Irenaeus, the Scriptures, and the Apostolic Writings

Reevaluating the Status of the New Testament Writings at the End of the Second Century

Kenneth Laing

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780567701961
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Estudios bíblicos

Kenneth Laing challenges the concept of Irenaeus as the primary witness to the point at which the New Testament achieved scriptural status, and calls into question some of the most basic conclusions and assumptions of New Testament canon formation scholarship. Laing proposes a new interpretation of Irenaeus' understanding of the nature and basis of authority of the New Testament writings, based on his christocentric theology of revelation. By exploring the texts themselves, the concept of authority, scriptural tradition and the question of inspiration, Laing argues that while the writings possess authority equal to the Jewish scriptures, it is their apostolic origin and the apostles' relationship to Christ – not inspiration – which forms the basis of the unique revelatory authority of the New Testament writings. Laing thus stresses that Irenaeus regards the New Testament writings as a written record of the apostolic tradition and the primary means of accessing its content, rather than as a purely scriptural text.

Part 1 Assessing the Traditional Interpretation

1 The Apostolic Writings and the Use of γραφή

The evaluation of the traditional interpretation’s claim that Irenaeus considers the apostolic writings to be scripture begins in this chapter with a critical assessment of its first substantiating argument: Irenaeus uses γραφή as a title for the apostolic writings, analogous to his references to the Jewish scriptures. This usage, it is claimed, demonstrates that the apostolic writings enjoy equivalent scriptural status in his thought. Ochagavia’s assertion is broadly representative: “Irenaeus uses the expression ἡ γραφή to refer to a New Testament writing,” and this demonstrates that “the New Testament was regarded as ‘Scripture.’ ”¹ To assess the plausibility of this argument, this chapter undertakes a systematic analysis of Irenaeus’ uses of γραφή throughout his writings—interpreted within the contexts of his immediate polemical agenda, his overarching theological arguments, and his historical milieu—in order to discover its particular meanings, intended referents, and possible scriptural significance. The results of this analysis will determine whether and to what extent Irenaeus applies γραφή as a scriptural title to the apostolic writings.

My contention is that the traditional interpretation has consistently misinterpreted either the intended referent or the implications of Irenaeus’ terminology within those passages that have commonly been used as evidence, and has therefore misconstrued his intentions. Despite the assertions of the traditional interpretation, Irenaeus in fact refrains from giving a scriptural title to the apostolic writings, instead reserving this title for the Jewish scriptures. If my contention is correct, this would substantially weaken the claim of the traditional interpretation that the apostolic writings are considered by Irenaeus to be scripture alongside the Jewish scriptures, and would suggest the existence of a largely unacknowledged conceptual distinction between the apostolic writings and the Jewish scriptures in his thought.

Interpreting Irenaeus’ Use of γραφή

The analysis of Irenaeus’ use of γραφή undertaken in this chapter is distinguished by a commitment to the principle that the meaning of a word is to be determined on the basis of its function within the particular context in which it occurs.² Following Wittgenstein’s rejection of what he calls the “craving for generality” in interpretation,³ I take it as axiomatic that words are not to be understood as static carriers of meaning but as “instruments characterized by their use.”⁴ The task of interpretation, then, is not to identify a stable meaning for a given term, which may then be applied to each particular situation in which it occurs, but to determine the particular meaning that arises within its use in a specific context.

According to this interpretative strategy, attempts to determine how γραφή functions for Irenaeus must resist the temptation to regard “the word, rather than the sentence or speech-act, [as] the basic unit of meaning to be investigated.”⁵ Previous analyses of Irenaeus have exhibited a certain vulnerability at this point: because γραφή is repeatedly used by Irenaeus to refer to those writings that possess scriptural status for him, the term is often treated as if it had inherent scriptural connotations (except perhaps in specific exceptional cases). In contrast to this tendency, the following analysis attempts to discover the meaning of Irenaeus’ particular uses of γραφή within their immediate, proximate, and peripheral contexts.⁶

The peripheral context influencing Irenaeus’ own use(s) of γραφή includes the standard usage and particular Christian significance of the term before Irenaeus, which should indicate the semantic range he inherited. This usage is often helpfully expressed in standard lexicons of ancient Greek, so long as Thiselton’s advice is kept in mind: “Dictionary-entries about words are rule-of-thumb generalizations based on assumptions about characteristic contexts.”⁷ Γραφή, from the Greek root γραφ, meaning “to draw or write,” is the term most commonly used within Greek antiquity to designate a “writing,” and to refer specifically to the Jewish and Christian scriptures. A Greek English Lexicon defines γραφή as “representation by means of lines,” and therefore (1) “drawing or painting,” and (2) “writing” or “that which is written”;⁸ and lists many substantiations of the varied uses of γραφή, commonly referring to registrations, letters, spurious writings, published writings, a written law, a catalogue, an inscription, and “the Holy Scripture” or, in the singular, “a particular passage” of scripture.⁹ According to The Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, the use of γραφή during this period signifies “a writing,” as well as “Scripture, the holy writ,” a “passage of Scripture,” and a reading, letter, or epistle.¹⁰ Within the Christian culture of the Roman empire in the following centuries after Christ, γραφή becomes increasingly correlated with the concept of “scripture,” though its original use signifying “a writing” is not diminished.

The Latin term scriptura and the Armenian term cir (gir)—the standard translations of γραφή in the Latin and Armenian translations of Irenaeus’ works—are both used similarly to γραφή. Scriptura is virtually synonymous with γραφή, commonly used to signify “a writing; written characters,” while also having among its more specific uses “the Scriptures” or “a passage of Scripture,” especially as it is used within a Christian context.¹¹ Whenever the Greek New Testament or other Greek Christian writings are translated into Latin (including Adversus haereses), γραφή is overwhelmingly translated as scriptura regardless of context.¹² Cir is used similarly, signifying “script” or “writing,” as well as “book” or “Scripture,” often when used in plural form (cirk).¹³

These catalogued uses of γραφή (and scriptura and cir) suggest that while it is routinely used to refer to “the scriptures” in Christian writing, its use as a scriptural title is essentially a contextual reference, in the same way that in English the phrase “the book” can clearly refer to scripture in one context, while in other contexts it can refer to any book, lacking any religious significance (this analogy would be closer if contemporary English operated without a distinct word for “scripture,” as is the case in Greek, Latin, and Armenian). The mere occurrence of the term “book” does not indicate scriptural status for its referent; only context and textual clues (e.g., this book) will determine its meaning. The same is true for γραφή. This term is what Thiselton has identified as a “polymorphous concept,”¹⁴ whose meaning must be determined within the context of its use in each particular instance.

M. C. Steenberg’s investigation of Irenaeus’ use of γραφή represents the most comprehensive and nuanced attempt to create a logical and consistent framework for accurately interpreting his meaning to date.¹⁵ On the basis of his analysis of every occurrence of γραφή in Adversus haereses, Steenberg proposes a rule for determining the meaning of the term in any specific instance based on his principle of “delimited” versus “non-delimited” use. According to this rule, when γραφή is delimited by specifying words and phrases like “this,” “of the prophets,” and so on, these references are less likely to be scriptural titles and must be determined by context.¹⁶ In this way he is able to account for obvious non-scriptural uses of the term that have proved problematic for prior interpreters.¹⁷ On the other hand,

what is eminently clear in Irenaeus is that non-delimited use of the term is always scriptural in its implication. To refer simply to “the writings” (αἱ γραφαὶ) or “the writing” (ἡ γραφή), without further qualification, is always and without exception to indicate a passage or concept drawn from a book of scriptural authority … Never does he use an unqualified instance of γραφή in reference to a text that he does not regard as of Christian scriptural possession in accord with the apostolic tradition.¹⁸

Founded on his opening assumption that the Jewish scriptures and apostolic writings together are considered to be scripture for Irenaeus,¹⁹ Steenberg’s resulting principle of “delimited” versus “non-delimited” use allows him to analyze Irenaeus’ use of γραφή in reference to less certain texts. This analysis results in the identification of a scriptural title assigned to the Shepherd of Hermas. This leads Steenberg to the conclusion that Irenaeus’ understanding of scripture extended much more widely beyond the Jewish scriptures and apostolic writings to include many other writings that authentically expressed the “Christocentric vision of the cosmos,”²⁰ despite the fact that this is at odds with Irenaeus’ uniform insistence on “the prophets, the Lord, and the apostles” as the only sources of revelatory authority.²¹ This improbable conclusion arises as a result of constructing his principle of “delimited” versus “non-delimited” use upon a prior assumption that Irenaeus considers both the Jewish scriptures and apostolic writings to be scripture. His principle is therefore clearly unsuitable as a methodological device for determining Irenaeus’ uses of γραφή in reference to the apostolic writings themselves. However, when “delimited” versus “non-delimited” use is properly mapped on to the immediate, proximate, and peripheral contexts in which γραφή occurs it may provide a useful guide, which contributes to the interpretation of Irenaeus’ u...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1 Assessing the Traditional Interpretation
• Part 2 Constructing an Alternative Interpretation
• Bibliography
• Index
• Index of References to Irenaeus’ Works
• Copyright Page