8/12/2019 God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine Revelation http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/god-cosmos-history-christian-and-neo-platonic-views-on-divine-revelation 1/30 God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine Revelation Author(s): E. P. Meijering Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 248-276 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583232 . Accessed: 07/03/2014 16:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transcript
8/12/2019 God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine Revelation
God Cosmos History. Christian and Neo-Platonic Views on Divine Revelation
Author(s): E. P. MeijeringSource: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 248-276Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583232 .
Accessed: 07/03/2014 16:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
present aper ntends ocomparerenaeus'polemics gainst heGnosticswith lotinus' ttack nthem. Since t s obvious hat renaeus ouldnothaveknown boutPlotinus, nd sincethepossibilityhat Plotinus ead
Irenaeus s extremelyemote, e arenotconcernedwith racingnykindof dependence.We shall deal with the question n how far renaeusdirected r wouldhavedirected heobjectionswhichhe had against he
Gnostics, gainst he Platonists s well and in how far he would havebeen ustifiedn doingso. We shall also deal with hequestion n howfarPlotinuswould and could have directed heobjections,whichhehas
against heGnostics, gainst he orthodoxChristians s well. It is im-
portant o discuss hequestionnhow far hePlatonists nd theorthodox
Christians ouldhavebeen ustifiedn their ttacks n oneanother,incethecontroversiesn thesecond,third nd fourth enturiesand in the
followingenturies own o our ime)were onductedt a low evel,whereone was not nterestedn whether newas beingfair o one's opponent.
We choose renaeus incehecan be regardeds thefather forthodoxChristianheology,ndPlotinus, incehe sobviouslyhegreatesthinkerinthePlatonic radition.'Furthermore,othhaveextensivelyealtwiththe sameproblem:therefutationf thepessimisticosmologyof the
Gnostics.
1 I want oexpressmygratitudeo Professor.H.Armstrongor dvisingmeontherelevantreatisesf Plotinuswhich ught obe taken nto onsiderationor hepurpose ursuedn this aper.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Plotinus nd Irenaeusso strongly islike2 o suggest hat we can comeforwardwith an entirely ew vision. But there s enoughdivergencebetween he cholars o ustifyhehopethatwemaybe ableto lluminatea fewpoints.
AccordingoHarnack3heorthodox hristiansfthe econd nd thirdcenturies how in theirpolemics againstthe Gnosticsthattheywere
stronglynfluencedycontemporaryhilosophy.This is clearfrom hefact hat hey rgue n favour f theGnosticdemiurgend assert hathe
is thehighest od,and that hey ever rgue heotherwayround,namelythat heGnostic ighest od istheCreator. Thismeans hat heorthodoxChristianswanted o givea kind of Welterklirung'nd wereunawareofthequalitative ifferenceetween he realmofcreation nd therealmofredemption.
According o von Ivainka4 he orthodoxChristians bjectedto bothGnostics nd Platonists ecausetheydeniedthattheworldwas created
thathuman ife s meaningfuln itself.According o the Neo-Platonists
every tepfurtherwayfrom he One is a deterioration,nd human ife
emergesn thecourseof thisdeterioration. he Neo-Platonistsbject otheorthodoxChristians ecause their mphasison God's freewill andtheirrejection f a necessary rojection ut of the One leads to the
contingencyftheworld, n idea which lotinus egardeds outrageous.In a recent aperA. H.Armstrongakes differentiew.5Accordingo
himPlotinuswouldhaveopposed
theorthodoxChristiansn thesame
wayas he opposedthe Gnostics.The core ofPlotinus' olemics gainsttheGnostics s thatthe world s a theophany.He strongly islikes he
confinementf God's revelation o a man,JesusChrist,nd tothebodyof thechurch.The orthodox hristians,oo,saythat he world s good,butthis snottheheart f their eligion.The heart f their eligion andhere heresgreat imilarity ith he Gnostics is therevelationnJesus
2 See infra269,270f.3 See Lehrbuch erDogmengeschichte (41909) 568ff.4 See Plato Christianus.Ubernahme nd Umgestaltunges Platonismusdurch die
VdterEinsiedeln964)132f nd 128f.5 Seehispaper,ManintheCosmos.A Study f omeDifferencesetweenagan
Neo-Platonism and Christianity, omanitaset Christianitas. tudia J.H. Waszink .oblataAmsterdam-London973)5-14.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In thepresent aperwe intend o compare lotinus' nd Irenaeus'doctrinesf he reationndtheir iews n the xtento whichhereanbe a historyfrevelationfterhe reation,nd speciallynthe uestionin howfarGod canreveal nythingew.Finallywewant ocomparetheir iews nman's ositionn the osmos,nthehistoricalradition,andonhow theologianra philosopherughtodevelopndproducehis houghts.
Ia. Verymportanto oursubjects thatPlotinus tressesime ndagain hathere as n heDivine oplan f he reation. egiveseveralreasons hyhis ouldnot nd hould othavebeen he ase:
If thecreation ere heexecutionfa preconceivedlan,Plotinusargues,hiswouldmean changentheDivineviz., rom ot reatingocreating),uch changes inconceivable.6uch changewould itherhavebeen n improvement,hichwouldmean hat heDivinewas notperfectlyoodbefore,ra deterioration,hich ouldmean hat hingsshould avebeen efts theywere.7
FurthermorentheDivine,where heres no sooner rlater,she lanand the xecutionftheplan,must oincide, hichxcludeshenotionofa planbeforehe reation.9 planwould uggestomethingutsidethe ivinewhenhere asnothingutsidet.lo Aplan eforehe reationwouldmeanhat heworld as beginningn ime,r hat here asoncewhen heworldwas not,an idea which lotinus,ikeall orthodoxPlatonists,ejects." Furthermore,lotinusrgues, planbefore hecreation ould ntroducen elementfarbitrarinessnto he Divine:
Whywas his articularniversereated,ndcould heDivine egrethis
6 Enn. 2,9,8,3-5: istraoiovrat sc.ofFvwortcof)panTIvrae ttvog i t Kai
creation nd destroyt?12On the otherhand Plotinus tresses hatour
world,as a necessarymage of the intelligible orld, s such thatno
rational lanning ould havemade tbetterhan t s.13So Plotinus oesnotreject henotion f planbeforeheworld ecause hedivine s belowthe evelofplanning, ut because t is above it.
Ib. As oftenas Plotinusrejects any divineplan beforethe worldIrenaeus ssertst. Because of His foreknowledgeod conceived efore-hand in His mindthe world as it was to be in thefuture.14 lthoughIrenaeusdoes raise hequestionn how farGod's revealingctions mplya change nGod,15 e doesnotaskhimself hether heactofcreations
already uch a change.- Irenaeus stresses hat there s no earlier ndlater nGod,16 hereforen God plan,willand actionmust oincide."-Irenaeus, nmaintaininghat he worldhas a temporal eginning,eemsto realize the difficulties hich arisehere,but refuses o speculateonthem.18 The divine lanbefore hecreation,ays renaeus,must xclude
any rbitrarinessnthecreation."9 ecauseeverythingscreated yGod'swisdom ndgoodness twillbe preservedor verbyGod.20 BecauseofGod's wisdom hisworld s a beautiful ndharmoniousntity.21renaeus
stresses hedivineplanor will before heworld, ecauseonly hismakesitclear that heCreator s nota limited,nferiornd weakbeing.22
Ic. Plotinus nd renaeusdirect heir ttacks gainst heGnostics. t soutsideour competence o judgewhetherheywere ustifiedn making
12 Enn. ,9,4,15-18:Ensi Ka Ci8tavoiqt oist .. rGRv KC6Oaov6v8c noirEs;-I6IrT& cai p8psci abI6v; tiy&p tcr&yvco,i a&vagvet;
he idea thatGod could
destroyhe reationsabsurd oPlotinus,inceherejectsnydivinenterventionromwithout,ee nfra53.13 See Enn.3,2,14. On theworld eingwhat tis,as an image ftheDivine,
withoutnyplanningytheDivine f.5, ,7.14 See e.g. A.H. 2,3,1: Si autem raescius st,et mente ontemplatussteam
conditionem,uae neo loco uturasset,pse ecit arn uietiam raeformavitarnnsemetipso.
15 See infra 54 ff.16 SeeA.H. 2,16, : ineoautemui it uper mnes eus .. nec liud ntiquius,ec
theseattacks.23We are dealingwiththequestion n how farPlotinuscould have attacked he orthodoxChristianswiththe same or similar
arguments,ndwhetherrenaeus ould have ttacked hePlatonistsnthewayhe attacked heGnostics. Plotinus'doctrine hat here s no planbeforethe creationcould have been directed gainst renaeus' view,and Irenaeus' emphasison the divineplan beforethe creationcouldhave been stated against the Neo-Platonicview. But Plotinusand
Irenaeus,whilst aking ppositeviews n thismatter, o so partly or hesame reasons. Both wanttoemphasize hat ntheeternalGod planandaction must oincide,both wantto exclude heelement farbitrariness
from heDivine,bothmaintainhat heworldwillnever edesertedy heDivine ndboth tress hat heworldsa beautifulnd harmoniousntity,inotherwords hat his s a goodcreation.Where hey ifferpartfromwhetherheres a divineplanbefore heworld rnot, s onthequestionofthetemporal eginningf theworld, Plotinusfirmlyejects t andIrenaeus equallyfirmly elieves n it. This means that accordingtoIrenaeusGod actsfrom utside heworld, viewPlotinus oesnot hare,as we shall see.24 One may wonder whether he difference etween
Plotinus nd renaeus an be describeds the ontrast etween n theonehanda monotheism hich eestheOne God,theunique,unchallengeablyand unchanginglyranscendentourceofall realitynd goodness, om-
municating ivinityo all beingswhomhisspontaneous reativityringsintoexistenceccording o their apacity o receivet,and on the otherhanda monotheism f a 'jealousGod', separated rom iscreation yan
unbridgeable ulf.25Althoughrenaeus'position mplies gulfbetweenCreator ndcreation, eneverthelessbviouslywants o avoid thecrude
consequenceswhichmight ollow rom his.JustikePlotinus26renaeusstresseshatGod is omnipresentnd not confined y anything.27cca-
sionally renaeus ndicateswhattheconsequencemight e ifGod wereconfined. fthereweremore hanoneGod, thesegodsmight e ealoustowards ach other nd nterfereneach other's ffairs.28fMarcionwere
right,renaeus ays, nd therewere wogods viz., he vilcreator ndthe
23 See on thisquestion .g. H.-C.Puech,Plotinet les Gnostiques, ntretiens
Fondationardt our 'dtude el'antiquitdlassique (1960)159ff.24 See infra53.25 Thisdefinitionsgiven yA.H.Armstrong,p.cit., .26 See Enn. 2,9,3; 5,5,9.27 See A.H. 2,1;2,3,4;2,4,1;2,7,1;2,7,2;2,16,3; ,33,2; 4,51,1.28 See A.H. 2,1,4.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
good Redeemer) heRedeemer ould not be called good', sinceHe takes
awayform he reatorwhat s ofthe reator.29Agulf etween heCreator
andanybody ranythinglsewouldmake heCreator finiteeingsincetherewouldbea territoryccupiednotbyHimbutby omebody lse), ndas a finiteeingGodwould ctand react ikemanwhoresentseing inite.Irenaeuswants o avoidthis onsequence, utonemay rgue hat lotinuswould take the viewthat renaeus s notsuccessfuln this, incedespitehisemphasis nGod's omnipresencee still elievesna God whocreatesfrom utside he world nd who ntervenesnthecreation.30
IIa. Regardinghequestionwhetherhere s a historyntheworld,
historynwhichboth God and man act andreact, an,as far s Plotinusis concerned, e dealtwithfairly riefly.As thecreation oes notrepre-sent change nthedivine, ince t snotan act ntime, o God does notdo newthingsfter hecreation.31 change ntheDivine s,as wehave
seen,32ither n mprovementr a deterioration,nd both reunbecomingto theDivine. If God didanythingew ntheworld, hisnewwouldbe,in comparisonwiththeold, either n improvementr a deterioration.Plotinus' nsistencehat the world was not created o that theDivine
couldacquirehonour33 lready xcludes hepossibilityhatGod shouldbeinterestednmaking ure hat hings appen ccordingoplanandthatthere houldbe, fnecessary,ivine ntervention.he divine oul governsthe material niverse otfrom utside ike a doctor, ut fromnside ikenature.34 his meansthatthere s no interventionrom utsidemakingthings etter.But there s no interventionrom utsidemaking hingsworse ither:God cannot epent fHiscreation nddestroyt.35 No suchinterventions necessary,incetheuniversewas perfect, ight rom he
beginning. t cannot be comparedto a childwhich s an imperfect
29 SeeA.H. 4,51,1:quemadmodumonus rit, uialienos ominesbstrahitb eoquifecit, t ad suum dvocat egnum?.. etquare ircahominesuidemonus idetur,in psumutem uifecit ominesniustissimus,uferensbeoquaesunt ius?
30 See infra54 ff.31 Cf. E.P.Meijering,Wie platonisiertenhristen?ur Grenzziehungwischen
beingand stillgrows.36The factthatPlotinusrules out thepossibilityof any changein the cosmos,because it is unnecessary,must mean
that lotinus elt elativelyt home ntheworld. He says hatmanshouldnotblamethe Creator ornothaving reatedhimbetter han he is,butrather hathe should ccept heorder fthingsnddirect ismind othefirstwithout evilingwhat s lowerthan thefirst.37lotinuscompareshimselfoa man who ives na housewhich hebuilder as builtwith heutmost kill,yethe is lookingforward o thetimewhenhe can leave t,when he willno longerneeda house.38As an imageofthe ntelligiblerealmtheworld s inferioro the ntelligibleealm,butneverthelesshe
bestpossible mage. Therefore lotinusdoesnotdespise heworld. Hismysticisms not weltfeindlich'.39
IIb. Irenaeus' xpositionsnhistorys inauguratedythe reation remuchmorecomplex.Froma few entencesn Irenaeus t wouldappearthathe, ust like thePlatonists, ejects he dea thatGod does anythingnew in history. Againstthe Gnostic theory hatGod the Redeemercorrects hework ofthe evil creator renaeus states hat the Redeemershouldhavepreventedheworkofthecreator eforetwasdone nstead
ofcorrectingtlater s ifHe had regrets.40God shouldhavegiven er-fection o thevery irstmenand to their vil creators nsteadofgivingperfectiono man nthe atter ays. Ifman couldnotacceptperfectionin thebeginning, ow could he receive t lateron?41As we shall see,42theseobjections an be raised gainst renaeus'own viewson thehistory
40 See A.H. 2,3,3; 2,4,3; 2,4,4; 2,22,5. See E.P.Meijering,ome Observationson renaeus' olemicsgainstheGnostics, ederlandsheologischijdschrift7 1973)28ff,ndE.P.Meijering, ieplatonisiertenhristen?5.
41 A.H. 2,3,3:Quae nim nitioon ossuntmendationemercipere,uemadmodum
hanc ostea ercipient?ut uemadmodumominesdvocari dperfectumicunt,umilla psaquaesunt ausae, xquibus acti unt omines,el pseDemiurguselAngelinlabedicantursse?Et si ideoquodbenignusit, n novissimisemporibusisertussthominumt erfectumisdat; llorumrimomisereriebuituifuerentominisactores,etdare isperfectum.
42 See infra60 f.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ofrevelation.Theyshowon theone hand thathe sometimesonductedhispolemics gainst heGnostics t a levelwhere rgumentsasily ecome
counter-productive,n theotherhandthathemusthave been awareofthelogicaldifficultieshat arise when one speaksofcontingentcts ofGod. Irenaeus,ustlikePlotinus,maintains hat God cannotchange nthecourse fhistory. hereforee rules ut thepossibilityhatGod does
somethingompletely ew which ontradicts hatHe did ordidnot dobefore. IrenaeusquotesMatthew11,27 in thepresent ense:"Nobodyknows heSon buttheFather ndnobodyknows heFather ut heSon."He attacks he Gnosticswhoread: "Nobodyhas known heSon but the
Father and nobodythe Father but the Son." This would mean,saysIrenaeus, hat he Fatherwas unknown efore hrist,hatChrist id notexistbeforeHis appearanceon earth, hatGod's providencexists nlysince he ime fEmperor iberius ndthatbefore hat imeGod didnotcare. This wouldimply change n God.43 But Irenaeusalso stresses
that, lthoughhere as been a divine evelationight romhebeginningof the creation, his revelation everthelessakesplace quibusvult, t
quandovult, tquemadmodumult ater.44 t seems o us that renaeus'
thinkingbout God's revelationnhistory ovesbetween hese wopoles:God does notrevealHimself uddenlynd arbitrarily,ut God's revela-tioncannotbe takenforgranted ither, ince t is dependent n God'sownfreewill. Thefact hat heoneGod,theCreator, asrevealedHim-self hrough is Son since he reation,nd thatHe has thefreedom o doso when,where nd in thewayHe wants o, mplies hatGod onlydoes
relatively ewthings, otcompletely ewthings,.e. that henewwhichGod does is intimatelyelated owhatGod didbefore:
Irenaeusdistinguishesour
waysof revelation f the one God: one
descendingromAdam,onethroughheprophets ftheJews, ne whichthe heathen an perceive) hrough he creation, nd one through he
history fthechurch.45 he first hreewaysall refer o therevelation
43 See A.H. 4,11,1:Et interpretanturuasia nullo ognitusit verus eus anteDomini ostridventum.. Si autemChristusuncnchoavitsse, uando tsecundumhominemdventumuumgit,ta temporibusiberiiaesaris ommemoratusstPaterprovidereominibus,t non emper erbumiusunacum lasmateuisse stendebatur;nectunc uidemportuitlterum eum nnuntiari,edcausastantaencuriaetnegle-
of God as theCreator,ndwe shall ee that renaeus oestogreatengthstocombine hefourth ayofrevelation ith herevelationf God as the
Creator.Asfar s we can seetherevelationescendingromAdamplaysno part s a separate hementheAdversus aereses. Buttherevelation
through he creation nd the revelation f God's providence re veryimportanto Irenaeus. This is in itself o original spectof Irenaeus'
theologynd weonlydeal with t nconnection ithrenaeus'belief hatthe revelationn Christ s intimatelyonnectedwith hese other evela-tions. God, thoughnvisible, as neverunknown.46 od has revealedhisprovidence otmerelyince he ime ftheEmperor iberius othose
whobelievenChrist, uttoallmenwho since hebeginningftime ivedinvirtue,oved God andtheir eighboursnd lived nexpectationfthe
Christ.47At least somePagans have a knowledge f thisrevelation,48amongst hem lato.49 The Old Testament earswitness o God who stheCreator.50renaeus'majorconcerns to showthatGod's redeemingactions n Christ renot nconflict ith hefact hatGod is the Creatorwho extends isprovidencell over heworld.In Christ here ppearsnootherGod than heCreator. renaeus mphasizeshis act o stronglyhat
onecan call histheology theology f creation s much s a theology fredemption:
God's work f ncarnationoesnotcontradicthework fthe reation,but s in inewith t. This dea isdeveloped horoughlyy renaeus.TheGod of the Old Testaments theFatherof Christ. The apostlespreachno otherGod than theGod oftheOld Testament.51 hrist evealsno
other ather han heCreator.52 or couldHe, sinceHe has alwaysrevealedheFather nHispre-existenceefore is birth. n Irenaeus
Christ'sre-existenceunctionsn ordero stress heunchangeabilityfGod's revelation.53hrist'sppearance asforecastytheprophets.54Theprophets ere ll membersf Christi.e.thebody fChrist),ndthereforell,eachaccordingo hisparticularunction,orecastariousaspects fChristo that hewhole f Christ'sifewas foretoldytheprophets.55hecontinuityn God's revelationlso appears romhemannern which hrist asborn ndthemannernwhich hristctsandspeaks:
AsAdamwascreatedutof he arth ponwhich od hadnotyetetitrain, oChrist asborn utof virgin,hus eitherdamnorChristbeing ormedut fnothing.56t heweddingfCana Christouldhavemadewine utofnothing,utHedidnot. nstead emadewine utofwaternorder oshow hat he ne God who reated hewater ivesnthe atter ays hegrace fwine hroughisSon.57WhenChrist ivesHis great ommandmente does so in order ofulfilheLawandthe
52 See e.g.A.H. 4,21,4: non alterius atris gnitionemecitveniens ilius, edeiusdemuiab initioraedicatusst.
54 Seee.g.A.H. 4,21.55 See A.H. 4,55, especially ,55,1: Cumenim t ipsimembrassentChristi,
unusquisqueorumecundumuoderatmembrum,ecundumoc etprophetationemmanifestabat,mnes t multi num raeformantestea quaesunt nius nnuntiantes.
Quomodonim
ernostramembra
peratio uidemniversi
orporisstenditur;
iguraautem otius ominiserunummembrumon stenditur,edper mnia: ic etprophetaeomnes uidem numraefigurabant.
56 See A.H. 3,30:EtquemadmodumrotoplastuslleAdam erudi erra,tdeadhucvirginenondumnimluerat eus, thomo on rat peratuserram)abuitubstantiam,etplasmatusst manuDei ... itarecapitulansnse Adam pseVerbumxsistens,xMariaquaeadhuc ratvirgo,ecteccipiebatenerationemdaerecapitulationis..H.3,31: El t C~kvo; &qI yivo ' 1'(pa, idicrl8g 6 abrob6 6;g,E6t Kaci6v dvaKs-
prophets,fHe had descended rom nother ather hantheGod oftheOld Testament, e wouldhave strivenogive commandmentifferent
from heLaw of theOld Testament.58 hosetexts f theSermon n theMountwhich recriticalf heJewishraditionre, ccordingo renaeus,notdirectedgainst heLaw of theOld Testament,utagainst he nter-
pretation iven o itbythePharisees.59fthe Fatherof ChristwerenottheCreator, henChrist ould not havecometoHis own creation n the
incarnation,nd no real redemptionnd restoration ould have taken
place.60 BecausetheCreators theRedeemer he ctofredemptions notan incident'meant nly or hehappyfew, ut ntheredemptionhe nd
is combinedwith heb2ginning,.e. thewholehistory f mankindhasbeenrestored.61That swhy renaeus tresses hatAdam,whofellfrom
Paradise,has himself een redeemednChrist.62 e accuses Tatianandhis Gnosticfollowers fdenyingAdam'sredemptionn order o maketheir wnredemptionookmore mportant.63This seems o be a funda-mentaldifference etween renaeus and the Gnostics: The Gnostics
obviouslyhink hat herevelationmust enew norder o beimpressive.Having tressed hatChrist ad been foretold y theprophets,renaeus
realizes hat his ould ead totheobjection: Whatdid Christ ring hatwasnew?""64romthe nswerhegives tappearsthat renaeusdoesnotthink hat here anbenothing ew. He sayswhat henewChrist roughtwas Himself,who had been foretold.65The arrivalof a kingcan beheraldedn advance, nd whenhe actually rrives obody skswhetherhe has brought nything ew comparedwiththose who heraldedhisarrival.66 hismeans hat renaeusdoes notdeny hat here s somethingnew,but thathe denies hattheprogress f revelations interruptedy
58 A.H. 4,22,2.59 A.H. 4,23-24.60 A.H. 5,2.61 See e.g.A.H. 3,32,1:Propter ocLucasgenealogiam,uae est a generatione
Domininostri sque d Adam, eptuagintauasgenerationesabere stenditinemconiungensnitio,t significansuoniam pseestqui omnes entes xinde b Adamdispersas,t universasinguas,tgenerationemominumum psoAdam nsemetipsorecapitulatusst.
62 A.H. 3,33,1.63 A. H. 3,37.
64 A.H. 4,56.65 A.H. 4,56,1:Si autem ubitvoshuiusmodiensus, tdicatis:Quid gitur ovi
somethingompletely nexpectedlyew. The new nthedivine evelationis in inewithwhats alreadyknown.67he fact hat heresintherevela-
tionsomething ew which s in linewithwhat s alreadyknown nd hasalreadybeen revealedmeansthat ccording o Irenaeus he divine eve-lationmanifestsharmonious rogress.But this rogress nly ppliestoman and mankind,not to God who is above it.68 renaeus ust likePlotinus69tatesfirmlyhatGod does notneed man and thatGod duesnot seekglory orHimself hroughhecreation. fGod neededmanforHis glory's ake, henGod wouldbe ina progressowards he cquisitionofglory, oo. God does not need manbecause He was glorified ythe
Word beforeall creation.70Againstthe Gnostics,who, according oIrenaeus, aythat heworldwasmade nhonourof theaeones, renaeusstatesthattemporaryhings annotprovideglory o what s eternal."God does not needman,but man needs the communionwithGod.72
In thecourseofhistoryhere s a progress f revelation, progresswhich hows he xtent fman'sneedofGod and oftherichness fGod'smanifestation. here s one salvation nd oneGod, but there remanystageswhich ead man towardsGod. God hasthefreedomonstantlyo
67 This deais alsoexpressedy renaeuswhenhesays hat fterhe ncarnationthebelieversidnotpraise nother od,butpraisedheCreatorna newway, eeA.H. 3,11,2:Omnia nim ova derant, erbo ove isponentearnalemdventum,tieumhominemuiextra eum bierat,scribereteo:propteruod tnove eum oleredocebantur,ed non liumDeum.A.H. 3,12,17:Manifestumst giturx hisomnibusquoniam on lterum eumPatrem ssedocebantsc. apostoli),ed ibertatisovumtestamentumabant is, uinovenDeum erSpiritumanctumredebant..H. 4,55,6:Thetrulypiritual elieverssemperundem eum ciens,tsemperundem erbumcognoscens,tiamsinnovissimisemporibusove ffususst nnos,et ea conditionemundi sque dfinemn psum umanumenus: x quoquicredunteo,etsequunturverbumius, ercipiuntamquaeest b eo salutem.
68 See A.H. 4,21,2:EthocDeus b homineiffert,uoniameusquidemfacit,omoautemit: tquidem uifacit,emperdem st, uod utemit,t nitium,tmedietatem,etadiectionem,taugmentumccipere ebet.. Et Deusquidemerfectusnomnibus,ipse ibi equalis tsimilis.. homo ero rofectumercipienstaugmentumd Deum.
69 Cf. supra253 on Plotinus.
70 A.H. 4,25,1.Cf. on thismportantspect f renaeus' heology.P.Meijering,Die ,,physischerldsung"n derTheologie es Irendius,ederlandschrchiefoorKerkgeschiedenis3,2 1973)152f.
"1 A.H. 2,5,1:Quisenimhonor staeternorumorum uaesemperunt, a quaesunt emporalia;orum uaestant, a quaepraetereunt..H. 2,5,2: o vanaegloriaehonor,uistatimraeterit,tJam on pparet.
72 A.H. 4,25,1: n quantumnim eus nulliusndiget,ntantumomondigeteicummunione.
13 A.H. 4,19,2:Unaenimalus st tunus eus;quaeformantominem,raecepta
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
preservesheFather's nvisibility,estman shoulddespiseGod, and inorder hatman shouldconstantly ave somethingo strive or;on the
other hand the Son, byrevelationsn manydifferentaysmakes theFathervisible,estmanshould, osingGod altogether,ease to live. Fortheglory f God is the ivingman,and man's ife s the visionof God.God's revelationhrough reationgrants ifeto all who live on earth;moreover,heFather'smanifestationhroughheWordgives ife o thosewho want o seeGod."74 Mankindgrows owardsGod. Originalmancan be comparedto a childwhich tillhas to grow. God adapts Hisrevelationo whatmancan bearand understand.God makes thechild
growby becomingHimself child and will finally ndow man witheternalife.75renaeus s then onfronted ith he amecritical uestionwhich ehimselfuttotheGnostics:WhydidGod notmakemanperfectin thebeginning?76is answer s complex, isting everal easons:Godcould havegivenperfectiono man in thebeginning,utman,havingbeennewly reated ould notyet ndure erfection."Furthermoreodwantedmanto knowgood throughxperience, utthenhe also had toknowwhat s evil, nd thishe could not haveexperiencedfhe hadper-
ceived erfectionromhevery eginning."8urthermoreodwantsmanto live nfreedom nd thereforeoes notforcehimeither owards ood
multa, tnonpaucigradusquiadducunt ominemd Deum. Terreno uidem t temporaliregi,cum sit homo,licetaliquotiesmaioresprofectus ttribuere is,qui sunt subiecti:Deo autem non licebit,cum sit idem,et sempermaioremgratiampraestarehumano
generivelit, tpluribusmuneribus ssidue honorare os qui placentei? Cf. 4,21,2.74 Thisfamous assage s wellworth uoting nd translating,.H. 4,34,7: in-
visibilitatemuidemPatris custodienssc. Verbum), e quandohomofieret ontemtor
Dei,et
utsemperhaberet d
quodproficeret;isibilemutemrursus ominibus
ermultas
dispositionesstendens eum,ne intotodeficiens Deo homo,cessaret sse. GloriaenimDei vivens omo:vita utemhominisvisioDei. Si enimquae estperconditionemstensioDei vitampraestatomnibus n terraviventibus, ultomagis ea quae estper Verbummanifestatioatris,vitam raestathisqui vident eum.
75 In A. H. 4,62 Irenaeus says of originalman: ob y&p 18)6vavzoLyivvrlasval
Td vesozUi7sEsvvrEiVIvaWaNO66 iAl ioYTtv cyiVVrlra,aUrdTOTo Kai tozspoUDvatTzoO Tsiou. Ka06 8 vscdOpa, KaLtrdzozo KaiLtil ta. In A. H. 4,63 he continues:Kai Ltd oizToouvsvrltia sv Yi6g Tro 90soD,
T,stogv,TO dv pcnt, ob St' 'au'r6v,
id 8tTd 't6tootv'pinouMiltov oVrw XomopoOitEvog,gv9povpnogabrT6vCOpevfi86varo .. "ATtva td'Tilv6pnspfdoAouoavb&roDO ya96rTlTrai~nrlotv pooaX36vTa,
Kai Inti irov iCrtAivovra,yEvvfl'ou60avdnoItrat,ToO 6o0d<p96vocqptco-EtSVOU) KCOV.
76 A.H. 4,62; 4,63.
7 A. H. 4,62:6 Q&S6qEV o6o TEflyCIrapaCXtvV Et'd XflqTCO&tvp6C r6 tihEltov,
6 EDvNpontog86vatogXapstyvrb6T fltogya'pAjv. his eason srepeatedn4,63.7s See A.H. 4,61.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ortowards vil.79renaeusdealswithhumanfreedom n differentevels.On the one handhe deals with t in a formalistic ay, usingcommon
senseargumentso showwhyman musthave a freewill.A0 ut he alsoreflectshe ctualmeaning fhuman reedomndhow t sbroughtbout.This aspect of Irenaeus' thought s importanto our subject, inceit
appearshere hat ccording o Irenaeus here s a qualitative lus in thecourseof theprogressn revelation.The New Testaments thecovenantof freedom nd is hereby istinguishedrom he Old Testament.TheOld Testament aw is given n order o ensure hepeople's servitudeo
God.81 To Irenaeusthe term servitude's not an exclusively egative
one: the Law ensuresman's servitude nd preventsman frombeingdiverted romGod by his desires.82renaeussometimes rawsa dis-tinction etween ervitudend obedience n the one hand and freedomand love on the other. Both slavesand children tand n a relation freverencend obedience owards heheadofthefamily,ut thechildrenhave a greaterrustnHim,which utsthem n a superioreveloffree-dom.83Christmade man free o enablehim to love God thebetter.84That is whyChrist alls His disciplesfriendsnd not slaves.85 n this
freedommancan take the nitiative. n explainingMatthew ,41 ("If amanin authoritymakesyou go one mile,go withhimtwo"), Irenaeus
says hismeans hatweshouldnotfollow uch man as a slave,butwalkahead ofhim as a freeman,payingno attentiono otherpeople'sbadfaith utpractising oodness urselves.86n the oveofGod man attainshisperfection.87n followingGod man is glorifieds man.88 renaeus
79 See A.H. 4,59; 4,61.80 SeeE.P.Meijering,renaeus'RelationoPhilosophytc., 25,231f.81 See A.H. 4,19,1; ,24,2:Etenim ex,quippeervisosita .. velutervinculum
attrahensamad obedientiamraeceptorum,tidisceretomo ervireeo.82 See A.H. 4,26,1:Atubi conversiuntn vituliactionem,t reversiunt nimis
suis inAegyptum,ervi ro liberis oncupiscentessse,aptam concupiscentiaeuaeacceperunteliquamervitutem,Deo quidem on bscindentem,nservitutisutemiugo ominantemis.
83 A.H 4,24,2: eamvero ietatemtobedientiam,uaeestergapatremfamilias,essequidemandemt ervis t iberis, aioremutemiduciamabereiberos,uoniamsitmaior tgloriosiorperatioibertatis,uam a quaeest n ervitutebsequentia.
puts henew n inewith heold: Thefreedomhristringssnot hedissolutionftheLaw oftheOld Testament,ut an extensionf t:Christsnotmerelyoncerned ithwhatweactuallyo anddonotdo,but lso withheway, he piritn whichwedothings.90
Wenowwish oturno renaeus'houghtsn thematerial orld ndhis views nman's ositionn t. Irenaeus'nsistencen the reatioxnihilos9mplieshat ecannotpeakdisparaginglybout heworld.HeattacksheGnosticsor espisinghe reation,92orccusingnddespising
theCreator93nd forbeing ngratefulo him.94 his eadsto a veryheavy mphasisn the act hat uman odieswill eraisedftereath,wherebyhe dentical aturef he resentodies nd the isen odies sstressedery trongly.95egardingheworld s a wholerenaeusaysontheonehand hat he ubstancefthe reationi.e.matter) illnot
disappearn thefinal onsummation,n the other andhedoes notbelieven he ternalnchangeabilityf he tructuref he niverse.hesubstancef he reation illnotdisappear,inceHewhohascreatedt
isveraciousndfirm.96his tatement,t eemsous, sanallusiono afamous assagenPlato'sTimaeuswhere heDemiurgeells he owergods i.e.thebodies fheaven)hat heyre nthemselvesot mmortal,since hey ave omentobeing, ut hat heywillbepreservedgainstdestructionythewill ftheDemiurge.97renaeus'cquaintanceiththis ectionromheTimaeus ecomes learwhenwe ook t hisrationaldefence f the mmortalityfthesoulsofthebelievers. ven beforeIrenaeushis ection romheTimaeus adbeen sed s a proofhat he
servitute. t propterhocdicebatdiscipulisDominus:Non vos me elegistis,ed ego elegivos, ignificans.. in eo quodsequerenturiliumDei,glorificabanturb eo. Cf.4, 31,1andthequotation ivenupra . 74.
89 See e.g. A.H. 4,21,3 and 4.90 See A.H. 4,24.91 See e.g. A.H. 2,10,2; 2,42,4.92 SeeA.H. 1,15.93 See A.H. 2,4,3; 2,8,2; 2,37,2; 3,11,2; Praefatio d IV.94 SeeA.H. 1,15.
95 See A.H. 5,7 ff.See on the matterftheresurrectionf theflesh ecently
T.H.C. van Eijk, La Resurrection es mortschez les Peres apostoliques,TheologieHistorique5 (Paris1974)170ff.
96 See A. H. 5,36,1: of ydpfl 6irnb6aaotg,b8' fl L'riaTfigKicTtog calpavisczata
dtr#ilaY 0p ai 3O3atog ourauaoTdlaEvoqbLtilv.97 See Plato,Timaeus 1 A/B. Cf. for hefollowing:.P.Meijering, rthodoxy
and Platonism nAthanasius, 7 ff.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
soul,although reated, an be savedfrom eathbythewill of God whocreatedt.98 renaeususes tfor hispurpose, oo.99But he cannot ccept
that heheavenly odieswillbe preservedor ver, incehe knowsfromthe Biblethat hestarswill nthe endfallfromheaven.'00Therefore e
saysthattheheavenly odieswill be preserved yGod's will for longtime. The worlddoes notdeservedestruction,ccording o Irenaeus,but final onsummation.These are thewords of somebodywho feels
relativelythome nthisworld. This becomes learfrom ther assagesas well:
He accuses the Gnostics of being unwilling o wait forthegrowth
towardsGod, therebyharging od with heir wnweakness.Havingnoknowledge f God and themselveshey nsatiably nd ungratefullyrenotcontent obe men tfirst,utwant o surpasshumanityndwant obe godsbefore hey ven havebecomemen. Theydo notwantthere obe anydifferenceetweenGod andman.'x' Irenaeus orhispart oncedesGod's right o make us firstmen and afterwardsods.x02 Irenaeus'relative ontentmentithmen'sstatus n theworld s also expressednhisattitudeowards heRomanEmpire.103Certain eople, ells renaeus,
object othefact hat heJews,when eaving gypt, obbed heEgyptiansof all kind of vessels and clothing, ut of whichthey ater built thetabernacle. renaeusgivesthefollowing etort o thisobjection:104Theexodus of the Jews fromEgypt s a prefigurationf the Christians
breaking way from hePagans whentheywereconverted o Christ.
quemadmodum... coelumuod st uper os, irmamentum,tsol,et una, treliquaetellae,t omniaornamentapsorum,um antenonessent,actasunt, t multo emporeerseverantsecundumoluntatemei.
menti,t suae naturaenfirmitatemdscribunteo.Neque nim eumneque emetipsosscientes,nsatiabilest ingrati,olentesrimo sse hoc quodetfactisunthominespassionumapaces; ed upergredientesegem umanieneris,t ntequamiant omines,iamvoluntimiles sse actori eo,etnullam ssedifferentiamnfectiei etnuncactihominis.
102
Ibid.: Nos enim mputamusi,quoniam on b initio iifacti umusedprimoquidem omines,unc emum ii. Thischange rom eingmen o beinggodsis agradual rocess,eeA.H. 4,63,2.
103 See for hefollowing.H. 4,46.104 He saysthathe is quoting presbyter.t is not clearwhetherhe wholeof
Irenaeus' xtensiveeflectionsn this heme oback o thepresbyterronly arts f t.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
After heir onversion heChristians eptall thepossessions heyhad
acquiredwhen heywere tillPagans,eventhough hesehad sometimes
beenacquiredwith reed nd injustice.Even nowtheChristianscquirepossessions nd wantto sell at a profit.Some Christiansventakead-
vantageof beingat theEmperor's ourt. Irenaeuspays tribute o theRomansforensuringhat there s peace in the world so that one can
safely ravelwherever ne wishes. The Gnosticwhoobjects o this tti-tude ofthe Jews nd the Christians an onlybe forgivenfhe himselfavoids anycontact with thePagans and lives without are essentials,without lothes nd shoes,without houseup inthemountains.Chris-
tiansbuild tabernacle fwhat hey eceived othwhen heywere agansth mselves nd fromwhat heynowreceive rom hePagans: what heyacquired n thepast theynow use for the benefit f theLord and are
justifiedndoing o. Thesecertainlyre thewords fsomebodywhoeven
though believernjoys ife oa certain egree ndtries o make hebestof t.
IIc. Whatwould nd couldPlotinus nd Irenaeushavesaid about eachother'spositions?We are notdealingwithwhattheymighthave said
about thewholeofeach other'sphilosophical nd theological ystems,butwhat heywould have said about thearguments hichwe discussedinthis ection.
Irenaeuswould ertainlyavenoticedwith pproval lotinus' nsistencethat man should be contentwith hepositionhe has beengiven n theworld nsteadof despising othcreation nd Creator nd tryingo bemore hanhe is. Here thepositionsheldby renaeus nd Plotinus howsomeremarkableimilarities."05But Irenaeuswouldcertainly aveob-
jectedto Plotinus'viewthat here an be no growthnthecosmos. TheimageofthecosmoswhichPlotinus ejects, iz., hatofa growinghild,is usedby renaeus ormankindwilh espect oman'sknowledgefGod.
True, hese re somewhat ifferentatters,utman spartofthe osmos,and as Plotinus ejected he dea ofgrowthnthe cosmos ngeneral, ewould haverejected he dea ofgrowthnmankind's nowledge f Godas well.106 renaeuswouldpresumably avethoughthatPlotinusn hisdefence fthegoodnessofthe cosmosgoestoo far ndeclaringhe act'
ofcreation o be theone and only becauseentirely erfect)act' of God.
105 See supra 54, 63f,but here s also differencenthis espect etweenhem,see infra 67,268.
106 Seeon thismattermore xtensivelynfra67,268.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gnosticism.As Irenaeusonlyexpresses preferenceorPlatonism oGnosticism n several etached oints, nd thenonlywith he ntention
thatGnosticisms inhis view evenworse hanPlatonism,114o Plotinuswouldat mosthave conceded hatorthodoxChristianityas on certain
points referableo Gnosticism. t isnecessaryomakethese reliminaryobservations eforeweask whatPlotinusmight avesaidabout theheartoforthodoxChristianheology, iz., he doctrine fredemption.115
Irenaeus'objection gainst he Gnostics hatthehighestGod shouldhavepreventedheworkofthe evil creator n thebeginningnsteadof
correctingt ater out ofrepentancehadalready eenraised na similar
way againstChristianitys a wholeby Celsus.116 Plotinuswould pre-sumablyhave noticedwithapprovalthat renaeus was obviously m-
pressedbyitand would have wished hat renaeushad stuck o it con-
sistently. elsusrejects he ncarnation,s did Plotinus ater, ecause twouldmeana change n God, but this s unworthyfGod, sinceonlymortalbeings hange."' We have seen that renaeus, oo, opposesanychange n God and tries o makeit clearthatthe ncarnation oes not
implyuch change.118Would Plotinus avebeen mpressedy renaeus'efforto combinebelief n God's
unchangeabilityithbelief n thein-
carnation?Presumably ot. It seems o us thathewould havesaid thatthis ffortnly hows hat renaeus houldhaveknown etter ndshouldthereforeaveabandoned the belief n the ncarnation. According oPlotinus n incarnation ould notonlyhave beenunworthyfGod, butalso of man. Thisseems o appearfrom remarkmadebyPlotinus, fwhichA.H.Armstronguggestshat tmayhavebeendirectedgainst he
114 SeeE.P.Meijering,renaeus'RelationoPhilosophytc., 26 f.11" Supra 55ff, ecomparedheirhoughtsn theact' ofcreation, here hey
coveredmore ommon round.Therefore earemakinghese reliminarybserva-tions n this ontext f thedoctrine fredemption,here he differencesetweenIrenaeus nd Plotinus remuch reater.
cf.4,8; 4,69 where elsus sksironicallyhetherod woke pout fhis ong lumberndwantedodeliverhehumanracefromvil; n7,18Celsus skswhether,nview f thefact hatJesus ontradictstheLawofMoses,Godchanged ismind n the ourse fhistory,nobjection hichisrepeatedn7, 5.
philosophy nd Irenaeus'theologywerediametricallypposed to eachother?The twoauthors eem tleast omewhat earer o eachother han
theywould hemselves ave admitted. he Christianelieverrenaeushasa faithnGod who actsand ntervenesn theworld, faithwhich lotinuscould onlyhave regarded s blasphemy.But theChristian heologianIrenaeussharesthePlatonistview hatGod isunchangeable,hatHe has
thereforelways aredfor heworld nd cannot rbitrarilyavedecidedto save ust a fewmen. His theologys an efforto present isfaith nsucha waythatthe crudeconsequences fhisfaith o whichPlatonists
objected r wouldhaveobjected, re avoided. Ifcontemporarylatonistswerenotwilling o see the merit f this ffort, e,as historians,hould
certainly o so. Plotinusconsistentlytuckto presuppositions hich
doubthaveregarded im s an unbeliever'.But as historians e shouldrecognize hatPlotinus onsistentlyperhaps:too consistently)trove oavoidattributingrbitrarinessoGod whichsunworthyf God andalso
unworthyfGod's good creation.
IIIa. Asrecent esearch asshown,127 latonists elievedn a revelation
given o famouspeople in ancient imes, nd as thisrevelation as un-
changeable, here re no stages n revelationnd thereforehere an be
nothing ew. Thisview eadsto the nevitableonsequence hatPlotinus
himselfannotclaimto teachanything ew. Indeed,Plotinusmodestlydeclares hathis doctrine f thethree rincipless notnewbutmerelyn
exegesis f whathad already mplicitlyeensaid byPlato.128t is from
127 See J.H.Waszink,Bemerkungenum Einfluss es Platonismusm friThenChristentum,VigiliaeChristianae19 (1965) especially 156; H.Dirrie, op. cit., 25 f;J. . M. vanWinden,e Christianismet aPhilosophie,yriakon.estschriftohannesQuasten,dited yP.Granfieldnd J.A.JungmannMiinster.W. 1970)206ff, nd
moreextensively .C. M van Winden,An Early Christian hilosopher.128s Enn. 5,1,8,9 ff: 6re fl2kdrova 618vat K Aiv dtya8oi T6v voOv,~K8 'TOOvo xTilv uX)ilv.ati'vat xo( q6youIgTo6U8e pjIKatvo Air9T'Ov,2dk?
carnateonofGod wascompletelyew o thePagans.Wemay atherfrom arious tatementsy renaeushat he dea ofoneGod who sthe
Creatorwas new ndyetnotentirelyew othePagans. n a typicaladhoc rgumentationheGnosticsay hat he postles reachedobothJewsndPagans ccordingo their limnsitampinionem.141renaeusvehementlyenies his ndsays hat f hatwere he ase, he ncarnationwouldhave beenunnecessary.142nstead fpreachingo thePagansaccordingo their ldviews heapostles ersuadedhem o abandon
idolatry.143o the agans herefore,hedeathat heirodswerenfactnogodswas peregrinauaedamruditiond nova octrina.ut here
are lso statementsn renaeus hichmplyhat he roclamationy heapostles fthe neGod,theCreator,annot avebeen nentirelyewdoctrineo hem: hey nowromhe reationhatheres oneCreator,144andthey egardhehighestodas theCreator.145his pparentontra-dictionseitheraused y he act hat renaeusepeatedlyrguesdhoc,or canperhapseharmonizednto heview hat,ccordingo renaeus,Pagans ouldhaveknownhatheres oneGodwho s theCreator. hat
butmerelyostate heunchangeableontentf he radition hich oesback othe postles.146rom his ositionrenaeusttacksheGnostics
bitterly. e whoargued o subtlyboutnew nd oldutterlyislikedthosewho nhisview ookpridencomingorwardith ewdoctrines,and heobviouslynjoyedointinguthowmistakenheyre:
TheGnosticsome orward ith new octrine,hichs new ecauseithasonlyustbeen ut ogethern a newway, ut t s at the ame imeoldanduseless,ecausethas been ut ogetherromldand mistaken
doctrines.147fter ointingut where heyhad gottheir deasfrom
141 SeeA.H. 3,12,7; f.3,5.142 Ibid.:Superfluusutem t nutilisdventusomini arebit,iquidem eniter-
Irenaeus skstheGnostics:Did all thosephilosophers now he ruth rnot? Ifthey idthe oming ftheSaviourwassuperfluous,inceHe could
onlyhaveconfirmed hatpeoplealreadyknew. Ifthey idnotknow hetruth,why reyou saying he samethings s theydo, and how can youproudly laimto be theonlyonesto have thehighest nowledge, henthosewhodo not knowGod havethe sameknowledge?148utsomeoftheGreekphilosophers ad a better nderstandingf thosemattershantheGnostics, specially lato.149 his meansprimarilyhattheGnosticsmakethings venworsethanthephilosophers.
In connectionwith the Ecclesiastical radition renaeus accuses the
Gnostics fsimilar nsolence ndarrogance.They laim hat hewritingsofthe postlesneedamending,ince he postles tarted opreachbefore
theyhad reachedperfect nowledge.150Theynot onlyclaim to have amoreperfect nowledgehan he postlesbuteventhan heLordhimselfwhonot lways pokeofthehighest od but ometimeslso oftheDemi-
urge.151n order o corroborate heir heories heydistort cripture.152To put tbriefly:ccording oIrenaeus hese nsolentmenhave no legtostandon.
IIIc. Both Plotinus nd Irenaeus ayofthe Gnostics hatdespite heirarrogant laimstheyhaveno roots n history.Plotinus aysthatwhere
they reoriginal hey o notcomeforward ith he ruth,nd that n thefewpointswhere heir iews re correcthey re notoriginal, utmerelyrepeatwhatPlatohadalready aidbefore hem ndwhatPlatohadstatedmorepreciselyhanthey. Irenaeus s evenharshern his udgement: f
they re original hey renotrightnd ifthey renotoriginal hey renotright ither,ince heymerely epeatwhatphilosophers adwrongly
statedbefore hem,hereby vendistortinghemistaken iewsof the
148 See A.H. 2,18,6:Utrumneiomnesuipraedictiunt,um uibusadem icentesarguimini,ognoverunteritatem,ut noncognoverunt?t si quidem ognoverunt,superfluast Salvatoris n huncmundumescensio.Ut quidenimdescendebat?nnumquidt amquaecognoscebatureritas,n gnitionemdduceretis, uicognoscunteamhominibus?i autem on ognoverunt,uemadmodumadem umhis, uiveritatemnon ognoscebant,icentes,olosvosmetipsosamquaeest uper mnia ognitioaberegloriamini,uam tiam ui gnorabanteumhabent?
222.150 See A.H. 3,1,1:Nec enim as estdicere, uoniamntepraedicaveruntuamperfectamaberentgnitionem;icut uidam udent icere, loriantesmendatoreseesseApostolorum.
151 See A.H. 3,2,2.152 A.H.1,1,1;1,1,19; 3,12,15.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
philosophers.Whatwould hey ave aidabout achother,speciallyabout he ootsheyave nhistory?
Celsus ays fChristianityhat his ecenteligionasnorootsnhistorynd hereforeannotetrue. he ounderf he hristianom-munityived nly few ears arlier.153nstead fworshippinghe neGod, hey orship,oanextravagantegree,manwho ad ppearedrecently,nd tillheyonot hinkhathiss nconsistentithmono-theism.154omebody ho laims ohave omethingew osay herebyshows is rrogance.latosnot rrogantnd oes ot ellies laimingthathe has found omethingew.155utJesuswasarrogantndtold
lies.156heJews'evoltgainsthe gyptiansscomparedo heChristianreactiongainsthe ews;nbothnstancesrevoltgainstheommunityledtothentroductionfnewdeas.157ButCelsus lsoclaims hat heChristians,espiteheirlaims,ometimeseachhings hichrenotnewt ll.The thicaleachingf he hristiansscommonplacend ncomparisonith he therhilosophersontainsoteachinghichsimpressivernew.158 oses eceivedise nd rue octrinesrom isenationsnddistinguisheden.159oses,he rophets,esus,ndthe
iCatv6vtspiocsCtv.156 SeeContraelsum,7.Cf. ,32whereesusscalled boasternd orcerer.157 Contra elsum,5: d cpooTpotqttiovysyovEvat "fqKatvototicaqL racrai-
Estvrnprg iolotv6v.Accordingo C. Andresen his s notmeantpolitically,ut'geschichtstheologisch',ogosundNomos. ie Polemik esKelsoswider as Christentum(Berlin 955)216f.Even f tweremeant olitically,uch naccusationouldnotbemade gainstrenaeus,eesupra 63f.
KotvovEvat Kai rnp6c obqdkkoutqntXoo6pcouqgob vs6v riKai Katvyv A~drlCta.Cf. Contra elsum,5 where elsusmakes Jew aythat egardingheresurrectionof thedeadandGod's udgementheChristianseachnothingew.
159 See Contra elsum ,21.160 See Contra elsum ,7; 6,15f; 6,19.161 Seee.g.Contra elsum ,7.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andChristianityhanCelsus, inceNumenius ists heJews mongsthoseoldandfamous eopleswhich ad received ivine evelation.162 o Celsus
attacksChristianitys a whole n thesamewayas Plotinus ttacks heGnostics: n thepointswhere heir deasarecorrecthey renotoriginal,and where heyhave the nsolence o comeforwardwith omething ew
they renotright.Plotinuswouldpresumably ave said the ameaboutIrenaeus. It wouldcertainly ave nfuriated imto see thatthehighestcomplimentrenaeuspays to Plato is thaton somepointshe is to be
Plotinus'admissionthat he teachesnothingnew would have beenwelcome mmunitiono Irenaeus: He saysthat fthe Gnosticdoctrinesare naccordancewith heGreek hilosophers,hen heir heories re both
Plotinus, nlygrantingim hat, na few oints, e sright,swas Plato.In how farwouldtheyhavebeenrightn theirmutualdislike f each
other? renaeusgoesto great engths,s we haveseen, o relate henewelementsn Christianityo thehistory eforeChristianity.n doingso,
his basic assertionwas thatChristianityas newto thePagansbut thatto God itwas nota newrevelation,ince t is in line with he wholeofGod's revelationhroughreation, rovidencendtheprophets.This sa statement hich annotbeproved, utonlybe believed r disbelieved.One might, owever,t leastbelieve renaeuswhenhe makes n effortoshow thathe did not wantto be an arrogant roducer fnovelties, utsharedthe Platonists'modesty nd reverenceo authorities eforehim
(although hese uthorities ere, fcourse, ifferentrom hePlatonists'
authorities),nd thereforeadvery ubtle houghtsn what anreally ecalled newandwhat s newto whom. Plotinuswas certainlymoreori-
ginalthan he himselfdmits nd thereforeisphilosophy ouldnot bedismissed s superfluous,dding nothing ewto all thefalsedoctrinestaught yphilosophers efore im. Plotinus anperhapsbe regarded sa typical xample fhowsomethingeally ew screated: tdoesnot omeexnihilo,.e. outof a mindwhichsas arrogants it s lacking nowledgeof thepast,but outofa thorough nowledge fwhat s known nd out
of a combination fhithertoeparate raditions. f an intelligent indcombines xistingraditions hichhadhitherto een eparated rom ach
1es See Contra elsum ,15; f. upra 70.16s See supra270 f.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
from textbyJustin,whichhas beenlost.166n thisdoctrine otholdand newhavebeen combinedna harmoniousway. Anybody ismissingsuch a doctrines an arrogant oveltyshimselfrrogant, nyoneorigi-natingtcanbeproudof t, nyone epeatingtneednotbe ashamed f t.
Conclusions. he views heldbythe scholarsmentionedn the ntro-duction o thispapercan, tseems ous,onlybecriticized ndetails,notin principle:Harnack is right hat Irenaeus' thoughts tartfrom hecreation nd thathe wants to defend heCreatoras thehighestGod.Irenaeus nterpretsheredemptionn thebasisof thebackground fthecreation,not theotherwayround. PerhapsHarnackcould have beenmore cautious n describingrenaeus'attitude s that of an apologetic-philosophicalheologian."67his pologetic-philosophicalheologysdes-cribedbyHarnackas a theology hich ppealedto the ommon ense fall seriousthinkers f thosedays.168 One can doubt whethert was acommonenseviewmongsterious hinkershat heres one Creatorwhois thehighest od. Plato's statementnthe Timaeus hat t s difficulto
find heCreator nd Father ftheuniversendthat, ven fone didfindHim, twouldbe impossible oproclaimHimtoall men169 asverywell-known n ater latonism.170 serious hinker ouldnothavepostulated
164 Porphyry, ife. h. 14.le5 TheCambridgeistorytc., 12f.16s A. H. 4,11, : Kiti ctaZ "Ilouarivogv CT Irp6qMapKicova uovzwatttiriot..
170 See J.Geffcken,wei griechischepologetenLeipzig1907) 174 f and C.Andresen,ustin nddermittlerelatonismus,eitschriftiirdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft4 (1952/'53)67.
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:57:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Von vainkasrightnsayinghatheChristianmphasisnGod'swillas the auseofthe reationeparatedhristianityrom eo-Platonism.But heexaggerates,tseems ous,when esays hat heir iew n thecontingencyftheworldwas outrageouso Neo-Platonists.renaeus
(andmost rthodoxhristians)o their tmostoavoid nynotion farbitrarinessnthedivine ill, heyule ut sudden' ecisionsnsuchwaythat hecontingencyftheworld nd thecontingencyfGod'sdealing ith heworld renot resentedoocrudelyndoutrageously.
Neo-Platonistnorder obefair ughtohave cknowledgedhis.Hereagainwe should istinguishetween hatNeo-Platonistsnd Christiansactuallyaid bout ach therwhichs ndicativef heway heyonduc-ted heir iscussions)ndwhat hey ughto have aid bout achother
(whichs anattempty hehistorianodemonstrateo what xtentheirbasicviews oincidedndtowhat xtenthey iffered).
Armstrongs no doubt ightnsayinghat he nthropocentrismforthodoxhristianityndGnosticism asunacceptableoNeo-Plato-
nists.Butwehave hefeelinghatheexaggerateslittlewhen esaysthat heorthodoxhristians'mphasisn thegoodworld ndGod'sprovidencever hewholeworldwasnot heheart f heireligion,ndthat,whentcomes oseriouseligion,heymmediatelyhinkf he n-carnationnd ts onsequences.173heheart f renaeus' eligionsthatintheRedeemerhereppears heCreator ndnobodylse.
171 See fragment7 in Numinius,ragments.exte6tabli t traduit arE. des
There re fundamentalifferencesetween he Platonistsnd theChristiansntheir octrinesfcreationndrevelationnhistory. ut
thevehemencef theirttacksn eachother ught ottodisguisehefacthathey ereerioushinkers,howerewell ware f he ifficultiesinherento their undamentaliews,ndthat heyried o solve hesedifficultiesor hemselvesnsuch way hat, s historians,emay aythat heirystemsfthought ere omewhatearer o eachother hantheydmittedhemselves.
