Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Much scholarly research has been devoted to the question: What issues divide gnostic Christians from the “ecclesiastical” Christians who are their contemporaries? Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 160 A.D.), whose writings constitute a major source for the investigation of gnosticism, defines the issues in terms of differences in doctrine. Irenaeus admits that the question is a difficult one, since the gnostic doctrines he intends to “expose and refute” are so similar to orthodox teaching that, he says, most Christians cannot differentiate between the two. Irenaeus insists, nevertheless, that the differences are crucial, since gnostic doctrines are false, spurious forms of genuine Christian teaching. Therefore he writes five volumes—The Exposure and Overthrow of Falsely-So-Called Gnosis—to help his fellow churchmen make this discrimination.
* The author gratefully acknowledges the criticism and suggestions of Professors Helmut Koester, Cyril Richardson, Wayne Meeks, and Morton Smith and their help in preparing this manuscript.
1 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (ed. Harvey, W. W.; Cambridge: Typis Academicis, 1857Google Scholar) Praefatio 1–3 (hereafter cited as AH).
2 AH, Praef. 3.
3 AH, ibid.
4 The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1958) 42Google ScholarPubMed and passim.
5 For a brief description, see MacRae, G., “Nag Hammadi,” IDBSup (1976) 613–19Google Scholar; for bibliography, Scholer, David M., ed., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948–1968 (Leiden: Brill, 1971).Google Scholar
6 AH 3. 15. 2.
7 1 Clem. 1.1; 39.1.
8 στάσις:: 1 Clem. 1.1; 46.5–7; 47.5f.; see discussion in Beyschlag, Karlmann, Clemens Romanus und der Frühkatholizismus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 166ff.Google Scholar
9 1 Clem. 33.2; 35.3.
10 1 Clem. 34 (passim); 39.4; 47.7.
11 1 Clem. 36.4; 40.1,4; 48.1; 49.6; 52.1; 33.1.
12 1 Clem. 31.4; 32.2; 43.1–6; 41.2.
13 1 Clem. 41.1.
14 1 Clem. 40.4.
15 1 Clem. 63.1.
16 1 Clem. 36.1; 61.3.
17 1 Clem. 40.5; 32.2.
18 1 Clem. 42.5; cf. Harnack, Adolf von, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries (New York: Putnam, 1910) 72f.Google Scholar: “By misquoting the words of Isaiah … δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ν εἰρήνη κα τοὺς πισκόπους σου ν δικαιοσύνη in the form … καταστήσω τοὺς πισκόπους αὐτν ν δικαιοσύνῃ κα διακόνους αὐτν ν πίστει he (1 Clement) maintains that the appointment of bishops and deacons under these very titles is foretold in the Old Testament.”
19 1 Clem. 43.1–6; 51.1. See Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus, 146–48 for discussion and reference.
20 1 Clem. 41.2.
21 1 Clem. 63.1.
22 1 Clem. 41.3.
23 Harnack, Constitution and Law, 72.
24 Goguel, Maurice, The Birth of Christianity (trans. Snape, H. C.; London: Allen and Unwin, 1953) 387–91Google Scholar: “The Christian life is only conceived to be possible within the framework of a supernatural society synonymous with a divine institution in which the laity are strictly subordinated to the clergy. … The church as being a supernatural society, both in its principle and in its ends, is also one in its organization and its manifestation: in actual fact the forms of worship and priesthood as laid down in the Mosaic legislation are applied to it.”
25 1 Clem. 37.2f.: “Let us consider those who serve our generals, with what good order, habitual readiness, and submissiveness they perform their commands. Not all are prefects, nor tribunes, nor centurions, nor in charge of fifty men, or the like, but each carries out in his own rank the commands of the emperor and of the generals” (trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL). Cf. also 45.1–47.2.
26 Goguel, Birth of Christianity, 387; Harnack, Constitution and Law, 72; Campenhausen, Hans von, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (trans. Baker, J. A.; London: Adams and Charles Plack, 1961) 88–93Google Scholar: “… order within the community can now be realized only by an analysis of rights and duties and therefore also by allotting to individuals superior and subordinate positions which they must maintain at all times.… The Christian … cult now requires that a clear distinction be drawn between ‘priests’ and ‘laymen.’ The line of demarcation between the ‘multitude’ and the ‘presbyters’ is in this way made a very positive and ‘official’ one.”
27 Ecclesiastical Authority, 86–87.
28 Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus, 339–53; cf. 352: “Unsere Untersuchung hat nun durchweg zu dem Ergebnis geführt, dass die von Clemens benützte römische Überlieferung theologisch auf dieApologetik des Judentums mit synoptischen Einschlägen führt.”
29 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority, 98–99.
30 Trall. 3.1.
31 Magn. 6.1.
32 Magn. 13.1–2; Eph. 5.3.
33 Trail. 3.1; Magn. 6.1–7.2.
34 Smyrn. 8.1–2; Magn. 7.1–2.
35 Birth of Christianity, 413.
36 Ecclesiastical Authority, 95.
37 Herm. Vis. 3.1.8.
38 Vis. 3.1.9–2.4.
39 Pernveden, L., The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas (Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 179Google Scholar; see 177–206 (“The subservient position of the believer”). Italics in the quotation are mine.
40 Herm. Sim. 5.5.3; 5.6.3.
41 Herm. Sim. 8.3.2.
42 Herm. Sim. 9.30.2; 9.10.4; 9.28.7.
43 Herm. Sim. 9.31.5–33.1; see Pernveden, Concept of the Church, 106: “The Son of God is the Lord and Judge of the Church.”
44 Ecclesiastical Authority, 141.
45 Ecclesiastical Authority, 96.
46 Herm. Sim. 9.31.6.
47 Herm. Sim. 10.1.2f. This Similitude is extant only in Latin manuscripts. For a discussion of manuscripts and authorship, see especially Giet, S., Hermas et Les Pasteurs (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1963) 47–107Google Scholar; 247–310; also Coleborne, W., The Shepherd of Hermas (Studia Patristica 10.1; Berlin: 1970) 65–70.Google Scholar
48 For references, cf. Erwin Preuschen, “Valentinus, Gnostiker,” RE 20, 396–417; Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos 4.
49 Alexandrinus, ClemensStromata (GCS ed. Stählin, O.; Leipzig: 1906) VII. 7.Google Scholar
50 Stromata IV 89.6–90.1.
51 Origen, Commentarium in Johan. (GCS ed. Preuschen, E.; Leipzig: 1903) XIII.Google Scholar 60: ἔοικε δ βασιλικν Ἡρακλέων λέγειν τν δημιουργν, πε κα αὐτς βασίλευε τν ὑπ᾽ αὐτόν^. δα δ τ μικρν αὐτο κα πρόσκαιρον εἶναι τν βασιλείαν, ϕησί, βασιλικς ὠνομάσθη, οἱονε μικρός τις βασιλεὺς ὑπ καθολικο βασιλέως τεταγμένος π μικρς βασιλείας (hereafter cited as Comm. Jo.).
52 AH 4.1–5.
53 AH 1.7.4.
54 Comm. Jo. XX,38: … κρίνων κα κολάζων στ Μωσς, τουτέστιν αὐτς ό νομοθέτης.
55 AH 3.12.6–12.
56 AH 1.5.3–4.
57 “Delimitation of the Gnostic Phenomenon,” in: Le Origini dello Gnosticismo (ed. Bianchi, U.; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 91f.Google Scholar
58 Adversus Valentinianos 4.
59 AH 3.15.2.
60 Comm. Jo. XIII.60.
61 Comm. Jo. XIII. 16.
62 Comm. Jo. VI.60; X.19.
63 Comm. Jo. XIII. 16.
64 Comm. Jo. X.33.
65 AH 1.21.1–4.
66 Comm. Jo. X.33.
67 Comm. Jo. XIII. 19.
68 Hippolytos, Refutalio 6.34.
69 AH 4.30.3.
70 AH 1.21.1; 1.6.4.
71 AH 3.3.2.
72 AH 3.15.2.
73 AH 1.21.1–2.
74 AH 3.5–11.
75 AH 1.21.4–5.
76 AH 1.13.6.
77 Ibid.
78 AH 1.7.4.
79 AH 1.13.6; 1.21.5.
80 Gos. Truth 18.38–40.
81 Gos. Truth 42.3–8.
82 Gos. Truth 42.19–30: “They have neither envy nor sighing, … but they rest in him who is at rest. … The Father is in them, and they are in the Father.”
83 Tri. Trac. 69.7–10.
84 Tri. Trac. 72.16–19; 70.22–29.
85 Tri. Trac. 85.30–32.
86 Tri. Trac. 78.15f., 28–31.
87 Tri. Trac. 79.20–32.
88 Tri. Trac. 90.14–25.
89 Interp. Know. 9.20.
90 Interp. Know. 9.37; 15.16–23.
91 Interp. Know. 15.26–16.33; 17.27f.
92 Interp. Know. 17.35–18.26.
93 Irenaeus AH 1.13.3.
94 AH 1.13.4.
95 Constitution and Law, 115.
96 Tertullian De praescriptione haereticorum 41.
97 Ibid.
98 AH 1.6.2–3.
99 AH 3.15.2.
100 AH 2.16.4.
101 AH 3.25.1.
102 AH 5.26.1.
103 AH 5.31.1.
104 AH 5.35.2.
105 Irenaeus Ad Florinum, in: Eusebius Historia ecclesiae 5.20.4–8; idem Ad Victorem (ed. W. W. Harvey 2, 457; frg. 51).
106 AH 4.26.3.
107 AH 4.33.3.
108 AH 4.26.2.
109 AH 1.23.2.
110 AH 1.27.4.
111 AH 3.7.1.
112 I am grateful to Professor Morton Smith for contributing these points to the discussion, and for his helpful criticism throughout its formulation.
113 See, e.g., The Hypostasis of the Archons.
