Over this last weekend, I spent a number of hours comparing the four English translations I have of Irenaeus’ Demonstration/Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. One particular passage made an impression on me, that no previous reading had done. The following are the four English translations of that passage [the bold emphasis concerns the portion of passage that caught my eye]:
11. Now, by His hand He created man taking the purest and finest particles from the earth, mixing a determined portion of His power with the dust. Moreover He gave His image to the creature that even what is visible might have the divine form, because the created man was placed upon the earth as one having the divine image and that he might be living, he breathed in his face the breath of life that, both by this breathing and by this creation, man might be like God. (Bishop Karapet and S. G. Wilson, Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 12, 1907, p. 667 - link to pdf)
11. But man He formed with His own hands, taking from the earth that which was, purest and finest, and mingling in measure His own power with the earth. For He traced His own form on the formation, that that which should be seen should be of divine form : for (as) the image of God was man formed and set on the earth. And that he might become living, He breathed on his face the breath of life ; that both for the breath and for the formation man should be like unto God. (J. Armitage Robinson, St. Irenaeus - The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 1920, p. 80 - link to pdf)
11. But man He fashioned with His own hands, taking of the purest and finest of earth, in measured wise mingling with the earth His own power; for He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike — for it was as an image of God that man was fashioned and set on earth — and that he might come to life, He breathed into his face the breath of life, so that the man became like God in inspiration as well as in frame. (Joseph P. Smith, S.J., St. Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 1952, p. 54 - link to pdf)
11. But He fashioned (πλάσσω) man with His own Hands, taking the purest, the finest <and the most delicate> [elements] of the earth, mixing (συγκράννυμι) with the earth, in due measure, His own power (δύναμις); and because He <sketched upon> the handiwork (πλάσμα) His own form—in order that what would be seen should be godlike (θεοειδής), for man was placed on the earth fashioned <in> the image (εἰκών) of God—and that he might be alive, "He breathed into His face a breath of life": so that both according to the inspiration and according to the formation, man was like (ὃμοιος) God. (Fr. John Behr, St. Irenaeus - On the Apostolic Preaching, 1997 pp. 46, 47 - link to Google Books preview)
A question that immediately came to mind is, what did Irenaeus mean by “His [God] own form”?
An interesting answer to my question has been provided by Joseph P. Smith in his note on the passage:
"He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike": stelcuacin ziwrsn paragreac jews, zi ew or tesanic'inn Astuacajew ice, more literally "for the formation He outlined His own form, that also what would be seen should be deiform"; there can be no doubt that Irenaeus is here teaching man's bodily resemblance to God. (pp. 148, 149)
Man’s bodily resemblance to God? I would like to hear from folk who take the time to read is post—is Smith correct, or are there better interpretations?
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David!
ReplyDeleteI certainly have no comment on the translation and if there are better translations.
I will comment briefly in the direction of your post and add two more things.
First, Irenaeus does not seem to have in mind a divine God without a body. I am off course sympathetic to this view. I have read more about my third point than this one, but some in the fourth century consider divine embodiment to be the ancient faith.
Second, clearly there is strong deification language in this passage!
Third, I recall there being some strong creation ex nihilo language in Irenaeus, but I remember Gerhard May claiming that Irenaeus did not evidence a complete embrace of the doctrine. This passage would evidence (perhaps weakly) against creation ex nihilo.
I hope some of that is worthwhile. I am afraid that I spend much less time with these questions than I once did, but I enjoyed thinking about them.
You might like this which I found as I was looking for more info on Sarapion:
https://www.academia.edu/1860504/Situating_Sarapion_s_Sorrow_The_Anthropomorphite_Controversy_as_the_Historical_and_Theological_Context_of_Cassian_s_Tenth_Conference_on_Pure_Prayer
Charity, TOm
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:
== First, Irenaeus does not seem to have in mind a divine God without a body.==
That sure seems to be the case in this passage.
== Second, clearly there is strong deification language in this passage!==
Agreed. As you know, there are a number of passages in Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” that strongly promote deification too.
==Third, I recall there being some strong creation ex nihilo language in Irenaeus, but I remember Gerhard May claiming that Irenaeus did not evidence a complete embrace of the doctrine. This passage would evidence (perhaps weakly) against creation ex nihilo.==
Note the following from May:
>> ...the contribution made by Irenaeus and Theophilus must not be underestimated: they developed the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo with such convincing stringency that from the end of the second century it becomes with astonishing speed the self-evident premise of Christian talk of the creation. We have to see in Theophilus and Irenaeus the specific founders of the church doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. (Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo, pp. 177, 178.)>>
As for the passage we are discussing, I am not discerning that it, “would evidence (perhaps weakly) against creation ex nihilo.” Could you elaborate a bit more on this issue.
Grace and peace,
David
Forgot to thank you for the link to Mark DelCogliano’s paper. Will read it this evening.
ReplyDeleteDave, hey. Tom, hey.
ReplyDeleteIt has been too long.
Anyway Dave, I think I agree with Tom about Irenaeus. Hi again Tom. God love you. The text seems to support that Irenaeus believed that the Son, the last Adam, like the first Adam, was corporeal, according to the image of the Father, also corporeal, according to Irenaeus. You all know I am Catholic and the Father is incorporeal for a Catholic.
Tom! The years go by. I hope you and yours are well. I cherish our few moments together.
St. Irenaeus was one of many influences that led me to Rome. Can he have believed that the Father was corporeal and still be Catholic? That is the question. It seems from these lately recovered manuscripts, that a Catholic must defend a canonized saint that believed that the Father has a material body.
Before I try, I would welcome any attempts to try to show that the three of us misunderstand Irenaeus. However, it is already late on a Wednesday night, well into the 21st Century. I must concede that I now think St. Irenaeus was wrong, almost 2,000 years ago. I would like to try to make a less unsatisfactory answer after the work week, old man that I am, is still subject to, is over.
Rory
Hello Rory and David,
ReplyDeleteI think there is no need to be upset with St. Irenaeus (or St. Justin Martyr, but for different reasons).
I think I have mis-remembered May's point and David has correctly reproduced it. I remember Basilides being the gnostic philosopher who first formulated Creation ex Nihilo (according to May), but I think Ireneaus was thoroughly orthodox in May's reading.
Justin Martyr was not, but I don't think Saints are Saints because they have PERFECT theology. I don't even think Doctors of the Church (who may also be Saints) have to have perfect theology in all aspects.
My "weakly" thought on Ireneaus was mostly misplaced in that this passage attributes matter and divine breath to the production of the human. The matter is not a problem because the believer in creation ex nihilo just believes that God created the matter ex nihilo before the man. The divine breath is likewise not necessarily problematic. I am unsure how true this statement is for the Catholic, "God's breathing life into the human is the placing of the human soul into the human AND God created the human soul ex nihilo." I think the second part of this statement,"God created the human soul ex nihilo" is solid Catholic teaching. It looks to me like "God's breath" in the Irenaeus statement is MORE than a distinct soul created by God implanted into the human because it is a divinity contribution of sorts. But I don't think I could push either of those ideas very hard.
Anyway, Rory, I wish we could both be retired like our friend David. I think he is one of the most fantastically successful retired people I have ever known (he doesn't FAIL at being retired by going back to work AND he has passions that drive him and invigorate him). I suspect I am at least 10 years away from retiring, but I hope to not retire until I can follow in David's footsteps. Retiring because you have some vague desire to not participate in the "work week" is not a good idea in my opinion. I don't think my love of Ultimate Frisbee is a sustainable retirement pass time, so I am still looking (maybe Pickleball and posting on David's blog will be enough).
Anyway, glad to say hello to both of you here again!
Charity, TOm