Irenaeus is one of the great saints of the church, and remains a classic stalwart against the "gnostic" movement within the early Church. This clash was not simply about theology, as simply ideas, but about institutional authority within and among Christians. I think Rowan Williams perceptively picked up how this had catalyzed by the 4th century, with Arius very much a representative of this older form of authority, which transformed over the 4th c. Here's my general overview:
The early church's authority structure, after (and even during) the apostles, was under question. Who, exactly, had received the delegated authority of the Christ? The Twelve? Who else? Did Paul really receive an apostolic mandate? Was James, as a living relative of the Christ, a premier authority? Did Jerusalem have preeminence? If Paul could receive extraordinary authority through a personal revelation, would others? How could we tell false apostles and prophets from real ones? What was role did knowledge (gnosis) and sanctity play in authorization?
Being "delivered from the elements of the world", Christianity is a cult for the Heavenly Jerusalem and not for any other state (polis). Of course, this set Christianity at odds with not only Jerusalem (the honors of Land, Temple, City, and Law passing onto the Christ as fulfillment) but the pagans (and especially Rome, the city-state of city-states). Its why Christians were called "atheists", denying the local authority of the city-gods. While I'm not sure what to call it, the organization of the apostolic churches flowed from the home. Perhaps it's reflective of the "pilgrim people" Israel in the Desert, whose Tabernacle of Presence was at the Right Hand of Majesty. Nevertheless, the bishops oversaw (per their name) the use of funds and exercise of teaching within these gatherings. I would argue this gave the first bishops a priestly cast, officiating as cohenim, which I explored more in a previous essay.
However, this mode of organization had some similarities not only with the Hellenistic "guild" (about which much scholarship has been written) but also the "school". In the Hellenic world, philosophy (since Pythagoras at least) was an entire way of life, which sometimes involved "religious" or magical elements. Schools formed around individual teachers, and sometimes these teachers drew upon a larger legacy (e.g. Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics [Aristotelians], Stoics [from the stoa, columns, of Athens where Zeno of Citium taught], etc.). As "successors" (as in coming after, not as replacements) to the Apostles, the bishops had the task of preserving, explicating, and handing-down (traditioning) the teaching of the Apostles. Here, the institution of church and school overlapped.
It should not be surprising that this conceptual overlap would produce a kind of confluence within the Hellenistic world. It seems that the office of bishop and role of teacher within the school of Christ would coexist, flow together, and tear apart within the first centuries of the church. Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr are two of the "orthodox" schoolmen in this era. Both Clement and Justin saw their roles as philosophers as supplementary (or concurrent) with the church. Clement founded his school in Alexandria to help "gnostics" (Christians walking in the fullness of truth) mature. He does not deny the episcopacy authority to teach, but one detects perhaps some elitism here. Similarly, Justin conducted a school at Rome, which almost functioned as its own church (urban churches confederates over the years, and it seems Rome was more decentralized than most). For both Clement and Justin, the church as school (and Christianity as the true "sect") led to a kind of ranked hierarchy. Clement and Justin did not degrade the average Christian, but for those who wanted more, who wanted full knowledge (thus, they were "gnostics"), the schools of Clement and Justin offered a more intense path.
It's from this vantage that, when writing against "the heretics", Irenaeus used the term "gnostic" ironically. It's an accident of history that this otherwise positive term (a "knower" as in knowing the saving knowledge of the Truth 1 Tim 2:4) became a category for unorthodox post-Christians. But the conceptual instability between church and school would erupt in tension. Valentinus, Ptolomey, and (after awhile) Tatian would break with the churches as fundamentally enslaved to "soulishness" and incapable of true gnosis. It's in this way that these teachers become "heretics", pursuing a separate way (hairesis) against the churches. Using Hellenistic literary and rhetoric techniques, many of these new schools (under the umbrella of "Gnosticism") begin to read the scripture in ways that become increasingly esoteric. The literal (as in ad literam, what the text says on the surface) meaning was a disguise hiding a far more potent truth. Additional wonders (the meaning of "miracle") and revelations would shore up the authority of these teachers (some of whom, such as Mani, would contribute their own additions to the canonical texts).
We'll return to these groups shortly, as it was these that Irenaeus (the main subject of this analysis) battled with. To continue with the history, it was the "heresies" of the schools that made the church far more hostile. Even schools, and teachers within them, were under suspicion for pursuing similar methods that not only undermined the authority of bishops, but the literal meaning of the canonical scripture. It was such that created the turbulent context of Origin's fame and infamy. An Alexandrian who had drank deeply from Clement (and other, non-Christian, schools), Origen ran his school in a way concurrent with the church. For some, he smelled of potential heresy, for others he was a necessary bulwark against the heretical schools. Origen's fame drew ire from the bishop/presbyters of Alexandria, leading him to take refuge among allies in Palestine. It's this context that led Origen to be ordained as a presbyter, seeking to further fuse the institutionalized authorities. The suspicion was not unwarranted however, as Origen's philological methods led him to engage in readings of scripture that would defy the ad literam meaning of the texts. Origenists would carry their master's project onwards, become monks as the Hellenistic schools gave way to the cenobitic monasteries. But such a transition is beyond this essay. Arius, as I noted with reference to Rowan Williams, represented the last gasp of this Origenist confluence. Both a presbyter and a teacher, Arius' conflict with Alexander represented not only the relative equal authority of ministers in the city (Alexandria was never presbyterian, but through confederation, one bishop of several became the bishop of the city-elders; this process repeated elsewhere). It represented also the divide between the philosophic teacher and the judicial (and increasingly bureaucratic) bishop.
Returning to Irenaeus, I think this historical reconstruction helps one get a better picture of Gnosticism and the content of Irenaeus' work. The bishop of Lyons responded to a crisis, as several schools broke with and condemned the Apostolic "Great Church" (that informal network that connected the many churches across the Mediterranean). Irenaeus was dealing with questions of authority, hermeneutics, and organizational unity in writing against "the heretics". The "Gnostics" were not simply syncretic Christians or post-Christian weirdos, with bizarre cosmologies. Irenaeus was not, anachronistically, an imperial-bureaucrat stomping out "free-thinkers", who defied the church's monopoly of power (usually the schools had more social prestige and wealth behind them than the usually simple and unlettered majority in the churches). Instead, Irenaeus sought to rebuff the so-called "gnostics" who had warped the pursuit of truth into deviant mythologies.
It's in the vein of hermeneutics that Irenaeus writes "Against the Heretics". After pages and pages of reconstructing the various cosmogonies of the various heretical schools, Irenaeus ridicules the entire hermeneutic effort as a castle built on clouds. He does this by applying their method in a reductio ad absurdum:
There is a certain Proarche [eternal power], royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus.The silliness is biting. But what's his point? Is Irenaeus just trying to laugh the disciples of Valentinus and Ptolemey out of the room, shining a light on their ridiculous beliefs? Not exactly. Irenaeus continues:
For if it is fitting that that language which is used respecting the universe be transformed to the primary Tetrad, and if any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible, as well as in general use, and understood by all?Irenaeus is discussing hermeneutics. For what is the point of these various myths from the so-called gnostics? Valentinus, and others like him, believed their myths were a more credible account of the Real, which the canonical scripture gave testimony. Most Christians were too ignorant and were caught on the surface of texts. Cloaked in pageantry and ritual performance, these myths welcomed the initiates into a true vision of the cosmos, one that Christ had brought to the faithful. The names and words operated magically, leading one through the labyrinth of creation towards escape. Ascending from name to name, one's spirit would ascend to a true vision of the uncreated Real, unplagued by the lower dregs of the empirical world. Irenaeus' rhetorical strategy is to drag these into the open of common speech. The result is absurdity upon absurdity, not unlike how the show South Park mocked Scientology and Mormonism in a straight forward presentation of their mythos.
But Irenaeus draws out the absurdity to contrast with the surface, ad literam, text of the scripture. The Apostles claimed direct (historical) knowledge of the Christ, who taught them and they in turn recorded their teachings. Where did Valentinus, or any of these gnostics, get true knowledge of these names? As Irenaeus mocked one disciple of Valentinus, Colarbasus: they write about the aeons being brought into existence as if they were present at their birth! It's not so much a question of absurdity, but authority. Who gave Valentinus or Colarbasus the knowledge of these things? Where did this hermeneutic come from?
Irenaues, in contrast, grounds his hermeneutic in what he received from the apostles. Such was visible in a publicly verifiable succession of teachers (Irenaeus sat under Polycarp who sat under st. John the Elder). His point is not to construct a sacramental doctrine of apostolic succession, but that the common life of the church received this hermeneutic (Irenaeus' regula fidei, rule of faith). It was passed along in all the churches the Apostles founded and the ones founded from those, and so on. The New Testament ought to be read within this historical hermeneutic from which it was produced. John 1 is about the Creator Word becoming a man, not how eight-fold Ogdoad came into being. Tradition for Irenaeus is the historical account of how this hermeneutic remained among the churches of the early third century. And it's this hermeneutic of accountability that restrains any musings/teachings on the divine. Hence, we must follow the text ad literam, according to the letter, lest we get lost in our own fantasies. If we begin to invent our own meaning behind the words of the text, there's no reason why the myth of the Cucumber is not legitimate. The urbane would balk, but Irenaeus was something of a populist in this regard. If we're to resort to myth behind the text, talk of melons and gourds made more sense for the agrarian common people. More people could dabble in esoterica of fruits than abstracts.
Irenaeus' argument still has a lot of use today. Many Christians do not pay enough attention to the form of the Scripture, and tend to replace it with mythic reconstructions to better support their doctrines. There are accounts of the ordo salutis (order of salvation), which add content to scripture to describe a series of actions in eternity or in the human heart. In trying to explain the course of salvation, I've heard some describe how the Godhead "sat" down in council and decided to send the Son (sometimes He volunteers) to save the world. Similarly, pictures of the Father as an old man also add form and grammar to what the canonical scriptures give. Policing theology like this may seems overly scrupulous, but the point if hermeneutical clarity. Were you there at the divine decrees? Did you hear the Son volunteer to save the world? Irenaeus' hermeneutical method is not simply to juxtapose the historical (even if supernatural) from the mythic, but to preserve the content of the Apostle's teaching. If we begin to speak in ways foreign to the form and grammar of the New Testament, we may very well invent false doctrines. Such doesn't mean we can't create alternate forms to present the teaching of the scripture. That's precisely what Irenaeus does in his epitome (a summarized version of a text) of scripture: Demonstrations of the Apostolic Preaching. Rather, the point is that one's hermeneutic must preserve the form of the text, a form given in and through historical tradition.
Irenaeus' hermeneutic has not always been dominant in the churches of Christ. Origen's influence became a mainstay among several saints (the exegesis of the Cappadocians is pretty bad). Even as Origen was later condemned, and several strands of Origenism spiraled were anathematized, his hermeneutical influence remained. Some Christological problems resulted from privileging certain philosophical paradigms (which approach mythic status) which demand hermeneutical methods that, quite frankly, butcher the texts. One ought to follow Irenaeus, as he followed the Apostles, in defending a hermeneutic that preserves the form of the text. The alternative is exegesis by phantasmagoria.
No comments:
Post a Comment