My Theory About the Original Shape of Irenaeus's Refutation and Destruction of Knowledge Falsely So Called Books One and Two

I know that almost no one reading this blog cares as much about Irenaeus as I do.  Nevertheless I hope that I have at least convinced some of them that the study of Irenaeus matters more than the study of the gospel.

God didn't establish the canonical gospels - Irenaeus did.

To this end the perplexing structure of the Five Books Against All Heresies (properly identified as the Refutation and Destruction of Knowledge Falsely So Called) is more important in my mind that all the effort put into 'solving' the synoptic problem.

We have five books which Robert McQueen Grant and others feel were written over the course of the reign of Commodus.  I have argued that Irenaeus never intended to write a five book work.  Rather, Hippolytus or some editor operating in the mid-third century developed the current structure out of a series of independent treatises written by Irenaeus.

As I noted earlier the 'glue' which ties the five volume work together is the preface which introduces each new volume to the reader (clearly NOT written by Irenaeus) and the lengthy conclusions which attempt to reconcile Irenaeus' understanding that all the heresies came from Valentinus with the framework of Hippolytus' later work which traced the origins of heresy back to Simon the Samaritan.

When these later additions are removed it is glaringly apparent that Book Three and Book Four of the five volume work were originally conceived as independent works.  The original material behind Book Three as I noted was written against the Alexandrian tradition and ideas contained in Clement's Letter to Theodore.   The material behind Book Four argued that the establishment of the Church in Rome represented the 'true Exodus' from the heretical ideas of Egyptian Christianity.

I have been working to uncovering the original material in Book Two for some time.  The problem always was that I couldn't see any single thread which ran throughout the contents of the work as a whole.  It just seemed to me to represent an addition to the arguments of Book One (i.e. the systematic compendium of heresies which developed from Valentinus).

The more I looked at it I could only liken it to the Tosafot or medieval commentaries in Judaism. The word tosafot literally means "additions" and it is generally accepted that the reason they are called "additions" is because the authors were "adding" things to the Talmud.

I couldn't shake the idea that Book Two in Irenaeus's Against All Heresies represented a Tosafot to Book One and as such it didn't need to have any discernible structure as a separate work.

That idea eventually gave way to the understanding that I have now which is that when the third century editors ADDED the second chronology which begins with Simon and continues to the Cainites (AH i.23.1 - 31.1) they had to shorten the original work to make room for this new material.

I think Book Two represents original material taken out of Book One and assembled as a kind of sloppy compendium.

Why do I think this? Well, one of the first signs for me is that - once you remove the prefaces to each work written by the third century editor - it is glaringly apparent that Book One doesn't have a proper beginning and Book Two does.

Book One Chapter One actually begins with the words:

Dicunt esse quendam in invisibilibus, et inenarrabilibus alitudinibus perfectum Aeonem, qui ante fuit. Hunc autem et Proarchen, et Propatora, et Bython vocant: esse autem illum invisibilem, et quem nulla res capere possit. Cum autem a nullo caperetur, et esset invisibilis, sempiternus, et ingenitus, in silentio et in quiete multa fuisse, in immensis aeonibus. Cum ipso autem fuisse et Ennoean, quam etiam Charin, et Sigen vocant: et aliquando voluisse a semetipso emittere hunc Bythum initium omnium, et velut semen prolationem hanc praemitti voluit, et eam deposuisse quasi in vulva ejus, quae cum eo erat, Sige. Hanc autem suscepisse semen hoc, et praegnantem factam generasse Nun, similem et aequalem ei, qui emiserat, et solum capientem magnitudinem Patris. Nun autem hunc, et Unigenitum vocant, et Patrem, et Initium omnium.

They maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent AEon, whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige. At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father's greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. [AH i.1]

The more I kept looking at these words I knew that they were not the original opening lines of the Refutation and Destruction of Knowledge Falsely So Called. No one would begin a work like this.

The idea that what now appears at the start of Book One originally APPEARED AFTER SOMETHING ELSE which has now been removed is confirmed by a look at Tertullian's Against the Valentinians which places this material in the middle of chapter seven:

They call him in essence the Perfect Aeon; as an individual they call him Propater (Original Father) and Proarche (Original Beginning), also Bythos (Abyss), which name does not suit at all someone living in heaven. They postulate that he is unborn, immeasurable, infinite, invisible, and eternal. They assume of course that they have proved him to be such if they postulate qualities everyone knows he should have. In the same way they say he existed before anything else. I declare that this is indeed true, but I criticise them in nothing more than in this, the fact that the one they say existed before anything else they discover to be subsequent to everything else, indeed subsequent to things not of his own making. Anyway, let's grant that his so-called Bythos existed infinite ages ago in deep and profound calm, in the great peace of a peaceful and (so to speak) insensate godhead, as Epicurus declares. Despite this, they assign a companion to this individual, who is supposed to be alone, a second entity named Thought, whom they also call Charis and Sige. Perhaps they served--in that praiseworthy calm--to encourage him to produce the beginnings of the universe from himself. Like semen he places this beginning in his Sige just as in a womb. Sige accepts it right away, becomes pregnant, and bears (in
silence, of course)--whom? Nus (Mind), resembling the Father and equal in all respects. Specifically he alone can grasp the Father's vastness and his inconceivable magnitude. Consequently, he himself is called "Father" and "Beginning of the universe" and (as his proper name) "Monogenes" (i.e. only begotten) [Against the Valentinians 7]

There isn't a scholar who has ever studied this material who has ever doubted for a minute that Tertullian's Against the Valentinians was developed from Book One of Irenaeus Refutation and Destruction of Knowledge Falsely So Called. But few of them ever delve to deeply into the disagreements between the two versions of the text that have come down to us.

The point of this first discussion is to note that Tertullian clearly understands that something preceded what now stands as the first chapter in Irenaeus' book. Indeed Tertullian's version of the work has six chapters ahead of these words.

It is also worth noting that MOST of the material which follows in Irenaeus is retained by Tertullian, but there are notable differences in order - and most importantly - the OBVIOUS editorial addition in chapters eight, nine and ten are NOT present in Tertullian's text. The borrowing from Irenaeus in Tertullian has been outlined by Riley (thanks to Roger Pearse) as follows:

CHAPTER VII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.1.1
CHAPTER VIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.1.2-3
CHAPTER IX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.1-2
CHAPTER X -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.3-4
CHAPTER XI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.5-6
CHAPTER XII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.2.6
CHAPTER XIII -- Begins with material from Iren. 1.3.1 and continues with Iren.1.4.1.
CHAPTER XIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.1
CHAPTER XV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.2-4 (LOOSELY)
CHAPTER XVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.5
CHAPTER XVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.4.5- 1.5.1
CHAPTER XIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1. 5. 1
CHAPTER XX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.2
CHAPTER XXI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.3-4
CHAPTER XXII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.4
CHAPTER XXIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.4
CHAPTER XXIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.5
CHAPTER XXV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.5.6
CHAPTER XXVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.6.1
CHAPTER XXVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.2
CHAPTER XXVIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.3-4
CHAPTER XXIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.5 AND 1.7.3
CHAPTER XXX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.6.2-4
CHAPTER XXXI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.1
CHAPTER XXXII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.7.1 AND 1.7.5
CHAPTER XXXIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.1
CHAPTER XXXIV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.5
CHAPTER XXXV -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.5 (VERY CLOSELY)
CHAPTER XXXVI -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.3
CHAPTER XXXVII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.3
CHAPTER XXXVIII -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.11.1
CHAPTER XXXIX -- FROM IRENAEUS 1.12.3

I can't stress how important this work of figuring out what the shape of Irenaeus' original text looked like BEFORE it was transformed in third century Rome. I think Tertullian was using an older version of the material and didn't even know the title, 'Five Books Against All Heresies.'

More to follow ...