17-18 22-23

17 The two occurrences of this term in Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo are both singu-lar and refer to information as ldquowritten in the Gospelrdquo In one case this phrase is usedto introduce a saying of Jesus ( Dial 1001) in a manner consistent with previous usage(eg 2 Clem 85 cf 1 Apol 15-17) In the other it is placed in the mouth of Tryphowho speaks with disdain of the commandments ldquoin the so-called gospelrdquo (currenn tOgrave legomiexclnAumleeacuteaggelUcircAuml Dial 102)mdashfacetiously drawing upon its non-Christian meaning (ie ldquogoodnewsrdquo) to criticize the contents thereof

18 The full phrase ldquomemoirs of the apostlesrdquo occurs seven times ( Dial 10045 1013710259 10364 104110 106111 10646) while ldquomemoirsrdquo is used eight times(1 Apol 6632 6733 10381 10519 10556 10564 10633 10712)mdashalthoughthree of these are in sentences where their connection to the ldquoapostlesrdquo is clear (egldquothe apostles in the memoirs made by themrdquo 1 Apol 6632 also 6733 Dial 10381)

of Christrdquo ldquothe Gospel of our Lordrdquo and ldquoGospel of the Kingdomrdquo14

In some early proto-orthodox and ldquognosticrdquo texts the phrase currenn tOgrave

eeacuteaggelUcircAuml also introduces sayings of Jesus (eg 2 Clem 85 Did 82 1534) which closely correspond to sayings recorded in now canonical gospelsHowever as Campenhausen rightly observes

The ldquoGospelrdquo to which appeal is normally made (in the rst two-thirds of the second century) remains an elastic concept designating the preaching of Jesus as a whole in the form in which it lives on in church tradition Thenormative signicance of the Lordrsquos words which is the most important point is not transferred to the documents that record them15

Even as authors of this time increasingly referenced written sources fortheir understanding and articulation of the Gospel their use of the termeeacuteaggiexcllion conformed to its original Pauline sense conveying the dynamismand immediacy of the oral proclamation of the Christian message16

The rst extant proto-orthodox use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote a writtentext occurs in the writings of Justin Martyr17 Although Justin usually refersto records of the life and teachings of Jesus as ldquothe memoirs of the apos-tlesrdquo (tŒ pomnhmoneaeligmata tCcediln postntildelvn ) or simply as ldquothe memoirsrdquo heuses the term eeacuteaggiexcllion three times (1 Apol 6632 Dial 102 1001)18




19 See eg Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 4020 Indeed in Dial 1024 eeacuteaggiexcllion is used in a negative manner by Trypho (ldquothe

so-called gospelrdquo see above) In 1 Apol 663 Justin explains that the ldquomemoirsrdquo werealso called (kaleYacutetai ) ldquogospelsrdquo thereby informing his audience of their commonidentication while avoiding a direct equation of the two Indeed Otto Piper suggeststhat ldquothe very fact that ( Justin) uses the neutral expression lsquothey are calledrsquo rather thanlsquowe call themrsquo can be interpreted only as an indication of his unwillingness to adoptsuch terminology himselfrdquo (ldquoThe Nature of the Gospel according to Justin Martyrrdquo Journal of Religion 413 [1961] 155)

21 Piper ldquoNature of the Gospelrdquo 155 162-63 Charles H Cosgrove ldquoJustin Martyrand the emerging Christian canon Observations on the purpose and destination of the Dialogue with Tryphordquo Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982) 221-23

22 Cosgrove ldquoJustin Martyrrdquo 209-1923 See Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 37-39 Cosgrove ldquoJustin Martyrrdquo 225 On

Justinrsquos involvement in the Marcionite controversy see 1 Apol 265-8 (also 581 Dial 356) Irenaeus Adv haer 469 Eusebius Hist eccl 4118

24 Tertullian Adv Marc 354 Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 35-37 Campenhausen

Most notable is 1 Apol 663 our earliest evidence for the plural eeacuteaggiexcllia

within Christian writings Appositionally equating the ldquomemoirs of the apos-tlesrdquo with ldquothose which are called gospelsrdquo (ldquo kaleYacutetai eeacuteaggiexcllia 1 Apol

663) this passage clearly presupposes an understanding of eeacuteaggiexcllion asdenoting an individual document

Given the emergence of such a ldquobookishrdquo meaning to the term eeacuteaggiexcllion

and Justinrsquos own propensity for written sources it is surprising howfew times that he uses the term19 Rather for Justin eeacuteaggiexcllia appears tohave been another designation for the books that he preferred to call pomn-

hmoneaeligmata20 This attests to the increasingly use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to refer toindividual texts at least by some second century Christians but also sug-

gests that Justin himself may have avoided this term deliberately21 To somedegree his intended audience may have informed this choice inasmuchas he addresses his apologies to non-Christians (ie Romans 1 and 2

Apology Jews Dialogue with Trypho ) Nevertheless Justin most probably meantfor his works to educate Christian readers as well and thus his selectionof terminology cannot be dismissed as theologically insignicant from anintra-Christian perspective22

How then can we explain his apparent avoidance of the term eeacuteaggiexcllionHere the challenge of Marcionism may provide the key background23

From our sources about Marcion it seems that he was the rst to useeeacuteaggiexcllion to refer to a book possibly due to his misinterpretation of Paulinereferences to ldquomy gospelrdquo (Rom 216 1625) as referring to a specic doc-ument24 Claiming to have ldquoreconstructedrdquo the original form of Paulrsquos




Formation of the Christian Canon 153-56 esp 155 Oscar Cullmann The Early Church (London SCM 1956) 48

25 Tertullian Adv Marc 52 Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Canon 159-61Metzger Canon of the New Testament 92

26 Le Boulluec ldquoLrsquoEacutecriture comme norme heacutereacutesiologiquerdquo 68-73 (see also La notion

drsquoheacutereacutesie I 157-58 215-17) Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Canon 182 According to one estimate Irenaeus quotes 626 passages from the gospels 54 from Acts 280 fromPauline Epistles 15 from Catholic Epistles and 29 from Revelation (Metzger Canon of

the New Testament 154)27 Eg Richard Heard who asserts that ldquoThe transition is complete from Papiasrsquo

preference for the lsquoliving and abiding voicersquo to Irenaeusrsquo four gospels neither more orless lsquoas there are four zones of the world in which we liversquordquo (ldquoThe pomnhmoneaeligmatain Papias Justin and Ireneausrdquo New Testament Studies 1 [1954] 129 see also ldquoPapiasrsquoQuotations from the New Testamentrdquo New Testament Studies 1 [1954] 134) Also Merkel Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien 51 Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Canon182 McDonald Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon 164-65) Metzger places this tran-sition from oral to written at the time of Papias (Canon of the New Testament 52-56)

ldquogospelrdquo by excising the allegedly Jewish emendations from the Gospel of Luke Marcion and his followers appear to have furthermore claimed thatthis book was the ldquoGospelrdquomdashwith all the totalizing epistemological rami-cations of the original Pauline sense of the term25

In many ways Irenaeus stands in profound continuity with Justin espe-cially insofar as he explicitly cites apostolic prooftexts alongside the say-ings of Jesus26 Together with his defense of the textual authority of thefour gospels this might lead us to expect that Irenaeus would similarlyeschew the orally oriented meaning of eeacuteaggiexcllion for its newer ldquobookishrdquomeaning Some occurrences of this term in Adversus haereses do indeed con-form to this sensemdashmost notably in his defense of the four now canoni-

cal gospels in Adv haer 3117-9 However when one surveys all of theexamples of Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion in Adversus haereses and contextual-izes them within the entire range of its previous meanings one nds aninteresting interplay between oral and textual connotations

This polysemy proves signicant Most notably it cautions us againstthe cursory conclusion that with Irenaeus we nd the decisive shift in theChristian use of eeacuteaggiexcllion from an original oral meaning to a later tex-

tualized meaningmdashthereby reecting some pivotal transition from thecharisma of the earliest churches to the canonical consciousness of emerg-ing orthodoxy27 Furthermore it suggests that we should approach our con-sideration of this important term with a more sophisticated model of thedevelopment of lexemes in which semantic elds emerge through the con-




28 See Kelber Oral and Written Gospel 143-59 Perkins ldquoSpirit and Letterrdquo 310-1829 Young Biblical Exegesis 63-6530 My count follows the critical editions of the ve books of Adversus haereses in the

Sources Chreacutetiennes series ( Adversus haereses Contre les heacutereacutesies livres I-V A RousseauL Doutreleau et al eds [SC 100 151 152 210 211 263 264 293 294 Paris Cerf

1969 1974 1979 1982]) Note that there are at least six more occurrences of this termin the Latin which the editors have judged to be additions to the original Greek asreconstructed from the Greek fragments and Armenian translation (ie 2272 423123 206 291 321) Also there are three other times that the related adjective eeacuteagge-likoegrave is used (ie 136 2272 3105)

31 This point is also noted by Yves Blanchard ( Aux Sources du Canon Le Teacutemoignage

drsquoIreacuteneacutee [Paris Cerf 1993] 151-52) who briey surveys Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion (pp151-64) within the context of a wider inquiry into the formation of the Christian Canon Although Blanchard is correct to highlight the continued importance of oral Churchtraditions for Irenaeus (pp 165-72) she then goes on to argue for his continued use of oral Gospel sources similar to those that allegedly underlie our Gospel of Matthew (pp212-29) From the limited evidence that she presents such a conclusion seems quitestrained (so also William Schoedel who in his review of Blanchardrsquos work describesthis hypothesis as ldquoa largely sound point of view carried to an unacceptable extremerdquo[ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 [1995] 171]) In my view the continued interplay betweenorality and textuality within Irenaeusrsquo thought must be contextualized within his hermeneu-tics and epistemology as well as the manner in which his rhetoric is shaped by

tinual interaction of multiple meanings and connotations both old andnew in a manner persistently informed by wider cultural contexts

Just as an analysis of Paulrsquos adoption specialization and transformationof the term eeacuteaggiexcllion from its pre-Christian meaning must factor in atten-dant issues such as the contemporaneous delineation of a distinctly Christianidentity so an examination of the later addition of a ldquobookishrdquo meaning to this term must acknowledge the manner in which Marcionite polemicsmay have shaped its connotations Such considerations prove especially rel-evant for an analysis of Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion since the two spe-cialized Christian meanings that had been established at his time have pro-foundly diV erent epistemological ramications Paulrsquos Gospel invokes a

dynamic living Christian truth whose orality stands in an essential con-trast to writings28 However Marcionrsquos project of compiling one true gospeldocument tacitly equates the quest for the Christian truth with the isola-tion of authentically apostolic written records from the distorting accretionsof tradition29

In contrast to Justinrsquos avoidance of the term Irenaeus uses eeacuteaggiexcllion

(Latin evangelium ) 101 times in the ve books of Adversus haereses 30 Of these

only seven occurrences are plural (2223 3117 118 [twice] 119 [thrice])31




heresiological aims Viewed in this context the oral tradition that necessary complementsthe written gospels for Irenaeus does not appear to denote non-written gospel traditionsbut rather the core beliefs that unify the Church which serve as a criterion for the

proper interpretation of Scripture as distilled in the ldquoRule of Truth received in baptismrdquo32 See Harry Gamble Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven CT Yale

University Press 1995) 153-54 Stanton ldquoFourfold Gospelrdquo 333 Koester ldquoFrom theKerygma-Gospel to Written Gospelsrdquo 373 However it is interesting to note that Irenaeusalways cites the titles of the canonical gospels in a bracketed structure (eg tOgrave katŒMatyaYacuteon eeacuteaggelUcircAuml 3117 tograve katŒ Loukn eeacuteaggiexcllion 31212) instead of thestructure more familiar from book titles (ie eeacuteaggiexcllion katŒ as in P66 and P75)This may be linked to his use of this same pattern in citations of the Law as the ldquoLawaccording to Mosesrdquo (eg tntilden katŒ Mvsiexcla nntildemon 31211 tdegw katŒ Mvsiexcla

nomoyesUcircaw 31212)33 Referring to the four canonical gospels elsewhere Irenaeus simply uses the for-

mula tograve katŒ (ldquothe one according to rdquo see eg 3118) By assuming but notexplicitly stating eeacuteaggiexcllion the eV ect is not that of a title per se (ie ldquoThe Gospel According To rdquo) but rather the more literal sense of a single Gospel according to var-ious authors Note also 3111 in which Irenaeus introduces a quotation from John 11by stating that John thus ldquocommenced his teaching (didaskalUcircaw ) according to (katlsaquo )the Gospelrdquo

Like Justinrsquos use of eeacuteaggiexcllia in 1 Apol 663 these clearly presuppose aldquobookishrdquo meaning However it remains questionable whether these exam-ples can be taken as wholly characteristic of Irenaeusrsquo understanding of eeacuteaggiexcllion Indeed the great majority (94) of the occurrences of eeacuteaggiexcllion

are singular and all but one of the plural examples cluster in a single sec-tion Not surprisingly this section is Irenaeusrsquo famous defense of the tex-tual authority of the four now canonical gospels in Adv haer 3117-9

Indeed there is no question that Irenaeus is familiar with the ldquobook-ishrdquo sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion Together with the seven plural examples the termalso occurs eight times in Adversus haereses within the quoted titles of textsSix of these refer to the four authoritative gospel documents (Matthew

1262 3117 Mark 3117 Luke 1272 31212 John 3119 see also3117) while two refer to heretical texts namely the ldquoGospel of Judasrdquo(1311) and the ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo (3119) On the one hand this evi-dence attests to the addition of titles to these texts by the late second cen-tury32 On the other hand it is notable that every use of this term withinbook titles whether of authoritative or heretical texts occurs within pas-sages about heretical attitudes towards these documents33 Specically these

concern the heretical preference for a single gospel (thrice 1262 3117)the heretical rejection of a gospel (once 3119) and the heretical redac-tion of a gospel (twice 3117 1212) Given this context it is possible that




34 Moreover there are several cases in which there appear to be variances in theuse of this term between the extant Latin and the probable form of the original Greekas reconstructed in by the editors of the Sources Chreacutetiennes critical edition of Adversus

haereses For instance in the comparison of Gen 13 and John 13 at Adv haer 4321the Greek version seems to have paralleled what Moses says (kaUuml Mvsdegw fhsin )with what the Gospel says (kaUuml tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion sc fhsin ) However the Latin trans-lation seems to have expanded the latter portion of this passage by introducing the

quotation with the phrase Et in Evangelio legimus (ldquoAnd in the Gospel we read rdquo)Similarly at 423 the Greek seems to have introduced a quotation from John 546-47with the phrase kayAEligw otilde Ivlsaquonnhw currenmnhmntildeneusen evoking the use of this verb by bothPapias and Justin to stress the role of memory in ensuring the accuracy of transmis-sion However these connotations are dulled by the Latin translation which adds in

Evangelio Consequently the focus is taken away from John as a direct witness to theteachings of Jesus and placed instead upon the document that he recorded These sub-tle changes from an oral sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion to a more textual sense are highlightedby a more obvious variant at 4206 Here the original Greek version seems to haveintroduced a saying of Jesus from John 118 with the phrase kayAEligw otilde Kaeligriow fhsUcircn (ldquoAsthe Lord said rdquo) However the Latin translation introduces this quotation with theformula Quemadmodum in Evangelio scriptum est (ldquoAs it is written in the Gospel rdquo) Theresult is a striking shift from an appeal to the oral authority of Jesusrsquo words to an appealto the textual authority of a written gospel Although the state of the manuscript tra-dition for Adversus haereses makes it impossible to reconstruct the original Greek with fullcondence these possibilities remain quite intriguing

35 Contra Merkel Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien 51-52

these examples may simply reect common usage particularly among thegroups whose textual preferences Irenaeus here cites

Irenaeusrsquo own comments about the relationship between orality textu-ality and the Christian truth further highlight the need to consider hisstatements about the ldquogospelsrdquo in the context of his beliefs about theldquoGospelrdquo34 For instance in 321 Irenaeus reproaches the heretics forasserting that the truth ldquowas not transmitted (paradedntildesyai ) by means of writings (grammlsaquotvn ) but rather through the living voice (zAringshw fvndegw )rdquoThe language is strongly reminiscent of Papiasrsquo statement that he prefersldquothe living and abiding voice (zAringshw fvndegw kaUuml menoaeligshw )rdquo to ldquothings frombooks (tŒ currenk tCcediln biblUcircvn Eusebius Hist eccl 3294)rdquo appearing to imply

that Irenaeus rejects oral transmission as less reliable than writing Howeverhe subsequently responds to the hereticsrsquo error not by appealing to Scripturebut rather by lauding the Churchrsquos own oral tradition which originatedwith the apostles and is ldquopreserved by means of the succession of pres-byters (katŒ tŒw diadoxŒw tCcediln presbutiexclrvn 322)rdquo

Consequently it becomes clear that his critique of the hereticrsquos appealto oral traditions is not based on the orality of these traditions35 On the




36 See Benoit ldquoEacutecriture et Traditionrdquo 41-43 Stroumsa Hidden Wisdom 30 3885-86

37 Cf Hahneman Muratorian Fragment 10138 Examples include the Valentiniansrsquo numerological interpretation of parables and

the details of Jesusrsquo life to conclude that there were 30 aeons (113 2221 251)Marcusrsquo theories about the signicance of the number of letters in the alphabet andthe numbers associated with the respective letters (1145) the Marcosiansrsquo deduction of the invisible Decad from the 10 natural powers (1171) Basilidesrsquo connection of the365 days in a year with the 365 heavens (1243 2162) and interpretations of the 12apostles in terms of 12 aeons (224-25)

contrary Irenaeus answers their claims about the apostolic origins thereofby arguing that the Church alone preserves the authentic traditions (seeeg 1102 341 241 4262 5201-2) For Irenaeus the diV erence liesnot in the contrast between reliable written sources and unreliable oralchannels of transmission but between the public proclamations of the trueChurch and the false esotericism of the heretics Oral tradition may befaulted insofar as it provides a means for heretics to claim apostolic author-ity for their secret teachings (eg 1253-5) but it is lauded insofar as itunies even illiterate Christian communities under a single Rule of Truth(341)36

It is also notable that the ldquoproofrdquo for the unique authority of exactly

four gospels in 3118 seems rather uncharacteristic of Irenaeusrsquo usual modeof argumentation37 Throughout his genealogy of heresy in Book I and hisdefense of the unity of God in Book II Irenaeus cites numerous examplesof heretics using numerological interpretations to attempt to access hiddencosmic truths38 Often he ridicules this method for its faulty logic Forinstance in 224-25 Irenaeus mocks the hereticsrsquo method of exegesis assert-ing that

when any number coincides with their assertions (they) aYrm that it wasa type of the things in the Pleroma while in fact every number occurs withthe utmost variety in the Scriptures so that should any one desire it hemight form not only an Ogdoad and a Decad and a Duodecad but any sortof number from the Scriptures (2243)

Giving the example of the number ve he playfully notes how manyimportant words have ve letters (eg svtregr patregr glsaquoph ) how Jesus

blessed ve loaves to fed ve thousand men how there were ve wise andve foolish virgins how we have ve ngers ve senses ve internal organsve parts ve periods of life ve books of the Torah and so on

He concludes that such logic is meaningless since one could nd ldquomany




39 Interestingly in 2146 Irenaeus attributes the origins of such fallacies to the

Pythagoreans40 Despite the disdain with which many scholars have approached Irenaeusrsquo own

numerological arguments (as exemplied by Cullmannrsquos treatment of this passage underthe subtitle ldquoThe False Reasons for the Fourfold Gospel propounded by Irenaeusrdquo The

Early Church 51-52) his examples are far from arbitrarymdasheven if his method strays fromhis comments in Book I For instance as D JeV rey Bingham observes Irenaeusrsquo appealto the four zones of the world and four winds highlights the important geographicalramications of the Gospelrsquos quadriform unity paralleling his account of the emergenceof the dispersed Church from the singular witness of the apostles in 311 (Irenaeusrsquo Use

of Matthewrsquos Gospel in Adversus Haereses [Traditio Exegetica Graeca 7 Louvain Peeters1998] 78-79)

41 See eg Pheme Perkins ldquoIrenaeus and the Gnostics Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book Irdquo Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976) 194-98 William Schoedel ldquoPhilosoph yand Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeusrdquo Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959) 28-31

42 Benoit makes a similar point with respect to the methodological problems inher-ent in extrapolating Irenaeusrsquo view of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition sim-ply from selected passages read in isolation (ldquoEacutecriture et Traditionrdquo 32)

thousand other things of the same kind both with respect to this numberand any other one might chose to x upon either from the Scriptures orfrom works of Naturerdquo (2244 see also 2 praef 1 146 152 164 262)39

However in Book III Irenaeus similarly adduces numbers from Natureand Scripture to argue for the unique signicance of the number four Inorder to ldquoproverdquo there cannot be more or less than four sacred gospelshe cites the ldquofour zones of the world in which we liverdquo the ldquofour princi-pal windsrdquo the four cherubim upon which the Logos is enthroned (cfRev 47 Ezek 1014) and the four principal covenants given to the humanrace (ie Adamic Noachide Mosaic Gospel see also 594)40

As these examples illustrate much of the diYculty in understanding Adversus haereses roots in the fact that it is an extremely complex work inter-weaving a variety of arguments and rhetorical stances 41 In attempting touse an analysis of Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to explore the relationshipbetween oral and textual authority in Adversus Haereses it is thus necessaryto proceed with some caution One could easily select diV erent examplesthat would occasion diV erent conclusions42 My analysis of this term willthus attempt to survey all of the occurrences within this work Here my

aim is to locate Irenaeusrsquo uses of this term in their relevant syntacticalthematic and rhetorical contexts thereby enabling us to map the para-meters of its polysemy before exploring the ramications thereof Towardsthis goal I will attempt to adopt a maximally neutral criterion to struc-ture my analysis by grouping the 101 occurrences of this term according




43 For currenkdUcircdvmi in the sense of ldquoputting outrdquo or ldquopublishingrdquo especially books seeIsoc 511 Aristot Poet 1454b18 Plu Rom 8 Interestingly in the NT this term occursonly in parables within the Synoptic Gospels with the meaning ldquoto leaserdquo (Matt 21332141 Mark 121 Luke 209)

44 See Bingham Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 64-65 Indeed it is likely that Irenaeusparticularly stresses the authority of the Gospel of Luke because other Christians of histime rejected it due to its association with heretics such as Marcion (Hahneman Muratorian Fragment 102-4)

to their grammatical function Hence the next section of my inquiry willproceed in ve stages surveying Irenaeusrsquo use of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion [1]as a direct object [2] as a subject with active verbs or a datival agentwith passive verbs [3] in the phrase currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml [4] in genitival con-structions and [5] in predicate statements

Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion in Adversus Haereses

eeacuteaggiexcllion as a direct object

The majority of times that eeacuteaggiexcllion occurs in Adversus haereses (23 times)it functions as the direct object within a sentence or clause These exam-

ples can be categorized by their subjects [1] apostles andor evangelists(8 times) [2] heretics (11 times) [3] an unspecied or generalized subject(twice) and [4] ChristLogos (twice)

In eight cases the apostles or evangelists function as the subjects eitheras a group or individually Of these there are three instances in whichIrenaeus describes the Gospel as written recorded or published by specicevangelists In one case he uses the term eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote a single

document stating that John ldquodid himself issue (currenjiexcldvken ) the Gospel dur-ing his residence at Ephesus in Asiardquo (311)43 In contrast while describ-ing the origin of Lukersquos work in the same passage Irenaeus states that

Luke also the companion of Paul recorded in a book (katiexclyeto currenn bUcircblAuml )the Gospel that was preached (khrussntildemenon ) by that man (ie Paul 311)

Although the term eeacuteaggiexcllion here occurs in the context of the com-

position of a book (bUcircblow ) it does not denote the book per se Rather itrefers to the message that was preached by Paul a message whose apos-tolic origin accounts for the true content of the book and legitimizes itsauthority44 As such Irenaeusrsquo usage is here more consistent with the NTuses of this term with the verb khraeligssein (see examples above) and withPauline references to ldquomy gospelrdquo (tograve eeacuteaggiexcllintilden mou Rom 216 625 also




45 The extent of Paulrsquos inuence upon Adversus haereses has recently been demonstrated byRolf Noormannrsquos comprehensive study Irenaumlus als Paulusinterpret Zur Rezeption und Wirkung der

paulinischen und deuteropaulinischen Briefe im Werk des Irenaumlus von Lyon (Tuumlbingen Mohr 1994)46 Bingham for instance describes 311 as one of the key passages in Book III in

which ldquoIrenaeus presents his view of the relationship of the four written Gospels to theone apostolic Gospelrdquo (Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 63)

47 For eeacuteaggiexcllion with kathggelkiexclnai see 1 Cor 94 For eeacuteaggiexcllion with khraeligsseinsee Matt 423 935 2414 2613 Mark 114 1310 149 1615 Gal 22 Col 1231 Thess 29

2 Tim 28) or ldquoour gospelrdquo (tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion sup2mCcediln 2 Cor 43 1 Thess 152 Thess 214) than with the later understanding of eeacuteaggiexcllion as denot-ing a single text45 This is consistent with his subsequent description of theorigins of the Gospel of Mark which includes no reference to either agospel or the Gospel but merely states that Mark ldquohanded down to us inwriting (currenggrlsaquofvw sup2mYacuten paradiexcldvken ) those things that had been preachedby Peter (tŒ ecircpograve Piexcltrou khrussntildemena )rdquo Even as Irenaeus describes the ori-gin of these four authoritative gospels he retains the earlier emphasis onthe Gospel as the oral preaching of the apostles legitimizing these textsthrough appeals to apostolic authority that remain couched in the tradi-tional rhetoric of orality46

In four other cases Irenaeusrsquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion more obviously conformsto an orally oriented sense of this term Consistent with the most commonNT use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote a message of Christian truth as orallypreached he here describes the Gospel as something that is announced(kathggelkiexclnai 31212 paggeYacutelai 3141) and proclaimed (khraeligssein311 [2])47 In three of these cases the subject of the preaching is eitheran apostle or the apostles as a group However in one case Irenaeus refers

to the evangelist Luke who

always preached together (sugkhraeligjaw ) with Paul and was called ldquobelovedrdquoby him and after preaching (eeacuteaggelislsaquomenow ) with him was entrusted (pis-teuyeUcircw ) to announce (paggeYacutelai ) to us the Gospel (3141)

Here it is again tempting to understand eeacuteaggiexcllion as a text especiallyin light of the assertion in 311 that Luke wrote a book recording the

preaching of Paul However a similar use of the passive form of pisteaeligeinwith eeacuteaggiexcllion is attested in Gal 27 1 Thess 24 and 1 Tim 111 withdecisively oral connotations As in these verses it is thus probable thatIrenaeus here focuses not upon the form of the Gospel but rather uponthe authority to preach it




48 See A C Sundberg ldquoDependent Canonicity in Irenaeus and Tertullianrdquo SE IIIedited by F L Cross (Berlin Akademie-Verlag 1964) 403-4 Hahneman Muratorian

Fragment 102-3 Noormann Irenaumlus als Paulusinterpret 47-5249 For instance Bingham reads this passage as denoting that that the oral preaching

of Peter and Paul was synchronous with the emergence of the written record of Matthew(Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 71-76)

Moreover the immediate context is important to note In 314 Irenaeusattempts to prove that Paul could not have transmitted secret teachingsunbeknownst to either Luke or his other hearers Hence this statement isnot intended to recount the origin of the Gospel of Luke Rather it citesthe evangelist Lukersquos collaborative preaching with the apostle Paul in ordersimultaneously [1] to defend the authority and trustworthiness of the non-apostolic Luke by appealing to the apostle Paul and [2] to prove the non-heretical nature of Paulrsquos teachings by appealing to Luke48

A similar interaction of meanings is evident in the cases where the evan-gelists are described as ldquotransmittingrdquo (paradidntildenai ) the Gospel (ie 1272311 351 3119 cf 4341) Most notable is 311 in which Irenaeus

explains the relationship between the oral preaching of the Gospel andwritten apostolic records in historical terms He recounts that the Churchlearned about the plan of salvation

from those through whom the Gospel has come down (katregnthken ) to uswhich they once (tntildete ) proclaimed (currenkregrujan ) and later (igravesteron ) according to the will of God transmitted to us in writings (currenn grafaYacutew pariexcldvkan sup2mYacuten )to become the ground and pillar of our faith (yemiexcllion kaUuml stegravelon tdegw pUcircstevw

sup2mCcediln genhsntildemenon )

As in 3118 the ldquoground and pillar of our faithrdquo refers not to the writ-ings but to the Gospel itself (see also 4213 1 Tim 315) Although thisdiachronic schema well articulates the origins of these two modes of trans-mission it does not preclude a synchronic relationship between the writ-ings of the evangelists and the oral traditions continually preserved in theChurch49

However Irenaeus concludes his consideration of the four gospels in3117-9 with the statement that

Having therefore investigated the opinion of those who have transmitted theGospel to us (tCcediln paradedvkntildetvn sup2mYacuten tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion ) from their beginnings(yenk tCcediln rxCcediln aeacutetCcediln ) let us proceed also to the remaining apostles (3119)

This statement implies two distinct categories [1] those who handed

down the Gospel and [2] the other apostles Previous to this statement




Irenaeus discussed the apostles Matthew (39 118) and John (3111-6 8)Mark as the recorder of teaching of the apostle Peter (3105 118) and Lukeas the recorder of the teaching of the apostle Paul (3101-4 118) Immediatelyafter this statement he discusses the teachings of Peter (3121-7) Phillip(3128) Paul (3129) and Stephen (31210)

If only the former group ldquotransmitted the Gospelrdquo this implies thateeacuteaggiexcllion here denotes the four authoritative gospels as a single textualunit or collection A similar understanding of this term seems to inform351 in which Irenaeus states

let us revert (currenpaniexcllyvmen ) to the proof from the writings of the apos-

tles who had written the Gospel (eTHORNw tmacrn currenk tCcediln grafCcediln tCcediln tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion sug-gegrafntildetvn postntildelvn pntildedeijin ) in which they recorded (niexclgracan ) theteaching regarding God

Here as in 3119 the Gospel to which he refers is clearly written andis composed of more than one text Consequently these examples appearto attest to a singular use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote multiple texts This rep-resents an interesting hybridization between the Pauline and Marcionite

meanings of this term referring either to a single collection composed of multiple books or to multiple books that together express a single messagemdash an issue that we will further consider below in the context of his defenseof the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo in 3117-9

In addition there are 11 times in Adversus haereses in which heretics occuras the subjects of sentences or clauses with eeacuteaggiexcllion as a direct objectThese present an important complement to the use of this term in thecontext of the apostles since Irenaeus here describes the Gospel by sur-

veying the diV erent ways in which it can be rejected The majority of theseconcern Marcion and his followers (1272 3119 [2] 144 [3] 4341291) while the remainder concern the Montanists (3119) and Valentinians(2223 3119 also 3144)

The eight passages about the Marcionites and the Gospel prove partic-ularly relevant because Marcion himself probably used the term eeacuteaggiexcllion

to denote the written gospel that he constructed by excising parts of theGospel of Luke One example 1272 occurs in the context of an intro-ductory summary of Marcionite beliefs in the genealogy of heresy in BookI Here Irenaeus states that Marcion abridged (circumcidens ) the Gospel of Luke (see also 31212) and persuaded his followers that he was more trust-worthy than the ldquoapostles who transmitted (tradiderunt ) the Gospelrdquo Irenaeustherefore denounces Marcion because he ldquotransmitted (tradens ) not theGospel but only a little piece ( particulam ) of the Gospel (1272)rdquo What




50 Although Irenaeus claims that Marcion ldquonot only lsquomutilatedrsquo Luke but also male- volently scorned the other gospelsrdquo the evidence about Marcion from both Irenaeusand Tertullian seems to suggest that ldquoMarcionrsquos direct polemic was aimed only at theapostles and at the apostolic preaching of the gospel (cf Adv haer I 27 3 III 2 213 1f) not against individual gospels much less a lsquoFour-Gospel canonrsquordquo (CampenhausenFormation of the Christian Canon 157)

exactly is the ldquoGospelrdquo of which Marcion transmits only a ldquolittle piecerdquoOn the one hand this statement is followed by the assertion that Marcioncut (abscidit ) the letters of Paul thus implying that eeacuteaggiexcllion refers specicallyto the Gospel of Luke On other hand his contrast between the apostleswho truly transmitted (tradiderunt ) the Gospel and Marcion who only trans-mitted a little piece of it suggests that ldquoGospelrdquo may here be a more inclu-sive category

For instance in his critique of Marcion in 3119 Irenaeus uses the termto refer to the totality of authentic written gospels a meaning that he hadestablished in the previous passage with his defense of the ldquofour-formedGospelrdquo (3118) After asserting that those who do not accept exactly four

gospels ldquodestroy the form of the Gospelrdquo Irenaeus accuses Marcion of ldquorejecting the entire Gospel (dividelon poblsaquollvn tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion ) and thus ldquocut-ting himself oV from (pokntildeptvn ) the Gospelrdquo Consequently it becomesclear that Irenaeus here focuses not upon Marcionrsquos abridgement of theGospel of Luke but rather on his simultaneous rejection of the other threegospelsmdashor more accurately the other three forms of the ldquofour-formedGospelrdquo50

In the same passage Irenaeus asserts that the Montanists ldquosimultane-ously set aside (pvyoegraventai ) both the Gospel and the prophetic Spiritrdquo byrejecting one face (THORNdiexclan ) of the Gospel namely the Gospel of John Thissense of eeacuteaggiexcllion as the one Gospel with four written faces or forms isalso implied in 4341 in which Irenaeus exhorts the Marcionites to ldquocare-fully read (nagnCcedilte kribCcedilw )rdquo both ldquothe prophetsrdquo and ldquoGospel which hasbeen given (dedomiexclnon ) to us by the apostlesrdquo Both the explicit mention

of reading and the parallel between these two categories make it clear thateeacuteaggiexcllion here refers to the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo of 3118

As in 1272 there is nonetheless some diYculty in distinguishing between[1] the ldquobookishrdquo use of eeacuteaggiexcllion as implied in the assertion that Marcionrejects the Gospel of Luke by discarding parts of it and [2] the use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote the single Gospel in its four written aspects as impliedin the assertion that Marcion rejects the Gospel by rejecting three of the




four gospels An examination of 3144 suggests that this ambiguity mayroot in Marcionrsquos own claims about his gospel and the Gospel TheMarcionites boast that they ldquopossessrdquo (brvbarxein ) the Gospel in their abridgedGospel of Luke but they in fact possess no Gospel at all51

When arguing against the Valentinians Irenaeus seems to use the termeeacuteaggiexcllion in a more general sense For instance in 3119 after denounc-ing both the Marcionites and Montanists for rejecting individual gospelshe asserts that the Valentiniansrsquo acceptance of the ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo resultsin their possession of no authentic Gospel at all (3119)52 However hedoes not root this assertion only in the number of gospels that they acceptInstead he focuses upon the content of the ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo stating sev-

eral times that it does not agree with the ldquogospels of the apostlesrdquo Moreoverin his discussion of their equation of the 30 years of Jesusrsquo life with the30 aeons (see also 113 2251) he rejects the Valentinian exegesis anddeclares that they must ldquoreject (reprobare ) either their explanation or theGospelrdquo (2223) The ldquoGospelrdquo that the Valentinians reject thus does notseem to be only a group of uniquely authoritative texts as for the MarcionitesRather it also pertains to their method of reading and interpreting such

texts53This contrast is nicely illustrated by 3144 which refers to both groups

After denouncing the Marcionitesrsquo abridgment of the Gospel of Luke andthe Valentiniansrsquo allegorical interpretation Irenaeus suggests that they bothcould repent if they only devoted themselves (prosexntildentaw ) to ldquothe com-plete Gospel (otildeloteleYacute tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml )rdquo and ldquothe teaching of the apostles(t tCcediln postntildelvn didax )rdquo54 In light of the preceding comments about

Marcion it seems that the Marcionites must adopt the ldquocomplete Gospelrdquoin the sense of the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo they must accept both the remain-der of the Gospel of Luke and the other three gospels However theValentinians must embrace the ldquocomplete Gospelrdquo in the sense of the


51 Contrast 311 in which the apostles are said to ldquoall equally and individually pos-sess (brvbarxontew ) the Gospel of Godrdquo after the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of theHoly Spirit upon them

52 Literally ldquoso that there is not for them a non-blasphemous Gospelrdquo ( aacutena mhdcent tograveeeacuteaggiexcllion Acirc parƒ aeacutetoYacutew blasfregmhton )

53 On his approach to the Valentiniansrsquo specic brand of so-called ldquoevil exegesisrdquoparticularly with reference to their interpretation of the Gospel of John see PagelsldquoIrenaeus the lsquoCanon of Truthrsquo and the Gospel of Johnrdquo

54 The wording here is especially reminiscent of Ignatius Smyrn 72 prosiexclxein dcenttoYacutew profregtaiw currenjairiexcltvw dcent tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml



55 See JeV rey Sobosan ldquoThe Role of the Presbyter An Investigation into the Adversus

Haereses of Saint Irenaeusrdquo Scottish Journal of Theology 27 (1974) 143-46 also JohannesMunck ldquoPresb yters and Disciples of The Lord in Papiasrdquo Harvard Theological Review 52(1959) 229-30 233-36

written gospels as interpreted in consonance with the ldquoteaching of theapostlesrdquo

The latter phrase proves particularly signicant because it elsewheredenotes apostolic traditions that were faithfully preserved by the Churchnot only through the transmission of texts but also through oral channels(31211 3151 4338) Often associated with the tradition of the pres-byters (322 4264 also 2225 4262 271) these teachings are else-where mentioned in the specic context of textual exegesis (4338 also31211 4321)mdashmost notably in 4321 where Irenaeus exhorts his read-ers to ldquoattentively read (kribCcedilw nagnOgrave ) the Scriptures with the presbyters(presbutiexclroiw ) in the Church among whom is the apostolic teaching (togravepostolikograven didaskaleYacuteon )rdquo55

Just as the authentic apostolic tradition consists of written and oral com-ponents so the heretical rejection of that tradition can involve either falsewritings or false interpretations Marcion possesses no Gospel due to hisrejection of certain texts and passages (3144) but the Valentinians haveldquono unblasphemous Gospelrdquo (3119) in a wider sense In denouncing thelatter Irenaeus draws upon a more inclusive sense of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion

than the ldquobookishrdquo meanings that he invokes in the context of Marcionitesand Montanists namely as the totality of the Christian message trans-mitted in both written documents and oral traditionsmdashand especially oraltraditions about the proper manner to read those documents

There are four remaining examples of Irenaeusrsquo use of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion

as a direct object in Adversus haereses Twice this term is used with anunspecied or generalized subject The rst (4374) depicts the Gospel as

something that one chooses to follow (sectpesyai ) of onersquos own free will evok-ing the use of eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote a way of life in Phil 127 2 Cor 9132 Thess 18 and 1 Pet 417 The second (3143) presents a generalizedrestatement of the sentiments that Irenaeus elsewhere expresses aboutMarcion and his followers Anyone who denies the trustworthiness of Lukersquostestimony essentially ldquorejects (currenkblsaquollvn ) that Gospel of which he claims tobe a disciplerdquo because the Gospel of Luke teaches us ldquomany important

parts of the Gospelrdquo The rejection of any part of the Gospel is essentially




56 Note that the Latin seems to read in Evangelio ve additional times namely at Adv

haer 3111 423 4206 4291 and 4321 See note above

a rejection of its entirety precisely because each part communicates uniqueand essential aspects thereof

There are also two statements with a divine subject which explain aspectsof the Gospel in terms of the agency of Christ-Logos In 4352 afterrejecting the Valentinian distinction between diV erent degrees of truth inthe Scriptures (4351 cp Ptolemy Letter to Flora ) Irenaeus argues that ldquotheSavior preached (currenkregrujen ) the Gospel to usrdquo by the means of boththe prophets and the apostles Similarly in 3118 when developing hisconcept of the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo Irenaeus emphasizes that the Logoswho metaphorically sits enthroned upon the four authoritative gospels isalso the one who ldquogave (brvbardvken ) us the four-formed Gospelrdquo (3118) Just

as the Logos is responsible for the oral preaching of his Gospel so he isthe ultimate source for its four-fold manifestation in written form

The phrase currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml

The second major category of examples is represented by Irenaeusrsquo useof the phrase currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml which occurs 12 times in Adversus haereses 56

In one case 3141 this phrase functions as part of a wider idiom Irenaeusdescribes Luke as sunergogravew currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml (ldquoa fellow-laborer in the Gospelrdquo)with Paul consistent with previous Pauline usage (see eg 1 Thess 32Phil 43 Phlm 124) Elsewhere the phrase is used in four ways [1] tocite historical information (4 times) [2] to cite a doctrine (once) [3] tointroduce sayings of Jesus (4 times) and [4] to introduce quotations fromthe Johannine prologue (twice)

The rst category evokes Justin Martyrrsquos use of pomnhmoneaeligmata as asource for historical information related to the life of Jesus Irenaeus how-ever does not specify whether this information is recorded in books orwhether it belongs to oral traditions about the apostolic era as preservedby the presbyters and transmitted through the Church These passages onlynote that certain people or events are ldquoannouncedrdquo (khrussomiexclnhw 184)are ldquonamedrdquo (denominatis 2204) or simply ldquoarerdquo (eaumlnai 174) in the Gospel

The second category parallels Justinrsquos use of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion in Dial

1024 insofar as it refers to commandments ldquoin the Gospelrdquo In contrastto Tryphorsquos disparaging comments Irenaeus positively compares that whichis in the law (currenn tOgrave nntildemAuml ) and in the Gospel (currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml ) namely




57 On the oral sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion in Ignatiusrsquo writings see Gundry ldquoEUAGGELIONrdquo324

58 More specically Adv haer 1202 quotes Luke 249 2262 quotes Matt 10243233 quotes Matt 2541 and 5221 quotes Matt 47 (cf Deut 44 5 16)

59 For instance Justin introduces a saying of Jesus by stating that it is ldquowritten in theGospelrdquo (currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml dcent giexclgraptai Dial 1001) whereas a saying is introduced in2 Clement 85 with the formula ldquothe Lord said in the Gospelrdquo (liexclgei gŒr otilde kaeligriow currenn tOgraveeeacuteaggelUcircAuml ) Similarly Did 153 and 154 use the ambiguous phrase ldquoas you have in

the Gospelrdquo ( Eacutew brvbarxete currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml ) See Gundry ldquoEUAGGELIONrdquo 322-23

the commandment to love the Lord God with onersquos whole heart (4123) Although nntildemow clearly refers to writings eeacuteaggiexcllion may not Indeed sim-ilar comparisons of tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion with otilde nntildemow oszlig profregtai and tŒ rxeYacutea

occur in the letters of Ignatius with the aim of drawing a contrast betweencodied written Law and living oral Gospel (Smyrn 51 72 Phld 82)57

The third category includes the four other passages in which the phraseis used to introduce sayings of Jesus that correspond to sayings recordedin now canonical gospels (1202 2262 3233 5221)58 One of these israther neutral introducing a saying by stating that it ldquooccursrdquo (keimiexclnvn )in the Gospel (1202) The remainder use the rhetoric of speech eitherwithout a subject (dictum sit 2262) or with Christ as the subject (ocirc Kaeligriow

currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggiexcllUcircAuml fhsUcircn 3233 otilde Lntildegow toegrave yeoegrave currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml =regseiw 5221) This language is striking insofar as it is more consistentwith the use of this term to denote a whole body of tradition in the Didache

(82 153 4) and 2 Clement (85) than in the works of Justin Martyr (cp Dial 1001)59

In the fourth category the phrase is used to introduce direct quotationsfrom the Johannine Prologue (3168 5182) presupposing the ldquobookishrdquo

sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion This is especially clear in 3168 Intending to illus-trate the harmony between the Johannine Epistles (see 1 John 41-32 John 7-8) and the Gospel of John (see John 114) Irenaeus contraststhat which is said in the epistle (currenn t currenpistol fhsUcircn ) with that whichis said in the gospel (tOgrave currenn tOgrave eeacuteaggelUcircAuml =hyiexclnti ) A similar sense is prob-ably intended in 5182 where Irenaeus introduces a quotation from John13 by asserting that John thus ldquospoke (liexclgvn ) in the Gospelrdquo Although

the persistence of the rhetoric of speaking is important to note eeacuteaggiexcllionhere refers to a single document the Gospel of John

eeacuteaggiexcllion as a nominative subject and datival agent

Nine times in Adversus haereses the term ldquogospelrdquo occurs either as the subject of an active verb or the agent of the action expressed by a passive




60 Although NT parallels to this use of eeacuteaggiexcllion are few it is signicant that1 Cor 123 depicts the Gospel promising hope while 1 Thess 15 depicts the Gospel

coming in both word and power

verb (392 102 106 112 155 4209 91 321 291)60 In each casethe Gospel or a gospel actively transmits some type of information Hencethis use of eeacuteaggiexcllion falls into two groups [1] those which equate theGospel with an entire category of revelation and [2] those which describea single gospel document as metaphorically ldquoshowingrdquo or ldquospeakingrdquo theinformation that the text contains

In the former group the exact boundaries of the category diV er aseeacuteaggiexcllion is paralleled with various other categories of revelation knowl-edge or truth In some cases (eg 3165) eeacuteaggiexcllion denotes the entiretyof Christian teaching in contrast to multifarious heretical fabrications How-ever in 2225 Irenaeus emphasizes the accuracy of information about the

life of Jesus by stating that ldquothe Gospel and all the presbyters (presbaeligteroi )testify (marturoegravesin )rdquo to it The latter category (ie presbaeligteroi ) is clearlyan oral tradition Irenaeus subsequently species that its chain of trans-mission originated with those who both saw and heard the apostles Con-sequently we can infer that eeacuteaggiexcllion here refers neither to a single gospeldocument nor to the entire Christian truth in all of its manifestationsRather it denotes the written gospel tradition as a whole

In most cases however eeacuteaggiexcllion is paralleled with the revelation of the ldquoold covenantrdquo In 491 for instance Irenaeus emphasize the diV erencesbetween the two by contrasting of ldquothe manner of life required by theGospelrdquo with the law of the ldquoold covenantrdquo in a manner consistent withhis schema of diV erent stages of salvation history (eg 3118) Consistentwith his wider aim to prove the singularity of God from multiple proof-texts other passages highlight the essential unity between the two by com-

paring what the two ldquosayrdquo (4321) or by showing how the Gospel itself demonstrates this unity (4209)

Four similar examples occur within 391-116 the section in whichIrenaeus attempts to demonstrate that all four gospels attest to the one-ness of God (392 102 105 112) In these passages it proves particu-larly diYcult to determine whether the term eeacuteaggiexcllion refers to a generalcategory of revelation or a specic text since this section simultaneously

[1] appeals to the gospels as prooftexts to demonstrate that ldquoneither theprophets nor the apostles nor the Lord Christ in his own person acknowl-edged any other Lord or God but the supreme Lord and Godrdquo (391)




61 For instance the statement in Adv haer 392 concludes a comparison of state-ments from the Gospel of Matthew with statements in various Psalms It is thus possiblethat the term eeacuteaggiexcllion does not here refer specically to this one document anymore than the corresponding term ldquoprophetsrdquo refers only to the Psalms

62 Indeed of the twelve instances in which Irenaeus quotes a NT passage that includesthe term eeacuteaggiexcllion nine feature this pattern Eg Mark 11 (ldquoGospel of Jesus Christrdquo)is quoted three times ( Adv haer 3105 118 153) Rom 11 (ldquoGospel of Godrdquo) is quotedat 31116 Eph 615 (ldquoGospel of peacerdquo) at 3131 2 Cor 44 (ldquoGospel of Christrdquo) at4291 2 Thess 16-10 (ldquoGospel of our Lord Jesus Christrdquo) at 4274

and [2] appeals to the unity of the gospelsrsquo testimony on this matter toestablish the grounds to argue for their unique authority (see 3117) Ineach case Irenaeus presents examples from specic gospels then concludesby noting what the gospelGospel ldquosaysrdquo or ldquoshowsrdquo It is thus possiblethat he refers to the conclusions of a single gospel with the ultimate aimof thus proving their unity and thus uses the term eeacuteaggiexcllion in its simpleldquobookishrdquo sense

However since the conclusions are the same it is also possible thatIrenaeus here cites examples from all the gospels to demonstrate what theGospel itself says about the nature of God thus implying an understand-ing of eeacuteaggiexcllion as a wider category For instance in 392 and 3105

the activity of the Gospel is paralleled with the activity of the prophetsthe same God who was ldquoproclaimedrdquo (kekhrugmiexclnow ) by the prophets wasldquoannouncedrdquo (kataggellntildemenow 392) and ldquotransmittedrdquo (paradidntildemenow3106) by the Gospel (see also 3102) The parallel with the prophetstogether with the choice of these specic verbs seems to suggest thateeacuteaggiexcllion does not here refer to any particular document but rather toan entire category of revelation61 This ambiguity however may be deliberate

Irenaeus may draw upon both meanings in order further to emphasizethat the singularity of God is witnessed by both the prophets and theGospel while the singularity of this essential aspect of the Gospel is simul-taneously witnessed by all four gospels (see 3117-8)

eeacuteaggiexcllion in genitival constructions

In 25 passages within Adversus haereses eeacuteaggiexcllion used in genitival con-structions seven times with a genitive and 18 times as a genitive Of theformer category the majority are consistent with the 27 instances withinNT texts in which eeacuteaggiexcllion is likewise paired with a modifying genitivethat species the subject content or ultimate source of the ldquogood newsrdquo62

For instance in Adv haer 31213 Irenaeus refers to the ldquoGospel of Christrdquo




63 In citations of titles of the four gospels Ireneaus always qualies the relationshipof the Gospel to the evangelist with the preposition katlsaquo (= Lat secundum in Adv haer

1262 1272) whereas his citation of the title of a ldquohereticalrdquo text attributed to a dis-ciple uses eeacuteaggiexcllion with a genitive (ie Iudae Euangelium 1311 ldquoJudasrsquo Gospelrdquo insteadof ldquothe Gospel according to Judasrdquo) It is possible that this correlates with Irenaeusrsquo view that the authoritative gospels all represent a single Gospel according to diV erentapostles in contrast to spurious heretical texts with their totalizing claims to truth

using a common Pauline phrase (see Rom 1519 1 Cor 912 2 Cor 212913 1014 Gal 17 Phil 127 1 Thess 32 also 2 Cor 44 as quoted at

Adv haer 4291) Moreover he states that martyrs give their lives for theGospel evoking NT depictions of the Gospel as a truth for which a Christianshould be willing to suV er or even die (see eg Mark 835 Phil 1132 Tim 18) Similarly Adv haer 311 refers to the ldquoGospel of Godrdquo (seeRom 11 quoted at Adv haer 31116 Rom 1516 1 Thess 22 8 91 Pet 417) that all of the apostles ldquoequally and individually possessrdquo while3224 refers to the ldquoGospel of liferdquo into which Christ brought all human-ity (cp 2 Tim 110)

As mentioned above there are also two passages in which this struc-

ture occurs in titles of heretical books namely the ldquoGospel of Judasrdquo (1311)and the ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo (3119)63 When denouncing the Valentinianuse of the latter Irenaeus plays upon the diV erent connotations of eeacuteaggiexcllionHe states that the text called the ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo (lhyeUcircaw eeacuteaggiexcllion )agrees in no way with the four ldquogospels of the apostles (toYacutew tCcediln postntildelvn

eeacuteaggelUcircoiw )rdquo Consequently he argues that this text cannot be the gospelof truth since if it were the (singular) Gospel transmitted by the apostles

could not also be the Gospel of truth (mhkiexclti eaumlnai tograve ecircpograve tCcediln postolCcedilnparadedomiexclnon lhyeUcircaw eeacuteaggiexcllion ) That of course would be impossiblesince those gospels are alone are true and reliable (lhydeg kaUuml biexclbaia ) Justas the written ldquoGospel of Truthrdquo is contrasted with the authentic Gospelof truth transmitted by the apostles so the singular ldquoGospel transmittedby the apostlesrdquo is equated with the four ldquogospels of the apostlesrdquo

The 18 instances in which eeacuteaggiexcllion is used as a genitive are similarly

illuminative in the range and combinations of meanings that they invokeIn some cases the term eeacuteaggiexcllion encompasses the entirety of the Christiantruth For instance in the preface to Book III Irenaeus states that Jesusldquogave the authority (currenjousUcircan ) of the Gospel to his apostlesrdquo so that theycould subsequently preach with perfect knowledge Similarly he writes of the ldquocovenant of the Gospelrdquo (sup2 diayregkh toegrave eeacuteaggiexcllion ) that is manifestafter Jesusrsquo expiatory death (594 cp 3118) and summarily refers to the




64 Indeed this may simply denote a ldquowritten gospelrdquo although one wonders why theadjective eeacuteaggelikntildew is not here used as in 136 2272 and 3105 Note that Rousseauand Doutreleau (SC 211) translate this phrase as ldquoune forme eacutecrite drsquoEacutevangilerdquo

65 See Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Canon 201-266 See Sundberg ldquoDependent Canonicityrdquo 410

ldquoteachings of the apostlesrdquo as the ldquoteaching (didaskalUcirca ) of the Gospelrdquo(31212)

In contrast two passages clearly use eeacuteaggiexcllion to specify a single writ-ten document insofar as they reference diV erent parts of the Gospel of Mark (3105 [2]) Likewise in 311 Irenaeus states that Matthew ldquopub-lished a writing of Gospel (grafmacrn currenjregnegken eeacuteaggelUcircou ) while Peter andPaul were preaching (eeacuteaggelizomiexclnvn ) at Rome and laying the foundations(yemelioaeligntvn ) of the Churchrdquo The phrase ldquoa writing of Gospelrdquo is somewhatpeculiar especially due to the lack of article64 One possible interpretationis that Irenaeus here attempts to qualify his use of the term eeacuteaggiexcllion inthe context of a book in the same manner that he nuances the signicance

of this rst apostolic writing by paralleling it with Peter and Paulrsquos con-temporaneous preaching (ie eeacuteaggelUcirczesyai ) and by arguing for the antiq-uity and the apostolic origins of ecclesiastical authority A similar approachis found in 3111 in which Irenaeus rst states that John sought to con-test heresy ldquothrough proclamation of the Gospel (diŒ tdegw toegrave eeacuteaggelUcircou

khraeligjevw )rdquo and later recounts that he began his ldquoteaching according to theGospel (tdegw katŒ tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion didaskalUcircaw )rdquo with John 11-5

Three other examples concern the Gospel of Luke These stress thatthere are ldquomany important parts of the Gospelrdquo which God communi-cated through Luke and which one can only learn through his testimony(3143 151 [2]) Insofar as they all occur in 313-15 the section in whichIrenaeus attempts to defend the trustworthiness of Luke65 it is striking thatIrenaeus does not simply argue that the Gospel of Luke communicates orilluminates the Gospel Rather he qualies this gospelrsquos role in a Christian

epistemology as necessary but partial His related statements about Marcionrepresent an important complement to his depiction of the Gospel as aunity in delineated multiplicitymdashas well as to his specic defense of theGospel of Luke as an indispensable facet thereof In 1272 for instancehe states that Marcion transmitted only ldquoa little piece of the Gospel ( par-ticulam Euaggelii )rdquo to his followers despite boasting to the contrary (see eg3119) Especially since Irenaeusrsquo defense of Luke probably responds to

some proto-orthodox distrust of this text due to its associations with Marcion66




67 For instance in his insightful analysis of the use of Matthew in Adversus Haereses Bingham highlights Irenaeusrsquo stress on the simultaneous unity and distinctiveness of thefour gospels (Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 4 62-63 84-88 93-94) asserting that ldquoFrom3118-9 one can glean that Irenaeus holds in balance both a Gospelrsquos harmonious par-ticipation in the one apostolic Gospel and a Gospelrsquos distinctive role Just as Godrsquosarrangement of salvation history has both unity and complexity continuity and dis-continuity so also does his arrangement of the Gospelrdquo (p 87) so also Merkel Die

Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien 54-5568 Lawson Biblical Theology of Irenaeus 102-4

the contrast between the two is striking The Gospel of Luke presents facetsthat are essential for understanding the single truth of the Gospel whichMarcion ironically claims to possess in its entirety even though he onlyaccepts portions of the Gospel of Luke

A similar interplay of unity and multiplicity is apparent in Adv haer

3118-9 Here Irenaeus describes ldquothe character (xaraktregr ) of the Gospelrdquoas four-formed (3118) and states that ldquothe form (THORNdiexclan ) of the Gospelrdquo isthus harmonious (3119) He also notes that Mark by beginning withprophecy thus ldquopoints to the winged image (tmacrn ptervtikmacrn eTHORNkntildena ) of theGospelrdquo (3118) In a more general sense he asserts that those who adoptmore or less than four gospels ldquodestroy the form (THORNdiexclan ) of the Gospelrdquo by

representing ldquothe lsquofacesrsquo (prntildesvpa ) of the Gospelrdquo as either less or morethan four (3119) Here it is striking how Irenaeus uses the language of appearance to describe the multiplicity of the Gospel thus suggesting thatthe ldquofour-formedrdquo quality of the Gospel does not reect an ontologicalreality but simply the way in which human believers may come to under-stand the singular divine Truth As such Irenaeus here remains consis-tent with the Pauline sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion as potentially diV ering in its

mode of proclamation (eg Gal 42) but never in its essential message (Gal16-8 also 2 Cor 1114)67

The nature of this single Gospel is explicated by the reference in 3117to ldquothe rst principles (rxaUcirc ) of the Gospelrdquo which Irenaeus explicates asthe belief in one God as the Creator the God who was ldquoannounced bythe prophetsrdquo and the framer of the Mosaic Law This passage althoughbrief is reminiscent of his presentation of the Rule of Truth (1221) and

his summary of the unifying faith that the Church received from the apos-tles and their disciples (1101) This further suggests that Irenaeus con-ceives of the Christian truth as multi-faceted in its manifestations but aimsto stress above all the singularity of its essence and origin68




69 Ie Ebionites and the Gospel of Matthew (see further Bingham Irenaeusrsquo Use of

Matthewrsquos Gospel 70-71) Marcionites and the Gospel of Luke Docetists (lit ldquothose whoseparate Jesus from Christrdquo) and the Gospel of Mark Valentinians and the Gospel of John (see further Pagels ldquoIrenaeus the lsquoCanon of Truthrsquo and the Gospel of Johnrdquo)

70 In 1 Tim 315 the Church of the living God is described as the ldquopillar andgroundrdquo (stegravelow kaUuml yendraUcircvma ) In Adv haer 311 the Gospel is described as the ldquogroundand pillar (yemiexcllion kaUuml stegravelon ) of our faithrdquo and the four gospels as four pillars whilein 4213 the apostles are described as the twelve pillars of the Church

eeacuteaggiexcllion in predicate constructions

In Adversus haereses there are four occurrences of eeacuteaggiexcllion in predicatestatements all of which cluster in 3118 Two of these occur in the con-

text of his metaphorical association of the four gospels with four ldquoliving creaturesrdquo of Rev 47 (also Ezek 1014) andor the four faces of the cheru-bim upon which the Logos sits enthroned (see Ezek 15-11 101-14 Pss801 901 Is 3716) When equating each gospel with characteristics thatcorrespond to its associated creature by means of predicate adjectivesIrenaeus refers to the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew as tograve

eeacuteaggiexcllion toegraveto clearly adopting the ldquobookishrdquo meaning of eeacuteaggiexcllion

However the other two examples in this passage combine and trans-form the two prior Christian meanings of eeacuteaggiexcllion The rst occurs nearthe beginning of the passage After having argued that Matthew (39) Luke(3101-4) Mark (3105) and John (3111-6) all attest to the oneness of God Irenaeus cites diV erent heretical groups that exclusively use each text(3117)69 He then begins his argument that one must not accept eithermore or less than four gospels (3118) Paraphrasing 1 Tim 315 he asserts

that the ldquopillar and support of the Church (stegravelow dcent kaUuml stregrigma currenkklhsUcircaw )is the Gospel and the Spirit of Life (Pneegravema zvdegw )rdquo70 Poetically interweaving the diV erent components of this metaphor he then states that the Churchhas four life-giving pillars and that the ldquofour-formed Gospel (tetrlsaquomorfon

tograve eeacuteaggiexcllion )rdquo is ldquosustained by one Spiritrdquo (yennUuml dcent Pneaeligmati sunexntildemenon )Irenaeus then enters into his famous discussion of the ldquoliving creaturesrdquo

Structurally and thematically consistent with his combination of OT andNT prooftexts in his eV orts to demonstrate their mutual witness to the oneGod and one Logos he here integrates diV erent descriptions of the fourldquoliving creaturesrdquo beginning with the testimony in the Jewish Scripturesand concluding with the Christian testimony in Revelation First he inter-prets Ps 801 through Ezekiel 1 and 10 (esp 16 1015 1022) in orderto depict Christ-Logos as enthroned upon the four-faced cherubim He




71 In listing the animals in this passage Irenaeus follows Rev 47rsquos description of thefour ldquoliving creaturesrdquo (lion ox human eagle) rather than Ezek 110rsquos description of the four faces of each ldquoliving creaturerdquo (man lion ox eagle compare MT Ezek 1014missing from LXX) Skeat suggests that the corresponding order of gospels followed in

this passage (ie John Luke Matthew Mark) represents a secondary corruption of anearlier source which had originally followed Ezek 110 and thus listed the animalsgospelsin the ldquoWestern Orderrdquo (ie Matthew John Luke Mark ldquoIrenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canonrdquo 196-98) Especially since Irenaeus elsewhere lists the evangelists in theorder Matthew Mark Luke John (eg 311) it seems tenuous to suggest that the orderof the gospels in this passage aims at anything more than using the biblical image of the four living creatures to assert the proper number of gospels (see eg CampenhausenFormation of the Christian Bible 195) Moreover in arguing otherwise Skeat tautologicallypresupposes exactly what he attempts to prove namely that Irenaeusrsquo ldquofour-formed

Gospelrdquo is not a metaphorical image nor theological concept but reects a ldquoFour-GospelCanonrdquo bound in a ldquoFour-Gospel Codexrdquo (on this theory see discussion below)

72 Skeat considers Irenaeusrsquo combination of Ezekielian imagery with Rev 47 to beso inconsistent as to be irreconcilable without positing another earlier source behind itHe proposes that this source which he dates circa 170 CE used both Ezekiel andRevelation to defend the ldquoFour-Gospel Canonrdquo but did so in a manner that was lessabbreviated than Irenaeusrsquo version (ldquoIrenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canonrdquo 194-99)Not only does his theory that another text ldquowithout a shadow of a doubtrdquo underlies Adv haer 3118 seem highly tenuous but it seems simply unnecessary to reconstruct anon-extant original source in order to explain this passage The terse yet evocative com-bination of OT and NT sources in 3118 seems quite characteristic of Irenaeusrsquo modeof argumentation Moreover the supposed inconsistency in comparing the gospels toboth the four faces of Ezekielrsquos cherubim and the four diV erent animals in Revelationis well in keeping with the metaphorical style of this passagemdashas well as Irenaeusrsquo useof the rhetoric of multiplicityunity and appearancereality to express the paradoxicaltruth of the essential unity of the Gospel as manifest in a combination of four diV erentgospels

then draws upon Rev 47 to describe their appearance presupposing Ezek1015 (also 1022) in his equation of the cherubim of Ezekiel 1 with thefour ldquoliving creaturesrdquo of Ezekiel 1071 Identifying each creature with agospel Irenaeus concludes tetrlsaquomorfa gŒr tŒ zOgravea tetrlsaquomorfon kaUuml tograve

eeacuteaggiexcllion In both cases eeacuteaggiexcllion denotes something that is simultane-ously singular and multiple Due to the unifying support of the Spirit theChurch has the Gospel as its one pillar and the four gospels as its fourpillars Just as the Gospel is both ldquofour-formedrdquo and ldquobound together byone Spiritrdquo so the four gospels can be likened to the four diV erent crea-tures of Rev 47 but also to the four diV erent faces of each creature inEzek 11072

Scholars such as T C Skeat and Graham Stanton have suggested that




73 Skeat equates the Four-Gospel Codex whose origins he dates to 170 CE withthe Four-Gospel Canon (ldquoIrenaeus and the four-Gospel Canonrdquo 198-99 contra T CSkeat and Colin H Roberts The Birth of the Codex [London Oxford University Press

1985] 62-66) Stanton is more cautious suggesting that ldquothe universal adoption of afour-Gospel canon took much longerrdquo (ldquoFourfold Gospelrdquo 340) He also acknowledgesthe preponderance of references a single Gospel in Adversus haereses and concludes thatldquofor Irenaeus lsquothe Gospelrsquo and in particular the words of Jesus have a higher author-ity than the individual writings of the evangelistsrdquo Yet he nevertheless asserts that ldquoBythe time Irenaeus wrote in 180 AD the fourfold Gospel was very well establishedrdquo(ldquoFourfold Gospelrdquo 321-22)mdasheven dating the emergence of the four-gospel Codex tothe time of Justin based on his dating of the Muratorian Fragment and the possibleevidence for four-gospel codices in the early third century P75 (which contains onlyLuke and John) and the late second century P64 (which contains fragments of Matthewthat might have come from the same codex as P4 which contains Luke ldquoFourfoldGospelrdquo 326-29 339-40) Until we have more evidence any extrapolation of a four-gospel codex from two gospel codices seems tenuous especially because the gospels con-tinued to circulate individually and because even our earliest evidence for a four-gospelcodex (ie P45) also contains Acts (see Skeat and Roberts Birth of the Codex 65-66Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Bible 173-74 Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 242)

Irenaeusrsquo description of the Gospel as ldquofour-formedrdquo already presupposesthe Churchrsquos acceptance of the canonicity of these texts in a ldquoFour-GospelCanonrdquo and even implies the existence of a standardized four-gospel codex73

If Irenaeus indeed uses the singular eeacuteaggiexcllion to refer to a codex con-taining this collection of texts and compares this collection to the heavenlythrone of the Logos he has innovated a new meaning of this term astruly denoting a ldquocanonrdquomdasha list of texts with self-legitimizing sacred author-ity But are we meant to understand this singular ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquoas written in the sense that it is a proto-canon or authoritative collectioncomposed of four gospels Or rather does Irenaeusrsquo metaphorical languagein this section deliberately draw upon this termrsquos polysemy interplaying

the singularity of the Truth that transcends writing with the multiplicityof the forms in which it nonetheless appears

Above we noted three other instances in which Irenaeus uses the sin-gular eeacuteaggiexcllion to denote a group of written sources (ie 2225 351119) In each case he articulates a distinction between oral tradition andwritten Gospel In 2225 the ldquoGospelrdquo and ldquoall the presbytersrdquo are twocategories of witnesses to the same teachings Similarly 351 and 3119

distinguish the apostles who ldquotransmitted the Gospelrdquo from the other apos-tles However the context is important to note 351 introduces Irenaeusrsquoargument that the four gospels all attest to the unity of God whereas




74 Skeat acknowledges that Irenaeus here aims ldquoto demonstrate the spiritual unity of the Four Gospelsrdquo but asks ldquoHow could a random assemblage of four separate codicesof the Gospels diV ering perhaps in size appearance style of writing and so on beregarded as having the unity and (which is just as important) the exclusivity which

Irenaeus and presumably his source were at such pains to establishrdquo (ldquoIrenaeus andthe Four-Gospel Canonrdquo 199) This seems to miss the point As with the unity of the Jewish Scriptures with the apostolic tradition what is important about the unity of thefour gospels is that it transcends the appearance of diV erence and multiplicity See alsoBinghamrsquos critique of Skeat in Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 80-81 89-94

75 This focus on the unity of the authentic Christian message as opposed to theselection of proper texts is consonant with Adversus haereses as a whole Although denounc-ing heretics for composing spurious texts (1201 3119) Irenaeus more often focuseson their interpretation of accepted texts attempting to demonstrate the inconsistency of their beliefs by illuminating the proper interpretations of the writings (both gospels andepistles) that they share with the Church Two particularly important examples of thistendency are the argument concerning the Valentiniansrsquo exegesis of the JohanninePrologue in 191-5 and the argument concerning the heretical interpretation of 1 Cor1550 in 591-144 See Donovan One Right Reading 36-37 Noormann Irenaumlus als

Paulusinterpret 295-96 Richard A Norris ldquoIrenaeusrsquo Use of Paulrdquo in Paul and the Legacies

of Paul edited by William Babcock (Dallas Southern Methodist University Press 1990)80-84

3119 occurs at the end of his defense of the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo againstthe heretics and represents the conclusion of this same argument HoweverIrenaeus did not even begin this argument from Scriptural proof beforehaving rmly established that ldquothe tradition (paradntildesevw ) from the apos-tles does thus exist in the Church and is permanent (diamenoaeligshw ) among usrdquo (351 also 32-4) Hence he emphasizes the unity of the truth thatwas preached by all the apostles and variously transmitted through a com-bination of oral and written channels Even as a group of writings aretermed the ldquoGospelrdquo Irenaeus characteristically focuses upon the singleTruth to which they bear witnessmdashtogether with the prophets the writ-ings of other apostles and the oral tradition preserved in the Church

It is also signicant that the defense of the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo in3118 occurs within the wider argument of 35-11 namely that the one-ness of God is proclaimed by the apparently multiple but essentially uniedtestimony of the evangelists74 Although proper text selection is defendedin 3117-9 what is ultimately at stake is the unity of apostolic testimonywhich illuminates the unity of the authentic Christian message ensures theunity of the true Church and demonstrates the unity of God75 In using

eeacuteaggiexcllion to refer to a group of texts Irenaeus combines its Pauline andMarcionite meanings However he does not simply contest Marcionrsquos




76 Lawson suggests that ldquoIn actual practice S Irenaeus quotes the Apostolic writingsas of equal authority with the Old Testament Scriptures (but) he always bases theirauthority on the fact of authorship not on the simple circumstance that the book occursin the Canon Thus the Apostolic writings are to Irenaeus fully authoritative Scripturebut they are also only the substitute for the fully authoritative spoken wordrdquo ( Biblical

Theology 35-36)77 Cf Perkins ldquoSpirit and Letterrdquo 311-1278 The epistemological ramications of this stance are articulated nicely by T F

Torrance ldquoIt was the indivisible reality and wholeness of the Truth embodied in Jesus

adoption of a canon by articulating an orthodox ldquocounter-canonrdquo reject-ing his choice of a gospel and asserting that a four-gospel Canon mustinstead serve as the written criterion for discerning the Christian truth76

Rather the inclusivity of the Pauline sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion remains determi-native not only in Irenaeusrsquo description of the four gospels as a singleldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo but also in his eV orts throughout Adversus Haereses

to articulate the one Christian message that unies the multiplicity of authentic apostolic witnesses and above all to demonstrate the unques-tionable unity of its divine source77

From the ldquoMemoires of the Apostlesrdquo to the ldquoFour-Formed Gospelrdquo

Within this survey we have encountered a range of diV erent uses of theterm eeacuteaggiexcllion Consistent with Irenaeusrsquo frequent appeal to Christianprooftexts and his defense of the unique textual authority of the four gospelssome occurrences of this term invoke its simple ldquobookishrdquo meaning asdenoting a single document (eg 311 105 118-9 168 5182) Neverthelessits original Pauline sense was also evident in many cases especially in

depictions of the Gospel as a truth preached (khraeligssein ) by the apostlesand transmitted (paradidntildenai ) to the Church (eg 311 1212 141)However the majority of cases that we surveyed did not clearly conformto either of these extremes Rather under the inuence of both meaningsthey either [1] engendered new meanings from some combination of thetwo or [2] simultaneously drew upon both sets of connotations with delib-erate and evocative ambiguity

These cases most clearly illuminate Irenaeusrsquo understanding of the Gospelreecting his integration of diV erent inuences towards the goal of unify-ing geographically diverse Christian communities into a universal Churchthat is bound together against many dangerous heresies by a single Ruleof Truth (194 221 4354)78 Consequently the diV erences between the




Christ that constituted the fundamental theological base or canon of truth in all IrenaeusrsquoeV orts in expounding and defending the Gospel That is to say in Christ Jesusevent and message fact and meaning the Truth and truths are all intrinsically inte-grated and cannot be torn apart without serious dismemberment and distortion of theFaithrdquo (ldquoDeposit of Faithrdquo 4)

79 See Lawson Biblical Theology of Irenaeus 105-1180 Benoit ldquoEacutecriture et Traditionrdquo 40-4381 See Le Boulluec La notion drsquoheacutereacutesie I 233-34 Perkins ldquoIrenaeus and the Gnosticsrdquo

195-96 Bingham Irenaeusrsquo Use of Matthewrsquos Gospel 305

two previous meanings of eeacuteaggiexcllion often function as generative dichotomiesfor Irenaeus disclosing new levels of connotation and nuance Just as thecontradiction between the orally oriented sense of eeacuteaggiexcllion and its laterldquobookishrdquo sense serves as a locus for issues of authority and interpretationso the tension between the totalized singularity of its use to denote theChristian message and the inherent multiplicity of its ldquobookishrdquo sense servesas a locus for issues of Christian epistemology

As such Irenaeusrsquo combination of the Pauline and Marcionite mean-ings of eeacuteaggiexcllion corresponds to his integration of previous approaches toboth oral tradition and textual authority Like Justin (see 1281) he explic-itly appeals to Christian documents (eg 311) However like Papias (see

5334) he also lauds the presbytersrsquo oral transmission of traditions andinterpretations (eg 2225 322)79 Any potential tension between thesediV erent modes of transmission is resolved for Irenaeus by invoking theessential singularity of the apostolic message and by asserting that all of the apostles ldquoequally and individually possess the Gospel of Godrdquo (311)Moreover he introduces an important mediatory aspect by asserting thateven the truth of Scripture stands dependent upon proper interpretationmdash

a point most poignantly illustrated by the hereticsrsquo consistently false inter-pretation of authentic texts Consequently the correct exegesis of author-itative texts is necessarily linked to his understanding of the tradition thatis preserved and guarded by the Church as summarized in the Rule of Truth (see 1101 221 2271 281-2 322 41 51 144 4321 338)80

Consequently Irenaeusrsquo notion of a single Gospel with four writtenaspects mirrors his heresiological use of the rhetoric of unity and multi-

plicity in Adversus haereses Irenaeus often contrasts the plurality of heresiesand their multifarious depictions of the divine with the unity of the trueChurch and the true God (esp 110-22)81 However he simultaneouslyappeals to the authority of multiple sources for this Truth variously citing the law and the prophets written epistles and gospels the words of Jesus




82 On Pauline inuence in Irenaeusrsquo articulation of the multiplicity of the ldquounity of history in all its varietyrdquo see Norris ldquoIrenaeusrsquo Use of Paulrdquo 91-94

83 For the rationale behind the authority of these ldquogospelsrdquo as uniquely rooted in theldquoGospelrdquo it is signicant to note Irenaeusrsquo use of the Johannine Prologue to assert thatthe accurate manifestation of the ldquoGospelrdquo in these four written facets occurred throughthe agency of Christ as Logos (3118) The Prologue serves as a pivotal proof-text toprove the Incarnation and the goodness of Creation for Irenaeus but also functions toanswer the question of exactly how it was that the law and prophets can witness thetruth of ldquothe Gospelrdquo (see eg 4113 ldquoThe writings of Moses are the words of Christrdquo)The same Logos who gave the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo also spoke to prophets and admin-istered laws (3118) See further Pagels ldquoIrenaeus the lsquoCanon of Truthrsquo and the Gospelof Johnrdquo

84 Torrance ldquoDeposit of Faithrdquo 5-6

the preaching of his apostles and the tradition of the Church (4201-4336-15)82 For him the very plurality of these witnesses testies to the sin-gularity of the Truth that they contain by virtue of the one Logos whois the ultimate cause of all of its manifestations (see eg 391 118 4113209)83 Indeed it is no coincidence that Irenaeusrsquo descriptions of the ldquorstprinciples of the Gospelrdquo (3117) ldquothe Rule of Truthrdquo (1221) and theshared beliefs of all the true churches of the world (110) are essentiallythe same since Christ himself is the Truth (351) and the sole source forits dissemination (see also 4202)84 Moreover the imagery of 3118 sug-gests that the rhetorical interplay of multiplicity and unity has an impor-tant practical equivalent Just as the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo announces a

singular message of truth and just as each of the four gospels has its ulti-mate origin with the one Logos so the Logos allows the true Church toremain unied despite being ldquoscattered throughout all the worldrdquo like theldquofour zones of the worldrdquo and ldquofour principal windsrdquo (see also 1102)

What then is the relationship between the ldquoGospelrdquo and these fourldquogospelsrdquo within Adversus haereses On the one hand the four gospels aretexts of special authority with a special relationship to the Truth (eg 3118

143 151) On the other hand they are not the only texts with author-ity inasmuch as he also appeals to apostolic epistles Nor are any Christiandocuments completely indispensable since the same apostolic tradition isorally preserved in the Church and wholly accessible to illiterate Christiancommunities (see eg 32-5 esp 51) Indeed Irenaeus can both ask andanswer the question ldquoWhat if the apostles themselves had not left us writ-ingsrdquo (341) Even as he lays the foundation for an orthodoxy that would

increasingly base itself in Scripture the importance of oral tradition isrepeatedly aYrmed




85 For the theory that Justinrsquos quotations from NT texts reect an early harmonysee Koester Ancient Christian Gospels 360-402 William L Petersen Tatianrsquos Diatesseron

Its Creation Dissemination Signicance and History in Scholarship (Leiden Brill 1994) 27-29cf Harry Gamble ldquoChristianity Scripture and Canonrdquo 41-42

86 Tjitze Baarda ldquoDIAFVNIA mdash SUMFVNIA Factors in the Harmonization of theGospels Especially in the Diatesseron of Tatianrdquo in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century

Origins Recensions Text and Transmission edited by William L Petersen (Notre DameUniversity of Notre Dame Press 1989) 147-54 See also Cullmann Early Church 39-50Barr Holy Scripture 45

87 Baarda ldquoDIAFVNIA mdash SUMFVNIArdquo 133-38 Petersen Tatianrsquos Diatesseron 432-37Merkel Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien 7-43

88 On Irenaeusrsquo assertion of the limitations of human knowledge especially againstthe heretical predilection for speculation see eg 2253 283 6 also W R SchoedelldquoTheological method in Irenaeus ( Adversus Haereses 225-28)rdquo Journal of Theological Studies

35 (1984) 31-49 Torrance ldquoDeposit of Faithrdquo 7-889 See Lawson Biblical Theology of Irenaeus 26 32-36

Furthermore Irenaeus does not suggest that any one gospel has author-ity in itself On the contrary they can only reveal the truth when con-sidered together dependence on any one gospel apart from the otherthree inevitably results in heresy (3117) This approach stands in starkcontrast to both Justin Martyr and his student Tatian85 The benets of asingle harmonization of diV erent gospel accounts are obvious86 If there isonly one truth one God one Church and one Christ should there notalso be only one account of Jesusrsquo life and teaching If the IncarnationPassion and Crucixion of Christ represent actual historical events thatwere pivotal in the salvation history of humankind then should not theChurch present a single consistent account thereof to its followers poten-

tial converts and especially its enemies Just the apologetic value of a sin-gle gospel can be deduced from pagan Jewish and Marcionite critiquesof the contradictions between gospels so its practical value is evinced bythe popularity of Tatianrsquos Harmony87

Although Irenaeus rejects all other texts that claim to be ldquogospelsrdquo anddepicts the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John as uniquely author-itative the image of the ldquofour-formed Gospelrdquo suggests that divine knowl-

edge ultimately transcends the task of human recording88 As such Irenaeusdoes not describe a ldquoCanon of Christian Scripturesrdquo in any later sense of those terms89 These texts are not yet the literary guarantors of the sacredtradition merely its special guardians Insofar as he simultaneously delineatesthe number of authentic gospels and asserts that more than one text mustbe used to learn the Christian Truth his work is nevertheless seminal for




the later development of a canon90 Since for Irenaeus all of the apostlesequally possess the Gospel and thus testify to the same Truth this doesnot represent a rejection of the oral tradition but rather an importantcomplement to it91 Just as Irenaeus establishes the Churchrsquos unique accessto Truth by appealing to the succession of bishops and presbyters whotransmitted apostolic teachings (eg 341 4338) so his delineation of aspecic number of authentically apostolic gospels demarcates the bound-aries of this true Church and provides a critical means to promote unityagainst the so-called heretics (see 111 3152)

Princeton University Department of Religion

Seventy-Nine Hall Princeton New Jersey USA




Consequently Irenaeus has often been understood as a seminal gurewho marks a decisive turning-point in the history of the Church Characteristicis Hans Von Campenhausenrsquos assertion that Irenaeus signals

the transition from the earlier period of belief in tradition to the new ageof deliberate canonical standardizationmdasha transition in the direction of laterorthodoxy in which the Canon of the Old and New Testament was rmlylaid down2

The dichotomy of Scripture and Tradition however proves problem-atic in light of the importance of tradition (parlsaquodosiw ) within Irenaeusrsquoown thinking as well as his many comments defending the authenticity of

the oral traditions that unify the universal Church (eg 1102 341-25201-2)3


promote a canon in the later sense of that term will be discussed in length belowConcerning the assumption that Adv haer 3117-9 presupposes an already establishedldquoGospel canonrdquo the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment here proves critical If oneaccepts the traditional second century dating of this text (eg Stanton ldquoFourfold Gospelrdquo322-25 Metzger Canon of the New Testament 193) Irenaeusrsquo comments might reect the

proto-orthodox consensus at his time However following A Sundberg GeoV

rey MarkHahneman has recently argued against the traditional dating of this Fragment propos-ing a fourth century dating (The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon [OxfordClarendon 1992] 215-18) Even if Hahnemanrsquos thesis does not prove wholly conclu-sive many scholars now agree that his arguments are convincing enough that we can-not base our reconstruction of the early development of the NT canon too heavily uponthis one document (eg Lee M McDonald The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon

[Peabody MA Hendrickson 1995] 209-20 Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels

[London SCM Press 1990] 243) Without the corroborating evidence of the Fragment

however it becomes problematic to assume that Irenaeus simply presupposes an estab-lished ldquoCanon of the Four Gospelsrdquomdashrather than attempting to defend the authorityof these texts (see Hahneman Muratorian Fragment 100-105)

2 Hans von Campenhausen The Formation of the Christian Canon translated by J ABaker (Philadelphia Fortress 1972) 182 Although his subsequent analysis of Irenaeusis more sophisticated than this sweeping generalization suggests (see eg pp 182-83) itremains signicant insofar as it is frequently quoted (eg McDonald Formation of the

Christian Biblical Canon 164-65 Helmut Merkel Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien

Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin [Tuumlbingen Mohr1971] 51) See also Frances M Young Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture

(Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1997) 290-913 Andreacute Benoit ldquoEacutecriture et Tradition chez Saint Ireacuteneacuteerdquo Revue drsquoHistoire et de Philosophie

Religieuses 40 (1960) 32-43 esp 36-37 41 John Lawson Biblical Theology of Irenaeus

(London Epworth 1948) 87-93 Denis Minns Irenaeus (Washington DC GeorgetownUniversity Press 1994) 116-22 also Alain Le Boulluec La notion drsquoheacutereacutesie dans la litteacutera-

ture grecque II e -III e siegravecles Tome I De Justin agrave Ireacuteneacutee (Paris Eacutetudes Augustiniennes 1985)236 idem ldquoLrsquoEacutecriture comme norme heacutereacutesiologiquerdquo 72-73 76




























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Documents

2002 Reed Vc-libre