Against “Irenaean” Theodicy: A Refutation of John Hick's Use of Irenaeus 9781463240806

Citation preview

Against “Irenaean” Theodicy

Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 73

Series Editorial Board Carly Daniel-Hughes Jeanne-Nicole Mellon Saint-Lauren Adam Serfass Ilaria Ramelli Helen Rhee

Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics is designed to advance our understanding of various aspects of early Christianity. The scope of the series is broad, with volumes addressing the historical, cultural, literary, theological and philosophical contexts of the early Church. The series, reflecting the most current scholarship, is essential to advanced students and scholars of early Christianity. Gorgias welcomes proposals from senior scholars as well as younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of early Christianity.

Against “Irenaean” Theodicy

A Refutation of John Hick’s Use of Irenaeus

David Hionides

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܝ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-4071-4

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents................................................................................. v Acknowledgments .............................................................................. vii Abbreviations ...................................................................................... ix Preface ................................................................................................ xiii Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Chapter One. Hick’s Use of Irenaeus ................................................. 23 Introduction................................................................................ 23 Hick ............................................................................................. 25 “Augustinian” Theodicy ............................................................ 34 “Irenaean” Theodicy................................................................... 37 Hick’s Irenaeus ................................................................................ 37 Hick’s “Irenaean” Theodicy .......................................................... 40 Creation and Progression ................................................................ 41 Death ................................................................................................43 Universalism ....................................................................................45

Conclusion ................................................................................. 46 Chapter Two. Background and Sources for Irenaeus on the Problem of Evil .......................................................................... 49 Introduction............................................................................... 49 The Problem of Evil in Pagan Thought ....................................50 The Problem of Evil in Early Christian Thought...................... 54 Before Irenaeus ................................................................................ 55 After Irenaeus ................................................................................. 66

Conclusion ................................................................................. 77 Chapter Three. Irenaeus and Theodicy............................................. 79 Introduction............................................................................... 79 Irenaeus ...................................................................................... 80 v

vi

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY Irenaeus as Interpreter of Scripture ........................................... 85 Diversity within Unity ................................................................... 90 Non-Speculative beyond Scripture................................................ 98

The Thought of Irenaeus’s Opponents on the Problem of Evil.......................................................................................... 99 Valentinians ................................................................................... 104 Gnostics.......................................................................................... 106 Marcion .......................................................................................... 108 Other Opponents .......................................................................... 109 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 109

Irenaeus on the Problem of Evil ............................................... 109 Irenaeus on Creation ......................................................................110 Irenaeus on Humanity’s Progression in the One Plan or Economy of God ................................................................... 114 Irenaeus on The Origin of Evil ...................................................... 116 Irenaeus on Human Transgression ............................................... 119 Irenaeus on Death .......................................................................... 121 Irenaeus’s Free-Will Defense .......................................................... 123

Conclusion ................................................................................. 125 Chapter Four. The Divergence of Hick’s Interpretation ................ 127 Introduction.............................................................................. 127 Three Key Differences in Hick’s Reading ............................... 128 Creation as Including Divinely Created Evil ................................ 128 An Excusable Disobedience, Not a Devastating Tragedy ............ 132 Two Stages with One Method of Humanity’s Progression ............................................................................ 135

Hick’s False Dichotomy ........................................................... 139 Conclusion ................................................................................ 145 Chapter Five. Conclusion.................................................................. 147 Bibliography .......................................................................................157 Editions and Translations..........................................................157 Books ..........................................................................................159 Articles and Essays .................................................................... 172 Unpublished Materials .............................................................. 191 Index .................................................................................................. 193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I remain deeply indebted to a number of people who have made this work possible. My parents’ love, support, and instruction shaped my life. I will be forever grateful for their tireless efforts to raise me well. Having done so, they continued to care for me through the ebbs and flows of life. Their example remains carved on my heart. My graduate education may never have been if not for my great-aunt, Ruth Kocher. Her love and care made it possible for me to move away and study. As a not-so-young man, I left the northeast and headed south, where my continued education was molded by faithful men. They taught me to think critically and theologically. My conversations with Dr. Douglas K. Blount, Dr. Nathan D. Holsteen, and Dr. Michael J. Svigel shaped me greatly. I am grateful for the hours they have invested in me. I have been honored to have such a distinguished and valuable dissertation committee. During my PhD studies, I was blessed with the chance to get to know Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham. Consistently pushing me to improve my work and thought, he has been a devoted teacher of both life and scholarship to me. While God led him north and then back south again, Dr. Bingham continued to shepherd and guide me through my dissertation journey and its shift into this book. Discussions with Dr. Glenn R. Kreider over the years offered fruitful contemplation and reflection for both my studies and life. He has helped me and my work through his loving honesty. I remain elated that Father Irenei agreed to serve on my dissertation committee. His insights and scholarship enriched both me and my study of Irenaeus. His critiques and encouragement have motivated my work and refined this product. vii

viii

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

No words can capture the fullness of my gratitude to and for my wife Heather. She has been a steadfast partner through life and during this process. As life has thrown turmoil after turmoil at us we have endured by the grace of God. Without her I may not have weathered the storms of life. Her loving patience and constant support enabled me to devote the necessary time to this project. She has taught me more than she knows and makes my dreams a reality. Without the faithfulness of these people, this book would not have become reality. I am forever grateful. I am also thankful for the Cadbury Research Library and the University of Birmingham in allowing me to access the Papers of John Hick. These were invaluable to my project and offered a fascinating window into the life and mind of John Hick. My time at the library was enhanced by its friendly and helpful staff. They tirelessly answered my questions and retrieved box after box for me. Yet above these I mentioned, and indeed with them, I thank God our Creator. May we all be his faithful servants.

ABBREVIATIONS Add. AH AJT APQ AthR ATJ Autol. BBR Cels. CH CHB CTQ Dial. EC EGL66 EGL10 Epid. EvQ ExpTim HE HTR ICS IrenTh

Address to the Greeks Adversus haereses American Journal of Theology American Philosophical Quarterly Anglican Theological Review Ashland Theological Journal Ad Autolycum Bulletin for Biblical Research Contra Celsum Church History Christian History and Biography Concordia Theological Quarterly Dialogus cum Tryphone Early Christianity Evil and the God of Love, 1966 Evil and the God of Love, 2010 Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Historia ecclesiastica Harvard Theological Review Illinois Classical Studies “Irenaean Theology” in Davis, 2001 ix

x JAAR JBL JECS JHS JES JR JRefT JSNT JTAK JTS Leg. Marc. MT NAPS NovT Princ. Protr. PRSt RefJour RelS ResQ RM RREM SC SJT SP SVTQ ThSex ThTo Tim.

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of the Historical Society Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Religion Journal of Reformed Theology Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa Journal of Theological Studies Legatio pro Christianis Adversus Marcionem Modern Theology North American Patristics Society Novum Testamentum De principiis (Peri archon) Protrepticus Perspectives in Religious Studies Reformed Journal Religious Studies Restoration Quarterly Review of Metaphysics Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala Sources chretiennes Scottish Journal of theology Studia Patristica St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Theology and Sexuality Theology Today Timaeus

ABBREVIATIONS TS TynBul VC ZAC 1 Apol. 2 Apol. 2 Clem.

Theological Studies Tyndale Bulletin Vigiliae christianae Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 1 Apology 2 Apology 2 Clement

xi

PREFACE Studying the problem of evil has never been a particularly happy endeavor. Facing the reality of evil through studies while confronting it in life makes the task all the more difficult. Despite the plethora of words written and works published, few if any attempts at a solution are satisfying in the midst of suffering. On the spectrum of thought dealing with the problem, Hick’s solution seemingly stands as a contemporary solution, yet intimately historical. However, investigating his work after a conversation with Jeff Bingham, I found that the more I read the more it struck me as unjust that Irenaeus remained shackled to Hick’s theodicy. Both Hick’s and Irenaeus’s handling of the problem of evil ought to stand or fall on their own. Both theologians sought to aid the faith through their efforts and ought to have their thoughts on the problem of evil recognized and appreciated. While the fullness of Irenaeus’s handling of the issue has been lost, Hick’s work brought much thought and garners considerable contemporary discussion. However, the discussion concerning Hick’s theodicy became conflated with discussion of Irenaeus’s. Both ought to be studied and discussed on their own. Yet before that can happen, Irenaeus needs to be freed from Hick’s work.

xiii

INTRODUCTION Humanity lives in a world full of suffering, pain, and death. Evil abounds and confronts humanity at almost every turn. Not only do humans endure misery, they suffer within a world that suffers. The groaning of the cosmos exceeds human suffering. 1 In the midst of this, humans not only deal with the reality of evil but also wrestle with explaining why it exists. In coming to this problem of evil, two types of questions remain consistent. 2 The philosophical questions concern the legitimacy of belief that a good God exists in light of evil’s reality and why he continues to allow evil to exist. Alongside these, the more personal question arises as to why God allows “me” to suffer. Christians continue to ask these questions both out of personal suffering and a desire to understand and defend the rationality of their faith. Explaining the reality of evil in light of their belief in a perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent 1

Regardless of one’s understanding of the “how” of creation, that the volume of suffering by non-humans throughout time is greater than then volume of suffering by humans is self-evident based on greater number of nonhumans within creation. For an introduction to the reality of animal suffering see Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), ix, 1–2. 2 Throughout this work I will employ the phrase “problem of evil.” I will utilize it referring to the reality of evil as an issue for (Christian) faith. For a helpful explanation see Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper and Row, 1974; repr., Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1977), 9–24.

1

2

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

God has plagued Christians since the first century. While contemporary discussion seems to be dominated by attempts to disprove the existence of God, the notion that evil’s existence is an actual problem for faith has not always been assumed. For many the issue of evil’s existence was more akin to a puzzle than a problem. 3 Explaining the reality of evil often occurred within discussion of salvation history.4 Focused on understanding the new revelation of Jesus Christ, the earliest Christians suffered and grappled with the reality of evil in light of their beliefs. Two thousand years later the community of faith still wrestles with it. The early discussion and explanation grew from brief tangential statements into the more systematic monographs on the problem of evil and theological studies on theodicy found today. Just as the issues remain consistent, so too have the responses. Across Christian history, various defenses of the faith have been of-

3

While not seeing evil’s existence as a problem, these discussions remain part of what scholarship calls “the problem of evil.” Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams, introduction to The Problem of Evil, eds. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 1–3. For an example of this broad understanding of the phrase the problem of evil as discussed within early Christian writings can be seen in Peter Karavites, Evil, Freedom, and the Road to Perfection in Clement of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–5. Surin pointed to the overarching usage of the phrase problem of evil and argued against viewing all historical figures as reacting to the same set of problems. In contrast to understanding all discussions of the problem of evil with a Humean context, he posited that discussion arose when particular narratives of evil collided with Christian narratives. Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986; repr., Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), 2–3, 27. For one explanation of the modern shift in understanding the problem of evil see Thomas G. Long, What Shall We Say? Evil Suffering, and the Crisis of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 1–18. 4 Oden stated “Classic pastoral reasoning about suffering returns often to the well of justification teaching, where the whole question of theodicy is itself transformed.” Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity (NY: HarperOne, 2009), 591.

INTRODUCTION

3

fered alongside more formal theodicies. 5 In his 1966 work Evil and the God of Love, John Hick offered a theodicy through a look back at the second-century church father Irenaeus. 6 His work followed shortly after the controversy over his view of the virgin birth. Hick’s membership in the local Presbytery came under question when he neither affirmed nor denied the virgin birth. After his views were questioned, Hick wrote Evil and the God of Love and connected his theology to Irenaeus. In construction of his theodicy, Hick sought to build upon a historical precedent. Looking to the bishop of Lyon, he claimed to be employing Irenaean thought. Over against claims that his theology was heretical, this move seemingly entrenched his theodicy in Christian orthodoxy. 7 In contrast to the free-will defense, Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy argued that evil ought to be understood as the necessary means of God’s plan for human progression into perfection. God created the world with good and evil. It was designed for humanity to grow through interaction with both evil and good. This progression entails a two stage process. The initial growth is into the image of God, which Hick posited as the evolutionary process. The second stage of growth is from the image into the likeness of God. Humans confront both good and evil sometimes choosing evil over good. This functions as a necessary part of the learning process and reflects their immaturity and imperfection. These are happy errors as humanity learns, matures, and grows through this process just as God intended. Thus, Hick’s work connected Irenaeus to a theodicy in opposi5

Theodicies are distinct in that they go beyond offering a plausible defense and state the reason that God allows evil to exist. See Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, 28–29. 6 Hick, however, did not utilize this distinction seen above (n3). He saw theodicies as primarily offering a defense against the claims that the existence of evil renders the theist’s belief unintelligible, John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), x–xi. Therefore, in discussion of Hick’s work, I will use the term “theodicy” in the same manner he did, meaning a defense of Christian faith. 7 R. Douglas Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993), 226.

4

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

tion to the free-will defense. Over against this link, I argue that in constructing his theodicy, Hick interpreted Irenaeus in contrast to the manner in which prevailing Irenaean scholarship interprets him. Established as a standard theodicy within scholarship on the problem of evil, Hick’s work continues to be examined due to “its usefulness as a historical text.” 8 A survey of literature on theodicy confirms that when treating his theodicy, “most scholars have uncritically accepted Hick’s appeal to Irenaeus, resulting in the establishment of an ‘Irenaean-type’ of theodicy.” 9 Scholars have discussed an “Irenaean theodicy,” an “‘Irenaean’ theodicy,” a “neo-Irenaean” theodicy, and repeated Hick’s portrayal of the bishop’s position on the problem of evil. 10 This connection of the bishop and Hick’s theodicy Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God, 30. Trethowan stated Hick’s EGL66 was a “history.” Illtyd Trethowan, “Dr. Hick and the Problem of Evil,” JTS 18, no. 18 (1967): 407. Alston wrote that “for many of us the book [Evil and the God of Love] is the major source for the history of the discussion as well.” William P. Alston, “John Hick: Faith and Knowledge,” in God, Truth, and Reality, ed. Arvind Sharma (New York: St. Martin’s, 1993), 29. 9 Mark S. M. Scott, “Suffering and Soul-Making: Rethinking John Hick’s Theodicy,” JR 90, no. 3 (2010): 314. 10 An “Irenaean theodicy” is discussed by Jeff Astley, David Brown, and Ann Loades, eds. Evil (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 60; David Birnbaum, God and Evil (Hoboken: Ktave, 1989), 33–36; Andrei A. Buckareef, and Allen Plug, “Hell and the Problem of Evil,” in The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, ed. Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 140–41; David Cheetham, John Hick (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 40–43, 62–63; John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil, rev. and expanded ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 142–43; Jacob Friesenhahn, The Trinity and Theodicy (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 60–62; Thomas H. Graves, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy from an African Perspective,” PRSt 18, no. 1 (1991): 33; David Ray Griffen, God, Power, & Evil (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 174–204; David Ray Griffen “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil, new ed., ed. Stephen Davis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 54; Harold Hewitt Jr., “In Defense of Hick’s Theodicy,” in Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Harold Hewitt Jr. (New York: St. Mar8

INTRODUCTION

5

tin’s, 1991), 173–75; Dewey J. Hoitenga, “Is a Christian Theodicy Possible?” RefJour 17, no. 9 (1967): 16, 17; Joseph A. Kelly, The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 222; Mark Maller, “Animals and the Problem of Evil in Recent Theodicies,” Sophia 48, no. 3 (2009): 300; C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy (New York: St. Martin’s, 1991), 62, 97, 98; C. Robert Mesle, “Humanism and Hick’s Interpretation of Religion,” in Hewitt, Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, 61; Michael L. Peterson, God and Evil (Boulder: Westview, 1998), 94–97; Roland Puccetti, “Loving God: Some Observations on John Hick’s Evil and the God of Love,” RelS 2, no. 2 (1967): 255; John M. Rist “Coherence and the God of Love,” JTS 23, no. 1 (1972): 104; John K. Roth, “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy,” in Davis, Encountering Evil, 62; Robert John Russell, “Entropy and Evil,” Zygon 19, no. 4 (1984): 457, 458, 460; John Schneider, “The Fall of ‘Augustinian Adam’: Original Fragility and Supralapsarian Purpose,” Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 954, 967; Daniel Speak, “Free Will and Soul-Making Theodicies,” in McBrayer and Howard-Snyder, Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, 206, 210, 213; Dan R. Striver, “Hick against Himself: His Theodicy versus his Replica Theory,” in Hewitt, Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, 162–72; Phillip Tallon, The Poetics of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 5; JoAnn Ford Watson, “Contemporary Views on the Problem of Evil,” ATJ 24 (1992): 27; Robert R. Williams, “Theodicy, Tragedy, and Soteriology: The Legacy of Schleiermacher,” HTR 77, no. 2–4 (1984): 396–97, 401–4. For “‘Irenaean’ theodicy,” see Philip Clayton, and Steven Knapp, “Divine Action and the ‘Argument from Neglect,’” in Physics and Cosmology, ed. Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 181n3; Nicola Hoggard Creegan, Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 185; Michael Galligan, God and Evil (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 5, 75n2; Gavin D’Costa, John Hick’s Theology of Religions (New York: University Press of America, 1987), 11, 138; Southgate, The Groaning of Creation, 41, 153n46; Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson, “Varieties of Theodicy: An Exploration of Responses to the Problem of Evil Based on a Typology of Good-Harm Analyses,” in Murphy, Russell, and Stoeger, Physics and Cosmology, 76; Terrence W. Tilley, “The Use and Abuse of Theodicy,” Horizons 11, no. 2 (1984): 310; Nico Vorster, “The Augustinian Type of Theodicy: Is it Outdated?” JRefT 5, no. 1 (2011): 27, 42, 44, 46, 48. Tilley refers to it as a “neo-Irenaean” theodicy. “The Use and Abuse,” 304. Discussion of

6

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Irenaeus holding to Hick’s theodicy is seen in Paul F. Andrus, Why Me? Why Mine? (New York: Abingdon, 1975), 48; Brian Davies, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil (New York: Continuum, 2006), 21; Chester Gillis, “An Interpretation of An Interpretation of Religion,” in Hewitt, Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, 44; Christopher Hardeman, “The Theodicies of Josiah Royce and John Hick” (PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 1982), 98; William Hart, Evil (New York: St. Martin’s, 2004), 35; Hoitenga, “Is a Christian Theodicy Possible?” 15; Dai Sil Kim, “Irenaeus of Lyons and Teilhard De Chardin: A Comparative Study of ‘Recapitulation’ and ‘Omega,’” JES 13, no. 1 (1976): 69–93; Mark Larrimore, introduction to Chapter 6: Irenaeus of Lyon to The Problem of Evil, ed. Mark Larrimore (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 28; Bruce A. Little, A Creation-Order Theodicy (New York: University Press of America, 2005), 72; Myra Beth Mackie, “John Hick’s Theodicy” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1980), 66, 81; Edward N. Martin, “The Evidential Argument of Evil in Recent Analytic Philosophy” (PhD diss., Purdue University, 1995), 13, 64; Charles T. Mathews, Evil and the Augustinian Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 93; Marla Beth Morris, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” JTAK 17, no. 2 (1993): 5; Nancey Murphy, “Science and the Problem of Evil: Suffering as a By-Product of a Finely Tuned Cosmos,” in Murphy, Russell, and Stoeger, Physics and Cosmology, 134; Michael L. Peterson, introduction to The Problem of Evil, ed. Michael L. Peterson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992),12; Michael L. Peterson, “Recent Work on the Problem of Evil,” APQ 20, no. 4 (1983): 328; Puccetti, “Loving God,” 259; Russell, “Entropy and Evil,” 455–56; Schneider, “The Fall,” 952, 955, 961; Robert E. Rainwater, “John Hick’s Theodicy: A Critical Analysis” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980), 130–32; John A. Sanford, Evil (New York: Crossroads, 1981), 133; Southgate, and Robinson, “Varieties of Theodicy,” 76; Striver, “Hick against Himself,” 162–72; Terrence W. Tilley, The Evils of Theodicy (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991), 228; Paul Vermeer, Learning Theodicy (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 32; Michael B. Wilkinson with Hugh N. Campbell, Philosophy of Religion (New York: Continuum, 2010), 177, 179; René Woudenberg, “A Brief History of Theodicy,” in McBrayer and Howard-Snyder, Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, 178; Kenneth K. Pak, Diving Power and Evil: A Reply to Process Theodicy (New York: Routledge, 2016), 6.

INTRODUCTION

7

remains to this day as the “Irenaean” theodicy has “been woven into the very fabric of contemporary religious philosophical thought.” 11 Yet some did question Hick’s historiography. Shortly after the publication of Evil and the God of Love in 1966, Clarke posited that Hick’s dichotomy of theodicies held an “oversimplification” and posited that his use of Augustine and Irenaeus should lead to a focus on their work on the issues he discussed. 12 McGill stated that Hick’s work was a “(mis)reading of Augustine.” 13 Ferré wrote Hick and stated, “using Irenaeus as you do is a stroke of genius,” and pointed out that he would not “have dared to make so strong a distinction between him [Irenaeus] and Augustine.” 14 While accepting his portrayal of Irenaeus’s thought in 1967, Hoitenga pointed out that Hick’s key concepts predate the bishop of Lyon going back to Aristotle’s reaction to Plato. 15 In 1986, Surin raised questions about Hick’s use of both Augustine and Irenaeus, seeing it as “anachronistic.” 16 However, Surin admitted that his discussion was brief and cursory, further positing that a comprehensive examination of Irenaeus’s theodicy remained necessary. 17 Puttanil argued in 1990 that Hick’s Irenaeus saw God as responsible for the fall whereas the bishop actually understood human-

11 Cheetham, John

Hick, 1. Thomas E. Clarke, “The Problem of Evil: A New Study,” TS 28, no. 1 (1967): 128. 13 Arthur McGill letter to John Hick, July 4, 1966, box 23, Papers of John Hick, Cadbury Research Library, Birmingham UK. Hick responded to the letter stating that they would discuss Augustine when they met in person later that year. John Hick letter to Arthur McGill, July 18, 1966, box 23, Papers of John Hick. 14 Nels F. S. Ferré to John Hick, letter, August 29, 1966, box 21, Papers of John Hick. 15 Hoitenga, “Is a Christian Theodicy Possible?” 17. 16 Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil, 19. 17 Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil, 19. 12

8

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

ity to be responsible. 18 However, in seeking to compare the methodologies of Irenaeus and Sankaracharya, he also stated that the finite nature of humanity brought about the fall. 19 Throughout this work, I employ the phrase “the fall” as referring to the doctrine of a change from innocence to disobedience in divinely created beings. This occurred through the first sin of disobedience and resulted in a change of the creature’s nature. Pain, suffering, and death entered into creation as a result of this transgression. The doctrine of the fall is derived in part from the Gen 1–3 narrative though it is not restricted to a literal interpretation of the text. 20 While this definition of the doctrine will be used in this work, explanation of the term in scholarship varies. For example, in his influential systematic work from a Reformed tradition, Berkhof discussed the fall with a robust understanding. He argued that it was formulated from Gen 3 and resulted in (1) loss of communion with God, (2) both physical and spiritual death, (3) human awareness of their pollution and guilt with removal from the garden, and (4) total depravity which he saw as “vitiating every power and faculty of body and soul.” 21 Over against this, Kreeft delineated doctrines in contrast Thomas Puttanil, A Comparative Study of the Theological Methodology of Irenaeus of Lyon and Sankaracharya (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 174n211. 19 Puttanil, A Comparative Study, 174. 20 Similarly, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church noted that how one interprets the historicity of the Genesis account is “subordinate to this fundamental doctrine.” F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 600. 21 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 225–26. Berkhof’s influence may be illustrated by Zwaanstra’s statement that “no theologian or churchman has made a greater impact on the Christian Reformed Church than Professor Berkhof.” Henry Zwaanstra, “Louis Berhof,” in Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development, ed. David F. Wells (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997),149. 18

INTRODUCTION

9

to Reformed protestant views which he had left. He argued that the fall had distorted the image of God, brought death upon humanity, and broke humanity’s harmonies with creation, nature, between body and soul, men and women, and siblings. However, he rejected the doctrine of total depravity and allowed for human cooperation with God’s grace. 22 The influential Orthodox scholar Louth argued that the fall is based on the narrative of Adam and Eve, who departed from the intended path and disrupted the harmony of creation bringing sin, death, and destruction upon humanity. Human nature now “has two aspects—one reaching towards the divine, the other succumbing to the animal.” 23 Another perspective can be seen through Ottati’s work as he sought to elucidate doctrines from a liberal Protestant perspective. In treating creation and its current state, he avoided the phrase “the fall” altogether and argued that humanity’s corruption is “a misorientation that brings a train of bad consequences,” resulting in “corrupting relationships, circumstances, and interests.” 24 However, this “does not destroy the capacities of per-

Peter J. Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994), 64–66. Kreeft’s discussion based on the Catechism remains a helpful interpretation of paragraphs 385–409. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana), 97–103. 23 Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 76, 68–78. Behr noted that Louth is an “eminent theologian” whose works are “a landmark that none in the field can miss.” John Behr, “Andrew Louth,” in Meditations of the Heart: The Psalms in Early Christian Thought and Practice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Louth, ed. Andreas Andreopoulos, Augustine Casiday, and Carol Harrison (Tournhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), ix, xi. 24 Douglas F. Ottati, Theology for Liberal Protestants: God the Creator (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 82. Capetz argued Ottati’s work offered “a major intellectual challenge to thoughtful readers willing to wrestle in earnest with difficult issues raised and the constructive proposals advanced.” Paul Capetz, review of Theology for Liberal Protestants: God the Creator by Douglas F. Ottati. Interpretation 69, no. 1 (2011): 88. 22

10

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

sons and communities for interventions and attentive and responsible interrelationships.” 25 In contrast, I employ this phrase with few doctrinal attachments. 26 The phrase itself is not necessarily utilized in the early Christian texts discussed herein. However, there is a concept found in them wherein there was a time when death or evil was absent from creation and then entered into it as a result of sin. Satan or Adam and Eve may be pointed to though often no one is. For example, Irenaeus does not employ the phrase “the fall.” Thus to argue that Irenaeus held to a contemporary view of the fall or offered much discussion of a pre-fall state remains problematic. 27 However, as Steenberg noted, “an attempt to read Irenaeus as presenting no scheme whatever of an Edenic ‘fall’ would be to over-estimate the case.” 28 While not writing of “the fall, ” Irenaeus wrote of death and destruction entering creation through the sin of Adam and Eve who fell into misery, and 25 Ottati, Theology

for Liberal Protestants, 89. This is similar to McGrath’s definition, though he specified that it is limited to humanity. “The imagery of the ‘the Fall’ derives from Genesis 3, and expresses the idea that human nature has ‘fallen’ from its original pristine state. The present state of human nature is thus not what it was intended to be by God. The created order no longer directly corresponds to the ‘goodness’ of its original integrity. It has lapsed. It has been spoiled and ruined— but not irredeemably as the doctrines of salvation and justification affirm. The image of a ‘Fall’ conveys the idea that creation now exists at a lower level than that intended for it by God.” Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, 2nd ed. (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 33. Likewise, it fits with Pomazansky’s discussion of the fall. It occurred in the angelic realm initially and then in humanity. It affected human nature with sinful inclinations reigning. It brought about disease, hardness of labor, death and the loss of the Kingdom of God. The disputes across Christendom arise in understanding the fullness of the consequences of the fall on human nature. Thus, the doctrine of original or ancestral sin remains contested. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 2nd ed., ed. and trans. Seraphim Rose (New York: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), 151–66. 27 M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 153. 28 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 168. 26

INTRODUCTION

11

along with the fruit fell under the power of death. 29 Importantly, despite Irenaeus’s non-usage of the terminology, Hick utilized the phrase in his discussion of Irenaeus and his theodicy. 30 While Hick used the term without defining it for Irenaeus, I employ the phrase with the above understanding and use it for continuity and consistency with Hick and his discussion. Additionally, I avoid the term in discussion of early Christian works and include it only when a scholar utilized it in reference to the ancient text in view. Thus, my discussion of Irenaeus’s view on the problem of evil avoids the phrase while my discussion of Hick’s understanding of the bishop includes it. Tilley’s 1991 counter to Hick’s portrayal of the church fathers’ thought, targeted his Augustinian portrayal and stated, it “is not Augustine’s doctrine.” 31 In 1992, Stoeber asserted that Augustine’s and Irenaeus’s theodicies were perhaps not as different as Hick thought and pointed out that both wrote on the fall from paradise and on spiritual growth. 32 Seeking to offer a mystical theodicy, his work utilized the Hickian dichotomy with the rational that Irenaeus “clearly” held to the distinction and progression of “image” to “likeness” as portrayed by Hick. 33 In McDonald’s 1995 PhD dissertation, he stated that Hick’s work had only “loose and indirect roots in IreSee Irenaeus, Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos 15–17, AH 5.23.1. Note in Smith’s English translation he inserted the caption “The Fall” for Epid. 16. Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, trans. and ann. by Joseph P. Smith (New York: Paulist Press, 1952), 57. Conversely, Behr employed the caption “The transgression.” Irenaeus. On the Apostolic Preaching trans, by John Behr (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 49. For discussion on the concept of the fall in Irenaeus Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 153–69. 30 Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 201–18. 31 Tilley, “The Evils of Theodicy,” 115. 32 Michael Stoeber, Evil and the Mystics’ God (London: MacMillan, 1992), 200n5. Perhaps tellingly, in his 2005 work dealing with theodicy, he referred to Hick’s view omitting any connection to Irenaeus. See Reclaiming Theodicy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). 33 Stoeber, Evil and the Mystics’ God, 200n5. 29

12

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

naeus’ own theology and understanding of evil.” 34 He posited out that contra Hick, the bishop held to a literal understanding of the fall narrative in Genesis and developed the theory of original sin. Furthermore, he asserted that Hick exaggerated the importance Irenaeus placed on the weakness theory and that his treatment of evil was inconsistent with the bishop’s view of redemption.35 However, focused on offering a new approach to the problem of evil by incorporating revised doctrines from India, he left Hick’s conflation intact and discussed the “Irenaean approach,” the “Irenaean claim,” and the “Irenaean standpoint.” 36 In 2010, Scott argued the “deeply entrenched classification of Hick’s ‘soul-making’ or ‘person-making’ theodicy as ‘Irenaean’” had more in common with Origen than with the bishop of Lyon. He argued that Hick generalized Irenaeus’s theology with thin parallels. 37 For Scott, Irenaeus fit Hick’s theodicy; however, unlike the bishop of Lyon, Origen is a “perfect” fit. 38 Thus, he was not interested in a detailed refutation of Hick’s appeal to Irenaeus. 39 Working on environmental theology O’Keefe saw possibilities in Irenaeus’s work for contemporary theologians working on theodicy in light of modern cosmology. In his 2013 paper for NAPS, O’Keefe noted problems with Hick’s use of Irenaeus and pointed to the eschatological understandings of Irenaeus, specifically the physical resurrection. 40 For O’Keefe, Hick’s misunderstanding of Irenaeus occurred in his understanding the eschaton not in his view of creation. In his 2016 publication, O’Keefe omitted his discussion of Hick

34

Michael McDonald, “Towards a Contemporary Theodicy” (PhD diss., University of Hawaii, 1995), 2n1. 35 McDonald, “Towards a Contemporary Theodicy,” 2n1. 36 McDonald, “Towards a Contemporary Theodicy” vi, 6, 34, 84. 37 Scott, “Suffering and Soul-Making,” 323. 38 Scott, “Suffering and Soul-Making,” 313–34. 39 Scott, “Suffering and Soul-Making,” 323n67. 40 John O’Keefe, “Irenaeus and Teilhard de Chardin: Is There Such a Thing as a Christian Evolutionary Theodicy?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of NAPS, Chicago, May 2013).

INTRODUCTION

13

while focusing on Irenaeus’s positive view of the materiality of creation. 41 Working on a forthcoming project that discusses early Christian understandings of the process of salvation, Burns argues that Irenaeus viewed the incarnation as a necessary part of the divine plan of salvation from the beginning. 42 Humanity’s move towards immortality and incorruptibility required the union of God and humanity in the God-man. Through the incarnation, humanity could progress from mortality into immortality.43 However, Adam and Eve disobeyed God. This required God to return them to their previous state before raising them into their intended higher position. 44 As a result, Christ needed to suffer death and introduce resurrection to humanity. Burns also sees that Irenaeus argued the only means of human progression was through humanity’s free-willed choices. They had to endure both suffering and joy. Through the confrontation with them humans could realize their weakness and conversely God’s power. 45 Thus, while the one plan of God was to move humanity to him through the incarnation, the means of this move necessitated evil’s existence. Human disobedience did not disrupt God’s plan for humanity. 46 Encountering good and evil was always a necessary means of human perfection. Thus, Burns’s Irenaeus saw that hu-

41

John O’Keefe, “Environmental Crisis and Christian Identity: Lessons from a Secular Gaia,” Religion and Identity, ed. Ronald A. Simkins and Thomas M. Kelly, Journal of Religion & Society Supplement 13 (2016), 202–15. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/toc/SS13.html. 42 J. Patout Burns, “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation” (paper presented at the annual meeting of NAPS, Chicago, May 2014), 14. 43 Burns, “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation,” 17. 44 Burns, “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation,” 1–2, see also 4, 7–8. 45 Burns, “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation,” 6–7. 46 Burns, “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation,” 2.

14

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

manity needed to fall from its goodness and innocence to enable their growth. 47 In his paper for the Society for Biblical Literature in 2018, Hoff argued that Hick’s portrayal of Irenaeus held problems, particularly in distinguishing the bishop of Lyon from Augustine on human development. 48 A year later at the Oxford Patristics Conference Thomas argued that Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy was logically incompatible with the bishop’s thought and saw Augustine and Irenaeus as essentially the same on the issue. 49 Further aiding the continued assumption of Hick’s theodicy as legitimately “Irenaean,” the academic discussion of the bishop’s thought on the problem of evil occurred outside the English language. It also did not engage with Hick’s interpretation. Irenaean scholarship’s later treatment of anthropology in English did not rehash previous discussion. Rather, scholars rightly treated issues previously unexplored.50 Conversely, scholarship on the problem of evil 47

His previous brief treatment of Irenaeus’s anthropology argued that God’s creation necessarily included good and evil from the beginning. J. Patout Burns introduction to Theological Anthropology, trans. and ed. by J. Patout Burns (Philadelphia: Fortress 1981), 3. 48 Eric Hoff, “Augustine and Irenaeus on the Perfection of Adam” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, November 2018). 49 James Thomas, “Is the so called “Irenaean” Theodicy Fictitious?” (paper presented at the XVIII International Conference on Patristics Studies, Oxford, August 2019). Thomas’s discussion contrasted Irenaeus vs Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy. While helpful in seeing the seeing the bishop as opposed to the theodicy named after him, Hick also argued the theodicy developed beyond Irenaeus’s thought. See John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 219. 50 For example, compare Behr’s publication on Irenaeus’s anthropology with Orbe’s and de Andia’s previously published works. John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Antonio Orbe, Antopologia de San Ireneo (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1969); Ysabel de Andia, Homo Vivens (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986).

INTRODUCTION

15

simply relied on Hick’s historiography ignoring the ongoing discussion within Irenaean scholarship. 51 Importantly, prior to Hick’s publication of the “Irenaean” theodicy, scholars had offered glimpses of the bishop’s treatment of the problem of evil. In 1925, Bonwetsch pointed out that Irenaeus believed God created the cosmos good without arranging for evil to occur. Humanity’s free will, which Bonwetsch viewed as intimate to the “likeness” of God for Irenaeus, allowed for the possibility of sin—but did not necesitate it. Humanity was not created to sin. They did through their seduction by Satan. This transgression ushered death into the world. However, despite this tragedy, God’s one plan remained. Now humanity’s progression through education when confronting both good and evil began.52 In 1959, the English translation of Wingren’s 1947 study of Irenaeus began a shift in Irenaean studies. He interpreted Irenaeus to argue that sin, evil, and death were absent from God’s original creation, were contrary to the will of God, and disrupted God’s plan by halting humanity’s progression. 53 In direct contrast to Hick’s interpretation of the second-century bishop, Wingren also posited that Irenaeus utilized “image” and “likeness” as hendiadys. 54 Likewise, Armstrong’s 1962 examination of Irenaeus’s interpretation of Genesis pointed out that the terms “image” and “likeness” functioned together, human disobedience interrupted the development of humanity until the work of Christ, and Satan authored evil. 55 Addition51 See above, p. 4n10.

G. Nathanael Bonwetsch, Die Theologie des Irenäus (Gürersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925), 70–79. 53 Gustof Wingren, Man and the Incarnation (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), xiii, 14, 17, 42–48, 53, 70–80, 102–3, 116, 128, 196–97. 54 Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, 15, 157. Hick was aware that Wingren “criticizes this distinction [Hick’s treatment of “image” and “likeness” in Irenaeus] and defends the unity of Irenaeus’ thought.” Yet he simply dismissed Wingren’s view without addressing his argumentation or offering a counter argument. EGL66, 221n1. 55 Gregory T. Armstrong, Die Genesis in der alten Kirche (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 70, 71, 77, 79. 52

16

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

ally, in 1965, while seeking to show how Hellenistic philosophy challenged early Christians to discuss their faith in a rational manner which guaranteed flexibility and future development, Norris stated that Irenaeus utilized the free-will defense to explain evil’s existence. 56 After publication of Evil and the God of Love in 1966, Irenaean scholars continued examining the bishop’s dealing with the problem of evil. In Orbe’s 1969 work on Irenaeus’s anthropology, he argued that his usage of the “image” and “likeness” of God held similarities as well as distinctions. He pointed out that Irenaeus believed God created the garden incompatible with sin and misery and meant it to exist as a temporary place from where humanity could ascend to him. Human transgression brought death into the world. God was not responsible for it. Had God not intervened after the disruption of disobedience Satan would have triumphed and ruined the whole economy of God. Furthermore, while the incarnation always existed as part of God’s plan, hypothetically had the transgression not occurred Jesus would not have died.57 In 1986, de Andia built upon Orbe’s work by addressing Irenaeus’s treatment of humanity’s incorruptibility and divinization. In her work, she pointed out that Irenaeus saw humanity progressing within both the “image” and the “likeness” of God. God designed the garden of Eden as a temporary location for human progression into heaven. Death remained absent from God’s creation. Satan authored evil out of his jealousy towards humanity. Humanity’s disobedience brought death into the world, yet God triumphed over death and brought good out of it. She also noted distinctions within Irenaeus’s treatment of the one economy of salvation, in which humanity becomes fully created in the “image” and “likeness” of God. 58 Richard A. Norris Jr., God and World in Early Christian Theology (New York: Seabury 1965), 93. 57 Orbe, Antopologia de San Ireneo, 5, 24–53, 118–27, 131, 166–85, 189, 201, 206, 218–219, 224, 260, 303, 354, 368, 400, 468, 470–71, 493–95. 58 de Andia, Homo Vivens, 70–72, 83, 87, 92, 94, 97, 99, 108, 110–111, 121, 129, 138. 56

INTRODUCTION

17

In Hauke’s 1993 work on original sin, he posited that despite a contemporary desire to see Irenaeus as a corrective to Augustine, the bishop of Lyon did not offer an opposing discussion. Instead, he had paved the way for the bishop of Hippo.59 He further argued that Irenaeus distinguished between the original state and the image of God. Satan authored evil. Sin brought death into creation. Not merely a crisis of growth, human transgression caused a serious breech in the divine plan that only God could heal. 60 Outside of these focused studies, scholars continued to point out issues that contrasted the bishop of Lyon with the “Irenaean” theodicy. Scholars argued that for Irenaeus, God’s original creation included no sin or evil. Death resulted from human transgression, which disrupted God’s diverse yet unified plan. This led to a necessary restoration of humanity occurring through salvation. 61 Fur59

While this modern sympathy may explicitly be seen in Hick’s work, Hauke did not cite him as an example. M. Hauke, Heilsverlust in Adam (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1993), 196, 282. 60 Hauke, Heilsverlust, 227–30, 232–33, 240, 277–79. 61 For sin and evil not being part of God’s plan for Irenaeus see Claudio Basevi, “El hombre, Dios y la sociedad según Rom 1, 18–32: Un ejemplo de exegesis cristian de los primeros siglos,” ScrTh 17, no. 1 (1985): 206; Demetrios Constantelos, “Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views of Human Nature,” SVTQ 33, no. 4 (1989): 359; Puttanil, Comparative Study, 174; M. C. Steenberg, “Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as ‘Infants’ in Irenaeus of Lyons,” JECS 12, no. 1 (2004): 22; Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 131. For death resulting from sin for Irenaeus see Trevor A. Hart, “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption,” in Christ in our Place, ed. Trevor Hart and Daniel Thimell (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1989), 15; Puttanil, Comparative Study, 174; Denis Minns, Irenaeus (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994), 76; Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 159; Behr, Asceticism,107; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 127; D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Irenaeus and Hebrews,” in Christology and Hermeneutics of Hebrews, ed. Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 61. For Irenaeus understanding the fall to disrupt God’s plan see John Behr, “Irenaeus AH 3.23.5 and the Ascetic Ideal,” SVTQ 37, no. 4 (1993): 310, 312; Behr, Asceticism, 50–52; James G.

18

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

thermore, Irenaean scholars have continued to see Irenaeus’s use of “image” and “likeness” as interrelated rather than as wholly distinct. 62 Despite the array of works dealing with Irenaeus’s theodicy that counter Hick’s interpretation, no full refutation of his use of Irenaeus has been undertaken. Therefore, Hick’s utilization of Irenaeus remains perpetuated within scholarship. By focusing upon Irenaeus’s work in comparison to his use of him, I will argue that in constructing his theodicy, Hick interpreted Irenaeus in contrast to the manner in which prevailing Irenaean scholarship interprets him. Furthermore, his divergent reading offers early Christianity scholars a helpful warning. No historiography can be devoid of the

M. Purves, “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyon,” EvQ 68, no. 2 (1996): 110; Jeff Vogel, “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption,” AThR 89, no. 3 (2007), 443, 448, 453; M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 153. For diversity within the unity of God’s one plan for Irenaeus see Richard A. Norris Jr., “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul in his Polemic Against the Gnostics,” in Recent Studies in Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson (London: Routledge, 1999), 92; Christopher Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 108–10. For a humanity’s restoration as part of Irenaeus’s concept of salvation see Behr, “Irenaeus and the Ascetic,” 310; J. T. Nielson, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968), 83; Robert F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses,” SJT 28, no. 1 (1975): 17–25; Constantelos, “Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views of Human Nature,” 362; Hart, “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption,” 157; Vogel, “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption,” 453; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 127; Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein, 118–19. 62 Purves, 108–9; Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 138; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 133; Daniel E. Wilson, Deification and the Rule of Faith (Bloomington, IN: Cross, 2010), 15–20; Jaques Fantino, L’Homme image de Dieu chez saint Irenee de Lyon (Paris: Cerf, 1986), 62.

INTRODUCTION

19

influence by the historiographer’s concerns and questions.63 The whole of a text ought to be accounted for rather than the limitations of a reader’s contemporary problems and questions. Hick’s post Evil and the God of Love work moved him into other issues that affected his theodicy. He remains best known for his move from Christian universalism to the more exclusive position of pluralism. 64 With this shift, his understanding of his theodicy’s function changed and he saw it as a “true myth.” 65 However, its content and his use of Irenaeus remained consistent. While admitting that his theological shift moved him outside of Christian theology, he continued to publish and write concerning his theodicy. 66 In the second edition and subsequent reissues of Evil and the God of Love, Hick’s use of Irenaeus remained consistent. 67 Likewise, when updating his 1981 shorter account for a new edition in 2001, Hick added to his discussion but made only grammatical modifications in his sections dealing with Irenaeus. 68 Additionally, Hick continued to discuss his theodicy in his other works. 69 Thus, to keep citations from becoming cumbersome, unless necessary, I will cite from Evil and Elizabeth Clark, History, Theory, Text (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 7. 64 John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); John God and the Universe of Faiths (Oxford: Oneworld, 1993); A Christian Theology of Religions (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). 65 John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, 2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 363–64. 66 John Hick, “D. Z. Phillips on God and Evil,” RelS 43, no. 4 (2007): 440. 67 See Hick, EGL66, 217–21; EGL10, 211–14. 68 Compare John H. Hick, “An Irenaean Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil, ed. Stephen Davis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 39–52 with “An Irenaean Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil, new ed., ed. Stephen Davis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 38–52. 69 John Hick, Christianity at the Centre (London: SCM, 1968); Arguments for the Existence of God (New York: Macmillan, 1970); An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); God and the Universe of Faiths; Autobiography. 63

20

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

the God of Love (2010) and “Irenaean Theology” (2001). I will omit superfluous citations from the plethora of Hick’s other writings. Through this work, I argue that Hick read and employed Irenaeus in his theodicy in a way that contrasts to the prevailing reading of the bishop. While Hick sought to utilize a historical precedence, his reading created a problematic connection. I offer this thesis to emancipate Irenaeus from Hick’s theodicy. Hick’s theodicy remains an important contribution to discussion of the problem of evil on its own merit without any connection to Irenaeus. Additionally, the discussion of Hick’s reading of the bishop highlights the trap of the reader’s biases limiting their understanding. This reminder seems particularly important for practitioners of Theory as their readings are purposefully driven by their questions and problems. Freeing the bishop of Lyon from Hick’s theodicy allows both Irenaeus’s and his discussions of the problem of evil to rightly stand on their own. Chapter one treats Hick’s interpretation and use of Irenaeus as he built his theodicy. I begin by contextualizing Hick’s thought. His first book included his thoughts on the problem of evil with his full treatment published nine years later. Importantly, the controversy over his beliefs concerning the virgin birth occurred just prior to writing his extended treatment. Hick views were labeled heretical and his position at Princeton Seminary was jeopardized. The outcome of the ecclesial dispute favored him. However, it did not stop claims that he had become a heretic. His theodicy’s connection to historic Christianity offered a powerful counter claim—his theology was firmly orthodox. Following treatment of his life, I examine his interpretation of Irenaeus. Hick’s Irenaeus offered a minimization of the fall alongside a belief in evil’s existence within creation from the beginning. Humanity was created to grow from imperfection into perfection and could only do so with encounters with good and evil. From this understanding Hick named his view the “Irenaean” theodicy. This theodicy argues that evil is the means for humanity’s perfection. The problem of evil is thus solved in a sense through a consequentialist strategy—the ends justify the means. Central to this theodicy is a rejection of the fall. Humans never fell from innocence as they never had it, they were created into a position in opposition to God. Death, pain, and suffering did not enter into creation with human

INTRODUCTION

21

disobedience, they existed within creation from the beginning by divine design. As a consequentialist theodicy, the focus is on the end result. All humanity must and will be saved. Universalism remains vital to “Irenaean” theodicy. Chapter two presents prevailing thought on the background of thought which offered Irenaeus and those he opposed sources for their thoughts on the problem of evil. Christians were not alone in their desire to affirm that the reality of evil did not exclude the possibility of a good God. Pagan philosophers and early Christians both pondered on the problem. Scholars understand pagan thought of Irenaeus’s time to view evil as a necessary part of the cosmos. It never came into existence. In one form or another it always was. Conversely, early Christian thought included basic tenets of the free-will defense. Just as Hick pointed out, the early Christian texts consistently contained the concept of demonic authorship of evil and free will as that which enabled it.70 Additionally, they present creation as being corrupted. It now includes pain, suffering, and evil. Through the years the initial brief statements grew into discussions of these doctrines. The stream of thought flowed consistently along the line of the free-will defense both before and after Irenaeus. Prevailing scholarship recognizes that it was in this stream of thought Irenaeus lived and purposefully situated himself. With this understanding in hand, chapter three focuses on prevailing readings of Irenaeus. To better understand this reading of Irenaeus on the problem of evil, I present what is known of the bishop’s life and context within the second-century Roman empire. I then discuss Irenaeus as an interpreter of Scripture. The extant works of the bishop of Lyon are saturated with the words of Scripture. To grasp scholarship’s reading of his works entails an understanding of his purpose and methods. He read Scripture within the bounds of the rule of faith. He viewed this set of core doctrines as having been passed down to him along with the text itself. These are the right and proper reading of Scripture. Within them there was room for diversity of teachings. However, stepping beyond them was disaster. Those 70 Hick, EGL10, 209.

22

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

he opposed and wrote against he viewed as heretics. They had trampled on the rule of faith and lost sight of the truth. Irenaeus sought to defend his community and call those who had left to repentance. Like the bishop, his opponents also sought to understand evil and hold to their belief in the goodness of God. Their solution separated a holy god from an unholy creation, pushing dualism further than Plato had. Over against this view, Irenaeus discussed the unity of God and utilized the free-will defense to account for evil’s existence. The bishop’s pastoral polemic and catechetical exposition of Scripture included the doctrines discussed by his community seen in the previous chapter. Irenaeus’s discussion on the problem of evil flowed within the stream of thought found early Christian texts. After presenting my view of Irenaeus and his thought alongside Hick’s, chapter four moves to reveal the difference. The “Irenaean” theodicy offers an understanding at odds with what prevailing scholarship recognizes its namesake believed. Hick’s reading of Irenaeus remains limited. Seemingly he fell into the trap of his biases limiting his understanding of Irenaeus. He read the bishop affected by the needs of his own polemical rhetoric. Hick read Irenaeus in contrast to prevailing Irenaean scholarship on the goodness of original creation, humanity’s progression into perfection, and human transgression. These three important interpretations by Hick allowed a connection of his theodicy to Irenaeus. Furthermore, his contrast of the “Irenaean” over against the “Augustinian” falls short as well. Chapter five concludes this study with a review of Hick’s reading and a look to how it offers a helpful warning for scholarship in reading ancient texts. Hick’s treatment of the problem of evil offers much to the discussion of theodicy. His consequentialist theodicy offered a focus on the concept of soul making and its value. Likewise, Irenaeus’s treatment on the issue ought to be recognized for its value as well. However, the two should no longer be conflated into the “Irenaean” theodicy.

CHAPTER ONE. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS INTRODUCTION Seeking to offer a theodicy both respectable in a modern world and acceptable for Christians, Hick linked his twentieth-century work to the second century. Attaching his theodicy to a Christian bishop suggested Hick’s theology fell within Christendom. Binding it to a bishop remembered for his polemic against heretics seemingly entrenched it within Christian faith. In Evil and the God of Love and subsequent published discussion of his theodicy, Hick utilized Irenaeus as a primary source and the namesake for his thought on the problem of evil. 1 Scholarly opposition to Hick’s theodicy focused on “philosophical and theological fronts” not on his historical support. 2 Problematically, in casting his theodicy as “Irenaean,” scholars found it difficult to distinguish between Hick’s thoughts and those which he attributed to the bishop. 3 Hick further contributed to this conflation in his 1 John Hick, Evil

and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). James Jefferson Broome, “The Theodicy of John Hick: A Critical Defense” (PhD diss., University of Southern Colorado, 1998), iii, 10–11. 3 For example scholars have argued that both Hick and Irenaeus saw the hard dichotomy between image and likeness, Roland Puccetti, “Loving God: Some Observations on John Hick’s Evil and the God of Love,” RelS 2, no. 2 (1967): 259; Chester Gillis, “An Interpretation of An Interpretation of Religion” in Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Harold Hewitt Jr. 2

23

24

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

responses to critics. As scholars discussed Hick’s work naming it “Hick’s theodicy,” “Hick’s soul-making theodicy,” or simply “soulmaking theodicy,” he would defend his work employing the title “Irenaean theodicy.” 4 Thus, he further established the perspective of his theodicy as embedded in the bishop’s thought. Just as understanding Irenaeus’s context informs one’s reading of his works, so too should “Irenaean” theodicy be read in light of Hick’s context. Hick’s theodicy functioned both to tear down and to build up. He pointed out that his treatment of the problem of evil was rooted in his dissatisfaction with the “Augustinian” theodicy’s doctrines of creation and the fall. 5 Tellingly, a year prior to expanding upon his treatment of theodicy, Hick’s life was in turmoil. His theology was labeled heretical and he was embroiled in an ecclesiological argument that directly impacted his livelihood. In this context, Hick utilized the bishop of Lyon as his theodicy took form. Thus, an examination of Hick and his context helps illuminate his utilization of Irenaeus. The “Irenaean” theodicy should be read in light of Hick’s context and overall polemic against “Augustinian” theodicy. 6

(New York: St. Martin’s, 1991), 44; Daniel Speak, “Free Will and SoulMaking Theodicies,” in McBrayer and Howard-Snyder, 206. D’Costa simply posited that the second-century bishop held to Hick’s theodicy, Gavin D’Costa, John Hick’s Theology of Religions (New York: University Press of America, 1987), 138. 4 John Hick, “D. Z. Phillips on God and Evil,” RelS 43, no. 4 (2007): 438; John Hick, “Reply to Rowe,” in Hewitt, Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, 134–37. 5 John Hick, John Hick (Oxford: Oneworld, 2002), 133. 6 R. Douglas Geivett stated that it ought to “be kept in mind that he [Hick] advances his system in deliberate opposition to the Augustinian tradition.” Evil and the Evidence for God (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993), 31.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

25

HICK Looking back, Hick would describe his early life with fond memories filled with “happy hours.” 7 Born into a middle class family, Hick grew up along the North Sea’s coast in Scarborough, England. While baptized into the Church of England, he found his experiences at the local parish church “infinitely boring and totally off-putting.” 8 The “utterly lifeless and uninteresting” Christian experience did not satisfy Hick’s religious searching. 9 His mother’s and grandmother’s “religions explorations” presented other thoughts for Hick to probe. 10 While he was unconvinced by mediums and spirit doctors and rejected much of the spiritualism his mother experimented with, he did not totally reject parapsychology. Supporting his life-long belief in the reality of psychic forces, as a youth he experienced a “strong physical effect … a pervasive sensation … a tremendous emotional impact.” 11 This experience transpired when George Jeffreys, an evangelist/healer, laid hands on him. Likewise, Hick noted that his mother was “very ‘psychic’” and performed two healings. 12 During his childhood, Hick “believed absolutely in some sort of divine reality, though not the God of Christian orthodoxy.” 13 An avid reader, Hick’s interests lay in philosophy from an early age. He recalled being impressed particularly with Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, Leibniz’s Monadology, and Mill’s Utilitarianism among other works. 14 Noting his interest and aptitude, his uncle recommended that he attend university to study philosophy. Despite this suggestion, his family chose the safer route and he became an articled clerk 7 Hick, John

Hick, 13. See also 11–16. Hick, 27. 9 John Hick, “A Pluralistic View,” in More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 29. 10 Hick, John Hick, 27. 11 Hick, John Hick, 27–28. 12 Hick, John Hick, 29. 13 Hick, John Hick, 33. The details of this paragraph are taken from John Hick, 27–33 and “A Pluralistic View,” 29. 14 Hick, John Hick, 15–16. 8 Hick, John

26

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

at his father’s law firm. Acquiescing to the decision, he read philosophy in his spare time. In the end however, he did not follow in his father’s footsteps and pursue a career in the law. During his studies at the University College in Hull, another experience altered his life. Traveling on a bus in the city, he experienced a “powerful evangelical conversion under the impact of the New Testament figure of Jesus.” 15 After a few days of inner turmoil, he “entered with great joy and excitement into the world of Christian faith.” 16 His close friends were members of InterVarsity Fellowship. He joined them and accepted “without question the entire fundamentalist theological package.” 17 His friends during this time were Presbyterian, so Hick joined with them and became one. “Almost automatically,” he switched from studying law to preparing for Christian ministry. 18 He transferred to the University of Edinburgh seeking a degree in philosophy intending to follow it up with theological training. However, as the Second World War continued, Hick came of age for conscription. Having joined the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s, he had renounced war and pledged never to support or sanction another war. While holding firmly to his convictions, Hick also believed that he could not simply opt out of the war and do nothing. After going before a Tribunal, he was allowed to serve with the Friends Ambulance Unit. He served with them for the last three years of the war mostly in the Mediterranean countries of Egypt, Italy, and Greece. 19 15 Hick, “A Pluralistic View,” 29.

16 Hick, “A Pluralistic View,” 30. 17

Hick, “A Pluralistic View,” 30. Hick described the package as “the verbal inspiration of the Bible, creation and fall; Jesus as God the Son incarnate, born of a virgin, conscious of his divine nature, and performing miracles of divine power; redemption by his blood from sin and guilt; Jesus’ bodily resurrection, ascension and future return in glory; heaven and hell.” John Hick, 34. The details of this paragraph are taken from John Hick, 31–34 and “A Pluralistic View,” 29–30. 18 Hick, John Hick, 34. 19 Details from this paragraph come from Hick, John Hick, 34–40 and “A Pluralistic View,” 31.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

27

Following the war he returned to his philosophy studies at Edinburgh. Drawn to Kant, he spent his last year of study devoted to the first Critique. While after his conversion experience he held a “fundamentalist mind-set,” his experiences during the war and his philosophical training had made him “more independent in outlook.” 20 “In the light of our modern knowledge,” he began shedding some of his previous beliefs such as the verbal inspiration of the Bible, miracles, and the creation narrative of Genesis. 21 Upon graduation from Edinburgh, he moved to Oxford to study philosophy at Oriel College. After successfully completing and defending his doctoral thesis, “The Relationship between Faith and Belief,” he received his doctorate. Hick then began his theological training for ministry within the Presbyterian Church of England. He studied at the lone denominational training school, Westminster College, in Cambridge. Following his training, in 1953 he became the minister at Belford Presbyterian Church. A month into his ministry, he married Hazel Bowers whom he had met at Westminster College. A year later, he was approached by Cornell University to teach in their philosophy department. However, he delayed the move to the United States until 1956. 22 Hick began addressing the problem of evil while teaching at Cornell University. 23 In his 1957 work Faith and Knowledge, based on his thesis at Oriel, Hick wrote on the problem of evil offering a brief description of his theodicy. 24 While he referenced Irenaeus within this work, in his discussion of the problem of evil the bishop

20 Hick, John

Hick, 35, 70. Hick, 70. 22 Details from this paragraph come from Hick, John Hick, 70–88, 101. 23 John Hick, Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Pelgrave Macmillan, 2010), 8; John Hick, 102–19. 24 Hick, John Hick, 73, 101; Faith and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957), 141–42; John Hick, “The Relationship between Faith and Knowledge” (DPhil thesis, Oriel College 1950), 243–44. 21 Hick, John

28

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

remained absent. 25 At Cornell, Hick felt isolated from theological discussion. 26 Seeking a change, he accepted an offer from Princeton Theological Seminary. In 1959, Hick began teaching at Princeton. For Hick “the biggest event” during his Princeton years was the controversy concerning his view of the virgin birth. 27 As a Presbyterian minister moving to a new locale, Hick applied for membership of the local presbytery—namely, the Presbytery of New Brunswick. J. Clyde Henry, “a disciple of J. Gresham Machen,” chaired the committee which handled his application. 28 Hick viewed him as a “deep-dyed fundamentalist.” 29 When he came before the committee, Henry asked if Hick disagreed with any part of the Westminster Confession. In response to Henry’s question, he pointed out “the literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis … then the doctrine of double predestination to heaven and hell, and eventually arrived at the virgin birth of Jesus.” 30 For Hick, the 1647 confession was “out of date.” 31 Hick neither denied the virgin birth nor affirmed it.32 His nonaffirmation became the discussion of two presbytery meetings. He His citation of Irenaeus and AH 4.37.5 concerned the understanding of faith as an act of the intellect moved by the will. Hick, Faith and Knowledge, 46n3. 26 Hick wrote “a solitary theologian is inevitably in an isolated position, cut off from the stimulus of activity and discussion in his own subject.” John H. Hick to unnamed recipient, letter January, 1959, box 12, Papers of John Hick, Cadbury Research Library, Birmingham UK. 27 Hick, John Hick, 124. Details of this account of the Virgin birth are taken from Hick, John Hick, 34, 120, 124–30. See also John H. Hick, “Theological Table-Talk,” ThTo 19, no. 3 (1962): 409–11. 28 Hick, John Hick, 124. 29 John Hick Between Faith and Doubt: Dialogues on Religion and Reason (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 124. 30 Hick, John Hick, 125. 31 Hick, John Hick, 125. 32 This omission rather than denial may be seen in his Christmas sermons while pastoring at Belford Presbyterian Church. In the two Christmas sermons preserved in the Papers of John Hick he repeatedly referenced “the birth of our Savior” while never speaking of a virgin birth. See Christmas 25

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

29

believed that the virgin birth was a lesser doctrine. He affirmed that Jesus was divine. For Hick that was the central doctrine for Christianity, not whether or not Christ was born of a virgin. 33 In his prepared opening remarks for the second meeting, Hick argued that by saying nothing concerning the virgin birth he was “following the example of the majority of the New Testament writers.” 34 While it played “no part” of his faith, he did not quarrel with those who affirmed it. 35 He also pointed out that at Princeton the faculty agreed “in the deepest essentials” while being “able to differ on other points in mutual respect and mutual love.” 36 After much deliberation, he was received as a member of the presbytery. However, a formal complaint against Hick’s membership from “Clyde Henry and others” was sent to the synod of New Jersey. 37 The complaint argued that “despite the plain statement” of the virgin birth in some of the constitutional documents of the denomination—the Westminster Confession of Faith, and both the Smaller and Larger Catechism—Hick did not affirm belief in it at either meeting with the local presbytery. 38 The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of New Jersey ruled that “the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of our Lord has constantly been recognized, declared, and emphasized as being an integral part of the system of doctrine set Sermon, December 13, 1953, box 1, Papers of John Hick; Christmas Sermon, December 26, 1954, box 1, Papers of John Hick. 33 Hick Between Faith and Doubt, 124. 34 John Hick, Statement to the Presbytery of New Brunswick, April 18, 1961, untitled scrapbook, box 40, Papers of John Hick. 35 John Hick, Statement to the Presbytery of New Brunswick. 36 John Hick, Statement to the Presbytery of New Brunswick. 37 Hick, John Hick, 125. The report by the Permanent Judicial Commission listed all eight ministers and ten ruling elders that submitted identical complaints. Report and Decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of New Jersey in the Matter of the Complaint of Rev. J. Clyde Henry et al. Against the Action of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, box 13, Papers of John Hick. 38 Complaint to the Synod of New Jersey, untitled scrapbook, box 40, Papers of John Hick.

30

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

forth in our standards, and which every person entering its ministry declares that he sincerely receives and adopts.” 39 They reversed the decision of the Presbytery of New Brunswick and rescinded Hick’s acceptance. As a professor at Princeton Seminary, he was required to be a member of his local presbytery. If Hick did not submit and win an appeal he would lose his job. While Hick and Henry exchanged letters of an amicable tone in April of 1961, the ordeal was a “distressing situation.” 40 The case received national attention. Hick received over a hundred letters of both affirmation and condemnation. 41 In 1962, the 174th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America ruled on the appeal which had been filed on behalf of Hick by twelve ministers. Importantly, it was ruled on by the judicial commission not the theological commission. 42 The decision centered around a constitutional question—whether or not the Synod of New Jersey had the proper authority to reverse a decision of the Presbytery of New Brunswick. It was ruled that the local presbytery held the authority to decide on a membership, not the state synod.43 Hick’s membership was reinstated. He kept his job. For Hick, this was “a tiny step in the direction of credibility in the modern world” for Presbyterians. 44 He also saw it as part of a battle begun in the 1920s with Machen. Following the beneficial outcome, Hick quoted Wordsworth stating the ordeal was “a reliving of 39

Report and Decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of New Jersey. 40 J. Clyde Henry to John H. Hick, letter, April 21, 1961, untitled scrapbook, box 40, Papers of John Hick; John H. Hick to J. Clyde Henry, letter, April 21, 1961, untitled scrapbook, box 40, Papers of John Hick. 41 Hick, John Hick, 127. For examples see Folders of letters to John Hick, box 12 and box 13. 42 For Hick, this alleviated his fears for the outcome, Between Faith and Doubt, 125. 43 Hick, John Hick, 128–29; 174th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Denver, Colorado, May 22, 1962, box 13, Papers of John Hick. 44 Hick, John Hick, 130.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

31

‘old, unhappy, far-off things, and battles long ago.’” 45 In discussing his ordeal, Hick referred to the previous fights within the Presbyterian Church, discussed Machen specifically, and connected him to Henry. 46 Through this struggle, Hick’s beliefs were labeled as heresy by Henry. 47 Just as Machen argued that liberalism was not Christian in 1923, nineteen years later Hick’s views were labeled heretical.48 While Hick won this battle on constitutional grounds, it was neither the last time he would encounter an ecclesiastical clash pertaining to his beliefs nor an end to the view that his beliefs were heretical. 49 Receiving a Guggenheim fellowship to write on the problem of evil in 1963, Hick took a year-and-a-half sabbatical from Princeton and went to Cambridge for a lectureship. It was at Cambridge that Hick began reading and writing on Augustine and his treatment of the problem of evil. Seeking to build a theodicy informed by Christian history he began with the bishop of Hippo. Deciding that what he perceived as Augustine’s view on creation and the problem of evil was a “mistake,” Hick worked on an alternative. 50 Evil and the God of Love resulted from this time at Cambridge. 51 Following its publication, Hick engaged in dialogue with other scholars concerning theod45

Hick, “Theological Table-Talk,” 409. William Wordsworth, “The Solitary Reaper,” lines 19–20. 46 Hick, “Theological Table-Talk,” 409, 410; John Hick, 124–25; Between Faith and Doubt, 124. 47 J. Clyde Henry, Some Reflections on the Hick Case, box 13, Papers of John Hick. 48 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), 7. 49 J. Clyde Henry, Some Reflections on the Hick Case, box 13, Papers of John Hick. 50 While my work refutes Hick’s use of Irenaeus, his interpretation of Augustine has also been shown as problematic. See Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Blackwell,1986; repr., Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992); Terrence W. Tilley, The Evils of Theodicy (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1991). 51 John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). The facts from this paragraph are from Hick’s account in John Hick, 132–33.

32

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

icy. This allowed him to further clarify his thoughts in subsequent publications and he incorporated them into the second edition of Evil and the God of Love in 1987. 52 Hick’s theological explorations continued as he took on the H. G. Wood chair in the Religious Studies department at the University of Birmingham in 1967. Continuing his move away from his earlier beliefs, a year later Christianity at the Centre was published. 53 In it, Hick discussed Christianity as at a “turning point” because modern science rendered traditional Christian creedal beliefs untenable.54 One either accepted these incredulous beliefs or accepted “humanistic Christianity.” 55 He argued that contrary to these two poles of thought a “middle way” ought to be chosen by “thoughtful people.” 56 This meant “rejecting much of the orthodox system of belief” while “affirming the transcendent—the reality of God, the divinity of Christ, and life after death.” 57 Within the diverse population of Birmingham, Hick worked and dialogued with people of different faiths. He also traveled to both India and Sri Lanka. Confronted with other religions, he determined that despite all the apparent differences between them “at a deeper level” they were “essentially the same thing.” 58 However, the doctrine of the incarnation remained a problem for Christianity’s acceptance of religious pluralism. 59 In 1974 he noted that the doctrine John Hick, “Problem of Evil in the First and Last Things,” JTS 19, no. 2 (1968): 591–602; “God, Evil and Mystery,” RelS 3, no. 2 (1968): 539–56; “Coherence and the God of Love Again,” JTS 24, no. 2 (1973): 522–28; “Straightening the Record: Some Response to Critics,” MT 6, no. 2 (1990): 187–95; “Reply to Rowe,” in Hewitt, Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, 134–37. 53 John Hick, Christianity at the Centre (SCM Centrebooks. London: SCM, 1968). 54 Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 9. 55 Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 9–11. 56 Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 9, 11. 57 Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 16. 58 Hick, John Hick, 160. 59 Hick, John Hick, 227. 52

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

33

of the incarnation was an “obstacle” not yet overcome in “global theology.” 60 By 1977, he saw the incarnation as myth.61 Two years later he began teaching at the Claremont Graduate School serving as the Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion. Moving away from the “traditionally orthodox” establishment at Cambridge allowed Hick to continue with his agenda.62 At Claremont he developed his pluralism. 63 While previously Hick believed in the salvation of all humanity accomplished by Christ, his pluralistic hypothesis argued that only faithful adherents to the world’s great religions would be saved. 64 These views led to another battle with the Presbyterian Church. Led to believe his application would go through without discussion, he applied to his local presbytery in 1983. Despite what he had been assured, discussion did occur at the meeting. After it transpired he was narrowly enrolled as a member. Yet again however there was an appeal to Hick’s membership, this time to the Synod of Southern California. The ecclesiastical climate however had changed from 1962. The newly formed Presbyterian Church (USA) had a clause allowing churches to leave the new denomination freely within its first three years of existence. Those opposed to Hick stated that if his membership was allowed to stand many churches would indeed leave. 65 After meeting with a moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Hick understood a compromise was sought and agreed to a re-examination. During the re-examination Hick stated that he no longer believed in the exclusivity of Christianity. After deliberation John Hick, “The Outcome: Dialogue into Truth,” in Truth and Dialogue in World Religions, ed. John Hick, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 155; The Centre of Christianity (London: SCM, 1977), 79. 61 John Hick, “Jesus and the World Religions,” in The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 168. 62 Hick, John Hick, 156–57, 253. 63 Hick, John Hick, 259. 64 Hick, “A Pluralistic View,” 45. Hick would later add the concept of multiple lives to his view and thus allow for the salvation of all given enough lives. 65 Details from this paragraph are from Hick, John Hick, 266–67. 60

34

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

the committee asked Hick to withdraw his application to avoid splitting the church. He agreed and withdrew it. He was not “bothered by the outcome.” 66 In this struggle, he did not need to become a member of the local presbytery. His job was not tied to membership. Nonetheless, Hick was disturbed by the influence of the “fundamentalist and extreme evangelical element” within the church. 67 He believed that this group had attained their revenge after failing to remove him in New Jersey. 68 After retiring from Claremont in 1992, Hick returned to Birmingham where he continued to write on his pluralistic beliefs. In retrospect, Hick viewed his thought as developing consistently through his entire life “apart for the interruption of the evangelical years.” 69 He died in 2012 less than a month after his ninetieth birthday.

“AUGUSTINIAN” THEODICY In Hick’s work on the problem of evil, Augustine looms large casting his shadow across the landscape of Christian thought. For Hick, the bishop of Hippo was the most influential writer on Christian doctrine after Paul. Particularly, Augustine both laid the groundwork and developed the shape of Christian theodicy. 70 Thus, for Hick speaking of an “Augustinian” type of theodicy was appropriate. 71 Likewise, that Hick’s treatment of Augustine on the problem of evil

66 Hick, John

Hick, 268. Hick, 268. 68 Hick, John Hick, 268. Details from this paragraph are from John Hick, 267–69. 69 Hick, John Hick, 33. In Ruston’s examination of the Papers of John Hick, he stated that “The seed of Hick’s religious pluralism can be located in his early work.” Thomas William Ruston, “The John Hick Papers: Religious Pluralism in the Archives,” ExpTim 128, no. 1 (2016): 5. 70 John, Hick, “Preface to the 2010 Reissue,” in Evil and the God of Love (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), xi; EGL10, 37. 71 Hick, EGL10, 3. 67 Hick, John

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

35

was more robust than his treatment of Irenaeus aligned with his view of the bishop of Hippo as “the greatest theodicist of all.” 72 Hick noted that Augustine treated the problem of evil across his writings. 73 He identified four angles that reveal the “distinct, though often overlapping, themes” in the bishop of Hippo’s discussion. 74 While Hick traced these four angles through Augustine at length in Evil and the God of Love, he pointed to two teachings as “central pillars,” namely, that “God created all things good” and that through misuse of free will his creatures fell. 75 He also argued that this theodicy “hinges upon the idea of the fall as the origin of moral evil.” 76 Humanity’s creation out of nothing necessitated mutability. Everything made from nothing “is accordingly mutable and capable of being corrupted.” 77 This mutability of humanity allowed for its possible fall. creation, “a secondary, dependent, and contingent realm,” held in its very nature the possibility of a fall.78 This necessary possibility became reality as evil originated with the angelic fall. 79 Humans repeated this disobedience, and fell from “original righteousness.” 80 They fell despite being “spiritually and morally good,” being immortal, having “infallible moral insight,” living in enjoyment with unhindered love of God, and without a desire for the forbidden fruit. 81 As a result of humanity’s fall the

Hick, EGL10, 12. To see his contrasting treatments of the two bishops, compare EGL10, 38–87 with EGL10, 201–19. 73 Hick, EGL10, 37. 74 Hick, EGL10, 37–38. 75 Hick, EGL10, 62. 76 Hick, IrenTh, 39. 77 Hick, EGL10, 46. 78 Hick, EGL10, 46. 79 Hick, EGL10, 62. 80 Hick, IrenTh, 41. 81 Hick, EGL10, 64–65, 69. 72

36

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

“present perils and hardships are punishments” on humanity brought upon all of creation. 82 Because all humanity fell through connection to Adam and Eve, all humans begin life already guilty and condemned. 83 As an important component of “Augustinian” theodicy, fallen humanity is destined for eternal Hell. 84 Despite this eternal damnation, Hick pointed out that for Augustine the fall did not hinder God’s plan. Ultimately God’s plan and purposes remain unchanged. 85 With evil entering into creation, God “works it into a larger pattern within which it is made to contribute to the value of the whole.” 86 Salvation from eternal damnation became possible through the work of Christ. 87 For Hick, this explanation of the origin of evil had become “the official Christian myth.” 88 Despite its dominance in Christian thought, he saw this view as “a mistake,” which entailed a “radical incoherence.” 89 For Hick, a literal interpretation of the creation and fall account in Genesis could no longer be held to in light of evolutionary science. 90 While the interpretation of the creation and fall narratives as historical accounts remained entrenched in “doctrinally fundamentalist circles,” the objections to “Augustinian” theodicy,

John Hick, “Evil, The Problem Of,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed., ed. Donald M. Borchert vol. 3 (Detroit: Thompson Gale, 2006), 139. 83 Hick, EGL10, 66. 84 John Hick, “Problem of Evil in the First and Last Things,” JTS 19, no. 2 (1968): 601. 85 God’s “purposes are not ultimately threatened or even disturbed by it [the fall].” Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 85. 86 Hick, Christianity at the Centre, 85. 87 John Hick, “A Response to Gerard Loughlin,” MT 7, no. 1 (1990): 62. 88 Hick, EGL10, 247. 89 Hick, John Hick, 133; “Problem of Evil in the First and Last Things,” 595. 90 Hick, John Hick, 134. 82

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

37

rendered it “utterly unacceptable.” 91 He saw this view of evil’s origin as “self-contradictory,” questioning how a good creature could do evil. 92 Furthermore, the eschatological ramification plagued Hick as well. For Augustine, not all will be saved in the end—some will be damned for eternity. Hick questioned how a good God could eternally damn one of his creatures that he loved. 93 In light of these issues, he rejected the “Augustinian” theodicy and sought to tackle the problem of evil in another way.

“IRENAEAN” THEODICY In opposition to his “Augustinian” understanding, Hick offered a theodicy to defend the Christian faith and do so in light of the contemporary ethos. It would therefore suffice as “a theodicy for today.” 94 Initially this theodicy was not connected to Irenaeus. 95 In 1966 with the publication of Evil and the God of Love, Hick employed a historical component within his theodicy focused on the present context. He included the bishop of Lyon and named his theodicy after him. In his work, Hick discussed the bishop and connected him to his theodicy. Hick’s Irenaeus Contextualization For Hick, flux dominated the second-century Christian landscape with no established institutional church or set of dogmas. 96 In Christian discussion of both sin and evil during this time, there was “no

Hick, John Hick, 133–34. Hick, EGL10, 246. In his dialogue he wrote “I’m not going to appeal to the biblical solution [Augustinian theodicy], which I agree is no solution.” Between Faith and Doubt, 140. 92 Hick, John Hick, 134; Hick, EGL10, 96–97. 93 Hick, “Problem of Evil in the First and Last Things,” 601; EGL10, 89. 94 Hick, EGL10, 3. 95 Hick, Faith and Knowledge, 141–42. 96 Hick, EGL10, 208. 91

38

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

common way of thinking.” 97 Despite the diversity of thought, discussion included a “constant reference” to a demonic origin of evil and an emphasis on humanity’s divinely endowed freedom and thus responsibility. 98 During this early period, the “first tentative hints” of Hick’s theodicy arose. 99 He pointed to Tatian’s view that “God did not make men already good, but made them free to become good by obedience to Himself.” 100 Likewise, he discussed Theophilus’s discussion of Adam and Eve. The Patriarch of Antioch viewed them as children who would have matured and shared God’s immortality through obedience but by disobeying now progressed “through the long detour of a life outside the garden.” 101 Thus, Irenaeus lived during an era of plurality in Christian thought. Out of these varied thoughts he chose some Christian discourse from which he developed his treatment of the problem of evil.102 Irenaeus on the Problem of Evil In discussing Irenaeus and his contribution to theodicy, Hick argued that the bishop did not develop a theodicy. He also posited that there was no theodicy in existence other than what he calls the “Augustinian” theodicy. 103 Instead, Hick saw that Irenaeus offered the “foundations for a theodicy” and an “outline of an approach,” or a “typology,” that “existed in germ” through some “important constructive suggestions.” 104

97 Hick, EGL10, 209. 98 Hick, EGL10, 209. 99 Hick EGL10, 210.

100 Hick, EGL10, 210; Tatian Address

to the Greeks 7. Autolycum 2.24–26.

101 Hick, EGL10, 210–11; Theophilus Ad 102 Hick, EGL10, 244. 103

104

Hick, IrenTh, 40; EGL10, 217. Hick, EGL10, 211, 214, 217, 219; IrenTh, 40.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

39

For Hick, Irenaeus viewed humanity’s creation as a two stage progression. 105 Initially God created humanity imperfect not yet perfected. Adam and Eve were created as immature children. They were not “morally innocent and good beings who disobeyed God and were expelled from the Garden of Eve.” 106 In this first stage of their creation God could not have given them all the gifts he had intended for them as they were currently incapable of them. God’s creation of humanity occurs by gradual advancement rather than in a single moment. Thus, humans have their perfection in potentiality. In humans’ second stage of creation they move from imperfection to perfection, completing their creation. This progression stemmed from Irenaeus’s “exegetically dubious” distinction between the “image” and the “likeness” of God in Gen 1:26. 107 The image exists in humanity’s “bodily form,” and represents humanity’s nature as both intelligent and capable of fellowship with God, while likeness refers to humanity’s “final perfecting by the Holy Spirit.” 108 God initiated humanity’s creation by fashioning Adam and Eve in the image of God with the potential to one day become complete by progressing into the likeness. 109 This final perfecting is the “fulfilment of God’s purpose for humanity” 110 God’s education of humans, the progression from image to likeness transpires through their experiences with both good and evil. Irenaeus accepted the fact of the fall because he was limited by the “historical knowledge of his time.” 111 However, this disobedience was not a “damnable revolt.” 112 It did not “totally ruin” humanity’s setting because it was not “an utterly malignant and catastrophic 105

John Hick, “Belief and Life: The Fundamental Nature of the Christian Ethic,” Encounter 20, no. 4 (1959): 507; IrenTh, 40; Death and Eternal Life (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 2001), 47. 106 Hick, Between Faith and Doubt, 138. 107 John Hick, “Belief and Life,” 507; EGL10, 211, 232. 108 Hick, EGL10, 211, 254. 109 Hick, EGL10, 212, 254. 110 Hick, EGL10, 254. 111 Hick, IrenTh, 41. 112 Hick, EGL10, 212.

40

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

event.” 113 The fall did interrupt humanity’s progression from “image” to “likeness” with the incarnation setting it right again, yet it was an “understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt. 114 It was only a “relatively minor lapse, youthful error” and not infinite crime and cosmic disaster that “ruined the whole creation.”115 The struggles humanity faces in living post fall are not a result of their disobedience—God divinely appointed the world with both good and evil as the environment for human progression.116 Hick’s historiography continued beyond Irenaeus as he discussed Clement of Alexandria. He followed the bishop of Lyon in discussing Adam and Eve as immature children and used the same distinction between “image” and “likeness.” 117 Likewise Methodius and Gregory of Nazianzus “accepted the picture of Adam as immature and infantile.” 118 While Irenaeus’s thoughts were neither later developed nor added to, his concept of humanity’s progression “has continued to operate in the minds of theologians of the Orthodox church down to the present day.” 119 Hick’s “Irenaean” Theodicy Hick argued that his theodicy continued along the path cut by Irenaeus. 120 For Hick, doing theology was attempting to “speak systematically about God on the basis of data provided by Christian experience.” 121 In this way he formulated his theodicy in light of his philosophical milieu, building a theodicy began by demolishing any notion of a fall. Contemporary thought jettisoned it as authentic histoHick, EGL10, 214–15; “Evil, The Problem of,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 138. 114 Hick, EGL10, 215, 217. 115 Hick, IrenTh, 41. 116 Hick, EGL10, 215. 117 Hick, EGL10, 215–16. 118 Hick, EGL10, 216. 119 Hick, EGL10, 217. 120 John Hick, preface to EGL66, x. 121 Hick, EGL10, 246. 113

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

41

ry, rendering the fall a religious myth. 122 This demythologization allowed for a critical evaluation of the theodicy built upon it—namely, the “Augustinian.” 123 The problem for Hick with any concept of the fall lies in how evil could enter into a good creation. He argued that for a creature to fall there must be a flaw in either itself or its environment—a flaw that can only be authored by God. 124 Even a religious myth view of the fall would be inadequate. Thus for Hick, a critical evaluation reveals the inadequacies of a fall and the “Augustinian” theodicy. This renders it “utterly unacceptable.” 125 After having removed the doctrine of the fall, Hick built his theodicy. Creation and Progression Hick noted that evolutionary science necessitates Christians to understand creation as a two stage process. He argued the two stages as first, the evolutionary process resulting in homo sapiens and second, the growth or spiritualization of humans into perfection. Through divine causality the evolutionary stage produced rational and responsible people capable of personal relationship with God. With this responsibility came free will and self-direction. Now able to mature, the second stage began. This spiritualization occurs only through “uncompelled responses and willing co-operation of human individuals in their actions and reactions in the world in which God has placed them.” 126 The world then is where both the evolutionary progression into humanity and humans continued growth can occur; it is a place created for humanity’s “soul-making.” 127 God needed to create humans at an epistemic distance. This allowed for humanity to be independent. Necessarily, the world was created to appear ambiguous towards God. Creation had no direct divine presence. Di-

122 Hick, EGL10, 246–48.

Hick, EGL10, 248. Hick, EGL10, 253. 125 Hick, EGL10, 246, 248–49. 126 Hick, EGL10, 255. 127 Hick, EGL10, 168, 253. 123

124

42

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

vine presence would have negated the epistemic distance, thus negating human autonomy. Humanity may come to knowledge of God only through a “human faith-response.” 128 This response enables them to then recognize divine presence in the cosmos. Furthermore, this needed epistemic distance entailed a state of self-centeredness from which humans could move towards God. This state is opposed to the divine. Epistemic distance thereby necessitated creation of humanity into what the Christian myth names a fallen nature. Seeing no way around the issue, Hick also asserted that creation included evil. The evolutionary process itself by which humanity evolves necessitates the death of sentient beings. 129 A world that was good and “friendly” to humanity could not result in soul-making. 130 It is only through interacting with both good and evil that humanity grows morally and spiritually. In the first stage, evolution culminated with humans in the image of God. They have progressed into “only the raw material for a further and more difficult stage of God’s creative work.” 131 Created in a fallen state, humanity possessed the potential to transcend its environment.132 Once this first stage is finished, the second stage of creation occurs. This growth is a journey to attain fulfillment of the divinely appointed nature. 133 God continues to work within humans through their encounters with the world he created. As free and autonomous 128 Hick, EGL10, 281. 129

Hick himself posited that while death for non-sentient beings would not be problematic for a theodicy, pain and death for sentient beings is an evil to be dealt with. Hick, EGL10, 13. 130 Hick, Between Faith and Doubt, 141. 131 Hick, EGL10, 254. 132 The details from this paragraph are found in Hick, EGL10, 253–55, 280– 91, 336, 374. 133 Hick, EGL10, 374. This aligns with Hick’s Easter sermon in 1954 in which he stated that Christ’s death reveals that Christians “grow into the full stature of our humanity,” and that God the Father’s domain “is essentially growth and fulfillment.” Easter Sermon, April 18, 1954, box 1, Papers of John Hick.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

43

beings, humanity chooses how to respond to the leading of God. Through this interaction, humanity moves from the image towards the likeness into the higher level of existence. 134 In this process wrong choices are understandable and inevitable failures. Gen 1–3 offers the mythological description of a wrong choice that “multiplied the perils and complicated the route of the journey.” 135 Wrong choices increased the amount of evil not began it. In light of the evolutionary process of the first stage of human progression, pain becomes a positive. Hick distinguished pain from suffering. Pain is the physical sensations, while suffering is the mental state. He argued that pain serves a positive biological value for humans. Reacting to stimuli, pain functions as warning system. It protects humans from serious harm. Thus, it aids humanity through the second stage of growth by conditioning human behavior and enables their survival. While Hick offered this solution to the problem of pain, confronting suffering he appealed to the positive value of mystery. Suffering’s randomness and excessiveness render it a baffling reality. As such, it seemingly argues against theistic belief. Yet paradoxically, suffering serves as a mystery which can be used to support the case for theism. Mystery reveals a gap in human understanding which can only be filled with a concept of the divine. Both pain and suffering function positively for humanity. In Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy, creation necessarily included evil to allow for humanity’s progression into perfection. 136 Death Hick made a distinction between human death and the death of animals. In discussing the problem of evil, death for animals did not pose the problem it did for humans. While humans ponder and anticipate death, animals do not. They live in a “happy blindness.” 137 134

Hick, EGL10, 254.

135 Hick, EGL10, 255, 288.

136 See Hick, EGL10, 292–308, 333–36

for the details of this paragraph. Hick, EGL10, 313. Note that for Hick this did not mean the death of sentient animals did not constitute evil. He argued that the pain or death of

137

44

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Unlike consequences for animals, death is neither the end of humanity nor the end of human progression. Life after death awaits. The growth experienced in the second stage of creation continues in the afterlife. An instantaneous move of humans from imperfect to perfect upon death would mean that God could have accomplished it the first moment after humanity had evolved. Yet he did not do so. Additionally, Hick questioned whether such an instantaneous perfection equates to perfection through the longer process. In this light, he argued that the post-death growth remains a continuing process. While Hick did not address the issue, it would seem that because of pain and suffering’s necessity for human progression they will continue in life after death until all are perfected. 138 For Hick, death remains inseparable and vital for life. Death functions as a necessary component of human evolution and progression. It is both a biological and spiritual necessity. For humanity any sentient being constituted a challenge for theodicy EGL10, 13. In contemporary thought, the notion of animals living in a “happy blindness” has become debatable. For an introduction to contemporary thought on feelings, including fear, despair, and grief in animals see Marc Bekoff, “Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures,” Bioscience 50, no. 10 (2000). For an examination of contemporary thought see Amber J. de Vere, “Where Are We in the Study of Animal Emotions?” WIREs: Cognitive Science 7, no. 5 (2016). Hick was aware of this shift in the sciences. In 2001 he added a new section to his 1981 discussion. However, he posited that the value response in animals was like emotions. He did not equate them with emotions. He then moved to place such pain as “part of the same mysterious totality earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, hurricanes, and tidal waves.” IrenTh, 48. 138 Details of this paragraph are found in Hick, EGL10, 312–14, 345–49. By 2001, Hick had moved away from his previous concept of the intermediate state. He understood humanity to be living multiple lives rather than a single life moving through the intermediate state into the eschaton. See Death and Eternal Life. However, this move did not alter his discussion of growth after life. It simply changed the continued growth in the intermediate state into growth within multiple lives. See Stephen T. Davis, “Rejoinder,” in Encountering Evil, new ed., ed. Stephen Davis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 68–71.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

45

to grow into the perfection of God, to complete human creation, death must occur. This positive aspect helped explain how death had lost its sting. Properly seen, death is “not after all an enemy, but ultimately a friend because it serves a positive spiritual function.”139 Furthermore, death serves as a separator. It dissects the second stage of progression into two parts. Thus, Hick likened death’s service to human progression with sleep’s utility. Just as sleep separates human life into parts (days), death separates the second stage of human creation into sections (life and afterlife). With this helpful service to humanity, death ought to be fully accepted as divinely ordained for humans in God’s wisdom and love.140 Universalism Eternal suffering posed a “fatal” threat to a theodicy for Hick. 141 Suffering without end does not benefit anyone. Advocates claiming that those in hell exist unendingly in sin, propose an eschaton that contains evil. 142 In short, Hick stated that eternal punishment is contrary to both God’s sovereignty and benevolence. While removal of eternal punishment does not necessitate universalism, Hick maintained that annihilationism fails as well. God’s desire to save everyone would not be accomplished and thus, evil would triumph over good. 143 While annihilationism is not logically impossible, the very nature of God affirms his desire for all to be saved and must result in the salvation of all. Therefore, universalism offers the best solution. 144 Importantly, universalism aligned with Hick’s consequentialist theodicy. It functions as an “all-important aspect of the Irenaean 139 John Hick, “Death,” sermon, 1993, box 8, Papers of John Hick, 4. 140

John Hick, “Death,” 1–5; “Oriel College Commemoration” speech, 1967, box 12, Papers of John Hick. 141 Hick, EGL10, 341. 142 Hick, EGL10, 341–42. Any suffering beyond death would be in the intermediate state (or other lives) with the eschaton beginning after everyone reaches perfection. EGL10, 347–48. 143 Hick, EGL10, 342. 144 The details from this paragraph are found in Hick, EGL10, 341–45.

46

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

type of theodicy.” 145 Without this, he stated the “Irenaean” theodicy “would lose its plausibility” and “would collapse.” 146 God ordained evil to bring out his good purposes. The pain, suffering, and death that humanity faces will “prove to have been interim evil out of which good will in the end have been brought.” 147 In retrospect, all that evil is and has done will be recognized as divine means for the fulfilment of God’s plan and the achievement of infinite good. This ultimate victory necessitates the salvation of all. God will not abandon anyone as lost to evil. God will neither give up nor fail. In the end, nothing and no one will remain that has not been redeemed. God will save everyone. 148 While a consequentialist theodicy often turns evil into an ultimate good, Hick explicitly argued against this thought. He argued for the positive purpose of evil, he also posited that evil does not merely seem evil—it is evil. For Hick, it remained an explicit “duality and paradox” that the purpose of evil is the eschatological good, and evil is “malevolent and deadly.” 149

CONCLUSION Hick’s Irenaeus lived in a time of doctrinal flux when the variety of voices both lacked any consistency and constantly spoke to a demonic authorship of evil and maintained the free will of humanity. In this setting, Irenaeus offered no theodicy. However, while laying down a minority report he established a tradition that would run counter to the theodicy established centuries later by Augustine. Specifically, the bishop of Lyon viewed humanity’s creation as a two staged process with progression from the “image” to the “likeness” of God. This progression occurred only through interaction with both good and evil. Lacking the enlightenment of modern evolutionary science, Irenaeus had no option but to affirm the fall. However, in 145 Hick, IrenTh, 50.

146 Hick, IrenTh, 50–51.

147 Hick, EGL10, 364–65.

148 See Hick, EGL10, 362–64, for the details of this paragraph. 149 Hick, EGL10, 364.

1. HICK’S USE OF IRENAEUS

47

doing so he minimized it. The fall was merely the result of immaturity. Thus, it was not a damnable offense. From this understanding of the second-century bishop, Hick tied his theodicy to Irenaeus. Initially, Hick published his theodicy’s basic outline and arguments without referencing Irenaeus. Years later Hick included a historical component. He attached the bishop of Lyon to his theodicy. While Geivett simply found Hick’s use “ironic” in light of his departure from Christian orthodox beliefs, there remains a more plausible reason for his employment. 150 Hick’s use of Irenaeus purposefully tied his unorthodox theology to an orthodox church father. Doing so bolstered his claim that his theology remained within Christian belief. 151 While Hick would later affirm to have left the faith, at this time he was arguing that his views were indeed Christian. He declared this over against the claims of Machen and his followers that what Hick ascribed to was something other than Christian. Hick himself recognized his fight as one of the battles continued from the 1920s. One year after the dispute over his beliefs he focused on developing his theodicy. When published four years later he had attached Irenaeus’s name to it. In Hick’s twentieth-century battle over the Bible and its interpretation, fighting against the notion that he was a heretic, he utilized an orthodox church father who had fought against heretics in the second-century battle over the Bible. 152 It was truly “a stroke of genius.” 153 Regardless of the motivation, Hick’s work ensnared the secondcentury bishop’s name to “Irenaean” theodicy. While the validity of Hick’s development from his understanding of the bishop’s thought

150 Geivett, Evil

and the Evidence for God, 226. and the Evidence for God, 226. 152 Norbert Brox refered to the work of Irenaeus against heretics as a “battle about the Bible,” “Irenaeus and the Bible,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 484. 153 Nels F. S. Ferré to John Hick, letter, August 29, 1966, box 21, Papers of John Hick. 151 Geivett, Evil

48

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

into his “Irenaean” theodicy may be questioned, the issue of accuracy in his understanding of Irenaeus remains. 154

154

For example, Mark S. M. Scott argued that Hick’s theodicy showed a greater likeness and thus clearer development from Origen’s thought than from Irenaeus. “Suffering and Soul-Making: Rethinking John Hick’s Theodicy,” JR 90, no. 3 (2010), 313–34.

CHAPTER TWO. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL INTRODUCTION Neither Irenaeus nor those he opposed lived in a vacuum. Nor were they alone in their desire to absolve God from authoring evil. The problem of evil offers a dilemma for all of humanity across religious faiths. Both Christians and those they named pagans sought to understand how a good divine being could exist along with evil. In seeking to recognize the contrast of Hick’s readings of Irenaeus, examination of both pagan and early Christian thought on the problem of evil offer a helpful context to understand prevailing scholarship’s reading of the bishop and his thought. The pagan discussion offers particular importance for Hick’s use of Irenaeus as Hoitenga argued that key concepts of “Irenaean” theodicy originate from this context rather than the bishop’s thought. 1 Likewise, the stream of thought in early Christianity is significant. It was in this current that the bishop of Lyon is understood to have situated himself. In a real sense identifying this flow of thought reveals Irenaeus. The bishop of Lyon was committed to remaining within the faith handed down to him once for all. He purposefully sought to align himself within the prior theological discusDewey J. Hoitenga, “Is a Christian Theodicy Possible?” RefJour 17, no. 9 (1967): 17. 1

49

50

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

sion. 2 It is far more plausible to understand Irenaeus in general agreement with the existing pattern of thought than viewing him in contrast to it. Therefore, clarifying Irenaeus’s thoughts on the problem of evil requires understanding the discussion of the problem both in pagan and early Christian thought.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN PAGAN THOUGHT Late antiquity held diversity of philosophical thought within which discussion of evil inevitably occurred. From the time of Epicurus, philosophers pondered the problem of evil. 3 As Steenberg pointed out, Irenaeus background in philosophical discussions “is not insubstantial.” 4 He knew the philosophical discussions of his time and was not adverse to profiting from them or rejecting their thought. 5 While a robust understanding of the philosophical background of discussion of evil and its existence remains beyond the scope of this work, understanding scholarship’s reading of contemporaneous discussion helps contextualize Irenaeus’s thought. Plato’s thought towered across the second century as Platonism dominated the philosophical landscape.6 Philosophical discussion of this era offered little more than interpretations of Plato as philosophical ingenuity seemingly remained absent.7 For Plato, evil exists as

2 This will be discussed at length in chapter 3.

Lactantius in the third century wrote of Epicurus’s paradox. De ira Dei 13. Irenaeus M. C. Steenberg, “Tracing the Irenaean Legacy,” in Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, ed. Paul Foster and Sara Parvis (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 202. 5 Adversus haereses 4.30.1. Steenberg pointed out that Irenaeus saw the best learning from the pagans “as part of God’s redemptive economy, useful to the Christians.” “Tracing the Irenaean Legacy,” 202. Conversely thoughts he did not see as correct he cast aside. For one example see AH 2.33.2. 6 Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 63. 7 Harold, Tarrant, Skepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 128. 3

4

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

51

necessary to the cosmos. 8 In Timaeus, he posited the Demiurge as an agency for good. 9 In seeking to make all things like himself, the Demiurge brought about an increasing intelligibility and order through his creating/forming of matter. 10 Matter while not entirely evil, necessarily exists as corrupt. 11 As O’Brien pointed out, this necessity may be seen in the Demiurge’s choice to create humanity. He created short lived humans with increased intelligence rather than long lived but less intelligent. Either option held restrictions due to material’s problems. 12 Despite the corruption of his creation, the Demiurge sought to create nothing evil. He created “young gods” and gave them laws to alleviate himself from the responsibility of creating evil. This way they would be to blame and not him. 13 Against the Demiurge’s creative formation, motion and disorder resisted. This motion existed prior to creation, before the Demiurge sought to bring good. 14 The disturbance of motion affected material’s creation. This corruption and evil exist as simply a necessary part of matter. 15 As Armstrong aptly explained, Plato’s creation account in Timaeus offers “the image of the craftsmen working on his rather awkward and recalcitrant material, humoring it and persuading it to take as well as it can the form of the unchanging goodness and beauty.” 16 While Gretchen Reydams-Schiles, Demiurge and Providence (Turnhout: Brepolis, 1999), 75; Carl Séan O’Brien, The Demiurge in Ancient Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 21; Colin David Pears, “Congruency and Evil in Plato’s Timaeus,” RM 69 (2015): 103–4. 9 Plato Timaeus 29a; William Chase Green, Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944), 303. 10 Plato Tim. 29d–32; O’Brien, The Demiurge in Ancient Thought, 21, 24. 11 Plato Tim. 29e. 12 Plato Tim. 75b; O’Brien, The Demiurge in Ancient Thought, 21. 13 Plato Tim. 29d–30a, 42d–e. 14 Plato Tim. 52d–53e. Furthermore, motion remains perpetual and necessary in 27d–58c. 15 Plato Tim. 81e–82a. 16 A. H. Armstrong, “Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian,” in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, ed. Richard T. Wallis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 37. 8

52

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

disagreement remains in contemporary scholarship’s understanding of his concept of evil, Middle Platonists are understood to have believed that Plato’s doctrine of evil existed within his works fully developed. 17 Regardless of whether or not Plato understood the Demiurge to be an actual being or not, Middle Platonists in the first and second century AD seemingly did.18 Unfortunately, while they spent much time commenting on Plato’s Timaeus, almost all of their commentaries are no longer extant. Additionally, much of what remains does not deal with evil’s existence. 19 However, notions of the apparent necessity of evil remained during the first and second centuries. Dualistic thought, alongside a good Demiurge creating/ordering a corrupt creation offered the first centuries a quandary which various views sought to explain. 20 While differing conceptions of how this John Phillips, Order From Disorder (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 2, 8; Pears, “Congruency and Evil in Plato’s Timaeus,” 93, 101–2. 18 Harold Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 87, 205–6. In Tim. 29b Timeaus points out that the theories concerning the Demiurge and creation/ordering of the cosmos ought to be taken as simply a “likely story.” Thus, Plato may not have believed the fullness of the account. For example, Johansen called the creation account “a symbolic expression.” Karsten Friis Johansen, A History of Ancient Philosophy, trans. by Henrik Rosenmeier (New York: Routledge, 1998), 238. O’Brien, The Demiurge in Ancient Thought, 27. 19 Harold Tarrant, “Platonism Before Plotinus,” in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 1:68; John Whittaker, “Plutarch, Platonism and Christianity,” in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought, ed. by H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus, (London: Variorum, 1981), 57; John Dillon, “Pedantry and Pedestrianism? Some Reflections on the Middle Platonic Commentary Tradition,” in Reading Plato in Antiquity, ed. Harold Tarrant and Dirk Baltzly (London: Duckworth, 2006), 20. 20 Though perhaps not all Platonists of this period ascribed to a good Demiurge. Numinius may have posited an evil Demiurge. For a discussion of the fragments of his writings and their possible interpretation of an evil Demiurge see John Dillon, The Middle Platonists, rev. ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), 366–72. 17

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

53

came about arose, the concept of evil as a necessary and uncreated aspect of reality remain prevalent. 21 However, Plutarch’s work attests to another view in the second century. In his polemic against Stoic thought, Plutarch quoted Chrysippus’s third book on nature where he stated that good and evil reduce to the same thing. 22 While Plato discussed the corruption of matter arising not from the Demiurge but from necessity, Stoic thought seemingly saw the creator as responsible for all matter’s properties.23 Likewise, as all things simply reduce to one, good and evil exist merely in perception not in reality. 24 For Plutarch, such a thought inculpates the demiurge for evil. 25 Plutarch’s desire to separate the Demiurge from the creation of evil, seemed to move further than Plato’s. He argued that matter in and of itself has no evil, rather that motion’s affect comes from the moving principle or irrational soul not within matter.26 Evidencing an awareness of contemporaneous thought from the east, Plutarch’s description of Zoroaster’s views align with a dualistic interpretation of Zoroastrianism.27 This view along with PluPlutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 369d; Harpocration of Argos’s and Numinius’ thoughts may be derived from Iamblichus. Iamblichus, De Anima I.375, 380; John F. Finamore and John M. Dillon “Commentary to Iamblichus’ De Anima,” in Iamblichus. De Anima, trans. John F. Finamore and John M. Dillon (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 137–38, 160; Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 208, 229, 261. 22 Plutarch De communibus notitiis contra stoicos, 1065b. 23 Reydams-Schiles, Demiurge and Providence, 45. 24 Reydams-Schiles, Demiurge and Providence, 47, 75. 25 Plutarch De Stoicorum repugnantiis, 1049f; Whittaker, “Plutarch, Platonism and Christianity,” 53. 26 Plutarch De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1076c; De Iside et Osiride 369d. 27 Plutarch De Iside et Osiride 369e–f. For the problematic issue of labeling Zoroastrianmism as a monotheistic or dualistic religion see James W. Boyd, and Donald A. Crosby, “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?” JAAR 47, no. 4 (1979): 557–88. For a discussion on the accuracy of Plutarch’s description of Zoroastrianism see Albert de Jong, Traditions of the Magi (New York: Brill, 1997), 165–68. 21

54

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

tarch’s statement concerning beliefs of the Chaldeans, posited an eternal balance and conflict between good and evil. One evil god or two evil planets/patron gods necessarily existed and brought about evil from the beginning. 28 While devoid of a good Demiurge crafting/creating a necessarily flawed cosmos, these understandings also posited the necessity of evil within creation. For early philosophical thought contemporaneous to Irenaeus, the notion of evil’s necessary existence dominated the landscape. In a setting where the concept of creation ex nihilo remained absent, a moment for evil’s entrance onto the world stage remained unsought. Plato’s Timaeus and its interpretation preponderated discussion. While some may have sought to conflate good and evil, most recognized evil as evil and sought to separate the creator of the cosmos from its origination. Plato’s Demiurge existed as good and sought to order and create intelligence and goodness. This desire to protect a good creator from a creation that contained pain, suffering, and evil manifested in various means and understandings of creation. In these solutions to the problem of evil, evil exists from eternity past rendering the creator blameless. Irenaeus’s opponents, having the same desire to protect a good god from the evil within the cosmos, offered different narratives which they also believed solved this dilemma.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT For the first few hundred years following the incarnation, understanding the plurality of the Godhead stood paramount. In the midst of this Trinitarian conversation, the problem of evil plagued Christians then as it does now. Scattered throughout various works early Christian writers wrote on the problem of evil. Though they may not have seen it as a problem, the issue of the reality of evil alongside the reality of God was touched upon. 29 While no full or systematic treatment of it remains for scholarship today, based upon the extant works a stream of thought emerges. 28 Plutarch, De

Iside et Osiride, 370. The phrase “problem of evil” applies broadly to such discussions. See above, p. 1n2. 29

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

55

Before Irenaeus Irenaeus did not see himself as the first Christian, nor as an independent thinker unbiased by the thoughts of the faithful before him. Rather, he understood that he received the one true faith through Christians before him. While he would not have known every Christian who preceded him, he perceived them as having handed down to him the faith they received from the apostles who had received it from Christ. 30 Accordingly, Irenaeus purposefully thought under the influence of Christians before him. Apostolic Fathers As Lightfoot pointed out, during the initial spread of the Gospel across the globe Christian leaders sought to preach and evangelize rather than author texts and write their histories. 31 Yet despite the “heavy hand” of history upon their writings, some of the earliest post-canonical works have survived, being passed down through the ages. 32 The group of writings now known as the Apostolic Fathers comprise letters, homilies, martyrologies, apocalypses, sayings, parables, miracle stories, creeds, and hymns and prayers. 33 Though these writings focused on other issues and concerns, discussion of the problem of evil and related issues occurred.

30 Irenaeus’s

connection to the community of faith is supported throughout his writings. He writes of knowing Polycarp, cites Shepherd of Hermas, Papias, Ignatius (though he is unnamed), and Justin. See Epid. 4; AH 3.3.4; 5.33.4; 5.28.4; 4.6.2. The reliance of Irenaeus on Theophilous has also been recognized by scholarship. For a discussion of this as well as a helpful discussion of Irenaeus’s connection to the “network of significant ecclesiastical and theological figures” see Steenberg, “Tracing the Irenaean Legacy,” 201– 3. 31 Joseph B. Lightfoot, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1890), 1:1. 32 Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 1:1. 33 These distinctions follow the classifications of Jefford. Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 40–69.

56

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

In his epistle to Corinthian Christians, Clement discussed the issues that had risen up and plagued the church after his salutation and praise of them. In doing so, he pointed out that the contemporaneous evils harkened back to the ones through which death entered into the cosmos. 34 Through this simple statement Clement assumed a prior time which was free from death, which arose due to sin. Thus, in one of the earliest post canonical Christian works, Clement evidences the view that death came into creation as a result of unrighteousness. In the mid-second-century homily 2 Clement, the author appealed for his readers to not be troubled despite the reality that unrighteous flourished while the righteous suffered. 35 The author then moved to the biblical imagery of life as a competition (1 Cor 9:24; 2 Tim 4:7). He pointed out that the present life, with its struggles, offers the training needed to receive divine reward. 36 While hardships are not said to be good, the homily’s author pointed the faithful to the good that comes out of them. In Barnabas 12.5, the author discussed the Num 21:4–9 narrative alongside the disobedience of Eve. He paralleled the serpent’s biting and bringing death upon the Israelites with the transgression which brought death upon Adam and Eve. 37 In 14.5 the author, speaking of Christ’s work, stated that Jesus redeems humanity. Humans, previously given over to lawlessness and death, are now saved from this darkness. Later in 20.1–2 the author described the way of darkness. It 1 Clement 3.4. Clement 20.1. 36 2 Clem. 20.2. 37 Francis X. Gokey, The Terminology for the Devil and Evil Spirits in the Apostolic Fathers (New York: AMS, 1961; repr., New York: AMD, 1982),102; James Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 159. Note that Holmes translated this act, the παράβασις, as “the fall,” while Ehrman translated it as “the act of transgression.” Apostolic Fathers, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. and trans. by Michael W. Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 419; Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers, trans. B. Ehrman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 59. 34

35 2

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

57

is the way of the black one which destroys humanity. This description offered what Jefford called a “vice list.” 38 In doing so, the author spoke of those that follow the dark path as “corrupters of God’s creation.” 39 In these sections, the author assumed a time when evil, lawlessness, and death were not. Creation did not contain them from the beginning. They entered in and corrupted creation. In the ninth chapter of Diognetus, the author alluded to the problem of evil while writing to non-Christians expositing the gospel. The author discussed the way that God permitted humanity to continue being led astray. God endured the sinfulness of humanity which he disapproved of so that humans would recognize their inability to save themselves. In this discussion, the author commented that humanity’s reward for its wickedness was punishment and death. Again, in this early Christian text death is seen as added to creation, entering into it as a result of sin. Furthermore, this occurred in contrast to the desire of God. While the earliest non-canonical Christian writings remain focused on other matters, their brief statements concerning the problem of evil reveal an understanding that good creation was perverted, bringing evil, hardships, and death into the cosmos. Apologists As the early Christians sought to go and spread the gospel making disciples and baptizing (Matt 28:19), they realized that they needed to do more than preach the Word. The urge to defend their faith arose as opponents sought to undermine it.40 Allegations that Christians were atheists, cannibals, and incestuous arose alongside claims that the Christian faith was absurd leading to persecution. Following the scriptural example of Paul’s preaching on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22–31), some Christians took up the task of legitimizing their faith over against their opponents’ rhetorical assaults. These early apologists wrote treatises in defense of their faith countering the various allega38 Jefford, The

Apostolic Fathers, 80–82.

39 Barnabas 20.2.

40 See for example Athenagoras,

De resurrectione 1.1.

58

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

tions. While they did not focus primarily upon problem of evil, their writings do offer some discussion of it. 41 In this brief examination of scholarship’s reading of Athenagoras, Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus, precepts of the free-will defense will be seen. These early Christian apologists discussed (1) God’s good creation as initially existing without sin or death, (2) that humanity (and angels) sinned through their free choice with Satan being the originator of evil, and (3) that Adam and Eve’s transgression perverted creation bringing the corruption of death and produced the need for redemption. Athenagoras While little is known of Athenagoras aside from his connection to the city of Athens, his two works focused on defending the faith against charges of atheism, cannibalism, incest, and the legitimacy of the resurrection. 42 Despite the focus of both his works on issues other than the problem of evil, both included relevant thoughts upon it. Within his defense against the charge of atheism he briefly addressed the disobedience of angels. In doing so he argued that they, along with humanity, were endowed with free will. Some chose viciousness over virtue and sinned. Just as with humanity’s later choice, the angels’ choice contrasted with their nature and position. 43 While Athenagoras did not fully address humanity’s transgression, he did see humanity’s uniqueness, viewing humanity “as the crown of creation.” 44 The early apologist understood that a free-willed creatures’ choice to disobey diverged from both their nature and creation. It perverted God’s good and ordered creation.45 41

Seemingly, opponents of the faith had not yet utilized the problem of evil to attack the faith as would later occur which lead Irenaeus to write on the matter explicitly. 42Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 3.1. 43 Athenagoras Leg. 24–25; De resurrectione 12. 44 William R. Schoedel, introduction to Legatio and De Resurrectione, ed. and trans. by William R. Shoedel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), xxxii; Athenagoras Res. 12. 45 Athenagoras Leg. 24–25; Leslie W. Barnard, Athenagoras (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 117.

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

59

Justin Known as both a philosopher and a martyr, Justin taught in Rome where he likely encountered Irenaeus. 46 Trained in philosophy, he sought to defend the Christian faith. He also desired to show that truth existed within ancient philosophy. Yet while defending his faith, Justin’s concern remained the conversion of those who read or heard his words. 47 Of his writings, only three complete works survive, two apologies and a dialogue. 48 While primarily focused on other matters, Justin’s work evidences thought on the problem of evil. Particularly, free-will defense themes emerge out of them. Irenaeus was intimately aware of Justin’s work. 49 Consequently, Justin’s discussion on the problem of evil would have been known to Irenaeus. For Justin, God created the world for humanity out of his goodness. 50 God created both humans and angels with free will. 51 Created to live, humanity existed without suffering and death. 52 46

Ochagavia argued that “Irenaeus probably was a disciple of Justin in Rome.” Juan Ochagavia, Visibile Patris Filius (Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1964), 33. Slusser more recently surveyed contemporaneous scholarship and argued that Irenaeus knew Justin personally. Michael Slusser, “How Much Did Irenaeus Learn From Justin,” SP 40 (2006): 515–19. 47 Justin 2 Apology 15. 48 Robert M. Grant, “Fragments of Greek Apologists and Irenaeus,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies, ed. J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (New York: Herder, 1963), 182–91. 49 Through comparison of his and Irenaeus’s corpora, scholarship widely acknowledges that the bishop of Lyon drew upon Justin’s work within his own writings. For an example of Irenaeus’s reliance on Justin’s argumentation see Ysabel de Andia, Homo Vivens (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986), 217, 271–73. 50 Justin 2 Apol. 4.2; Dial 41; Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr (Tübingen: Mohr, 1973), 45. 51 Justin 1Apololgy 6, 28, 44, 61; 2 Apol. 5, 7; Dialogus cum Tryphone 88, 102, 141. 52 Justin Dial. 124.

60

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

However, Adam and Eve chose, through their free will, to disobey God and eat of the forbidden fruit. This brought death into the world. 53 Yet Adam and Eve were not the first beings to sin. Prior to the first human sin, the angel Satan sinned. He also led other angels to follow in his folly. They became demons. 54 This first sin explained the rise of evil in a good creation for Justin. 55 Humans’ free will makes them responsible for their thoughts and actions. 56 Repeatedly and alongside human freedom, Justin affirmed God’s foreknowledge. 57 Justin seemingly saw no paradox in holding both and thus sought no solution to the problem of freedom and foreknowledge. For example, he argued that those who killed Christ remained responsible despite God’s foreknowledge of their actions. 58 While foreknowing humans would sin, God still endowed humanity and the angels with free will. Answering the question of why he would still create them this way and not stop evil before it even began, Justin argued that God created them this way because free will is good. 59 God’s goodness answers the question, not a desire to delight in humanity’s disobedience or evil. Indeed, for Justin, it would be wicked to think that God could or would delight in evil. 60 Furthermore, God’s goodness explains why he does not stop evil now and allows it to continue. Justin pointed out that God delays his return on account of those who have not yet been saved. God foreknows they will be, even some that have not yet been born. He de-

Justin Dial. 88, 124; Craig D. Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 116. 54 Justin 2 Apol. 5; Dial. 45, 88, 100. 55 Justin 1 Apol. 5.2; 2 Apol. 5.3; 17.2; Minns, Denis, and Paul Parvis, “Introduction: Justin’s World” in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 69. 56 Justin 1 Apology. 28, 43. 57 Justin 1Apol. 28, 44; Dial. 92, 118. 58 Justin Dial. 95. 59 Justin Dial. 102. 60 Justin 1 Apol. 28, 43. 53

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

61

lays to ensure their future salvation. 61 For Justin, God’s goodness allows for the problem of evil and its continued existence. With the occurrence of humanity’s disobedience, God sought to deliver humanity from evil, suffering, and death. 62 Humanity’s only hope for salvation is in Christ. 63 Following Paul’s linking of Christ to Adam, Justin connected Mary to Eve. 64 He pointed out that in the same way that death entered the world through a virgin, so too did salvation come. For Justin, the discussion of creation remained continuously tied to salvation. He repeatedly spoke to creation within the context of salvation.65 God desired for humanity to use free will for righteousness not for evil.66 However in opposition to God, humanity disobeyed and remains responsible for the choices they make. Satan also retains blame for Adam and Eve’s sin, as he beguiled them to eat the fruit. Indeed for Justin, disobedience proceeded from Satan.67 Despite not offering a full discussion on the advent of evil, in Justin’s works a free-will defense implicitly exists. His writings indicate an understanding of God’s good creation perverted by a free will creature’s choice to disobey. This brought evil and death into the cosmos, which must be remedied by the work of Christ. 68 Tatian Justin’s student Tatian, known for both his harmony of the gospels—the Diatessaron—and his exit from the church, offers a further glimpse into early and brief discussion of the problem of evil. Despite his departure from the church, Address to the Greeks reveals no 61 Justin 1

Apol. 28; 2 Apol. 15.

62 Justin Dial. 41.

Justin Dial. 44. Compare Rom 5:12–17 with Justin Dial. 100. 65 Justin 1 Apol. 10.2–6; 2 Apol 4.2; Dial. 41.1; Allert, Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation, 115. 66 Justin Dial. 141. 67 Justin Dial. 100, 124. 68 Justin explicitly stated that his discourse is not intended to offer a discussion of Adam and Eve’s transgression. Dial. 124. 63

64

62

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

overt heretical thought. 69 Thus, while Irenaeus would rail against Tatian’s denial of Adam’s salvation, Address to the Greeks falls in line with the community of faith from which he left and Irenaeus clung. 70 Before speaking to Christian beliefs in his Address to the Greeks, Tatian ridiculed the thought of various Greek philosophers. In chapter 3, he pointed to various beliefs that he saw as laughable. In doing so he identified the claim that God authored evil as one of the erroneous doctrines held to. Then moving to Christian beliefs, he pointed out that God created all things. 71 Continuing his explanation of creation, he stated that God created both humanity and angels with free will. While perfection remained with God alone, humanity, made in the likeness of God, would be brought to it through their proper choices. 72 This freedom renders them responsible for their actions and thus God’s judgments upon them are just. 73 Of these creations, the firstborn angel rebelled and declared himself to be God. Humanity later followed and become mortal. The firstborn, along with the angels that followed him, became demons. Later in chapter 11, Tatian pointed out that humans’ choices have destroyed them and made them slaves. God did not create evil, rather evil came through humanity’s actions. For Tatian, creatures’ free-willed choice to disobey perverted God’s good creation. Their actions brought evil, destruction, and death into the cosmos.

69

See Craig D. Allert, “The State of the New Testament Canon in the Second Century: Putting Tatian’s Diatessaron in Perspective,” BBR 9 (1999): 5–6. 70 See AH 1.28. 71 Tatian Address to the Greeks 6. 72 Tatian Add. 7. 73 Tatian Add. 7. Hawthorne posited that for Tatian, just as for Justin, humanity “departed” from their original creation. See Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Tatian and His Discourse to the Greeks,” HTR 57, no. 3 (1964): 171, 187– 88.

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

63

Theophilus Having moved beyond views of Irenaeus’s works as a mere regurgitation of Theophilus’s work, scholarship continues to recognize his purposeful use of the patriarch of Antioch. 74 Just as with Justin’s thought, Irenaeus would have been intimately familiar with Theophilus’s thoughts on the problem of evil. In the second of three books to Autolycus, Theophilus discussed creation. He first offered extended quotations of Scripture and then interpreted them. Curry described this as “a rather straightforward exegesis” because Theophilus did not repeatedly point to Christ in his discussion of the Genesis account. 75 His treatment offered a more robust discussion of doctrines related to the problem of evil than previously seen in early Christian texts. Through his exposition of Scripture, Theophilus implicitly offered a free-will defense for the problem of evil. God, being good, created a very good world with nothing evil.76 In it, he created humanity endowed with free will, able to choose and determine their path. 77 Humanity, while neither immortal nor mortal, held capability for both. 78 Death however, remained absent from creation. For Theophilus, if God had made humanity mortal, he would be to blame for death. 79 While God created all of creation good, he created the garden as a superior locale, designed for humans to advance, mature, and become perfect. Once matured they would ascend to heaven. 80 God’s design for the garden fit the features of humanity. God designed humans to grow, created them, and placed William R. Schoedel, “Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?” ICS 18 (1993): 293. 75 Carl Curry, “The Theogony of Theophilus,” VC 42, no. 4 (1988): 319. See also Peter C. Bouteneff, Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 70. 76 Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.17. 77 Theophilus Autol. 2.27. 78 Theophilus Autol. 2.27. 79 While Theophilus did not here point out that Autolycus’s gods did create humanity mortal, the point would likely not have been lost on Autolycus. 80 Theophilus Autol. 2.24. 74

64

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

in a paradise especially suited for their maturation. In the garden, they were to fulfill their ultimate fate and ascend to heaven. 81 Rebuffing a Marcionite view, Theophilus argued that the forbidden tree contained no evil. 82 Simply eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil would not unleash evil upon the world. Rather disobedience brought evil into creation. God intended to repeal the command to not eat of it when Eve and Adam were ready. Had they remained in obedience they would have matured and been given the fruit as they grew towards immortality. 83 However, instead of patiently growing and maturing towards God, they fell prey to the guile of Satan and prematurely ate of the forbidden fruit. This disobedience ushered evil into the world, bringing pain, suffering, and death into creation. 84 Yet this was not the first occurrence of a good creation disobeying its Creator; Satan had previously rebelled against God. 85 Furthermore, Theophilus did not see the results of humanity’s transgression as limited to humanity; all of creation now suffers the ramifications. In his exposition of the fifth day of creation, the Patriarch of Antioch discussed the natural world. He pointed to the fish and birds that prey upon other creatures, “those weaker than themselves,” as no longer abiding in their natural state. 86 Moving to the sixth day of creation, he pointed out that the land creatures, like all of God’s creation, once held no evil. But after humans’ disobedience they lost their gentle nature and took on a venomous nature. 87 As a result of human transgression, all of the cosmos lies in wait for its needed redemption, which includes a restoration of original gentle81 Rick Rogers, Theophilus

of Antioch (New York: Lexington, 2000), 37.

82 Theophilus Autol. 2.25; Schoedel, “Theophilus of Antioch,” 284.

Theophilus Autol. 2.25; Bouteneff, Beginnings, 71. As Rogers pointed out, for Theophilus God is not selfishly keeping the knowledge of good and evil from Eve and Adam, but rather properly “parenting.” Rogers, Theophilus, 40. 84 Theophilus Autol. 2.17, 25; Rogers, Theophilus 39. 85 Theophilus Autol. 2.28. 86 Theophilus Autol. 2.16. 87 Theophilus Autol. 2.17. 83

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

65

ness. 88 Humanity, now blind and with a hardened heart, may only be healed and made alive by the physician—namely, God. 89 By letting faith and the fear of God rule in the heart humanity may live chastely, holily, and righteously to be raised immortal by God.90 The Patriarch of Antioch’s more lengthy discussion of creation and the effects of the transgression reveals that he saw God’s goodness and work for humanity’s progression towards perfection. This redemptive work occurred even within the tragedy of Gen 3. Looking towards the good that God brings out of evil, he pointed out that Adam and Eve’s death ensured that they would not remain eternally in sin. 91 Evil will not triumph over the divine plan. God continues to work his plan in creation for the maturation and perfection of humanity. Due to their transgression humanity now needs restoration. Once restored, they can continue their growth. 92 God will remold humanity through resurrection into “spotless, righteous, and immortal” people. 93 God’s continued work despite human transgression reveals his long-suffering kindness.94 In Ad Autolycum, Theophilus argued that evil arose by the free-willed disobedience of humanity. Despite being placed in a locale designed for their growth and ascension to perfection, Adam and Eve listened to Satan over against God. They prematurely ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. While not the first to sin, this willful disobedience unleashed evil upon the world. This resulted in pain, suffering, and death for both humans and animals. The divine plan had been interrupted and death entered into creation. God needed to restore humanity for their continued progression. God 88 Theophilus Autol. 2.17. 89 Theophilus Autol. 1.7.

Theophilus Autol. 1.7; James D. Tabor, “The Theology of Redemption in Theophilus of Antioch,” ResQ 18, no. 3 (1975): 162. The role of faith seen in Autol. 1.7 remains seemingly overlooked in discussions of Theophilus and his understanding of salvation. See Rogers, Theophilus 119–50. 91 Theophilus Autol. 2.26. 92 Theophilus Autol. 2.17. 93 Theophilus Autol. 2.26. 94 Theophilus Autol. 2.26. 90

66

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

reveals his goodness and patience as he triumphs over death to work out his plan. In seeking to proclaim the superiority of Christian faith to his friend, Theophilus implicitly offered a free-will defense. Through the apologists discussed above, treatment of the problem of evil surfaced. While seeking to defend their faith against various charges, tenets of a free-will defense emerged. God’s creation was good and had no sin or death. As the first creature to sin, Satan authored evil. Humans, through their free-willed decision, disobeyed God and brought sin and death into the world. Good creation was corrupted. To repair the damage of humanity’s first sin required the redemptive work of God. These descriptions in the Apologists expanded upon the earlier brief comments that occurred in the Apostolic Fathers. The trickle of thought on the problem of evil grew into a stream. The free-will defense seen in the Apologists flowed from the cursory comments from those before them. After Irenaeus Just as understanding those preceding Irenaeus aids in understanding the prevailing reading of the bishop’s thought on the problem of evil, those that proceeded Irenaeus ought to be examined to situate his location within the ongoing stream of Christian thought. Furthermore, because Hick claimed that themes he read in Irenaeus were “echoed” by Clement of Alexandria, particular attention ought to be paid to those following the bishop to see if any such echoing of Hick’s “Irenaean” themes existed. 95 Tertullian Tertullian’s thought remains important for Irenaean scholars. As Kearsley argued, Tertullian formed his thought in light of Irenaeus.96 Tertullian’s work reveals a churchman in close temporal proximity to the bishop of Lyon. He was so familiar with Irenaeus’s work that he John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 215. 96 Roy Kearsley, Tertullian’s Theology of Divine Power (Edinburgh: Paternoster, 1998), 34. 95

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

67

followed the bishop’s thought. 97 Particularly, Tertullian closely agreed with the bishop of Lyon’s thoughts concerning anthropology. 98 Thus, his discussion related to the problem of evil offers utility in understanding Irenaeus’s. In defending God against Marcion’s objections in his second book against him, Tertullian relied heavily on his predecessors, especially Theophilus and Irenaeus. 99 In doing so, he explicitly countered the quandary of the problem of evil posed by Marcion with a freewill defense in 2.5–10. Tertullian began by posing the problem of evil for his readers in 2.5.1–2. To defend his faith, he gave a brief defense of the presuppositions in question—namely, the nature of God’s character. He argued that God’s actions point to his character and affirm his goodness, omnipotence, and foreknowledge.100 This understanding of God eliminates the possibility that he authored evil for Tertullian. Therefore, he argued humanity ought to be examined. 101 He viewed humanity as endowed with free will. He argued that their creation in the image and likeness of God entailed free will. 102 To support his claim Tertullian pointed to the existence of the law. The command to not eat fruit from a particular tree necessarily entailed the ability to choose to eat or not to eat. Thus, humanity had free will. 103

97

For discussion of examples where Tertullian follows Irenaeus’s work see Stephen Cooper, “Communis Magister Paulus: Altercation Over the Gospel in Tertullian’s Against Marcion,” in Tertullian and Paul, eds. Todd D. Still, and David E. Wilhite (New York: T&T Clark, 2013), 230; Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Tertullian, Paul, and the Nation of Israel,” in Still and Wilhite, Tertullian and Paul, 87. 98 M. C. Steenberg, “Impatience and Humanity’s Sinful State in Tertullian of Carthage,” VC 62, no. 2 (2008): 114n24. 99 René Braun, introduction générale to Contre Marcion, by Tertullian (Paris: Cerf, 1990), 43. 100 Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 2.5.3–4. 101 Tertullian Marc. 2.5.5–6. 102 Tertullian Marc. 2.5.5. 103 Tertullian Marc. 2.5.5–6.

68

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

In Marc. 2.6 after laying out a free-will defense positing that humanity maintains the blame for the problem of evil and not God, Tertullian addressed a possible objection to it. One might argue that knowing humanity would choose evil, God should have created humans incapable of their wrong choice. In response, Tertullian argued the necessity of humanity’s free will for (1) God to be known by something worthy, (2) humans to establish goodness in themselves rather than merely having it bestowed upon them, and (3) justice to exist. 104 Beyond its necessity, humanity’s free will also reveals God’s goodness. 105 After rebuffing the possible objection, Tertullian discussed humanity’s composition to reiterate his point: without this understanding of humanity’s free will, when faced with evil it would be easy to blame the Creator. 106 With his free-will defense offered, Tertullian moved to discuss a further aspect of the problem of evil answering the question why God allowed evil to continue. In 2.7.1, he pointed to the importance of presuppositions. He posited that the question why evil continues to persist would not be posed if one began with the right presuppositions—namely, God’s good character and the free-will defense he previously outlined. Because God is good, he is faithful and consistent. Therefore, he will not remove humanity’s good and necessary free-willed nature.107 By creating humanity with free will God authorized humanity to use it.108 God desired humanity to use free will for good and foreknew humanity would instead choose evil. Yet, he would not act contrary to his good nature. He did not remove that which made humanity worthy of a relationship with him. 109 Tertullian argued out that had God stopped humanity from disobeying, Marcion would rightly have protested. He would have argued that God was inconsistent, 104

Tertullian Marc. 2.6.2–7.

105 Tertullian Marc.2.6.1.

106 Tertullian Marc. 2.6.8. 107 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.1.

108 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.2.

109 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.2.

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

69

untrustworthy, deceptive, and a bad designer.110 He then reiterated his point. God knew humanity would choose evil but because of the goodness of both himself and his creation he allowed their disobedience. 111 Evidencing the evangelistic aspect of Tertullian’s work, he argued that discussion of the problem of evil points to the goodness and faithfulness of God and called for Marcion to repent. 112 Just as with Justin and Irenaeus, this explicit statement reveals that his polemic was not merely an attack. Tertullian’s concern was for the salvation of his opponent. He sought to return Marcion to the people of God, back into salvation. Tertullian then echoed his defense of the faith and again argued that humanity remains responsible for evil, not God. God created humanity to live not to die. This is evidenced by his desire for restoration of humanity to life.113 Created good with room to improve, humanity sinned. 114 However, Tertullian argued that the tragedy of the garden could not be blamed on humanity’s design as feeble or ignorant, not yet grown into maturity. 115 While still yet immature, humanity was created stronger than angels, able to rebuff the temptation of Satan. 116 Humans, though imperfect, retain the responsibility as they chose to sin of their own free will. Nor could blame be laid upon God indirectly through Satan. While God remains responsible for his creation, just as with humanity, God created Satan good and endowed him with free will. 117 Similar to humanity’s placement in the garden, God not only created Satan good but lavished glory upon him and set him to live in the divine presence. 118 However, despite the good design and desire of God, Satan chose evil and set about to lead others astray. 119 110 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.3–4. 111 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.4. 112 Tertullian Marc. 2.7.5.

Tertullian Marc. 2.8.1. See Tertullian De anima 38.2; Marc. 2.4.1. 115 Tertullian Marc. 2.8.2. 116 Tertullian Marc. 2.8.2–3, 7. 117 Tertullian Marc. 2.10.4–5. 118 Tertullian Marc. 2.10.4. 119 Tertullian Marc. 2.10.4. 113

114

70

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

For Tertullian, God created humanity—body and soul—to grow and mature through life. God created the world as a stage, a unique locale arranged for the maturation of humanity. 120 By divine design, humanity grows from the good position in original creation towards the higher position of God’s best. Created to live, humanity’s growth would continue eternally encountering only good in life. 121 However, full of envy, Satan sought to tempt humanity. The author of evil, Satan, falsely twisted the good divine prohibition into a deceitful accusation against God. 122 Adam and Eve both turned from good and did evil. This brought suffering, death, and destruction into the cosmos. Tertullian blamed human transgression equally on Eve and Adam. 123 He saw that their responsibility for their disobedience arose from their free will. They chose to disobey God and brought death upon themselves. 124 While remaining omnipotent and omniscient, God did not desire human transgression. 125 Omnibenevolent, his will remains good and for the good.126 Had the humans not fallen, they would have kept the law and remained immortal. 127 For Tertullian impatience lay at the heart of evil. 128 Not waiting for the timing of God, Adam and Eve utilized their free will in disobedience and ate the fruit prematurely. This disobedience brought pain, suffering, and death into creation. Thus, Tertullian met Marcion’s charge

120 Tertullian Marc. 2.4.1.

121 Tertullian Marc. 2.4.4.

122 Tertullian Marc. 2.10.1.

Church pointed out that while singling Eve out in De cultu feminarum in every other discussion of the fall, Tertullian equally blames Adam as well. F. Forrester. Church, “Sex and Salvation in Tertullian,” HTR 68, no. 2 (1975): 86; Tertullian De jejunio adversus psychicos 3.2. 124 Tertullian Adversus Judaeos. 2.2; De exhortatione castitatis 2.3–5. 125 Tertullian Marc. 2.4.4. 126 Tertullian De exhortatione castitatis 2.2–5. 127 Tertullian Adversus Judaeos 2.2–6. 128 Steenberg, “Impatience and Humanity’s Sinful State,” 117. See also Tertullian De patientia 5. 123

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

71

against the goodness of God through the problem of evil by offering a free-will defense. Clement of Alexandria Facing the challenges to the faith of his time, Clement sought to both combat heresies and build up the faithful through deeper understandings of the faith passed on to him. In this endeavor he evidenced creative thinking in his interpretations of the Scriptures. However, some of what he posited was later hailed as blasphemous.129 In his works, he addressed the problem of evil in what Karavites characterized as “a somewhat unsystematic fashion.” 130 Through his discussions, Clement of Alexandria offered a free-will defense. 131 For Clement of Alexandria, God created humanity endowed with the good gift of free will. 132 In efforts to convert those outside the faith, Clement offered a brief history of the mission of God.133 He pointed to Adam and Eve created with childlike freedom. Created to grow and endowed with free will, Adam and Eve were judged according to their choices.134 Tempted by Satan, humans abused their gift and sinned. They strayed from the path God intended for them. This allowed evil and death into the world.135 Satan authored evil.136 Humanity’s transgression ended with it bound by sin.137 With humans off track, only God could bring them back into right standing Photios Codex Bibliotheca 109. For a discussion on the validity of Photius’s charges see Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, Clement of Alexandria on Trial (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 130 Peter Karavites, Evil, Freedom, and the Road to Perfection in Clement of Alexandria (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2. 131 W. E. G. Floyd, Clement of Alexandria’s Treatment of the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 91; Karavites, Evil, 175. 132 Karavites, Evil, 84, 116. 133 Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 11. 134 Clement of Alexandria Protr. 1, 11; Sromata 2.6; 4.23. 135 Karavites, Evil, 28; Clement of Alexandria Protr. 1, 11. 136 Clement of Alexandria Protr. 10. 137 Clement of Alexandria Protr. 11. 129

72

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

and allow them to again progress towards the divine. 138 God trains humanity in the good. He forgives sins and educates humanity to avoid sin. 139 Through the incarnation, Christ’s redemptive work allowed humanity to return to the path towards God. 140 God persuades, but does not compel humanity to do his will.141 The path towards God returns humanity not to the past, to the garden, rather it moves humanity towards a greater prize. 142 While evil had corrupted creation, through God’s goodness good things can come out of it. Humans learn through their errors and progress towards the divine by the grace of God.143 However, Clement’s theodicy did not hinge upon God’s triumph over evil. That God brings good out of it is not the reason for evil’s existence. The crux of Clement’s treatment remains the free-willed disobedience of humanity. 144 Through his cursory discussion of the problem of evil, Clement of Alexandria offered a free-will defense. God did not author evil; responsibility lies with Satan and humanity. 145 For Clement, God created humans with freedom. They abused it and sinned. This brought sin, suffering, and death into creation. Looking beyond the logical problem of evil, he also pointed to the victorious work of God. He highlighted the positives that God brings out of evil. Origen Hailed as a pioneer, scholar, and perhaps the greatest ante-Nicene Father, Origen wrote extensively. Despite his desire to be known as a Christian and not a heretic, the condemnation at Constantinople II ensured a mixed legacy for Origen. 146 Regardless of one’s view of his orthodoxy in all matters, his work continues to be excavated and dis138 Floyd, Clement, 73, Clement of

Alexandria Protr. 11. Alexandria Pead. 1.3. 140 Floyd, Clement, 86–87; Clement of Alexandria Protr. 11. 141 Clement of Alexandria Strom. 7.2. 142 Clement of Alexandria Protr. 11. 143 Karavites, Evil, 66–68, 178. 144 Contra Floyd, Clement, 92. 145 See Karavites’s summary of Clement’s theodicy, Evil,175. 146 Origen Homiliae in Lucam 16. 139 Clement of

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

73

cussed within the Christian faith. His intellectual and scholastic acumen may be discerned across his writings. Yet Origen served not merely as an intellectual focused only on the theoretical. He remained a man of the church, partaking in the day-to-day struggles of the faithful. Serving the church in Alexandria, Origen sought to aid the church. He defended against heresies and sought to understand the depth of Scripture both at a lay level and a deeper spiritual level. His homilies exhibit his desire for the lay community to know truth about God. For those that had the ability and opportunity to enter into the life of an ideal interpreter, Origen’s robust methods reveal his desire to know the fullness of his faith. 147 In either context, his interpretive method sought to aid those hearers of Scripture towards salvation. 148 In seeking to grow and aid the church, Origen inevitably dealt with the problem of evil. He saw it as a baffling problem that could not be solved apart from divine revelation. 149 Furthermore, the problem of evil could not be solved by anyone without an understanding of Satan and the demons. Specifically, it required knowledge of their original created nature as good and their corruption through free will. 150 Therefore, for Origen the free-will defense offered the only solution for the problem of evil. 151 In discussing his thoughts on the problem of evil, the dilemma of Origen’s view of the soul’s preexistence comes to the fore. While various scholars contest that he actually held to the soul’s preexistence, most Origen scholars accept that he did believe in at least some

147

For a helpful examination of Origen’s understanding of the ideal reader of Scripture see Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 148 Origen Princ. 4.1–2; For a helpful discussion of Origen’s view of his audience and purposes see Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 38–50. 149 Origen Contra Celsum 4.65. 150 Origen Cels. 4.65. 151 In his examination of Origen’s handling the problem of evil, Scott refered to Origen’s view as “an early version of the classic free will defense.” Mark S. Scott, Journey Back to God (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2012), 52.

74

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

form of preexistence. 152 Thus, the debate concerns the type of preexistence rather than its occurrence. 153 Regardless of whether for Origen it was only Satan and the demons that fell or if they were also followed by individual preexistent souls, the material cosmos was created after the fall. Souls preexisted in an immaterial state but fell resulting in this material world.154 However, the material itself is not evil. 155 This pre-cosmic fall occurred due to the abuse of free will. Laying out the faith held by Christians in De principiis (Peri archon), Origen highlighted the beliefs that Christians hold in agreement. In his list he included the doctrine of free will. 156 He further elaborated on free will in chapter three. He discussed free will, supported it from Scripture, and offered compatible interpretation of passages that seem to deny it. 157 Free will remained critical to Origen in understanding the history of creation and salvation. 158 Indeed for Origen, Christian faith necessitates free will—without it God would be responsible for evil’s existence. 159 Good God created nothing evil. 160 Discussing Satan’s origin, he pointed out that the dominant See Blosser’s discussion of scholarship on this. Benjamin P. Blosser, Become Like the Angels: Origen’s Doctrine of the Soul (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 157–60. For counter views, see Mark Julian Edwards, Origen Against Plato (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002), 89–97; P. Tzamalikos, Origen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 65–164. 153 For example, Tzamalikos argued for a unity of preexistent souls rather than individual distinct souls, Origen, 72–79. 154 Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983), 109. 155 Origen Cels. 2.17. 156 Origen Princ. Pref.3. 157 Origen Princ. 3; Trigg, Origen, 116; John Clark Smith, The Ancient Wisdom of Origen (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1992), 45. 158 Smith, Ancient Wisdom of Origen, 38. Crouzel posited that Origen tenaciously upheld the doctrine of free will to the extent that it was a controlling force of his theology. Henri Crouzel, Origen, trans. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 211. 159 Origen Princ.3. 160 Origen Cels. 2.69. See 1 Tim 4:4. 152

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

75

Christian view understood the devil as a fallen angel.161 Origen remained within this stream of Christian thought, arguing that Satan and the demons departed from God. They left that which they were created for. Thus, they fell into wickedness.162 Satan fell first, and others followed. 163 God allowed preexistent humans to fall, to bring pain, suffering, and evil upon themselves. Yet allowing does not mean causing. While the fall occurred prior to the garden, Gen 1–3 offers a cryptic discussion of the pre-cosmic fall for Origen. He posited that Moses wrote of Adam and Eve not as two individuals but rather as a representation of humanity in general. 164 In this reading, the clothing of Adam and Eve by God with animal skins points to the mystical doctrine that surpasses—not parallels—Platonic thought of the soul’s embodiment.165 God permitted the fall to occur because God would not create a mindlessly serving creature lacking freedom to choose what is right. 166 Indeed, this creation of a free creature, like all of God’s actions, reveals his goodness. 167 Like others prior to him, Origen did not simply stop with the free-will defense. 168 He moved beyond and offered an explanation for the continuance of sin. Seeking to show divine goodness despite sin’s continued existence and offer comfort and hope to those in the midst of suffering, the Alexandrian utilized the biblical images of God as teacher and the physician. 169 God did not simply stand back and watch humans bring suffering, pain, and evil upon themselves. 161 Origen Princ.

Pref.4. 7.69; Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 20.184. 163 Origen Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 1.18; Cels. 6.43. 164 Origen Cels. 4.40. 165 Origen Cels. 4.40; Scott, Journey 62–63. 166 Smith, Ancient Wisdom of Origen, 40. 167 J. Rebecca Lyman, Christology and Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 47. 168 See above, pp. 55–57, 61, 68–70. 169 For a few verses on God as physician see Exod 15:26; Jer 30:17; Matt 4:23; Mark 2:17. For a few verses on God as teacher see Ps 94:10; Isa 48:17; Luke 4:15; John 7:16. 162 Origen Cels.

76

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Seeking to aid humanity along the path of growth, God patiently allowed evil to occur and seeks to teach humanity. 170 God both instructs and heals humanity, bringing goodness out of suffering.171 God could heal humanity quickly and thus avoid the consequences of sin upon humanity. However, Origen argued God allows the consequences of sin to remain for a time so that humanity will not think lightly of engaging in it.172 Humanity progresses towards perfection, towards the divine. 173 God instructs and teaches humanity along the path. 174 Origen’s treatment of the problem of evil entailed a free-will defense and a discussion of God’s triumph of evil for his good purpose. Origen’s free-will defense however, moved the fall prior to the creation of the cosmos. Prior to the cosmos’ existence, a free-will creature’s choice to disobey resulted in God’s creation of the cosmos. God seeks to bring forth instruction and healing despite the work of Satan. His victory over evil is evidenced as good often results out of it. Humanity’s salvation lies in progression towards God which he directs. He instructs humanity even during times of suffering. After Irenaeus, the Christian community continued dealing with proper expression of Christ’s revelation of diversity in the Godhead. Yet the problem of evil required a response, both for those who attacked the faith and those within the faith struggling with the reality of evil. The post-Irenaeus church fathers understood that God was not the author of evil. They continued to utilize the free-will defense to the extent that free will became seen as vital to the faith. Free creatures abused their free will and brought into existence evil, pain, suffering, and death—Satan authored evil. Likewise, understanding God’s victory over evil to bring about good for his creation continued.

170 Smith, Ancient

Wisdom of Origen, 46. Homiliae in Ezechielem 1.2.3. 172 Origen Princ. 3.1.17. 173 Origen Princ.1.3.8; Crouzel, Origen, 97. 174 Origen Princ.1.3.8. 171 Origen

2. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES FOR IRENAEUS

77

CONCLUSION Prior to discussing Irenaeus’s thought concerning the problem of evil, understanding the community of faith both prior and post the bishop offers a helpful context for Irenaeus’s thoughts. This context aids in scholarship’s discernment of the bishop’s thought because he purposefully thought and served from within the community’s doctrines. Through this examination of the early Christian thought on the problem of evil, two major and one minor theme emerged. First, God did not author evil. Satan authored evil. God being good did not cause disobedience, though in his omniscience he knew it would occur. Second, it was through free will that Satan authored evil. His free choice brought about tragedy in the angelic realm. Through free will Adam and Eve disobeyed and through their sin, death entered into the cosmos. For early Christianity, discussion of free will was tied to the Christian worldview of creation/redemption. 175 While they seemingly did not address the problem of freedom and foreknowledge, both free will (human and angelic) and divine foreknowledge were accepted and defended. Third, by the grace of God after their disobedience, humanity learns and trains through the tribulations of life in a fallen cosmos. God triumphs over evil and brings good out of it. As Oden pointed out, the early church utilized the free-will defense.176 Yet Christians knew the cosmic story did not simply end there. Through the work of Christ for humanity, he victoriously rose from the dead. This brought hope and the promise that humanity would also rise from death to life. Christians live with suffering, yet live in hope. Dealing with this reality remained a pastoral concern for early Christians. Simply knowing that God did not author sin did not alleviate the pain caused by suffering. Evil remained problematic. Like all humans, Christians in the early church suffered. Pastoral burden 175 Lyman, Christology

and Cosmology, 29. Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity (NY: HarperOne, 2009), 155–59; The Living God, Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 283–86. See also Karavites, Evil, 2. 176

78

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

for the flock remained at the forefront of their thought. This pastoral discussion of life in light of suffering lead to the third theme stated above. Good things can come out of suffering. As odd as that seems, experience reveals this truth. 177 For Christians, this experiential fact finds support in Scripture. Romans 8:28 reveals that God in one way or another brings good out of all things—including evil. Accordingly, Christians have long sought to look towards the positives that arise, following the discussion found in the epistle to the Romans. After pointing out that the sin and death entered into the world as the wages for human errors (Rom 5:12; 6:23), Paul looked towards the future and saw current pain and suffering unworthy of comparison to future glory (8:18). He then pointed to the hope of the resurrection (8:23–25), stated that God brings good out of all things (8:28), and looked to the victory Christ won for humanity. He further pointed out that Christians are “more than conquerors” through Christ (8:37). The early Christian discussion of the learning and exercise in the present life reveals that while neither ignoring the reality of evil, nor turning it into a good thing, they held fast to the teaching in Scripture that God brings good and benefit out of evil and suffering. God did not author evil, Satan did. Yet God’s victory extends to even the results and effects of evil. In this way the early church continued to be a community focused upon interpreting existence in light of their tradition both oral and written. Early Christians sought to understand through their faith, believing their faith led to understanding their existence—including the suffering and death. Thus, their free-will defense and their discussion of God’s victory over evil remained rooted in Scripture. With this understanding of the early Christian view of the problem of evil I now turn to Irenaean scholarship’s prevailing understanding of the bishop’s treatment of it.

177

For example, a physician may cut into a patient (suffering) to remove a tumor, saving the life of the patient (good thing). See Origen Princ. 2.9.6.

CHAPTER THREE. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY INTRODUCTION Second-century Christians in Lyon knew suffering, pain, and death. Heretical cosmologies offered responses to the problem of evil. 1 Seeking to keep God from authoring evil, they utilized dualistic thoughts. 1

A few scholars have attempted to abolish any distinction between the terms “Christians” and “heretics,” and enlarge the definition of “Christianity” to include those whom Irenaeus understood to be outside the Christian faith. Such a discussion remains beyond the scope of my work. See Karen King, What Is Gnosticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), vii–viii, 2; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1, 5. Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief (New York: Random House, 2003), 29, 197n73. Herein I employ the bishop’s use of the terms “Christian” and “heretic.” Irenaeus employed the term “heretic” to distinguish those he understood as having left the faith. By characterizing them in this way he delimitated the community of faith’s beliefs. Irenaeus believed they had left the Christian community and thus, brought eternal damnation upon themselves. This distinction aided him in his stated agenda of both protecting the faithful from their doctrines and seeking the return of the heretics (AH 1.Pref.2; 5.Pref). Irenaeus was not the first to use the term “heretic” which perhaps finds first Christian usage in Justin’s work. Alain le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe Siécles (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985), 1:35–36. However, the concept is found in Scripture with terms such as “false teachers,” “false apostles,” “deceitful workers,” or “false prophets,” 1 Tim 4:3–4; 1 John 4:1; 2 Pet 2:1; 2 Cor 11:13–15.

79

80

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

They separated a holy god from an unholy creation. As bishop, Irenaeus wrote treatises over against them, seeking to keep his flock from ascribing to what he saw as errors and heresy. In doing so, Irenaeus necessarily dealt with the problem of evil. Treating it specifically, he wrote On the Monarchy or That God is not the Author of Evil addressed to Florinus. 2 While this treatment on the problem of evil no longer remains for scholars today, scholarship’s examination of his extant works reveals an understanding on the problem of evil and an implicit defense of the faith. Armed with this understanding, Hick’s reading and utilizing Irenaeus in constructing his theodicy may be contrasted. To that end, I begin with Irenaeus, placing the second-century bishop in his context. I then discuss his interpretive method. Following this, I consider Irenaeus rhetorical opponents and their thoughts concerning the problem of evil. I then review some key Irenaean themes that concern aspects of his treatment of the problem of evil— namely, creation, human progression in the one plan or economy of God, the origin of evil, human transgression, and death. Bringing these together I present Irenaeus’s free-will defense. Following this explanation of the prevailing understanding of Irenaeus’s treatment of the problem of evil, the next chapter moves to a comparison of this reading with Hick’s interpretation.

IRENAEUS While little remains from which to build a biography of the secondcentury bishop, knowledge of Irenaeus’s life may be extracted from a few biographical notes in his own work as well as the writings of Eusebius. Hailed as a “peacemaker,” Irenaeus bridged the geographic divide of east and west. 3 Living in the second-century Roman Empire, Irenaeus recalled his boyhood in Smyrna and related to Florinus his learning from the apostle John’s disciple Polycarp. 4 As an adult, Irenaeus served as a presbyter in Lyon. Following the persecution of 2 Eusebius Historia

ecclesiastica 5.20–6. Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.24.18. 4 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.20.5–7. 3

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

81

the Christians in AD 177, he was sent to the bishop of Rome, Eleutherius, with a letter from the churches in Lyon and Vienne. The letter related an account of the persecution that the churches just endured. Today only a portion of the letter remains, recorded in Eusebius. 5 Despite attempts to deny the letter as a forgery, or claim that the martyrdom may not have occurred at all, that Christians faced martyrdom in Lyon and nearby Vienne remains true.6 5 Eusebius Hist.

eccl. 5.1–3. In 1912 Thompson began the modern historical-critical assault on Eusebius’s presentation of the letter. He argued the letter should have a third century date, doubted the existence of any Christian community in the region that early and viewed the letter as unreliable. James W. Thompson, “The Alleged Persecution of the Christians at Lyons in 177,” AJT 16, no. 3 (1912): 360, 367–68. For similar contemporary discussions see James CorkeWebster, “A Literary Historian: Eusebius of Caesarea and the Martyrs of Lyons and Palestine,” SP 66, no. 14 (2013): 191–202; Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution (New York: HarperCollins, 2013). The difficulty with their position remains their standards for acceptance of fact. For example, utilizing a hermeneutic of suspicion, both Moss and Corke-Webster argued that in his quoting of the letter Eusebius may have edited the letter which implies that it is untrustworthy (Moss, 114; Corke-Webster, 200). However, that Eusebius did not use contemporary standards for precision of citations, instead used contemporaneous standards that allowed slight alteration, which he admits to in his introduction to book 5, does not indicate the absence of truth from his work. Furthermore, that no human narrates anything, or hears anything without bias, has long been accepted as reality. Eusebius certainly recounted the letter through his bias, just as the letter was originally written with the bias of its author(s). That Eusebius utilized the letter towards his argument and followed accepted practices of the time for quotations does require a contemporary reader to take such practices and biases into account. However, they do not mandate the reader to discount the reality of martyrdom in Lyons and Vienne simply because Eusebius, like every other human, was biased. For an examination into the allusions or intertextuality of the letter see D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Reading Martyrdom: Intertextuality in the Letter from Vienne and Lyons,” in Intertextuality in the Second Century, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford (Leiden: Brill, 2016). 6

82

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Following the martyrdom of Lyon’s bishop Pothinus, Irenaeus served as bishop. 7 Leading the church of Lyon, Irenaeus faced growing problems. Heresies mushroomed that enticed and drew some of the faithful away from the church. 8 One heretical teacher even seduced a deacon’s wife. She left her husband and became the false teacher’s companion for a time. 9 Making matters worse, word reached Irenaeus that these heresies no longer were localized but had spread to other regions. Irenaeus responded by writing Adversus haereses, a five book refutation of the various heretical views. 10 Irenaeus’s letters evidence his involvement in ecclesiastical matters across Christendom. He responded to Marcion’s charge that God authored evil and wrote to Florinus, a fallen presbyter in Rome. 11 He wrote On Schism concerning a similar issue to Blastus, also in Rome. 12 With an ecclesiastical dispute rising between east and west, he sent letters urging tolerance and the avoidance of schism concerning the Pascha controversy. 13 With such disputes arising during Irenaeus’s service in the church, he also wrote a work demonstrating a Christian interpretation of Scripture, known as Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos. With conflicts centering on biblical interpretation, this example or demonstration of a Christian reading would likely have been used as 7 Eusebius Hist.

eccl. 5.1.29; 5.5.8. haereses 1.Pref.1; 1.13.1–7. 9 Irenaeus AH 1.13.1–5. 10 The original Greek text no longer remains. The current critical edition of the Latin translation with the extant fragments and excerpts is in the SC series. These works remain the standard for Irenaean scholarship, though Chiapparini has criticized some of the choices in them that prioritized the Latin over the Greek and saw Epiphanius’s text as unreliable. Giuliano Chiapparini, “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus: Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Church of Rome around the Middle of the Second Century,” ZAC 18, no. 1 (2014): 101–2. 11 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.15; 5.20.1. 12 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.15; 5.20.1. 13 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.23–24. 8 Irenaeus Adversus

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

83

part of catechesis. 14 Therefore, Irenaeus’s ecclesiastical activities reveal him to have been an advocate for peaceful tolerance within what he saw as his community of faith, while upholding and defending his faith against those he viewed as outside the community. While a later tradition posited his martyrdom, the actual date of his death remains unknown.15 The community of faith Irenaeus submitted to and served faced struggles from within and without. Within the community, differences on practices and doctrines continued. Against these differences, Victor in Rome viewed this diversity as threatening the unity and sought to quash it. Additionally, prominent people within the community began teaching opposing doctrines, enticing others into their beliefs. For Irenaeus these teachers were heretics to be opposed. 16 Once a part of the faithful, they left the faith and became outsiders and now sought to lead others among the faithful away. Furthermore, persecution from the Roman Empire remained a possibility. Within this context, Irenaeus sought to meet the struggles the faithful faced. The Apologists before him focused their efforts on defending the community’s faith against claims utilized to persecute the church. Persecution could lead to the death of the faithful. Thus, the Apologists focused on defending the very lives of their community. However, Irenaeus sought to defend the faith against the threat he understood to be greater. While persecution and death remained a reality for Christians, Irenaeus believed that the rising heresies led to something worse than death. They destroyed life beyond death. Faithful Christians may die but they will rise to eternal life. 17 Those John Behr, “The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching,” in On the Apostolic Preaching, by Irenaeus, trans. John Behr (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 7; Stephen O. Presley, “The Demonstration of Intertextuality Irenaeus of Lyons,” in Intertextuality in the Second Century, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 195. 15 Joseph P. Smith introduction to Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, by Irenaeus (New York: Paulist Press, 1952), 3, 114n3. 16 Irenaeus AH 1.Pref.3. 17 Irenaeus AH 5.7.1; 5.13.1. 14

84

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

outside the faith rise not to life but instead rise to eternal damnation. 18 False teachers could convince people to leave the faith changing the eternal destination for the once faithful. The Roman authorities might kill some of the faithful but God will raise them to eternal life. However, while heresies may not end lives, by moving people outside the faith, heresies ended eternal lives. 19 Irenaeus saw his endeavor as protecting his community’s eternal life. In light of this, he crafted his writings to defend, both by revealing and attacking heretical teaching and by reaffirming and demonstrating the Christian faith. 20 He sought to both attack the outsiders’ claims and strengthen insiders’. Yet his attacks against heretics also included a concern and hope for them. He desired to not only protect the faithful from the heresies but also for the heretics’ repentance and return to the church. 21 Adversus haereses and Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos along with what remains of his letters, reflect this pastoral concern as Irenaeus endeavored to be a faithful shepherd. He sought to guard the flock from predatory teachings, nourish them with solid teaching, and restore lost sheep. In the second century, as Christians sought to understand the faith they received from Jesus and his apostles, they continued to 18 Irenaeus AH 1.Pref.1, 1.10.1; 4.28.2; 5.13.1. 19

See the bishop’s discussion of the effects of heresy as wounding unto death, and a homicide alongside his view of the living man’s existence where the Spirit of God is. Irenaeus AH 3.16.8; 4.Pref.4; 5.9.3. 20 Gregory T. Armstrong, Die Genesis in der alten Kirche (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 52. Timothy saw the two fronts as an “informed polemic” and “persuasive apologetic.” H. B. Timothy, The Early Christian Apologists and Greek Philosophy (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972), 31. 21 Irenaeus AH 1.Pref.2; 5.Pref. For a helpful examination of the bishop’s view of his mission, particularly in AH, see D. Jeffrey Bingham, “The Bishop in the Mirror: Scripture and Irenaeus’s Self-Understanding in Adversus haereses Book One,” in Tradition and The Rule of Faith in the Early Church, ed. Ronnie J Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 53–67. However, the motivation for his polemic—namely his desire for the salvation of his opponents—remained in the background of Bingham’s discussion.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

85

articulate and explain their faith in developing ways. Dominating this doctrinal development was Trinitarian thought. As the world changed so too did Christian discussion. Irenaeus developed Trinitarian discussion in both his attack against his opponents and his catechetical writing for Christians. 22 Within this context, Irenaeus necessarily dealt with the problem of evil. His opponents offered explanations at odds with Christian presuppositions, positing an evil god as creator of the material world, or that God created evil. To counter this, Irenaeus sought to explain how God could create and relate to a cosmos that contained evil while remaining good. Irenaeus remains a towering figure of the second century for Christian history, and his works offer a glimpse into early Christian diversity and unity. The words of Scripture saturate his work as he continually employed them within his arguments. To properly understand his thought, Irenaean scholarship continues to place importance on method his interpretation of Scripture.

IRENAEUS AS INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE Since 1984, Donovan’s statement that Irenaeus’s reading of Scripture “offers much scope for further work” has rung true. 23 Irenaean scholarship rightly moved beyond Loofs’s and Harnack’s negative portrayal of Irenaeus as a lazy compiler, now seeing Irenaeus as a creative and intelligent theologian committed to biblical interpretation. 24 Within Irenaean studies, scholarship has focused upon Irenaeus’s use of Pauline texts, Matthew, John, and Genesis. 25 Addi22 Jackson Lashier, Irenaeus

on the Trinity (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 222–27. Mary Ann Donovan, “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship,” The Second Century 4, no. 4 (1984): 241. 24 Adolph von Harnack, “Der Presbyter-Predifer des Irenäus,” in Philotesia. Paul Kleiner zum 70. Geburstag (Berlin: Trowitzch und Sohn, 1907) 1–37; Friedrich Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930). 25 For a sampling of these see Rolf Noormann, Irenäus als Paulusinterpret (Tübingen: Mohr,1994); Richard A. Norris Jr., “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul in his Polemic Against the Gnostics,” in Recent Studies in Early Christianity (London: Routledge, 1999); D. Jeffrey Bingham, Irenaeus’ Use of Matthew’s Gospel in Adversus Haereses (Leuven: Peeters, 1998); Bernhard Mutschler, 23

86

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

tionally, focus on Irenaeus’s Anthropology, Trinitarian thought, and rhetoric occurred. 26 Reading the Old Testament without expertise in Hebrew or Judaism, Irenaeus utilized Scripture in contrast to modern scholarship’s concern to understand the Old Testament as a Jewish Scripture with a Jewish understanding. 27 The Old Testament prophesied and revealed Christ and when properly understood its Christian nature becomes apparent. 28 Christ is the hypothesis of Scripture. 29 He

Irenäus als johnannischer Theologe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 26 John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); M. C. Steenberg, Of God and Man (London: T&T Clark, 2009); Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Lashier, Irenaeus on the Trinity; Scott D. Moringiello, The Rhetoric of Faith: Irenaeus and the Structure of the Adversus Haereses (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019). 27 Grant was quick to point out errors in Irenaeus’s use of the Hebrew language and “his almost complete ignorance of contemporary Judaism” placing him even “farther from Judaism than Justin.” Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), 31. Reventlow noted Irenaeus’s theological focus in his interpretation as a “red flag,” and saw that he “was unable to answer every question” that arose from reading the Bible as one unified and harmonious work. Henning Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation, trans. Leo G. Perdue, vol. 1: From the Old Testament to Origen (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 157, 174. Even Irenaeus’s New Testatment reading has been called into question in light of modern methods. Brox posited that because Irenaeus theological interpretation “cannot be regarded as an example of serious exegetical dealing with the Pauline text.” Norbert Brox, “Irenaeus and the Bible,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser (Leiden: Brill 2006), 505. 28 Skarsaune stated that Irenaeus subsumes the whole Old Testament into the category of prophecy. Oskar Skarsaune, “The Development of Scriptural Interpretation in the Second and Third Centuries—Except Clement and Origen,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ed. Magne Saebo, vol. 1: Part 1 Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 427.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

87

brings to light the truth of Scripture as a detectorist reveals treasures hidden in a field. 30 The church, with its succession from Jesus of both teachers and teachings, reads and understands the Old Testament as a Christian text legitimately. 31 This understanding was the Christian practice for reading the Old Testament. Even Origen, who knew Hebrew, read the Old Testament as a revelation of Christ. 32 Furthermore, as Presley stated, “Irenaeus receives and interprets texts in relationship.” 33 Irenaeus read Scriptures within the context of other Scriptures. 34 For Irenaeus, to understand a Scripture in a legitimate manner one must read it within the framework of the rest of Scrip-

29

For a helpful discussion of Irenaeus on this see John Behr, “Scripture and Gospel: Intertextuality in Irenaeus,” in Intertextuality in the Second Century, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 180–83. 30 Irenaeus AH 4.26.1; John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 123; Steenberg, Of God and Man, 27–28. 31 Irenaeus AH 3.3. Mary Ann Donavan, One Right Reading? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 63. 32 See for example Origen’s discussion of Gen 46:3–4 in Genesis Homily 15. 33 Stephen O. Presley, The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1. 34 This can be evidenced quickly through an examination of indices. Bingham’s work focusing on Irenaeus’s use of Matthew contains references to twenty-one books from the OT, ten from OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and twenty-three NT books besides Matthew. Irenaeus’ Use of Matthew, 333–44. Holsinger-Friesen’s work focusing on Irenaeus’s use of only the first two chapters of Genesis refers to ten OT books besides Genesis, one OT apocrypha, and fifteen NT books. Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 247–50. In his study of Irenaeus’s method of reading Scripture intertextually, Presley posited that “interscriptural” rather than “intertextual” better identifies Irenaeus’s method as Irenaeus remains concerned with a Scriptural network, Presley, Intertextual Reception, 4n10. Behr stated that for Irenaeus, “the primary intertextual relationship is between Scripture and the apostolic proclamation of the gospel.” “Scripture and Gospel: Intertextuality in Irenaeus,” 193.

88

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

ture with its interrelated texts. 35 Scriptural texts relate properly to the rest of Scripture, not to peripheral ancient near eastern writings. 36 Additionally, Irenaeus saw Scripture as part of divine revelation and understood the text, including the LXX translation, to be inspired by God. 37 For Irenaeus, Scripture is no ordinary text to be read with mere human reasoning. Doing so led the Valentinians to pervert the nature and order of Scripture. They created a worthless picture of a dog out of the majestic picture of the king. 38 Thus, the bishop of Lyon did not read Scripture alone isolated in his study apart from others, relying on his own reason, scholarship, and exegetical skill to discern the meaning of the text. He read Scripture in community. As Farkasfalvy aptly stated, “Irenaeus did not want to be an innovator.” 39 The tradition of the church, with its rule of faith, is “everywhere consistent” and guided the bishop of Lyon in understanding the text. 40 As scholars have shown, Irenaeus set out in his task of interpreting Scripture by purposefully placing himself within community. 41 Pointing out the bishop’s success in this endeavor, Steenberg 35

Brox called this Irenaeus’s “the first hermeneutic rule.” “Irenaeus and the Bible,” 486. 36 Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 3. 37 Irenaeus AH 3.21.2–3; Donavan, One Right Reading? 87. 38 Irenaeus AH 1.8.1. 39 Denis Farkasfalvy, Inspiration and Interpretation (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 117. Orbe argued that Irenaeus’s desire to not be novel is primary. Antonio Orbe, Antopologia de San Ireneo (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1969), 516. 40 Irenaeus AH 3.24.1; Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 16; Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 46; Brox, “Irenaeus and the Bible,” 500. 41 For Steenberg, Irenaeus “acutely feels himself part of the tradition before him—a tradition exemplified in Polycarp, in Justin—which he frames in as the community of exegetical continuity with the apostles.” Steenberg, Of God and Man, 20. Mary Ann Donovan pointed out that for Irenaeus “any valid interpretation must be consistent with the faith of the community.” Donovan, One Right Reading? 5. Armstrong saw that Irenaeus wanted to be a man of the church and its teachings. Armstrong, Genesis in der alten Kirche, 52. Bingham posited that Irenaeus wrote to reproduce the teachings

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

89

stated that Irenaeus offered a “fairly standard second-century expression of Christian teaching.” 42 Seen in AH 3.24.1, Irenaeus’s motive for situating himself within the church and bound by the rule of faith is found within his view of the church’s nature. The bishop understood that, as the church preserves and holds onto the one faith, the Holy Spirit renews and vivifies her. The church has been entrusted with faith, the “gift of God.” Likening God’s breathing into Adam to the faith being given to the church, Irenaeus wrote of the Holy Spirit’s transforming and renewing the church in its ascent towards God. The Holy Spirit is the ladder for humanity’s climb. Furthermore, God’s presence in the church entails the presence of all grace and truth. For Irenaeus, God continues to be present and at work within the church aiding and sustaining it. In this way, proper interpretation belongs to the church for that is where God is. The church has truth by the work of the Holy Spirit. Conversely, those that have removed themselves from the revealing light of God’s church have removed themselves from the truth and stumble around in darkness and error. 43 They have traded the life sustaining community for life destroying separation. 44 By leaving the church, the heretics no longer received correcting guidance in their interpretation, while the church through the Holy Spirit’s power has the proper understanding of the Scriptures. This right reading of Scripture by Christians arises out of what Reno and

of Scripture in continuity with the apostolic teaching. “The Bishop in the Mirror: Scripture and Irenaeus’s Self-Understanding in Adversus haereses Book One,” 67. 42 Matthew C. Steenberg, “The Gospel of Truth and the Truth of the Gospel: Assessing the Scope of Valentinian Influence on the Thought of Irenaeus,” SP 50 (2011): 90, 103. 43 Irenaeus AH 3.24.2. 44 Irenaeus AH 3.24.1.

90

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

O’Keefe call a “sanctified vision.” 45 Thus for Irenaeus, Christians understood the text better than the heretics. Diversity within Unity Irenaeus also understood his community of faith to have a plethora of differing views. While this community remained unified, it included diversity. The faith’s unity is found within its rule of faith or rule of truth. He speaks to this in AH 1.10, making two claims concerning the unity of the faith. First, he argues that the one faith has been received from God and that it remains unified across the globe. Christian faith has been handed down and spread without alteration. The incarnate God came down and revealed it. Christ’s disciples and the apostles then passed it on to those who followed them, who then passed it on again. He understood himself as simply a different vessel holding the same faith. Second, the tradition of the church, with its rule of faith, remains consistent through time and guided the bishop of Lyon in understanding the text.46 For Irenaeus, the faith of the church is unified through the church’s history. Regardless of physical location, be it a church in Asia or a church in Gaul, Christians clung to the same faith. While languages separated churches across the globe, their faith united them. Irenaeus saw Christian faith as a unified witness to the rest of humanity, spread wherever Christians go. 47 Thus, the bishop’s claim entailed unity across time and space. Irenaeus did not see his faith as his own unique set of doctrines, but rather as the one faith having been handed down across time. His claims of this unity relate to the particular doctrines he listed out rather than encompass all doctrines. 48 The apostolic teaching of these John J. O’Keefe and R. R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005), 129, 139. 46 Irenaeus AH 3.24.1; Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 16; Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 46. 47 Irenaeus AH 1.10.2. 48 The critical edition of the Latin translation reads “fidem quae est in,” followed by particular doctrines. Irenaeus, Contre les heresies, Book 1, ed., 45

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

91

doctrines is the rule of faith for the bishop. He did not claim a unity in which all Christians believe all of the exact same doctrines but rather that all Christians believe the particular doctrines which he specified. The rule of faith united Christians in their beliefs while it allowed for diversity within it. Doctrinal diversity occurred amongst second-century Christians, and Irenaeus revealed this through his writings.49 While Minns saw Irenaeus as “unwittingly” displaying the diversity, and Lashier wrote of the bishop’s differences in doctrinal expression from those before him as occurring “despite what Irenaeus says,” it is more reasonable to understand that the bishop of Lyon was aware of doctrinal diversity and furthermore, saw it as legitimate. 50 As seen above, Irenaeus viewed his faith as one that had been handed down. Of the many whom he understood himself as having received the faith from, Irenaeus’s works reveal a strong familiarity with the works of Justin. It is highly probable that he was well aware of Justin’s writings and would have been well acquainted with his doctrinal beliefs. trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, SC, no. 264. (Paris: Cerf, 1979), 154. Rousseau’s French translation from the Latin reads “la foi en,” followed by particular doctrines. Irenaeus, Contre les heresies, Book 1, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, 155. Both Grant’s and Unger’s English translations also reflect the particularization of “quae est in,” reading “the faith in” followed by particular doctrines. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons, 70; Irenaeus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies: Volume 1 Book 1, ed. Walter J. Burghardt, Thomas Comerford Lawler, and John J. Dillon, vol. 55 (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 49. Roberts and Rambaut’s English translation similarly reads “this faith” with particular doctrines following; Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 330. 49 Minns, An Introduction, 17. Steenberg saw Irenaeus diverging from both Justin and Theophilus in both method and doctrine. Irenaeus on Creation, 18. 50 Minns, An Introduction, xi; Lashier, Irenaeus on the Trinity, 7.

92

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Justin explicitly acknowledged diversity of doctrine among the faithful in his writing. He admitted that his own millennial view was not the only one within Christianity.51 Justin, while disagreeing with fellow Christians, did not argue that their differing views separated them. Rather, he stated that those holding differing views remained among the faithful. Justin explicitly attested to doctrinal diversity being included within the Christian faith. Irenaeus, being intimate with the work of Justin, would have understood that the apologist held to a doctrine which was not uniformly held across the globe by Christians through all time. Additionally, Irenaeus’s own writings evidence his awareness of doctrinal diversity. In AH 5.23.1–2 Irenaeus discussed the issue of “day” in Gen 2:17 alongside Gen 3 and Gen 5:5. He brought up this issue in his discussion of the devil’s character. Supporting his reading of John 8:44 in AH 5.22.2, he pointed to the words of Satan in Gen 3:1 as a lie from the very beginning for the purpose of beguiling humans. Moving to revealing the lie he argued that just as God had stated, the day they ate of the fruit they died. The bishop then related three divergent teachings of how Adam died on the day he ate of the fruit in light of Gen 5:5. First that they died on the day because disobedience entails death and were handed over to it, second that Christ’s death on the sixth day summed up all of humanity including Adam, and third that Adam died at 930 years old and a thousand years is a day for the Lord (based on 2 Pet 3:8). For the bishop there is one right reading of Scripture, there is one set of doctrines. In this passage he points to three readings of the text without condemning the ones he does not hold to. He explicitly offers teachings that he does not hold alongside his own. Yet he points to the unity of them all as they all affirm that the serpent lied while God spoke truth. Just as there is one dispensation or economy of God and yet multiple dispensations/economies, the one right reading allows for diversity. 52 Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 80. The physical resurrection as a vital doctrine in Christian may also be seen in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians 7.1–2. 52 See for example the singular in AH 4.1.1 and the plural in 4.2.7. 51

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

93

The diversity of these readings, these doctrines, does not cause Irenaeus to rile against those that hold opposing interpretations. The one right understanding of the passage which must be held to of Gen 3 and 5:5 is that God is truthful while the devil lies. Explanation of how God’s word is true may vary, that it is truthful does not. The diverse understandings of lessor matters reveal unity of the greater. This diversity does not contradict the rule of faith, and as he pointed out all three diverse doctrines uphold the more important doctrine of divine truthfulness. Additionally, his millennial position was not held by all within his community. While his millennial view resembles Justin Martyr’s, the two differed on other doctrines. Differences in doctrinal explanations between Irenaeus and Justin concerning creation, the Trinity, and theophonies, have been pointed out by scholars. 53 Irenaeus differed on some doctrines from Justin Martyr to the extent that he has been called a “critic” of him. 54 Likewise, scholars have pointed to difference between Irenaeus and both Theophilus and Athenagoras. 55 53

Steenberg saw Irenaeus expounding upon creation at odds with Justin. Irenaeus on Creation, 1. Difference in explanations of creation are such that some scholars see Irenaeus and Justin at odds concerning creation ex nihilo. Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 66–73; Gerhard May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creation ex nihilo (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978), 124. Conversely, Norris saw that Justin was merely unclear on the issue. He viewed him as handing down a problem for those after him to figure out. Richard A. Norris Jr., God and World in Early Christian Theology (New York: Seabury, 1965), 61–68. Osborn pointed out that Justin interpreted theophonies as revealing God’s plurality prior to the incarnation while Irenaeus discussed them as “symbolic representations of a future reality.” Osborn, Irenaeus, 112. Lashier’s 2014 work compared Irenaeus’s writings against those of Justin, Athenagoras, and Theophilous and argued that the bishop of Lyon developed Trinitarian thought beyond his predesessors towards the Nicene Creed; Irenaeus on the Trinity, 8, 227. 54 Norris Jr., God and World, 72. 55 Osborn pointed out that unlike Theopholus, Irenaeus unites creation ex nihilo with the forming of creatures. Irenaeus, 71. Bingham pointed to the

94

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

For Irenaeus to claim the unity of faith excluded doctrinal diversity would seemingly make him either inattentive to his own claims or greatly limit his community of faith. He either did not see the inherent issue with Justin’s statement and his own developments and differences from those before him, or he viewed those before him as outside the faith for holding slightly different views than him. It seems unlikely that he would have been oblivious to Justin’s statement concerning doctrinal diversity and his own distinctions from those before him. 56 Likewise, for Irenaeus to see those before him like Justin as outside the faith for including diversity of doctrine would preclude his desire to be in community with them and contradict his utilization of them as authoritative. Thus, it seems difficult for Irenaeus to have excluded doctrinal diversity within the community of faith, since Justin, whom he sees as authoritative and relies so heavily upon, admitted to its existence. Irenaeus’s work attests to the inclusion of doctrinal diversity within the unity of faith. Furthermore, Irenaeus’s peacemaking during the Pascha controversy evidenced his inclusion of doctrinal diversity within the unified faith. Unfortunately, scholars have tended to separate Irenaeus’s thoughts on this controversy from his thoughts on doctrine. 57 Rather than being two isolated discussions, for Irenaeus and early development in Irenaeus from Athenagoras. Irenaeus’ Use of Matthew, 198–99. 56 This would seem to contradict the view of Irenaeus as “a clear and subtle thinker.” Donovan, One Right Reading, 7. 57 For example, Osborn stated of Irenaeus on the Pascha controversy “Accordingly peace should prevail rather than uniformity of practice. Matters of faith are different,” Irenaeus, 6. Likewise, Vieker utilized the example of Irenaeus peacemaking concerning this controvercy as an example of how there should be unvarying doctrine and ceremonial variance within the Lutheran Church—Missuri Synod. Jon D. Vieker, “Unity and Diversity in Irenaeus as Paradigm for Contemporary Lutheran Ceremonial Consensus,” CTQ 64, no. 2 (2000): 83–104. Petersen saw it as an issue of “hetero-praxis.” William L. Petersen, “Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 315.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

95

Christians proper interpretation of the Scriptures, and thus proper doctrines, stem from virtuous ethics. A virtuous person acts virtuously and is able to retain true doctrine by understanding the Scriptures properly. Right living and right belief are intertwined, just as soul and body are. 58 For Irenaeus, that heretics twisted the words of Scripture creating erroneous doctrine reflected their lack of virtue; their improper living evidenced that they erred in doctrinal belief.59 What one practices reveals what one believes. Consequently, Irenaeus not only contrasted the Christian interpretation of Scripture from the heretics’, but also contrasted their practices and rites. 60 Thus, Irenaeus’s views towards Pascha practices should not be separated from his views on doctrine. His thoughts on practices remained intertwined with his thoughts on doctrine. 61 58

Irenaeus made the point that because both body and soul intimately comprise humanity, one affects the other working together for truth or evil. Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos 2. Olson stated that “Irenaeus refuses to separate the interpreter from the interpretation.” Mark Jeffrey Olson, Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics, and the Kingdom of God (A. H. Book V) (New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992), 69. For further elaboration on this connection between Christian interpretation, doctrine, and ethics in the thought of the early Christian texts, including Irenaeus’s, see O’Keefe and Reno, Sanctified Vision, 114–39. For a couple examples of this connection in Christian rhetoric see Athenagoras Leg. 11 and Justin 1 Apol. 65. 59 Irenaeus AH 1.6.2–4; 1.13.1–2; 2.14.2–6. This connection by Irenaeus is usually cast aside as an ad hominem argument. See Briggman, Irenaeus and the Holy Spirit, 90. Filoramo, while casting aside much of Irenaeus’s claims concerning the heretic’s practices as “specious,” pointed out the bishop’s interrelation of practice and doctrines as parts of the “Christian standards.” Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, trans. Anthony Alcock (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 186. 60 Donovan, One Right Reading, 48–49. Olson pointed out that Irenaeus’s criticizm of ethical failures is seen as a violation of a principle of interpretation. Olson, Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics, and the Kingdom of God, 69, 78–79. 61 An argument could be made that for Irenaeus the Pascha controversy did not affect one’s ability to live a morally and doctrinally sound life. However,

96

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Eusebius’s witness attests to Irenaeus’s thoughts and actions regarding this doctrinal diversity. Eusebius began his discussion of the controversy by stating its importance; the Pascha controversy held great importance for the early church. 62 Within the church Christians held two contrasting beliefs concerning the timing for celebrating Pascha. While it seems likely that Irenaeus in his early life celebrated according the tradition of the Asian churches, he later agreed with those opposed to their view and casted his vote in favor of the alternate tradition. However, the churches of Asia refused to change their tradition despite the synods and assemblies that affirmed the opposing day. In response, Victor of Rome sought to excommunicate them.63 Conversely, Irenaeus pursued peace and sent letters to those involved in the controversy. Eusebius quoted from one such letter in which Irenaeus argued against Victor’s proposed excommunication. The bishop of Lyon began by pointing out that the disagreement hinged upon more than merely a date. It also affected the method of the fast. He then pointed out that these differing beliefs were not new, they had arisen long before. Yet as he further discussed, different beliefs did not take away from the unity of the church’s faith. Those in disagreement lived in peace with each other. Irenaeus explained how this particular doctrinal diversity did not cause those prior to Victor and Polycrates to split from each other. Their unity was maintained by putting aside their differing doctrines and communed with each other. By partaking in the Eucharist together, Polycarp and Anicetus evidenced their unity. 64 Furthermore, Irenaeus claimed that these differences confirmed the unity of their faith. 65 He saw that the disagreement on the as will be discussed below the issue was more than merely a date. It was a matter of practices as well. Thus, with an understanding of a right belief involving a virtuous life the Pascha controversy seems to demonstrate the validity of diversity within the unity of faith. 62 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.23.1. 63 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.23–24.9. 64 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.24.10–18. 65 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.24.13.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

97

particular day to properly celebrate highlighted their common belief in the reason for the celebration. Arguing over the lesser matters revealed agreement on the greater ones—the ones he explicitly pointed to as the one faith. Irenaeus viewed a belief, which he disagreed with not only as acceptable—going as far as supporting its continuance— but furthermore, he saw that this diversity confirmed unity. Throughout Irenaeus’s writings he utilized the concept that a whole is made up of different and sometimes seemingly opposed parts. As Behr pointed out, Irenaeus viewed this concept of unity as that which Scripture and the apostolic preaching and tradition possesses. It was not something he imposed on it. 66 Throughout Adversus haereses, he discussed the unified God across the whole of Scripture, not two opposing gods in two opposing Testaments. 67 The diversity of mosaic tiles composed the unity of the king’s image. 68 As Presley has shown, Irenaeus saw diversity within Scripture while he argued for its unity. 69 Scripture is one unified revelation, yet within this unity, diversity of witness occurs. 70 Multiple instruments all come together in one beautiful symphony. It was not a problem for Irenaeus that a unified whole should have different aspects and pieces within it. Not only are the Scriptures themselves diverse while unified, God and his economy both have a unified diversity. 71 This concept functioned in Irenaeus’s pastoral polemic as well. Those he sought to refute had separated themselves from the community. They had left unity of the church and taught something new. As seen above, the diversity of the faith was limited by the rule John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 29–30. 67 Irenaeus’s central concern in Against Heresies was the demonstration of God’s unity across the Testaments contra the heretics. Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation, 157. 68 Irenaeus AH 1.8.1. 69 Presley, Intertextual Reception, 12–13. 70 The gospels present for Irenaeus this diversity within unity. The four gospels have differing characteristics, and yet are unified. AH 3.11.8–9. 71 Norris, “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul,” 114; M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 193. 66

98

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

of faith, that which held the faith’s unity. For Irenaeus, his opponents had broken with the rule of faith and fundamentally erred through their evisceration of Christian unity. According to Irenaeus, the heretics sought to split God, chop Scripture into parts, segregate the community of faith into classes, and cleave the divine plan. 72 In efforts to reveal these heretical errors, Irenaeus focused on unity: the unity of God, the unity of Scripture, the unity of the divine plan, and the unity of Christian faith. 73 Consequently, his focus on unity throughout his works functioned polemically. Non-Speculative beyond Scripture Likewise, the bishop’s desire not to dwell on speculation beyond the discussion in Scripture influenced Irenaeus’s discussion of the problem of evil. 74 Von Balthasar pointed out that Irenaeus did not need to speculate to accomplish his task. 75 Yet, he purposefully did not because speculation leads to errors. In contrast, Irenaeus focused upon what Scripture speaks to and avoided speculative thought when the text remains silent. 76 Thus, the bishop limited himself to the 72 Irenaeus AH 1.8.1.

Irenaeus AH 3.1–12; 3.16–25; 4.9, 20; Norris, “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul,” 111; J. T. Nielson, Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968), 56; Donovan, One Right Reading? 17; D. Jeffrey Bingham, “One God, One Christ, One Salvation: Ireneaeus ‘The Peacemaker’ was the Early Church’s Best Warrior Against Gnostic Heresy,” CHB 96 (2007): 20; Armstrong, Genesis in der alten Kirche, 56. 74 See his discussion that “how” God created matter is not explained in Scripture and speculation as to the “how” should not be made, rather knowledge of the “how” ought to be left to God alone. Irenaeus AH 2.28.7. Steenberg noted that in AH 5.7.1 Irenaeus did offer some speculations concerning souls. Importantly as Steenberg also pointed out, Irenaeus’s speculation remains rooted in Scripture, Of God and Man, 39. 75 Hans Urs von Balthasar, introduction to The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies, by Irenaeus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 6. 76 Gustof Wingren, Man and the Incarnation (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 8–9. 73

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

99

right reading of Scripture. As pointed out above, for Irenaeus to read Scripture meant to read it in light of the rule of faith. Irenaeus’s limitation to Scripture implies a confinement to the right reading of it, which is the Apostolic tradition. Irenaeus also recognized the limitations on human knowledge. This further supported his desire to not speculate beyond what God has revealed through Scripture. 77 In contrast, the bishop saw that the heretics spoke beyond Scripture and adopted their speculations as truth. 78 In this light, it is therefore understandable why Irenaeus did not offer much discussion of either the pre-transgression state of humanity, or as to what the means would have been for humanity’s maturation prior to their disobedience. Because the Scriptures do not say, Irenaeus remained silent on the matter. However, Irenaeus’s lack of elaboration on these topics does not mean he rejected their possibility. Rather his refusal to engage in speculation functioned both as an acceptance of his limitations and a polemical tool. Irenaeus’s thoughts on the problem of evil are embedded within the extant works. Recognizing his context and his agenda has aided scholarship in reading these texts. Likewise, understanding to whom the bishop’s pastoral polemic targeted and what their understandings on the problem of evil was offers further context for Irenaeus’s own discussion concerning it.

THE THOUGHT OF IRENAEUS’S OPPONENTS ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL Lewis and Blount’s 2014 article surfaced the problems in discussing the views of Irenaeus’s opponents through the lens of the Nag 77

As Armstong pointed out for Irenaeus humanity cannot understand creation even though humans dwell in it. Armstrong, Genesis in der alten Kirche, 59. For Schoedel this distinction in Irenaeus’s thought lies between knowing “that” vs. knowing “how.” Irenaeus’s concern remained with knowing “that” rather than knowing “how.” See W. R. Schoedel, “Theological Method in Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 2.25–28),” JTS 35, no. 1 (1984), 30–37. 78 Irenaeus AH 1.2.3; 1.1.3; 3.14.3.

100

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Hammadi texts. 79 Scholarship only has the codices. Any context through which to understand them is largely assumed. Who wrote them, to whom they were written, why they were written, who preserved them, why they were preserved, how much they have been altered from an original, along with any other answers to questions about their place in history, remain unknown. Regardless of this vacuum of evidence, scholarship has readily assumed much about these texts; namely that these are indeed texts from Irenaeus’s opponents, they offer a reliable source from which to compare and critique the bishop’s claims about the heretics, and that they were stored with the purpose of preserving sacred texts. 80 While this discussion of scholarship’s treatment of the Nag Hammadi texts may offer glimpses into scholars’ motives, the attempts to portray the bishop as what Hill described as either “the lonely Irenaeus” or “the ugly Irenaeus,” have largely failed. 81 Evaluation of Irenaeus’s trustworthiness by scholars has pointed to him as generally reliable, utilizing the standards of rhetoric and scholarship of his time. 82 Behr’s work has further exposed the problematic por79

Nicola Denzey Lewis and Justine Ariel Blount, “Rethinking the Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” JBL 133, no. 2 (2014): 399–419. See also Goodacre’s discussion on the problems with even scholarship’s knowledge of how the codices were discovered: Mark Goodacre, “How Reliable Is the Story of the Nag Hammadi Discovery?” JSNT 35, no. 4 (2013): 303–22. 80 Lewis and Blount, “Rethinking the Origins,” 419. 81 C. E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 34–68. 82 Chiapparini argued that maintaining the unreliability of Irenaeus “appears to be a fatal error of method or the result of planned and obsolete preclusion to heresiological sources.” “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus,” 100. See also Elaine H. Pagels, “‘The Demiurge and his Archons’: A Gnostic view of the Bishop and Presbyters?” HTR 69, no. 3/4 (1976): 302; Gilles Quispel, “The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic,” VC 50, no. 4 (1996): 332; Alastair Logan, “The Apocryphon of John and the Development of the ‘Classic’ Gnostic Myth,” Adamantius 18 (2012): 136. Pointing to the multiple usage of the term “Valentinians” by Irenaeus, Thomassen posited the dilemma in Irenaeus’s reporting is not in his accuracy but in precisely labeling the proponents of the doctrines, with which the bishop

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

101

trayals of Irenaeus which cast the heretics as the victims of the bishop’s unfair and insulting polemic.83 The dismantling of the category of “Gnosticism” as a religion entirely apart from Christianity remains a removal of a non-Irenaean view and bolsters the bishop’s claims. 84 Irenaeus stated that the heretics arose quickly from within the community of faith. 85 They cast aside the doctrines of the faith and began advocating and teaching

remained unconcerned. Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed (Leiden: Brill 2006), 26. 83 Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons. 84 See for example Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); Victor-Alexandru Pricopi, “From Ancient Gnostics to Modern Scholars: Issues in Defining the Concept of ‘Gnosticism,’” RREM 5, no. 2 (2013): 41–56. Additionally, categories of “Gnostic” thought with distinctive texts and themes also remains problematic based on the texts that remain and the little known about them. Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 9–61. For a brief explanation of current trends in Gnostic studies, particularly the distinctions between North American and European scholarship see Dylan M. Burns, “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism according to the Gnostics,” JECS 24, no. 1 (2016): 77–79. Importantly as Löhr pointed out, only some of those scholarship refers to as “Gnostics” would self-identify as such, Winrich Löhr, “Christian Gnostics and Greek Philosophy in the Second Century,” EC 3, no. 3 (2012): 349. Likewise, Irenaeus did not claim all of the heretics he sought to refute self-identified as “Gnostics.” For example, in AH 1.11.1, he wrote of Valentinus (and his followers) as agreeing in particular doctrines with those called Gnostics. Furthermore Irenaeus pointed to these heretics lacking unity in teachings with varied doctrines in disagreement with each other, AH 1.Pref.1; 1.12.1; 1.13.1; 2.7.3. Rather than add to current speculation, I will utilize Irenaeus’s terminology in discussion of their views. 85 Irenaeus claimed orthodoxy as preexisting the heresies he combated, AH 3.4.3. Despite the reproof of the Bauer thesis by scholarship, the utility of his claim in casting a new narrative for Early Christian Studies has seemingly remained over against the claims of Irenaeus and other early Fathers. Karen King, What is Gnosticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 114.

102

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

doctrines outside the rule of faith. 86 For Irenaeus, despite any selfidentification by them as Christians, through their beliefs, they moved themselves outside the faith. 87 As Behr pointed out, Irenaeus advocated tolerance and diversity within the Christian faith over against the heretics that opposed it. 88 While these problems in understanding what Irenaeus’s opponents believed remain, rather than seeking to make up a new narrative from which to critique the Christian claim of orthodoxy versus heresy as Lewis and Blount suggest, I will rely on scholarship’s current understanding of Irenaeus’s opponents regardless of any problems and assumptions it may contain. Furthermore, it ought to be noted that due to the lack of information on the Nag Hammadi texts, scholarship’s interpretations of them and their translations remain provisional and readily subject to change, as van den Broek pointed out. 89 Irenaeus AH 1.Pref.1; 1.29.1. Similarly, Tatian left the faith after Justin’s death having been a follower of his and member of the community of faith, and as Nicolas taught contrary to the faith after having been ordained as a deacon by the apostles, AH 1.28.1; 1.26.3. Likewise Cerdon, was involved in the community before his teachings caused him to leave, AH 3.4.3. Perhaps tellingly as Cahana pointed out, within the Nag Hammadi corpus there is a repeated self-designation as strangers, Jonathan Cahana, “Androgyne or Undrogyne? Queering the Gnostic Myth,” Numen 61 (2014): 510. 87 This self-removal may also be seen in a Nag Hammadi text. Zostrianos leaves his community because of dissatisfaction with them. He had reproved his inner dead creation and the divine ruler of the world he recognized. His community remained in their ignorance and had not acted accordingly despite his proclamations to them (VII,1 Zostrianos 1.10–29). Markschies stated that “the attempt by Christian theologians to explain Christianity to their contemporaries by systems of ‘gnosis’ led them away from Christianity.” Christoph Markschies, Gnosis (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 120. 88 Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons, 16. 89 R. van den Broek, “The Present State of Gnostic Studies,” VC 37, no. 1 (1983): 42. Since van den Broek’s statement, no new information has become available that clarifies their context. 86

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

103

In a setting where dominant philosophical thought offered a doctrine of a world in flux rather than rigorous ethics or dogma, people sought to move beyond mere relativity towards concrete beliefs. 90 In creating their beliefs, Irenaeus’s rhetorical adversaries harvested from the fields of the Hellenic world where Platonic thought dominated. 91 Likewise, they drew from the wellspring of Scripture. 92 In their dealings with the problem of evil some themes emerge out of the plethora of heretical mythologies Irenaeus opposed. Specifically, Irenaeus noted in his preface to book one of Adversus haereses that it was the disciples of Valentinus, and particularly those disciples of Ptolemaeus that he sought to expose and refute. His refutation however, moved beyond them as he discussed other heretics. 93 90 Tarrant, Skepticism

or Platonism, 6. Jaap Mansfeld, “Bad World and Demiurge: A ‘Gnostic’ Motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden Brill, 1981), 260; E. Aydeet Fischer-Mueller, “Yaldabaoth: The Gnostic Female Principle in its Fallenness,” NovT 32, no. 1 (1990): 85; John D. Turner, “The Setting of the Platonizing Sethian Treatises in Middle Platonism,” in Gnosticism and Later Platonism, ed. John D. Turner and Ruth Majercik (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 179; David Brakke, The Gnostics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 54, 59. Bos and Luttikhuizen argued that some utilized Aristotilian adjustment of platonic thought. Abraham P. Bos, “Basilides as an Aristotelianizing Gnostic,” VC 54, no. 1 (2000): 44–60; Abraham P. Bos, “‘Aristotelian’ and ‘Platonic’ Dualism in Hellenistic and Early Christian Philosophy and in Gnosticism,” VC 56, no. 3 (2002); Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 36, 42. This recognition in scholarship bolsters Irenaeus own claim that the Valentinans drew from pagan sources, AH 2.14; Löhr, “Christian Gnostics and Greek Philosophy in the Second Century,” 350. 92 Though as Presely pointed out, they “are less concerned with the intertextual connections between scriptural passages than with the harmonization of scripture to their various cosmological accounts.” Presley, Intertextual Reception, 47. See also Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 78–81. 93 While a full examination of the Nag Hammadi texts and their treatment of the problem of evil remains for scholarship, my treatment will be limited 91

104

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY Valentinians

In AH 1.1–8, Irenaeus described the teachings of the Valentinians through Ptolomaeus. He also highlighted another notable Valentinian, Marcus, and his disciples. 94 Their cosmological discussion seems motivated by their desire to solve the problem of evil. 95 Distinctions to texts that scholarship, despite the above-mentioned problems in doing so, places within the corpus of the heretics Irenaeus mentions. Across the Nag Hammadi texts, evil seems to arise (1) out of ignorance, movement of the Word, (2) the desire or passion of Sophia, and (3) by Sophia under the command of Gamaliel: for ignorance see I,3 Gospel of Truth 17.4–18.11. In II,3 Gospel of Philip 83.30–84.14 ignorance is seen as the mother of all evil. However, in 53.14–23 similar to the Stoic thought Plutarch riled against and some of the Carpocrates’s thought Irenaeus admonished (AH 1.25.4; 1.25.5), it is stated that no distinction exists between good and evil as the two will ultimately dissolve into the original. For movement of the Word which leads to ignorance see I,5 Tripartite Tractate 76.23–36. For desire or passion of Sophia see AH 3; Apocryphon of John. 9.25–10.19; II, 4 Hypostasis of the Archons 93.32–95.13; II,4 On the Origin of the World 98.11–100.29; III, 4 Sophia of Jesus Christ 3.114.8–119.16; V,3 (First) Apocalypse of James 32.28– 38.11; VII,2 Second Treatise of the Great Seth 50.1–51.20; VII,1 Zostrianos 8.30–10.28; XI, 2 A Valentinian Exposition 31–32. Yamauchi stated that “the Fall of Sophia is one of the most important elements in Gnostic mythology,” being written on and alluded to in so many texts which transcend differing styles or groups of those called Gnostics, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Descent of Ishtar, the fall of Sophia, and the Jewish roots of Gnosticism,” TynBul 29 (1978): 143. For Sophia under the command of Gamaliel see III,2 Gospel of the Egyptians 56.22–58.22. One Nag Hammadi text, VII, 1 Paraphrase of Shem, 1.16–3.29 seems to align closer with the view Plutarch attributed to Zoroaster with a balance of three powers existing from the beginning, one good, one bad, and one in-between. See Michel Roberge, The Paraphrase of Shem (NH VII, 1) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 32–46. 94 Irenaeus AH 1.13–21. 95 Ioan P. Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992), 74; Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism, 220–21; Paul Gavrilyuk, “Creation in Early Christian Polemical Literature: Irenaeus against the Gnostics and Athanasius against the Arians,” MT 29, no. 2 (2013): 23; Chiapparini, “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus,” 112.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

105

between Ptolemaeus’s disciples and other Valentinians, which Irenaeus pointed to, concerned naming conventions and some particularities of the Aeons. Thus, these distinctions would not affect how they resolved the problem of evil. 96 Likewise, the distinctive of Marcus and the Marcosian system does not affect the proposed solution to the problem of evil. 97 Much like Plato’s move in seeing the creator as distinct from the young gods, Valentinians argued that evil originated not from the perfect and unknowable god but rather from one of his emanations. 98 Thus, an emanation is responsible for evil, keeping the unknowable god perfect. 99 The desire or passion of the physical cosmos’ creator led her to create alone, without a male counterpart. Believing that the science of their day accurately reflected reality, Valentinian texts posited that this lack of a male in the creation process necessarily resulted in a flawed creation. 100 In contrast to Plato’s Demiurge, where its good96 Irenaeus AH 1.12.1, 3. 97

While Marcus’s divergences were such that Irenaeus noted that he boasted of correcting his teacher, the bishop’s extended focus on him appears rooted in Marcus’s concern for women and his ability to do cup tricks. This offered Irenaeus a link and segue to discuss Simon the Magician. AH 1.13; 1.23. See also Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed, 241–47, 261–62; le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie, 1:115. 98 However, I,5 Tripartite Tractate 76.23–77.11 pointed out that the movement of the Word which brings forth division, turning away, oblivion, and ignorance of oneself ought not be condemned as this occurred by the will of the Father. 99 Irenaeus attacked this defense arguing that it does not actually alleviate the problem of evil but merely creates an answer that then raises the same problem which again needs a solution AH 2.10.1–2. 100 For example: I,3 Gospel of Truth 17.4–18.11. See also Paula Fredriksen, “Hysteria and the Gnostic Myths of Creation,” VC 33, no. 3 (1979): 288–89. Notably Cahana, in what reads as more of a contemporary discussion on the normative genders of male and female, posited the possibility that the writers were utilizing contemporaneous thought in medical science in a subversive manner, “Androgyne or Undrogyne? 517. Inherent in Cahana’s argument is the stated desire to subvert contemporary understandings of gender, 520–21.

106

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

ness offered the impetus for creation, repeatedly ignorance caused creation of the material world for these texts. 101 This evil ignorance brought arrogance and led to a material world that included evil. Rather than evil entering into the world as seen in the early Christian texts of the previous chapter, the Valentinian texts posited that evil existed from the beginning as an intimate part of the physical cosmos. 102 While Platonic thought discussed a Demiurge who created from goodness and cannot create perfection due to the imperfection of material, these texts predominantly offer a mythology wherein material creation arose through evil. The very act of creation was ignorant, it was evil. However, the unknowable perfect god did not commit this evil act. The perfect one remains innocent of the crime. The true perpetrator, the Demiurge is accountable. In this manner Valentinian thought offered a solution to the problem of evil. Gnostics In describing him, Irenaeus pointed out that Valentinus had adapted the views of the Gnostics concerning the Demiurge and the lefthanded ruler. 103 Further elaborating on false teachings, Irenaeus wrote of Carpocrates. One of his disciples Marcellina went to Rome and taught. She and her followers self-identified as Gnostics. 104 For Carpcrates and his followers, angels created the world and all in it. 101

That some of the heretics purposefully set their myths over against the similar Platonic myth has been argued by Perkins. See Pheme Perkins, “On the Origin of the World (CG II,5): A Gnostic Physics,” VC 34, no. 1 (1980): 36–46. 102 The fall remains pre-cosmic, thus denying the disobedience in the garden as a loss of innocence. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions, 46, 57. 103 Irenaeus AH 1.11.1. This Irenaean claim that the teachings of Valentinus and his disciples arose out of Gnostics, has been supported by contemporary scholarship. Layton referred to the Valentinians as a “reformed offshoot of the original Gnostics.” Bentley Layton, “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism,” in The Social World of the First Christians, ed. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 343. 104 Irenaeus AH 1.25.6.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

107

These creators are inferior to the self-existent Father. They ought to be despised in efforts for one’s soul to become free of them and return home—namely, the divine realm of the Father. 105 In explanation of their ethics, they posited that good and evil seemingly exist as such only due to human thought. In their actual nature nothing exists as evil. 106 The last group of Gnostics that Irenaeus addressed in the first book of Adversus haereses offered no treatment of the problem of evil. 107 Likewise the Gospel of Judas in the Nag Hammadi codices included some cosmological discussion, yet it lacks an account of evil. 108 While discussion of this group of Gnostics did not offer more than fleeting glimpses into their treatment of the problem of evil, Irenaeus’s discussion of other groups of Gnostics did. In AH 1.29 the bishop of Lyon shed light on the views of some of the Gnostics that had emerged. For them, Sophia unable to find a partner, sprung up out of impatience. Realizing she had done so without permission, she created a bold and ignorant work. This ignorant creation then set about creating the cosmos and brought forth evil things. 109 Another group of Gnostics discussed by Irenaeus also pointed to the actions of an Aeon named Sophia. 110 She recklessly brought motion in the lower realms, and created a body for herself. Displeased by the burden of this body, she sought to be free of it. Finally throwing it off, her body—now her son—began creating on his own in imitation of his mother. His creations however, quarreled over authority, and in his sadness he created material objects along with wickedness and death. For these self-identified groups of Gnostics, differences may be seen in their cosmologies. Yet similarly to the distinctions between Valentinians, their distinctions did not seem to impact their solution 105 Irenaeus AH 1.25.1–2.

106 Irenaeus AH 1.25.4–5. 107 Irenaeus AH 1.31. 108 Gospel

of Judas.

109 Irenaeus AH 1.29.4.

Irenaeus AH 1.30; Apocryphon of John. 9.25–10.19; II, 4 Hypostasis of the Archons 93.32–95.13; II,4 On the Origin of the World 98.11–100.29. 110

108

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

of the problem of evil. For them as for the Valentinians, the perfect god did not create evil. It arose from the actions of an emanation from the uncreated one. Marcion No systematic explanation of his doctrines written by Marcion remains, if indeed ever written. Thus, understanding his doctrines relies upon the texts of his opponents. From what is known, Marcion’s teachings seemingly turned the tables on the biblical narrative, switching the heroes into villains and villains into heroes.111 For Marcion, the god of the Old Testament is evil.112 His actions revealed his vile character as a lover of war, self-contradictory, and inconsistent.113 His creation includes a plethora of problematic and seemingly purposeless creations like the insects. 114 This creator authored evil. Conversely Marcion’s good god, the Father who is above the creator of this world, created Jesus. He sent him to preach against the world creator and bring salvation to those that would listen.115 Marcion experienced a world full of pain, suffering, and evil. Similar to the philosophical schools, the Valentinians, and the Gnostics, for Marcion the problem of evil began his cosmological thought. 116 In seeking to reconcile a good god with the evil experienced in the world, Marcion posited a second god as creator of the world. Marcion was not alone in having disdain for the cosmos and its creator. 117 His solution to the problem of evil set a good god against an evil one. However, it remains unclear if Marcion understood these two gods as eternally existing or as having a genesis. Additionally, questions remain as to why the good god who was above 111 Irenaeus AH 1.27.3.

112 Irenaeus AH 1.27.2.

Irenaeus AH 1.27.2. Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 1.14. 115 Irenaeus AH 1.27.2. 116 Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis, 146. 117 Ekkehard Mühlenberg, “Marcion’s Jealous God,” in Disciplina ostra, ed. Donald F. Winslow (Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), 112–13. 113

114

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

109

the evil god allowed him to create. Likewise, why the good god did not immediately or thereafter change or reverse the actions of the evil god, and instead waited through millennia of pain, suffering, and evil to create and send out Jesus to reveal the truth to the world is not answered. Thus, a robust solution to the problem of evil by Marcion eludes. Regardless, the positing of two gods remained part of the solution to the problem of evil offered by Marcion. Other Opponents While Irenaeus discussed doctrines of particular opponents, his focus remained on the unity of God, Scriptures, divine economy, and Christian faith. Therefore, his discussion of all those he opposed did not necessarily include a discussion of the problem of evil. As seen above, when discussion occurred it was not always robust. In this way, his descriptions of Simon the Magician, Meander, Saturnius, Basilides, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Cerdo, Encratites, and Tatian offer little to no discussion of the problem of evil. Conclusion Through this examination of the problem of evil in thought contemporaneous to the bishop of Lyon, some themes emerge. Just as Christians concerned themselves with alleviating the charge that God authored evil, those outside the faith desired to explain evil apart from the divine. For them, evil is a necessity. It existed from the beginning in some form. For the heretics that left the faith, a fall occurred before the creation of the cosmos, and a fallen creation then created the cosmos. In both of these attempts to solve the problem of evil, the penultimate god remains good and beyond evil’s creation. Within this setting of thought Irenaeus wrote.

IRENAEUS ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL The bishop’s understanding of and focus on the unity of God and his economy impacts any discussion on Irenaean themes related to the problem of evil. Discussion of Irenaeus on creation, salvation,

110

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

human progression, or human transgression necessarily overlaps. Steenberg pointed out that Irenaeus’s creationism is his soteriology. 118 Additionally for the bishop, human creation is human progression. 119 Discussing Adam and Eve’s transgression apart from these remains problematic. 120 Likewise, Irenaeus’s lack of speculation limited his discussion as he did not venture far beyond the text of Scripture. His focus remained on what actually transpired. Thus, in the following discussion the Irenaean focus on unity may be seen as each section overlaps the others. Importantly, as the first chapter revealed and the following discusses, failure to grasp the context of his focus on unity and his lack of speculation in understanding these topics allowed for Hick’s reading. Irenaeus on Creation In contrast to his opponents, Irenaeus stressed that the one and only God created the cosmos and everything therein from nothing. 121 Out of his goodness God created the cosmos. 122 Creation includes both a 118 Steenberg, Irenaeus

on Creation, 5, 213.

119 Behr, Asceticism, 39. 120

As Steenberg stated, scholarship knows better than to discuss the fall in an unqualified way in Irenaeus’s writings apart from creation/human progression, Irenaeus on Creation, 153. This of course did not mean that Adam and Eve’s disobedience was a necessary part of creation, as will be discussed below. 121 Irenaeus AH 1.9.2; 1.10.1, 3; 1.15.5; 1.19.1–2; 1.27.2; 1.31.3; 2.Pref; 2.1.1; 2.2.1; 2.9.1–2; 2.10.2; 2.11.1; 2.16.3; 2.19.2, 9; 2.25.2, 4; 2.26.3; 2.28.1, 7; 2.30.9; 2.31.1; 2.34.2–3; 2.35.2–4; 3.1.2; 3.2.2; 3.3.3; 3.4.2; 3.8.3; 3.10.3, 5; 3.11.1–2, 4, 7; 3.12.5, 9, 11–12; 3.20.2; 3.21.10; 3.22.3; 3.24.1–2; 3.25.3, 5, 7; 4.Pref.3–4; 4.1.1–.2; 4.2.2, 6; 4.5.3; 4.6.2, 4, 6; 4.7.3; 4.9.2–3; 4.11.2; 4.18.4; 4.20.1; 4.24.1; 4.33.2; 4.34.2; 4.35.4; 4.40.4; 5.4.1; 5.13.6; 5.14.4; 5.16.3; 5.17.1; 5.18.2–3; 5.19.2; 5.22.1; 5.25.5; 5.26.2; Epid. 5. As Bouteneff pointed out, Irenaeus develops the doctrine of creation ex nihilo over against the doctrine of emanations of the heretics. Peter C. Bouteneff, Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 77. 122 Irenaeus argued Plato’s creator offered a better description than the heretics as he maintained goodness as the cause for the Demiurge’s creation while the heretics posited ignorance, defect, or error as the cause, AH 5.25.5.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

111

plethora of diversity and a unified harmony. 123 While God made and governs creation, humanity possesses a special place in it. 124 God created the rest of the cosmos by his word. However, he formed humanity with his hands.125 He utilized the purest and finest materials and mixed in his power. 126 Out of these earthly materials, this virgin earth, God made humanity in his image and likeness.127 With the form of humanity created, God breathed into humanity, giving immortal life. 128 Humanity was created to live.129 Because of God’s goodness he would not coerce humanity. Rather God created humanity, along with the angels, as free beings able to determine their path. 130 Ever the interpreter of Scripture, Irenaeus anchored human freedom in the Scriptures. 131 This freedom vindicates God and his judgments. They are just. Humans are responsible for their virtue or vice. 132 By creating humanity in this manner, God infused goodness into humanity with what Bingham called “an internal quality of good.” 133 Irenaeus explained the significance of humanity’s unique creation. God designed humans for the purpose of ruling over the rest of creation including the angels. 134 As Steenberg noted, in Irenaeus’s

As Steenberg pointed out, this is an understanding that arose from Scripture, specifically the Gospels, Irenaeus on Creation, 33. 123 Irenaeus AH 2.2.4; 2.15.3. 124 Irenaeus AH 2.27.2. 125 Irenaeus AH 4.20.1. 126 Irenaeus Epid. 5; 11. 127 Irenaeus Epid. 32; AH 3.22.1. 128 Irenaeus AH 3.24.2; 4.20.1; 5.7.1; Epid.8; 11; 14; 15. 129 Irenaeus AH 3.23.1. 130 Irenaeus AH 4.37.1. 131 Irenaeus AH 4.37.1–7; Bingham, Irenaeus’ Use, 245–48; Presley, Intertextual Reception, 158. 132 Irenaeus AH 4.37. Bingham also pointed to Irenaeus’s use of Matt 22:1– 14 to argue humanity’s responsibility. Irenaeus’ Use, 247. 133 Irenaeus AH 4.37.1; Bingham, Irenaeus’ Use, 245. 134 Irenaeus Epid. 11; Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 149.

112

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

account, the entire cosmos centers on humanity. 135 Indeed, God created the cosmos for humanity. 136 With humanity center stage, the drama of creation remained an ongoing performance for Irenaeus.137 God remains intimately involved and continues the creation process. God continues to nourish and sustain humanity.138 Human origin is tied to the eschaton.139 Their creation was the beginning of their progression into and participation with the divine. Humans’ fullness awaits them in the eschatological fulfillment, the “promotion into God.” 140 Humans, through free will, determine their path producing just judgments from God. By their very design humans should progress. God imbued within humanity the potential for growth. 141 This progression is distinct. While God initially created humanity in this undeveloped state, he created the rest of the cosmos fully developed. 142 Yet God does not leave humanity isolated, to mature independent of him. Rather, he gave and continues to give humanity council and direction. He calls humanity towards his presence. 143 Thus, God did not create humanity perfect from the outset. Just as Scripture notes that creation was “very good” and not “perfect” (Gen 1:31), Irenaeus noted and further discussed the lack of per135 Steenberg, Irenaeus

on Creation, 6. Irenaeus AH 5.29.1. Behr pointed out that the world was created to enable humanity’s growth. Asceticism, 42. 137 Irenaeus AH 4.39.2. 138 Irenaeus AH 3.10.3. As Canlis stated of the bishop’s understanding, “Although formed on the sixth day, humanity is in the process of being made” (her emphasis), Julie Canlis, “Being Made Human: The Significance of Creation for Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Participation,” SJT 58, no. 04 (2005): 447. 139 Irenaeus AH 5.36.3; Steenberg, Of God and Man, 42–43. 140 “hominem ab ea ascensione quae est ad Deum” Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 3, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, SC, no. 211 (Paris: Cerf, 1974), 372. 141 Irenaeus AH 2.28.1. 142 Irenaeus Epid. 12. 143 Irenaeus AH 2.28.1; 4.39.2. 136

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

113

fection in the garden. Answering a hypothetical charge against God’s creative process, he pointed out that the very act of creation excludes the created from the creator’s perfection.144 By definition, the created’s later origin renders it inferior to the creator and thus imperfect. For humanity, perfection lies in the future not in its origin. 145 To enable this perfection, God created a locale—the garden of Eden—that would nourish Adam and Eve and allow them to grow. 146 The garden was suited for humanity in its climate and beauty. It had ample light, was filled with good food, full of plants, fruits, water, and contained other things which humanity would need.147 The garden was of such a wondrous quality that God continually walked in it. 148 This direct presence of God allowed humanity to grow. This environment allowed for the progression of humanity.149 As scholars have pointed out, in Irenaeus’s thought the seeming weakness of humanity with inherent imperfection does not limit the glory of the creator. It actually reveals God’s glory more beautifully as the imperfect, the corruptible, moves towards perfection and incorruptibility. 150 Irenaeus AH 4.38.1–4. While Brown argued that Irenaeus understood that God could make humanity perfect, though not perfect and free, Irenaeus’s point seems to be rather that all of creation begins imperfect because it is created. See Robert F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses,” SJT 28, no. 1 (1975): 22–24. 145 Irenaeus AH 4.37.7. 146 Irenaeus Epid. 12. As Steenberg pointed out, whether Irenaeus understood, like Theophilus, that Adam and Eve were created outside the garden and then placed into it, is not known. See Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 140–1n130. 147 Irenaeus Epid. 12. 148 Irenaeus Epid. 12. See also Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 140–1. 149 Steenberg pointed out that through the right interaction between humanity and the cosmos, humanity may “come to exist fully according to the intention revealed by God at creation.” Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 149. 150 De Andia, Homo Vivens, 50. Orbe similarly saw Irenaeus as delighting in the humble origins of humanity because it results in greater glorification. Antonio Orbe, Antopologia de San Ireneo, 23. As Canlis stated, Irenaeus 144

114

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

For Irenaeus, God created out of his goodness and continues to create. The cosmos came into being for the sake of humanity. The garden surpassed the overall goodness of the cosmos, being designed specifically for humanity’s continued creation. The act of creation necessitates the imperfection of the created. However, unlike the rest of the cosmos, God created humans into a process of growth. God created the imperfect to move towards perfection in the one plan or economy of God. Irenaeus on Humanity’s Progression in the One Plan or Economy of God For Irenaeus, God’s creative work included one plan. 151 The divine economy is God’s continued and ongoing creation of humanity. 152 While singular, the divine plan held differing economies. 153 Yet, the plan’s diversity does not hinder its unity. It unfolds as a one way path towards God. 154 Thus there is one right reading of Scripture— one right path to God. It is a unified path and reading that includes diversity. Irenaeus’s conception of progress stemmed from his reading of Scripture and seemingly finds basis in the unity of God.155 Progression occurs through addition not by subtraction. Humanity does not shed its flesh, but imparts of the Spirit. 156 While the heretics posbelieved the glorification of humanity was “not an abrogation of our createdness, but its fulfilment.” “Being made Human: the Significance of Creation for Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Participation,” 447. 151 Irenaeus AH 4.9.3; D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Irenaeus Reads Romans 8: Resurrection and Renovation,” in Early Patristic Readings of Romans, ed. Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 119. 152 Canlis, “Being made Human: the Significance of Creation for Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Participation,” 432–33. 153 Irenaeus AH 1.10.1; 3.12.13; Armstrong, Genesis in der alten Kirche, 66; de Andia, Homo Vivens, 55–58. 154 Irenaeus Epid. 1. 155 D. Jeffrey Bingham, “Irenaeus and Hebrews,” in Christology and Hermeneutics of Hebrews, ed. Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 65; de Andia, Homo Vivens, 60. 156 Irenaeus AH 5.8.1.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

115

ited a two directional move from the Pleroma to earth and from the earth back to the Pleroma, Irenaeus understood humans’ singular movement as from the earth to the divine. 157 This progression of humanity occurs in both the image and the likeness of God and it will end in the perfection of both. 158 As de Andia pointed out, for Irenaeus the progression and economy of God is the perfection of humanity.159 This comes through the work of God in progressing humanity. While the divine presence in the garden allowed progression, to enable humanity’s transcension from the garden, God would become incarnate. 160 Through God’s partaking in humanity the ability to receive perfection could become reality. That which was imperfect could take on perfection. 161 The incarnate Son of God would dwell with humanity and teach them righteousness. 162 The bishop recognized continuity in this divine work from creation to the incarnation, and from the incarnation into the eschaton. 163 God created humanity into the divine economy, into the growth process. 164 In AH 5.21–24, Irenaeus employed the temptation of Christ as an argument for the unity of God’s plan. 165 He began his argument with an overview of redemptive history. The bishop of Lyon pointed out that through God’s incarnation he has defeated Satan and fulfilled Gen 3:15. 166 This utilization of Gen 3:15 has similarities to Ire-

157 Irenaeus Epid. 1; AH 1.25.2.

158 Irenaeus AH 4.38.3; 5.6.1; 5.9.3; 5.36.3; de Andia, Homo

Vivens, 67–70. Homo Vivens, 134. 160 Without the incarnation, humanity could not take on incorruptibility. Irenaeus Epid. 31. 161 Irenaeus AH 4.38.2. 162 Irenaeus Epid. 12. See also Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 139–41. 163 Presley, Intertextual Reception, 88. De Andia posited 3 aspects of the economy of salvation, the unified movement of humanity towards the Father. Homo Vivens, 138. 164 Steenberg, Of God and Man, 21. 165 Bingham, Irenaeus’ Use, 274. 166 Irenaeus AH 5.21.1. 159 De Andia,

116

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

naeus’s previous uses. 167 He again connected Adam with Christ and linked Gen 3:15 with Gal 3:19 and 4:4, thereby unifying God’s activity across the dispensations. 168 As Bingham argued, the differences between economies entails no difference of substance. The overall plan of God is one unified plan.169 For Irenaeus, God’s creation of humanity is the divine economy. The ongoing creative act of God is Humanity’s maturation along the one way path to God. This one singular divine plan includes diversity. Evil was unnecessary for the maturation of humans. God placed them in the garden which was designed for their progression into perfection. After outlining the whole of salvation history in AH 5.21.1–2, Irenaeus moved his discussion into the temptation of Christ showing how his victory over Satan’s temptation contrasted with the transgression in the garden. The one plan of God for the progression of humanity involves differing economies while remaining one unified whole. Begun in the garden, the one economy continues. Humanity would mature into perfection moving from the human to the divine. God’s one plan or economy is humanity’s continued creation into perfection. God remains intimately involved in his divine economy. This ensured that his plan would not fail despite any catastrophe. Irenaeus on The Origin of Evil While the title of Irenaeus’s lost work That God is not the Author of Evil, seems to indicate that Irenaeus saw the authorship of evil outside of God, AH 3.12.12 leaves no doubt. Irenaeus here stated that the Marcionite view that God authored evil is blasphemy. The question then remains who authored evil according to the bishop? For the bishop of Lyon, Satan authored evil originating at his first sin.170 167 Irenaeus AH 3.23.7; 4.40.3; Steenberg, Irenaeus

on Creation, 187. Reception, 216. 169 Bingham, Irenaeus’ Use, 87. 170 Contra Timothy who wrote, “Irenaeus quotes the scriptures testifying to the fact that evil exists but makes no effort to reflect on or account for its existence.” Early Christian Apologists, 38. 168 Presley, Intertextual

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

117

Examination of Irenaeus’s use of Gen 3:15 in AH 3.23.7 and 4.40.3 reveals the understanding that Satan authored evil which entered the world at humanity’s disobedience. His employment of Genesis and creation throughout his work leads to his “biblical creationism” described as “integral” to his theology.171 In AH 3.23.7, Irenaeus connected Gen 3:15 to the gospel. The bishop offered a reason for the enmity between Eve and her seed, and the serpent. The seed born of Mary—namely Christ—came to trample upon death, the anti-Christ, and Satan. The ancient enmity reveals the incarnation. Christ would come and save humanity who had been conquered and subjected to death. In this way, the beginning and the end are linked together uniting the whole of history in one salvific drama. 172 Presley’s discussion of the chiasm of AH 3.23.1–8 highlighted Irenaeus’s utilization of Gen 3:15 as the vital aspect for a Christological interpretation of the narrative of human transgression in the garden.173 This verse took prophetic nature for Irenaeus becoming the protoevangelium. Discussing the parable of the weeds (Matt 13:1–23) in AH 4.40.3, Irenaeus cast the sower of weeds amidst the wheat as the one that had generated transgression. 174 Specifically, he identified the sower as the “apostate angel and enemy,” and links the parable in Matthew to Gen 3:15. 175 Through this move he equated the serpent in the garden with the sower and with the devil. While Satan sought to eternally sever humans from their creator, God had compassion on Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 4. Jacobsen stated that the creation and fall narratives of Genesis “play a determining role in the theology of Irenaeus.” Anders-Christian Jacobsen, “The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeus,” ZAC 8, no. 12 (2004): 299. 172 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 187. 173 Presley, Intertextual Reception, 115–18. 174 Irenaeus AH 4.40.3. 175 The critical edition of the Latin translation reads “apostata est angelus hic et inimicus.” Irenaeus, Contre les hérésies, Book 4, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau with the collaboration of Bertrand Hemmerdinger, Louis Doutreleau, and Charles Mercier, 2 vol. SC, no. 100.2 (Paris: Cerf, 1965), 980. 171

118

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

humanity. He placed the blame for evil upon Satan and cursed him. 176 God also established eternal enmity between humanity and Satan. Jesus took upon himself this enmity. He became human and tread upon Satan’s head. Closing the chapter with this thought of Christ’s victory, Irenaeus pointed out that in book three he has already spoken to this concept. 177 Again Irenaeus used Gen 3:15 in relationship with its fulfillment through Jesus. Now, however, he further developed his interpretation of the verse by incorporating Satan’s authorship of evil. For Irenaeus, what Satan designed for evil God has redeemed for good. Humanity disobeyed by the guiles of Satan, and no longer remained within God’s plan for glorification. Yet by cursing Satan instead of humanity, he moved in a new manner and placed human history back into line with his plan for humanity’s perfection in the image and likeness of God. Progress into perfection was again possible through the incarnation, which now included the death and resurrection of Jesus. 178 As Steenberg showed, this response by God to the introduction of evil into human history and specifically God’s curse against the head of the serpent in Gen

176

As Bingham pointed out, for Irenaeus, in accord to the tradition passed down to him, God’s curses are eternal. Thus, humanity remains free from being cursed eternally. Humans had only condemnation upon them, thereby allowing God to extend his mercy and grace upon humanity through salvation. Irenaeus’ Use, 166. 177 See Irenaeus AH 3.23.7. 178 As Jacobsen stated, “According to Irenaeus the Fall of Man was the occasion by which the growth of Man toward the future completion of the image of God in Man was brought to a stop,” and thus “Salvation and completion are according to Irenaeus a return to and a fulfillment of the original conditions of the creation.” Jacobsen, “The Importance of Genesis,” 310, 314. Indeed, as Presley stated, the disobedience of Eve and Adam has “inflicted upon the events of the divine economy through the deceit of Satan.” Presley, Intertextual Reception, 216. Additionally, Hall argued out that for Irenaeus, human transgression necessitated a “new initiative from God,” thus; it was not designed as part of God’s original plan. Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 2005), 66.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

119

3:15, reveals how far God will go to redeem humanity. 179 God would endure pain and torture—suffering to the extent of death—all to preserve and sustain his plan and return humanity into the progression of his one plan. In AH 4.40.3, Irenaeus pointed to Satan as the author of evil, who intended for God to curse humanity and irrevocably sever their relationship. Humanity sinned through free will choosing to disobey God. However, God usurped Satan’s plan. He cursed him instead and placed the enmity between the woman and her seed, and Satan. Thus, within his interpretation of Gen 3:15 as the protoevangelium, Irenaeus included the doctrines of humanity’s free will and Satan’s authorship of evil. In dealing with the problem of evil, like his contemporaries, Irenaeus sought to alleviate the tension and maintain the innocence of God. Unlike the philosophy of his time he did not proclaim divine innocence by positing the lack of divine omnipotence and unlike his opponents he did not argue that God did not create the cosmos. Instead, he maintained the Creator’s identity as God and denied evil’s eternality, while upholding divine innocence. In his writings Irenaeus viewed Satan as authoring evil, not God. However, this does not fully explain how evil entered into God’s good creation. Irenaeus on Human Transgression In opposition to some of his opponents’ view of evil’s origin where it had no impact on humanity, Irenaeus discussed human transgression as a catastrophe, yet one that would not ultimately defeat God’s purpose. 180 Endowed with free will, humanity rebelled against God. 181 Satan had grown jealous of the blessings God had poured out 179 Steenberg, Irenaeus

on Creation, 187–88. See Irenaeus AH 1.30.7; Apocryphon of John. 9.25–10.19; II, 4 Hypostasis of the Archons 93.32–95.13; II,4 On the Origin of the World 98.11–100.29; Holsinger-Friesen, Irenaeus and Genesis, 131. 181 Irenaeus Epid. 8. The issue of free will should be nuanced here. Contemporary discussion of free will and its definition, libertarian, compatible, etc., is absent in Irenaeus writings. He simply discussed Adam and Eve as free. Irenaeus also pointed out that they were misled (Epid. 12, 16), enticed (AH 180

120

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

on humanity. He enticed Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He enticed them to disobey.182 By disobeying the command of God, humanity became sinners and fell under the power of Satan. 183 As sin gained mastery over the flesh, death entered into creation. 184 God cast humanity out of the garden. 185 Creation was now corrupted and cursed.186 Adam and Eve had lived in the wondrous garden of Eden free from evil’s grasp. Now they began to suffer with misery both in their mind and body.187 Having been created imperfect, designed to progress towards God, and placed in a good location suited expressly for that growth, the human rebellion moved them off the path they were set upon. 188 The potential for perfection was lost. 189 Humanity became bound to and oppressed by death. 190 This resulted from the “catastrophic response” of humanity and occurred as “not simply part of the unfolding of the [divine] economy.” 191 Left in this state humanity could not attain its divinely appointed potential. Created to live, humanity now would die. Satan’s will would prevail over God and conquer him.192 This disobedience by Eve and 5.21.3), and swallowed up (AH 3.20.1) by Satan. In this way their actions were not self-generated. Their sin was initiated by Satan. Yet just as with Justin’s discussion humanity also is responsible. See above, pp. 61. 182 Irenaeus Epid. 16; AH 5.21.3. 183 Irenaeus AH 5.21.3. 184 Irenaeus Epid. 31. 185 Irenaeus AH 3.23.6; Epid. 16; AH 5.36.3. 186 Irenaeus explicitly pointed out that the fruit along with humanity was now under the power of death as a result of the transgression. Irenaeus AH 5.23.1. 187 Irenaeus Epid. 17. 188 As M. Hauke posited, Irenaeus believed sin resulted in a breech in God’s plan which could only be repaired by God. Heilsverlust in Adam (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1993), 232–33, 277. 189 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 167–69. 190 Irenaeus Epid. 31. 191 Behr, Asceticism, 61. 192 Irenaeus AH 3.23.1.

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

121

Adam resulted in separation from God. This is the loss of all the benefits God has yet to give, it is death. It ends in punishment. Just as God’s good gifts have no end, punishment is eternal. They will be cast into everlasting fire. Eternal damnation awaited them. 193 To free humanity from this plight, the incarnation now required recapitulation to undo human transgression and reposition humans back on the proper path. 194 This disobedience of humanity occurred because Adam and Eve freely chose to ignore God’s instructions and partake of one particular fruit. Out of jealousy Satan had beguiled them. Their catastrophic choice moved them off the one way path towards God. Left in this state, God’s plan, the divine economy, would fail. Now fallen, humanity could not ascend towards the divine. However, God worked to preserve his purpose and economy. The divine plan would not be undone. While it was originally free from evil, it now included and accounted for evil. God would now die. He would take upon himself horrific pain and suffer death in order to be resurrected and vanquish death which ruled over humanity. God does not fail in his purpose despite the catastrophic choice of humanity and its results. Irenaeus on Death For Irenaeus, human disobedience resulted in death entering creation. Its entrance into the cosmos was no trivial matter for the bishop. 195 Death drives out divinely given life and destroys it. 196 As Steenberg pointed out, the Irenaean passages seeing death “as a great evil” that defeats, enslaves, and destroys humanity are too numerous to exhaustively cite. 197 Even worse than the transgression’s effect of death upon humanity, it necessitated the death of God. God literally Irenaeus AH 1:10.1; 5:27.2. Irenaeus AH 2.10.3; 3.22.3; 3.28.1; Epid. 34, 37. 195 Orbe maintained that for Irenaeus, it is the most tragic result of the fall, even though God offered a remedy, Antopologia de San Ireneo, 526. 196 Irenaeus AH 5.12.1. 197 Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation, 191. 193

194

122

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

now had to die to fix the problem. While Irenaeus understood the incarnation to be a necessity for humanity to fully move towards God, the details of it did not necessarily include the death and resurrection until after the tansgression. 198 Had human disobedience not happened, the incarnation would still have occurred, but without the cross and empty tomb. Yet, following Rom 6:7, and the community of faith he placed himself in, Irenaeus also noted a positive that God brought out of evil. 199 He argued that death placed a limitation on sin, causing it to end. 200 Likewise, Irenaeus pointed to the education humans gain through encountering death. They appreciate and prize life by realizing the loss and horror of death. 201 These two depictions of death seemingly contrast and oppose each other. While, as Steenberg stated the conflicting views remain “unresolved” by Irenaeus, that the two actually are opposed to each other also remains absent from the bishop’s writings. 202 The solution ought to be understood from Rom 8:28. That God brings good out of evil does not indicate that evil is good. 203 Death remains evil. Irenaeus, believing in the goodness of God and victory of Christ over evil and death, pointed to good things that are brought out of death. However, this does not indicate a positive view of death. It indicates an overwhelmingly positive view of God’s goodness. Death is not a trivial matter. Furthermore it follows Scripture and the teachings Irenaeus viewed as handed down to him. For the bishop of Lyon, death entered into creation through the disobedience of humanity, bringing destruction upon the earth. Creation, while previously very good, now included evil and death. 198 Orbe, Antopologia

de San Ireneo, 493–95; de Andia, Homo Vivens, 150.

199 Behr, Asceticism, 51–52. 200 Irenaeus AH 3.23.6–7. 201 Irenaeus AH 4.37.7. 202 Steenberg, Irenaeus

on Creation, 192. All too often this remains absent from discussion and death is said to be understood as a “gift.” For one example see Verna E. F. Harrison, “Children in Paradise and Death as God’s Gift: From Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons to Gregory Nazianzen,” SP 43 (2013), 367–71.

203

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

123

This jeopardized the divine economy. God’s continued creation through humanity’s move towards perfection stopped. Humanity willfully left the divinely appointed path. To place humanity back within God’s economy, the incarnation now incorporated the death of Christ. Yet out of God’s goodness, he would triumph over evil and death and bring good out of them. By dying, humanity would not remain in a fallen state forever. Death remained a devastating effect of the catastrophic fall of humanity. Yet Irenaeus knew that God’s goodness would not allow human history to remain a tragedy. his goodness will turn the catastrophe into glory as God will prevail over evil. Irenaeus’s Free-Will Defense While Irenaeus’s anti-Marcion treatise On the Monarchy or That God is not the Author of Evil no longer remains for contemporary examination, through the above discussion his treatment of the problem of evil takes the form of a free-will defense. While it remains a possibility that his treatise offered a discussion at odds with his other writings, the following offers a more plausible expression of his defense of the Christian faith in light of the reality of evil. God created the cosmos and everything in it by his Word. He created the heavens and the earth, all things visible and all things invisible. All creation was good. While God created the rest of the cosmos fully developed, humanity’s creation contained growth and progress. In creating the pinnacle of creation, humans, God took the purest materials from the earth and formed humanity with his hands. With the human form created, God breathed into humanity granting life. Created immature, humans were to grow into maturity. Being a creation, humanity necessarily could not yet possess perfection. God desired that humanity develop into perfection. This one way path, from the earth to the heavens/God encompasses the one divine plan. For humans to grow beyond themselves toward the divine, the incarnation would occur. Originally, humanity lacked the knowledge of good and evil. However, it would be given to humans in due time. Yet God would not force his will upon humans, coercing them against their will to do as he desired. God gave humans free will, to choose their course. While he placed the path to himself in front of

124

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

humanity, God allowed humanity to set their own steps along the way—or even step away. Thus, humanity is responsible for its actions and God’s judgments are just. However, because God is good he does not leave humans entirely on their own. He continues to give humans council and direction, calling them towards His presence. To facilitate human progression, while the goodness of all of the cosmos existed, God created a particular location, a garden, specifically suited for humanity’s growth. This garden contained all that humanity would need to develop and grow, the right climate, great beauty, ample light, and it was filled with good food—full of plants fruit and water. All these wonders remained but a few of the blessings God created for humans. Divine presence in the garden further enabled growth. The image of God, Jesus, would become incarnate bridging the gap between humanity and the divine. The incarnation would allow humans to move beyond the garden. The Son would dwell with humanity, teaching righteousness. Evidencing humanity’s unique creation and blessings, God created humanity in his image and likeness and purposed it to rule over all creation. Those created in the image of God would become more like the image of God. With the plethora of blessings lavished upon humans, God knew that they could easily over esteem themselves. To prevent this and aid human humility, God placed a command upon the first humans. Adam and Eve were told not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sadly, Adam and Eve disobeyed the divine command. Satan saw the blessings bestowed on humanity and grew jealous. Desiring to end the divine plan for humans, Satan beguiled Adam and Eve to disobey, as a ploy to have God curse them. They ate of the forbidden fruit causing disastrous implications. Evil, death, pain, and suffering entered into the world. By their rebellious disobedience humanity stepped off of the divinely appointed path. Created good, humans now became sinners. Sin overcame flesh. They had bound themselves to Satan, sin, and death. Sin entered the world through the disobedience of humanity. Yet for Irenaeus, this free-will defense remained as only a part of the story. Irenaeus’s pastoral focus did not limit his thought with the tragedy of humanity’s fall. Indeed, his exposition of the faith in Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos goes well beyond the tragedy pre-

3. IRENAEUS AND THEODICY

125

senting the full narrative of salvation seen in Scripture. The unified plan goes beyond the rebellious defeat of Adam and Eve and results in divine victory. God’s plans will not be ultimately thwarted. The goodness and love of God overcome the tragedy of human disobedience with the good news of salvation. God acts to restore humanity along the path to Himself. The incarnation now includes the work of recapitulation; Christ undoes the damage done.

CONCLUSION Despite the loss of Irenaeus’s treatise on the problem of evil, explanation of his treatment of the problem of evil from extant works remains possible. First by examining scholarship’s understanding of Irenaeus’s context, I showed that it is recognized that he understood diversity within unity as a divinely orchestrated phenomenon found within the very nature of God and his work. His focus remained on unity, over against those who saw discord and posited divisions. Thus the Godhead held diversity yet unity as God is one. Likewise, the Scriptures, the right reading of them, and the plan of God include unity despite diversity. Alongside this focus on unity, Irenaeus also avoided speculation on issues which Scripture did not address. Such speculation led toward error. With these understandings examining Irenaeus’s interpretation of Scripture revealed his use of a free-will defense. For Irenaeus, Satan authored evil not God. Humanity sinned through its error being deceived by Satan to disobey God. This brought evil into creation. Furthermore, Irenaeus’s understanding of God’s goodness reveals that he brings good out of evil. God’s one plan will not remain usurped by Satan. God works to move humanity back onto and along the one way path towards the divine. Out of the discussion within the community of faith, that Irenaeus purposefully set himself in, tenets of the free-will defense emerged. Alongside them was the recognition that God’s victory over evil allows for good to come from that which was intended to bring destruction. Irenaeus’s continuity with his community concerning the problem of evil, may be seen as he also employed both a free-will defense and recognized the results of God’s victory of evil. For prevailing scholarship, his discussion of the problem of evil flowed within the thought stream of his community. Yet, this is not

126

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

the interpretation or employment of the bishop seen in the work of Hick.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION INTRODUCTION In his work Evil and the God of Love, Hick built the “Irenaean” nature of his theodicy from fifteen citations of Irenaeus. 1 His use served to “buttress the credibility” of his theodicy and juxtaposed his own willingness to “give up universally acknowledge conditions of orthodoxy within the Christian tradition.” 2 Further strengthening this connection, the distinction between Hick’s theodicy and what he claimed was Irenaeus’s view became blurred. Likewise, he positioned it over and against his interpretation of Augustine. However, the genius of his utilization of Irenaeus does not necessitate the legitimacy of it. Upon closer examination, the contrast between Hick and prevailing scholarship becomes clear. Without his disparate reading there could be no connection of Irenaeus to his soul-making theodicy.

John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), 211–14. 2 R. Douglas Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993), 226. 1

127

128

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

THREE KEY DIFFERENCES IN HICK’S READING While areas of understanding the bishop in accord with prevailing scholarly discussion certainly exist in Hick’s use of Irenaeus, there are also divergences. Particularly, three areas of his interpretation hold problems—namely, evil as necessary in creation, the triviality of the fall, and the two stages of growth. These understandings resulted in the shackling of the second-century bishop to a theodicy at odds with the prevailing reading of his beliefs. Furthermore, the “Irenaean” theodicy contained a basic tenet the bishop of Lyon called blasphemous. Creation as Including Divinely Created Evil In accord with Irenaean scholarship, Hick understood the bishop of Lyon to believe that God created humanity imperfect with the potential for growth into perfection. To facilitate this growth, God created the world. Hick supported this understanding with six citations of the bishop. 3 However, Hick’s Irenaeus believed in the necessity of evil within creation to achieve the divine economy. God authored evil as it was needed to bring about the greater good of humanity’s growth. The ends justified the means. Yet, this opposes the bishop’s actual understanding. Irenaeus wrote a treatise over against the claim that God authored evil and stated that it was blasphemy. 4 Hick supported his claim that Irenaeus saw evil as necessary with a quote from AH 4.39.1. 5 He read Irenaeus on the knowledge humanity gains through encountering it as the means for human development. For Hick’s Irenaeus, human growth through experiencing both good and evil offers the rational for evil’s existence in the world. 6 Without the mixture of good and evil in the cosmos humanHe quoted from Irenaeus AH 4.38.1, 2, 3, and pointed to AH 4.14–16, 4.37.7; Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos 16. Note that his quotation of 4.38.1 was mistakenly cited as 4.39.1. See EGL10, 212–13. 4Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 5.20.1; Irenaeus AH 3.12.12. 5 Hick, EGL10, 214. 6 “Within God’s providence man is being taught by his contrasting experience of good and evil to value the one for himself and to shun the other. 3

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

129

ity could not grow. Hick’s reading diverges from the prevailing understanding of the bishop in that he reads education through experience with good and evil as the means of growth not a means. As seen in the previous chapter, prevailing Irenaean scholarship reads the bishop to see experience as a means of growth but not the only one. In examining this particular passage Hick employed, the bishop referred to life after the tragedy of human transgression. He was not discussing the pre-transgression state. Avoiding speculation, Irenaeus focused on what actually is rather than what could have been. Dealing with the reality of a corrupted world in this passage, he wrote concerning the educational growth that God brings out of humanity’s experience with evil. Elaboration on human progression if the transgression had not occurred held no place in his pastoral polemic. Speculation beyond the text of Scripture caused the heretical errors of his opponents. Irenaeus strived to remain within the sacred words as interpreted through the rule of faith. AH 4.39.2 helps make this post-transgression setting clear. The bishop continued his discussion of humanity’s move from imperfection to perfection. Irenaeus asked how humanity could be immortal when in mortal nature disobeyed God. 7 The assumption of a prior instance of disobedience places his discussion post-fall. He was addressing the post-transgression reality not the pre-transgression possibility. This then clarifies that it was corrupted humanity Irenaeus had in view in AH 4.39.1. Without distinguishing the context of Irenaeus’s discussion, Hick read this passage to see evil as a necessity for creation in the bishop’s thought. Hence the mixture of good and evil in our world.” Hick, EGL10, 214. J. Patout Burns seems to take the same reading with this passage. Citing it he wrote, “human beings, Irenaeus concluded, must endure the suffering and joy by which they learn the weakness of their nature and the power of God.” “Irenaeus of Lyons: The Economy of Creation and Salvation” (paper presented at the annual meeting of NAPS, Chicago, May 2014), 7. 7 The critical Latin translation reads “quomodo autem immortalis, qui in natura mortali non obaudivit Factori?” Irenaeus, Contre les hérésies, Book 4, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau with the collaboration of Bertrand Hemmerdinger, Louis Doutreleau, and Charles Mercier, 2 vols. SC, no. 100.2 (Paris: Cerf, 1965), 964.

130

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

After discussing AH 4.39.1, Hick then moved to AH 4.39.2. Further linking Irenaeus to his theodicy, he posited that the bishop argued everything [including evil] that comes from God ought to be taken with “trustful gratitude.” 8 The dilemma for Hick’s usage of AH 4.39.2 is that the bishop here argued for patience as God works out his plan not thankfulness for all that he gives. 9 While one may argue that Irenaeus implied for Christians to be thankful for all that God gives, by calling for patience as God’s creative work continues, Hick’s reading raised a problematic implication. Hick’s discussion of the bishop claimed that Irenaeus (1) understood that God created evil for humanity’s greater good, and (2) argued that humanity must thank God for everything that comes from him. Out of these two statements Hick implied that humanity must thank God for evil. 10 While humanity may not like it, God created it. With trust humanity ought to thank God for it. The knowledge that it serves as the necessary means to bring about the divine economy makes thanksgiving easier. However, the bishop explicitly pointed to humans and Satan as responsible for evil. God is not the author of evil. For Irenaeus, 8 Hick, EGL10, 214. 9

The critical Latin translation reads “Si ergo opera Die es, manum artificis tui exspecta opportune omnia facientem, opportune autem quantum ad te attinet qui efficeris.” Irenaeus, Contre les hérésies, Book 4, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau with the collaboration of Bertrand Hemmerdinger, Louis Doutreleau, and Charles Mercier, 2 vols. SC, no. 100.2 (Paris: Cerf, 1965), 966. Note that the English translation quoted by Hick reads “await the hand of thy Maker which creates everything in due time” Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, trans. Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 523. 10 For Hick, this implication may not have been understood as entirely problematic. For example, he preached of death as a friend, spoke of it as functioning as sleep, and argued that it should be accepted as divinely ordained for humanity out of God’s love and wisdom. John Hick, “Death,” sermon, 1993, box 8, Papers of John Hick, 4.1–5; “Oriel College Commemoration” speech, 1967, box 12, Papers of John Hick.

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

131

being thankful for all that God gives would not mean thankfulness for evil as Hick contextually argued. Irenaean scholarship’s reading of the bishop’s non-speculative desire and seeing its importance to his arguments against heretics in Adversus haereses contrasts with Hick’s interpretation of AH 4.39.1. Viewing the passage in light of his non-speculative desire and purpose places Irenaeus’s rhetorical question in a post-corruption situation—an understanding which 4.39.2 verifies. Hick’s interpretation postulated a bishop who seemingly argued against himself, holding to a view that he explicitly named heretical. 11 Additionally in believing that God authored evil, Hick’s Irenaeus opposed his community’s “constant reference” to demonic authorship of evil.12 This reading situates Irenaeus in conflict with the community in which he sought to place himself and align with. It is far more plausible to understand this passage in line with prevailing scholarship and read it as a post-transgression discussion over against Hick’s interpretation of Irenaeus contradicting himself. 13 With this interpretation of the bishop, Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy entailed a further conflict with the prevailing reading of the bishop by scholars. Irenaeus pointed to the goodness of the creation and the particular goodness of the garden for human progression. Just as Scripture states that creation was “very good” and not “perfect” (Gen 1:31), Irenaeus did not claim perfection of creation. While as a whole it was good, the garden possessed a specific goodness designed to support the divine economy or human growth. The garden’s wondrous quality was further suited for humanity’s progression by God’s direct presence. 14 In direct contrast to this, Hick explicitly wrote that the garden of Eden without the serpent would not 11 See above, pp. 106–7. 12 Hick, EGL10, 209. 13

This would follow Antonio Orbe’s discussion of the death and resurrection as not necessary within the incarnation had there been no fall for Irenaeus. Antopologia de San Ireneo (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1969), 493–95. 14 Irenaeus Epid. 12. See also M. C. Steenberg, Irenaeus on Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 140–42.

132

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

enable growth, arguing God would not make a world “specially friendly” for humans that did include any evil.15 Further contrasting to the prevailing reading of the bishop’s views, “Irenaean” theodicy argues that God’s direct presence in original creation was impossible as it would negate humanity’s ability to make free-willed choices. 16 An Excusable Disobedience, Not a Devastating Tragedy That Hick interpreted Irenaeus to argue Adam and Eve’s fall was always a part of the plan of God trivialized the bishop’s thought on their disobedience. For Irenaeus it was not simply a happy error that God intended. Hick’s Irenaeus viewed it as part of the divine plan. It was one of the moments from which Eve and Adam would grow and mature towards God. The climb towards God included this and countless other missteps for humanity. 17 Conversely, the prevailing reading of Irenaeus understands that for the bishop human disobedience stopped the growth process. It halted Adam and Eve’s progress towards the divine—they fell off the divinely appointed path. 18 Furthermore, their transgression resulted in death entering creation. This devastated creation. To move humans back into their ascent God necessarily interceded, and the incarnation now included the death and resurrection of Christ. As a result, God now had to suffer pain, torture, and death. 19 To support his claim that Irenaeus minimized the fall, Hick began by pointing to AH 3.20.1 alongside Epid. 12. Hick read Irenaeus to be arguing in these passages that the sin of Adam and Eve called “forth God’s compassion on account of their weakness and vulnerability.” 20 This reading accords with scholarship’s reading of the bishop. While scholarship recognizes Irenaeus’s language of Satan having “beguiled” immature Adam and Eve, scholars also read the bishop 15 Hick, Between

Faith and Doubt, 140–41.

16 See above, p. 41.

17 See above, p. 42.

18 See above, pp. 120–21. 19 See above, pp. 121–23. 20 Hick, EGL10, 212.

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

133

arguing for God’s post-transgression action as motivated by desire to ensure his ultimate victory over Satan, and continuation of his one plan. 21 Yet even with the reading by Hick, that the bishop argued for God’s compassion on weak and immature humanity does not necessitate that Irenaeus minimized their actions. God’s compassion does not indicate that the transgression lacked damnation. Scholars continue to point to the bishop’s understanding of the Creator’s love and compassion on humanity despite sins which result in eternal damnation. 22 Hick further read Irenaeus in support of seeing Adam and Eve’s sin as having “a hint of the ‘O felix cupla’ theme” by quoting from AH 3.20.2. 23 Importantly Hick quoted from Roberts and Rambaut’s English translation.24 Their translation speaks to humanity “passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral discipline.” 25 However, better translations agree that the bishop is speaking to humanity attaining the knowledge of “death,” not moral discipline. 26 Thus Hick’s reading of the bishop was hampered by the 21 See above, pp. 110–26. 22

For two such examples Irenaeus discussion of the condemnation of David’s sin and God’s forgiveness. AH 4.27.1. Likewise, the bishop pointed to God’s compassion on those who disobeyed and deserved his wrath. AH 4.48.1. Mary Ann Donovan, One Right Reading? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 124; Orbe, Antopologia de San Ireneo, 322. 23 Hick, EGL10, 212–13. 24 Hick, EGL10, 213. 25 Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, 450. 26 Grant translated the sentence as “He allowed man to pass through every situation and to know death.” Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), 138. Unger and Steenberg translated it as “that humans might pass through all things and might experience the knowledge of death.” Irenaeus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies: Book 3, trans. and annotated by Dominic J. Unger, with further revisions by Irenaeus M. C. Steenberg, vol. 64 (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 95. Rousseau and Doutreleau’s translation reads “que l’homme passe par toutes les situations a qu’il connaisse la mort.” Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 3, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, SC, no. 211 (Par-

134

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

text at the time of his initial publication, as Roberts and Rambaut’s translation followed the then critical edition by Harvey. 27 However, even casting aside contemporary scholarship’s treatment of the Latin in AH 3.20.2 and assuming the translation of “moral discipline” as correct, Hick’s reading remains problematic. Again Hick read the bishop as arguing about human growth through experiential learning as the means of growth. Prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s reading of the passage as speaking to humanity’s post-transgression state casts the bishop’s discussion of human experiential learning as a means of growth. 28 Hick’s reading placed Irenaean thoughts concerning growth after the first human transgression as the only method possible for humanity. Seemingly Hick’s reading did not take into account the fullness of the bishop’s text as Irenaeus pointed to the growth God intended in the garden of Eden without evil’s existence. For Hick, Irenaeus argued that “sin is accordingly not presented as a damnable revolt.” 29 Prevailing Irenaean scholarship however, reads the bishop as seeing sin as a damnable revolt. It is on account of is: Cerf, 1974), 389. At issue is an understood corruption in the Latin where mortis became morum. See Irenaeus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies: Book 3, 184; Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 3, Volume 1: Introduction, Notes Justificatives, Tables, ed., trans., and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, SC, no. 210 (Paris: Cerf, 1974), 349–50. 27 Harvey’s Latin contains the word morum without any notion of mortis being a possibility, and included a note specifying moral discipline as the meaning. Irenaeus, Libros quinque adversus haereses, textu graeco in locis nonnullis locupletato, versione latina cum codicibus claromontano ac gnosticorum prolusione, fragmenta necnon graece, syriace, armeniace, commentatione perpetua et indicibus variis, ed. W. W. Harvey, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Typis Academicis, 1857; repr. Rochester: St. Irenaeus Press, 2013), 106. While Hick’s writings and interests moved beyond the problem of evil, the reliance on the translation of Roberts and Rambaut remained as his reading of Irenaeus remained largely unchallenged despite Irenaean scholarship’s recognition and adjustment of the problematic text and its translation. 28 Donovan, One Right Reading? 86; see above, p. 113. 29 Hick, EGL10, 212.

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

135

sin that God needed to act and save humanity. He countered the first sin and restored humans to the path towards God. Within Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos the bishop wrote of the devastating effects of the transgression with humanity now in need of salvation.30 Furthermore in his argument against Tatian, Irenaeus explicitly wrote of Adam’s condemnation through disobedience, humanity’s transgression, and the work of God to save him. 31 Likewise, Irenaeus wrote of sin as damnable in AH 2.32.1. Hick moved beyond his reading of Irenaeus’s thought in building his theodicy. He argued that the bishop of Lyon did not see the fall as “basic” to his treatment of the problem of evil. 32 However, Irenaeus had to hold to the concept because of the knowledge of his time, so he minimized it. Now that contemporary knowledge allows for an alternate view, Hick abandoned the fall in the “Irenaean” theodicy. 33 In doing so, Hick eliminated a doctrine that the prevailing scholarship understands Irenaeus to have utilized in account for the entrance of evil into the world. Irenaeus’s explanation for why evil exists is rejected by the theodicy named after him. Two Stages with One Method of Humanity’s Progression Hick’s reading of the bishop aligns with prevailing scholarship’s in seeing that Irenaeus understood humanity to be created necessarily imperfect and with free will. 34 Likewise, he argued that the bishop viewed humanity as created with a potential for perfection that was reachable through growth towards the divine. Hick discussed this imperfection as necessary for an epistemic distance between God and his creation and denied the bishop’s belief in direct divine presence within the “Irenaean” theodicy. For prevailing readings of the bishop, Irenaeus pointed to the later origin of humanity necessarily re30 See above, pp. 119–21. 31 Irenaeus AH 3.23.1. 32 Hick, IrenTh, 41. 33

See above, pp. 40–41. Hick quoted from Irenaeus AH 4.37.5; 4.38.2 and pointed to 4.38.1 as warrant for the bishop’s belief in free will. EGL10, 213. 34

136

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

sulted in imperfection.35 Hick’s Irenaeus envisioned only one means of progression—through humanity’s free-willed choices when confronted with good or evil. 36 This contrasts with Irenaean scholarship’s prevailing reading which sees that while Irenaeus also saw this process of growth, he did not limit human progression to this operation. This experiential growth process functioned after human transgression. Irenaeus did not speculate on pre-transgression growth. He simply posited that God placed Adam and Eve in the garden which included all they would need to progress towards him. The bishop is understood to have seen a means for human growth into the divine without the need for evil’s existence. 37 Hick’s understanding of the bishop on the “image” and “likeness” of God entailed a strict dichotomy. Hick’s Irenaeus understood the “image” to be humanity’s “nature as personal,” and the “likeness” of God to be “a quality of personal existence which reflects finitely the life of the Creator” that humanity must grow into.38 Conversely, scholarship recognizes that the bishop’s use of the terms did not entail this strict dichotomy. On one hand, Irenaeus employed a distinction. On the other hand, he also utilized them synonymously. Prior to the publication of Evil and the God of Love, Irenaean scholars had already argued against this dichotomy between Irenaeus’s use of “image” and his use of “likeness.” In his writing Hick displayed awareness of this argument, yet he offered no counter argument for his view. He simply stated that Irenaeus held to a dichotomy of the terms. He did point out that Wingren argued against a simple dichotomy and defended the unity of Irenaeus’s usage of the terms. However, he simply dismissed Wingren’s view. 39 Hick supported his view through an examination of Irenaeus’s usage in Compare Hick, EGL10, 281–82 with Irenaeus AH 4.38. See also Robert F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses,” SJT 28, no. 1 (1975): 17–25. 36 See above, pp. 38–40. 37 See above, pp. 111–13. 38 Hick, EGL10, 212. 39 John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 221n1. 35

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

137

AH 5.6.1 only. 40 Yet Wingren was not the only Irenaean scholar to have discussed Irenaeus’s use of “image” and “likeness.” Prior to Hick’s discussion, Bonwetsch and Armstrong had also cited Irenaeus extensively showing the problematic oversimplification of a simple dichotomy of the terms. 41 Rather than appealing to a single usage as Hick did, these three scholars showed through the totality of Irenaeus’s usage that a simple dichotomy remained untenable. This divergent interpretation of Irenaeus allowed Hick to offer two distinct stages within humanity’s growth. While Hick did not posit that Irenaeus held to evolution, Hick argued for the first stage as the evolutionary stage. He viewed the second as the current human growth. The “Irenaean” theodicy views creation’s two stages entailing two distinct moves, first into the image of God and second, into the likeness of God. 42 Hick’s Irenaeus believed the singular divine plan encompassed two stages of human progression. In the two staged move from imperfection to perfection there is one process for accomplishment. God created a world full of good and evil in which humanity would evolve into imperfection and then grow towards perfection. However, this diverges from prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s reading of the bishop’s understanding on the diversity within the unity of God’s plan. Irenaeus saw that the oneness of the plan as the singular move from imperfection into perfection. This one divine economy entailed multiple means. It is one creative act that remains ongoing. Human progression leads from the dust of the earth to the divine. God’s design for this growth originally entailed a good cosmos without evil. Indeed, the purpose for the divine presence in the garden was for the progression of humanity. 43 Christ’s incarnation was necessary for the connection of humanity to God. However, the disobedience interrupted the plan and halted the growth. Yet, God in his goodness would not be conquered by the work of Satan. God 40 John Hick, “Belief and Life,” 507; EGL10, 211, 232. 41 See above, p. 15.

42 See above, pp. 41–44. 43

See above, p. 113.

138

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

acted to place humans back on track towards him. They would learn through their encounters with evil. The singular direction of the divine economy remained consistent while the means of humanity’s growth changed. After the transgression, the incarnation necessarily included the death and resurrection of Christ. 44 Hick evidenced this understanding of a diversity in the growth process; however he limited this view to Theophilus. 45 Hick’s reading of the bishop differs from prevailing thought on Irenaeus’s conception. The divine economy’s unity is not hindered by its diversity. This plan of God unfolds as a one way path towards God. The bishop saw continuity in the work of God from creation to incarnation, and from incarnation into the eschaton. 46 Rather than the one divine plan entailing a singular move from imperfection to perfection with various means of accomplishment, Hick saw two separate moves with a singular instrument of progression. Thus, Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy differs from prevailing scholarship’s understanding of the bishop of Lyon concerning the diversity within the unity of God’s plan. These three differences between Hick’s interpretation of Irenaeus and the prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s allowed for his use of the bishop as the namesake for his theodicy. His divergent readings function as the needed link to the bishop. From them he connected “Irenaean” theodicy’s tenets of God’s authorship of evil, two distinct stages of human growth, and the negation of the fall to historic Christianity. Weaved into these three tenets is the argument for the necessity of evil. Progression towards perfection only occurs through humanity’s free-willed choices when confronted by good or evil. Justification for evil’s existence is found in its necessity. Additionally, with these interpretations he enabled a contrast between the “Irenaean” and the “Augustinian” theodicy. 47 Without these connections 44

See above, pp. 121–22.

45 See above, pp. 37–38.

Stephen O. Presley, The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 66. 47 Hick, EGL10, 236–37. 46

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

139

built upon his divergent interpretations he would not have any reason for utilizing Irenaeus in his discussion.

HICK’S FALSE DICHOTOMY As Stoeber and Ferré noted, Hick’s dichotomy between Irenaeus and Augustine made greater distinction than their works contain. 48 Furthermore, upon examination both share some basic Christian beliefs. The parallel of thought between the two bishops aligns with the fact that Augustine read and quoted Irenaeus concerning original sin.49 Additionally, that they both placed importance upon their community’s reading of Scripture connected the bishops’ thought. Like Irenaeus, Augustine is understood to have viewed the community of faith he interpreted within as influential to his interpretation and theology. Proper interpretation of Scripture was bound by the rule of faith and relied upon the community’s authoritative reading.50 For Hick, the two bishops offered competing discussion on the problem of evil. After laying out the two theodicies in Evil and the Love of God, Hick explicitly argued for six points of contrast between them. 51 However upon closer examination, the disparity between Irenaeus and Augustine fails. Furthermore, the contrast between the prevailing understanding of the bishop and the theodicy named after him increases. While Couenhoven argued that Augustine rejected his own free-will defense later in life, he still affirmed that the bishop did believe in humanity’s free will and the authorship of evil by Satan prior to the fall. 52 Regardless of whether or not Augustine changed his mind on the formation of his theodicy, the bishop of Hippo utilized Michael Stoeber, Evil and the Mystics’ God (London: MacMillen, 1992), 200n5; Nels F. S. Ferré to John Hick, letter, August 29, 1966, box 21, Papers of John Hick. 49 Augustine Contra Julianum 3. 50 Augustine De doctrina christiana 3.12. 51 Hick, EGL10, 236–37. 52 Jesse Couvenhoven, “Augustine’s Rejection of the Free Will Defense: An Overview of the Late Augustine’s Theology,” RelS 43, no. 3 (2007): 283. 48

140

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

free will within discussion of the problem of evil and saw Satan as the author of evil. Likewise, within his pastoral polemic Irenaeus utilized a free-will defense and saw Satan as the author of evil.53 For Hick, the “Augustinian” identification of evil’s author conflicts with the “Irenaean” theodicy’s. Hick argued that the “main motivating interest” for Augustine’s treatment of the problem of evil was to show God as innocent of evil with its authorship lying elsewhere. 54 Conversely, the “Irenaean” type is not concerned to deny God’s authorship of evil. 55 Both types see him as in some sense ultimately responsible; however, the “Irenaean” explicitly views God as the author of evil. 56 Hick rightly pointed out that this explicit statement of God’s authorship was a post-Irenaeus move. 57 The problem for Hick is that Augustine and Irenaeus are understood to be in agreement on this issue over against his theodicy. Irenaeus wrote a work explaining how God was not the author of evil over against the heretical attempts to blame him. 58 God’s innocence mattered for Irenaeus as it did for Augustine. Furthermore, the bishop of Lyon explicitly argued over against this aspect of “Irenaean” theodicy stating that it is blasphemous to view God as the author of evil. 59 In his contrast of the “Irenaean” with the “Augustinian” theodicies, Hick himself juxtaposed Irenaeus with the theodicy he named after him. Similarly, Hick contrasted the two theodicies concerning the explanation for evil’s existence and placed a conflict where agreement exists. Hick argued that the “Augustinian” explained evil’s entrance into the cosmos through the fall, while the “Irenaean” viewed evil’s existence consequentially with the greater good justifying the need for evil. 60 Yet again however, prevailing scholarship recognizes Irenaeus’s discussion of the entrance of evil into the cosmos agrees with 53

See above, pp. 116–19. Hick, EGL10, 236. 55 Hick, EGL10, 236. 56 Hick, EGL10, 238. 57 Hick, EGL10, 238. 58 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 5.20–6. 59 Irenaeus AH 3.12.12; Hick, EGL10, 239. 60 Hick, EGL10, 237. 54

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

141

the “Augustinian.” The bishop of Lyon placed the blame on Satan for evil’s existence and viewed Adam and Eve’s sin as its entrance into creation. While Irenaeus did point to divinely produced good results arising from evil, he maintained God’s innocence regarding evil’s existence. God is so good that he takes that which was intended for heinous results and victoriously brings good out of it. That God does this to evil does not lead Irenaeus to refashion evil into good. Evil is evil. Conversely, God is so good that he can bring good out of it. Here Hick himself pointed out that in doing so Irenaeus agreed with Augustine as the bishop of Hippo also explicitly affirmed that God brings good out of evil. 61 Hick again placed Augustine in agreement with Irenaeus on this issue, despite contrasting their theodicies. In the same way, Hick contrasted the two theodicies on the importance of the fall. For Hick, the “Augustinian” viewed it as central to theodicy, while the “Irenaean” saw the fall with little importance and rejected the notions of lost righteousness and universal inherited sinfulness. Importantly, he included a concept of a perfect world within discussion of lost righteousness abandoned by the “Irenaean.” 62 That the bishop of Lyon did not limit his discussion of evil to the sin of humanity but also pointed to God’s working good consequences out of evil did not minimize its importance. Prevailing scholarship’s reading agrees with Hick’s in seeing that Irenaeus rejected the notion of humanity’s original perfection. However, they also recognize that the bishop understood a unique goodness to original creation and a particular goodness in the garden. In contrast to Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy, prevailing scholarship reads the bishop of Lyon to have believed in a universally inherited sinfulness. 63 While Irenaeus’s discussion remains far less robust than Augustine’s treatment of original or ancestral sin, the two are not seen in the opposition Hick read. As Hauke pointed out, Irenaeus paved the way for

61 Hick, EGL10, 239.

Hick, EGL10, 239. Notably in 2010 however, Hick had removed the concept of perfection in the Gen 3 narrative. Between Faith and Doubt, 138. 63 See above, pp. 120–21. 62

142

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Augustine on this issue. 64 Likewise, human transgression held centrality for the problem of evil as it explained evil’s existence and vindicated God by revealing Satan as the author of evil. Again, prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s reading aligns the bishop of Lyon with the “Augustinian” over against Hick’s theodicy. Hick also posited that the “Augustinian” viewed the eschaton with the inclusion of hell and the damned whereas the “Irenaean” recognized hell as impossible. For the “Irenaean” theodicy, every person must progress into perfection. It cannot be limited to a chosen few. “Irenaean” theodicy requires universalism otherwise it “would collapse.” 65 Yet Hick himself must remove Irenaeus from this “allimportant aspect.” 66 He stated that it is the thinkers “since Schleiermacher” that have removed an eternal hell from the discussion. 67 Thus, Hick placed Irenaeus in opposition to his own theodicy despite naming it after the bishop. Two other contrasts that Hick presented are problematic. Hick argued that the “Augustinian” theodicy is tied to a view of evil as non-being while the “Irenaean” remains uncommitted to that view. 68 Yet this contrast fails to distinguish between the theodicies. Hick’s reading aligns with prevailing scholarship in that Irenaeus remained silent on the philosophical conception of evil. However, the concept of evil as non-being is not be integral to an “Augustinian” or free-will defense. 69 Hick also argued that the “Augustinian” viewed God’s relationship with creation in non-personal terms while the “Irenaean” understands humanity as created for divine fellowship. Hick needed to particularize this characterization of the “Augustinian” to “especially” Thomists and the Protestant optimists of

64

M. Hauke, Heilsverlust in Adam (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1993), 282.

65 Hick, IrenTh, 51.

66 Hick, IrenTh, 50.

67 Hick, EGL10, 237.

68 Hick, EGL10, 236. 69

For example, Plantinga did not discuss evil as non-being in his treatment of the problem of evil. See Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper and Row, 1974; repr., Cambridge: Eerdman’s, 1977), 29–64.

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

143

the eighteenth century. 70 However, that God relates to his creation in non-personal terms seems to contradict readings of Augustine. God works personally for him, particularly in God’s economy of salvation. 71 One other concept that Hick distinguished between the theodicies does not seem to properly reflect the two bishops. While he did not highlight this as one of the major contrasts, Hick argued for a dichotomy between Irenaeus and the east over against Augustine and the west. 72 Irenaeus’s discussion of humanity’s growth into perfection was juxtaposed with the “Augustinian” tradition, which lacks progression because humans were created initially perfect. 73 However upon close inspection, both Irenaeus and Augustine, both the east and the west, are understood to have believed in the progression of humanity. While this concept has been readily seen by scholarship within the Eastern tradition, progression to perfection or deification in the west has been far less focused upon. 74 However, both bishops are read to envision humanity’s progression or deification. Furthermore,

70 Hick, EGL10, 236.

For example, throughout Augustine’s Confessions God works in a very personal way. See Gerald Bray, Augustine on the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 65. 72 Hick, EGL10, 215–18. 73 Hick, EGL10, 214. 74 As Ortiz wrote, “it has become something of a commonplace to say that the Latin Fathers did not really hold a doctrine of deification, that the few exceptions to this learned it from the Greeks, and that the Latins are generally guilty of losing sight of the big picture of salvation (becoming God) by reducing it to a narrow conception of redemption (overcoming sin).” Jared Ortiz, “Deification in the Latin Fathers,” in Called to Be Children of God, ed. by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016), 59. For example Burns saw two differing economies of salvation, the “Developmental Schema” (East), and the “Interventionist Schema” (West). J. Patout Burns, “The Economy of Salvation: Two Patristic Traditions,” TS 37, no. 4 (1976): 616–18. 71

144

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

this view aligns with Scripture from where the concept derives. 75 While not equally stressed in contemporary discussions in Christianity across the globe, both east and west include the progression of humanity. As Ortiz pointed out, deification was “an essential part of the grammar of Latin Patristic thought.” 76 The understanding of humanity growing towards God is not limited to the “Irenaean” theodicy. Importantly, Augustine’s conception of the progression of humanity has recently come into focus. 77 Just as Irenaeus is read to have understood that the Son’s work of salvation was for the perfection of humanity, Augustine is also read to have seen that the entirety of the incarnation centered upon human growth into perfection. 78 Again, the conflict between the two bishop falls away and Hick’s contrast of Irenaeus with the “Augustinian” theodicy crumbles. Hick built his theodicy over against what he saw as a faulty view of Augustine. In doing so, he described a chasm between Irenaeus and Augustine that prevailing scholarship does not recognize. Tellingly, the two central claims Hick posited for Augustine’s theodicy are two claims that Irenaeus is understood to have also made.79 Irenaeus believed that God created all things good and that free-willed creatures misused their freedom, which resulted in evil’s existence. 80 There are certainly differences between readings of two bishop’s M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012); David Vincent Meconi and Carl E. Olson, “Chapter One: The Scriptural Roots of Christian,” in Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, ed. by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016). 76 Ortiz, “Deification in the Latin Fathers,” 60. 77 “More and more studies are showing how he [Augustine] did in fact understand Christianity in terms of deification.” David Vincent Meconi, “Chapter Four: No Longer a Christians but Christ: Saint Augustine on Becoming Divine,” in Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, ed. by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016), 83. 78 Meconi, “Chapter Four,” 88. 79 Hick, EGL10, 62. 80 See above, pp. 110–21. 75

4. THE DIVERGENCE OF HICK’S INTERPRETATION

145

thoughts and discussions of the problem of evil. However, the opposition that Hick presented in validation of his claim to offer a theodicy with a historic connection does not hold up under scrutiny. Irenaeus and Augustine are both read to have held more in common with each other than with Hick’s theodicy.

CONCLUSION In building his theodicy, Hick utilized Irenaeus in his historical foundation. It was “a stroke of genius.” 81 His employment of Irenaeus offered a connection from his work back into historic Christianity. While this genius move countered the arguments against his theology as heretical by what he saw as “fundamentalism,” his connection remains problematic. 82 Seemingly, Hick’s reading of Irenaeus was negatively impacted as his personal polemic and rhetoric hindered his interpretation of the bishop. Upon critical examination, Hick read Irenaeus in a manner different from the prevailing interpretation by Irenaean scholarship in building his theodicy. The bishop of Lyon is understood to have seen a basic tenet of the “Irenaean” theodicy as heretical and wrote a treatise against it. This alone ought to invalidate Hick’s use of Irenaeus in his theodicy. Yet, more issues arise upon further examination of Hick’s use of the bishop. Hick’s theodicy necessitates evil for human progression. In “Irenaean” theodicy, evil exists as a vital part of creation. Conversely, the prevailing view of Irenaean scholarship reads Irenaeus to understand that evil entered into the cosmos at Adam and Eve’s transgression. Satan authored evil not God. Irenaeus’s conception of growth was a one way move from the human towards the divine. In contrast to this, Hick’s Irenaeus held to two stages of growth. Contrary to Hick’s “Irenaean” theodicy the bishop is read to have viewed human disobedience as more than a mere lapse of judgment. It brought death and destruction. If it was not countered, it brought the defeat of God. 81

Nels F. S. Ferré to John Hick, letter, August 29, 1966, box 21, Papers of John Hick, Cadbury Research Library, Birmingham UK. 82 Hick, EGL10, 36.

146

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Hick’s interpretations of Irenaeus validated his connection to the bishop and its title. However, upon examination Hick utilized the bishop in contrast to prevailing scholarship’s reading. Hick’s reading created a problematic link of Irenaeus to his theodicy.

CHAPTER FIVE. CONCLUSION In 1993, Hauke pointed out that the modern sympathy to see Irenaeus as a corrective to Augustine is problematic. 1 This faulty reading of Irenaeus is perhaps seen most clearly in Hick’s theodicy. His historical component offered two avenues from which to build upon. He explicitly saw the bishop of Lyon as having offered a discussion that contrasts with Augustine’s thought. For Hick, this view from the bishop of Lyon is more palatable for the modern world. Yet, his treatment of both Irenaeus and Augustine has problematic oversimplifications. He failed to understand the nuances of the bishops’ thought seen in prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s readings. Hick’s own context and polemic adversely impacted his reading of the bishop. Hick seemingly took a few passages and read them in light of his contemporary setting. Fitting them into his current polemical project, he tasked them to do his bidding. In this endeavor, Hick interpreted Irenaeus in contrast to the manner in which prevailing Irenaean scholarship reads him. Regardless of his divergent reading of Irenaeus, that Hick offered a theodicy worthy of discussion ought not be forgotten. Hick’s work on the problem of evil remains important for scholarship. He offered a consequentialist theodicy by positing that the ultimate good of soul making justifies the necessity of evil in the plan of God. My aim is not to discard Hick’s theodicy outright. I merely seek to 1 M. Hauke, Heilsverlust

in Adam (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1993), 196.

147

148

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

free Irenaeus from its title. His theodicy should properly be known as a soul-making theodicy. It should continue to be valued and discussed even after the emancipation of the bishop of Lyon. Hick’s initial publication offering his theodicy evidenced that it can stand on its own, without Irenaeus. 2 In Evil and the God of Love, Hick tethered the second-century bishop to a theodicy that contrasts with prevailing scholarship’s reading of his beliefs.3 It contained doctrines that he opposed, dismissed beliefs he held, and included a principle he labeled blasphemous. Despite these flaws, the “Irenaean” theodicy has become entrenched by scholarship within their discussion concerning the problem of evil. To reveal this problematic use of the bishop’s name, I began with an examination of Hick and his interpretation of Irenaeus. Hick’s original publication in which he treated the problem of evil did not include a connection to the bishop of Lyon. The intimate association was published in 1966 after the events of his ecclesiological ordeal at Princeton. Unable to neither deny nor affirm the virgin birth Hick’s admittance to the local presbytery was revoked. Needing the membership to remain employed in his position at Princeton, Hick appealed the ruling. The ordeal became national news and at the 1962 general assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA the decision was made in his favor. However, the perception that his understandings of the Christian faith were heretical did not diminish. Hick’s work on theodicy offered a counter claim as he entrenched his theology in a second-century bishop known for his orthodoxy. In his work Hick was forthcoming stating that he composed his theodicy in a polemic against the “Augustinian” theodicy. He described a dichotomy between Augustine and Irenaeus on the problem of evil. For Hick the dominant thought in Christianity concerning the problem of evil, the free-will defense, could no longer be held John Hick, Faith and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957), 141–42. 3 John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). 2

5. CONCLUSION

149

to. Modern thought rendered it unbelievable. It was a useless explanation. Hick placed his theodicy within the view he placed in the east over against the west and Augustine. For Hick, Irenaeus viewed human education through encountering evil and good as the one and only means of progression into perfection. God created humanity to grow and mature in a world of good and evil. Humans grow from “the image” into the “likeness” of God. The fall was simply the first wrong choice and it did not create evil—it increased it. Creation included evil from the beginning. The first stage of creation, the evolutionary process, included death, and the second stage necessarily utilized encounters with evil for human growth. Thus, the fall was a trivial matter that simply furthered the humanity’s progress. Irenaeus could not totally abandon the notion of the fall in his time and thus minimized it—it was it as an excusable lapse of judgment from which humanity would learn. I then moved to understanding the Christian thought both prior and after Irenaeus. This offered a glimpse into the thought world within which the bishop of Lyon purposefully placed himself. This early discussion included tenets of the free-will defense. Through time the discussion moved from the short statements in the Apostolic Fathers to detailed discussions found in some of the Apologists. Two of these discussions hold particular importance for Irenaean studies as the bishop of Lyon’s works evidence purposeful connections to both Justin’s and Theophilus’s work. After Irenaeus, the discussion continued along this same path. Tertullian offered an explicit free-will defense in a section of his work scholars view as having the strongest connection to Irenaeus. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria offered a free-will defense. Origen utilized a free-will defense as well. Revealing diversity of thought within the free-will defense, he viewed the fall as having occurred prior to material creation. Yet alongside the free-will defense, the pastoral focus emerged as well. The problem of evil was and is not a mere theoretical discussion. People did and do suffer. The free-will defense seemingly does

150

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

not offer comfort in the midst of one’s misery. 4 In the first centuries as today, responding to the family dealing with the death of a mother and infant during childbirth with an explanation of death’s entrance into the cosmos through the abuse of free will would hardly be appropriate or helpful. The early Christian leaders were intimately involved in the lives of their community. They faced the suffering and misery of their congregants as well as their own. For them, God’s character and his redemptive acts enabled another facet to the discussion. What Satan designed for destruction God triumphs over. Good things are brought out of even evil. The early discussion of the problem of evil also included a discussion of the good that God brings out of it. Yet, this thought was not offered in contrast the free-will defense. The good ends God brings are not the reason evil exists. Evil is evil. Death is the last enemy that Christ will defeat. God’s triumph over evil did not become the rationale for its existence. It reveals the extent of his goodness. Prevailing readings of Irenaeus’s thoughts fit properly within the stream of thought flowing before and after him. He thought and wrote in light of those that went before him. He did not attempt to offer a new set of doctrines. He sought to defend the people in his care. Within the community, some began teaching doctrines at odds with the rule of faith. The bishop of Lyon sought to counter them by revealing them and bringing their doctrines to the light through Adversus haereses. He also sought to affirm the right reading of Scripture for the faithful through Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos. Within these works, he necessarily countered the heretical cosmologies and affirmed the Christian creation/fall narrative of Gen 1– 3. In doing so he offered tenets of the free-will defense, utilizing it to explain evil’s entrance into creation. His theodicy aligned with both those that preceded him and those that came after him.

4

Plantinga pointed out that its failure to do is rooted in its design. It is not designed for pastoral counseling, but to defend the faith against claims of logical incoherence. Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper and Row, 1974; repr., Cambridge: Eerdman’s, 1977), 29.

5. CONCLUSION

151

Irenaean scholarship’s prevailing reading sees that for Irenaeus, God created the cosmos good and set up humanity in an especially good environment namely, the garden of Eden. Created to progress from imperfection to perfection, God walked in the garden enabling the growth. Not yet mature enough for the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were commanded not to partake of its fruit. When they were ready, the incarnation would occur and the Godman would bridge the gap from the human to the divine. He would dwell with them and teach them in righteousness. Unfortunately, Satan beguiled them to eat of the forbidden fruit. Their disobedience brought pain, misery, and death into creation. Their progression toward perfection stopped. Adam and Eve’s sin devastated creation. Yet God would still prevail. He seeks to redeem his people and bring them into the divine. Even though they strayed from the proper path, God works to restore them and again bring them into the progression of the divine economy. While the original plan did not include evil, God now adjusts and sometimes brings good from it. The unity of this one divine plan remains while a diversity within its means of accomplishment grows. The incarnation included the death and resurrection of God as a result of human disobedience. Through this singular divine economy, God redeems humanity and is victorious over evil. Irenaeus is also understood to have discussed the positives that God brings from evil. These positives affirmed the goodness of God and demonstrate his love for humanity. The bishop pointed to the education that humans receive. It brings further progression as they encounter choices in the now cursed creation. Facing the reality of evil, humans would love and appreciate God all the more. They would know the mighty works he accomplished through their lives and despite their errors. Irenaeus’s discussion of the problem of evil is understood to have been purposefully aligned with the previous thoughts from within his community. However, this depiction is not what Hick offered as the understanding of the second-century bishop of Lyon. Hick’s interpretation offered an understanding of the bishop as confused. He was opposed to himself, both implicitly affirming and explicitly denying God’s authorship of evil. Additionally, the bishop opposed the community he purposefully placed himself within.

152

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

While he sought to remain within the community’s discussions, he denied their consistent statements of demonic authorship of evil and a corruption of creation. In further contrast to the prevailing interpretation of bishop of Lyon, “Irenaean” theodicy entailed tenets directly opposed to the bishop’s views. Hick stated universalism was necessary for his theodicy. Yet Irenaeus is read to have held an opposing view, wherein eternal punishment awaited Satan, the angels that followed his rebellion, and unredeemed humanity. Hick himself stated that Irenaeus did not hold to this “all-important aspect of the Irenaean type of theodicy.” 5 The prevailing reading of bishop of Lyon’s view opposes “Irenaean” theodicy’s universalism. Hick’s contrast of Augustine and Irenaeus also falls apart under closer inspection. Both Irenaeus and Augustine are read to have held to the fall, God’s triumph over Satan despite the disobedience, eternal damnation, and the progression of humanity. Interpreting the bishop of Lyon without including of Irenaeus’s pastoral polemic focus on the fullness and unity of God’s plan may have triggered Hick’s divergent reading of Irenaeus. However, Hick’s life offers another plausible motive. It is likely that Hick purposefully connected the second-century bishop to his own theodicy to argue that his understanding of Christianity remained within orthodoxy. He sought to show that his beliefs were not outside the faith as Machen and his followers argued. Regardless of the motive, Hick’s interpretation of Irenaeus remains problematic. In creating his theodicy, Hick read Irenaeus in contrast to the manner in which prevailing Irenaean scholarship interprets him. The bishop of Lyon is understood to have held to doctrines opposed to the theodicy named after him. Hick’s theodicy ought to stand on its own as a view that sees the value of soul making. His work stimulated much discussion on the problem of evil. Yet this discussion abducted Irenaeus’s work conflating perception of the bishop’s treatment with Hick’s. The two should be separated. Hick’s work ought to remain discussed as the soul-making theodicy. 5 Hick, IrenTh, 50; EGL10, 237.

5. CONCLUSION

153

In contrast, Irenaeus’s thoughts are read align with the free-will defense both prior to him and after him, and should be discussed within this context. Having laid out the case against “Irenaean” theodicy, the implications of Hick’s reading and use of Irenaeus offer a warning both for discussions on the problem of evil and for early Christian studies. Hick revealed the importance of historical thought within contemporary discussion on the problem of evil. Scholars now routinely employ a historical component within their discussions of the problem. 6 This strengthens their discussion and offers a starting point for further contemplation. Yet Hick’s use of Irenaeus ought to give scholars pause, particularly when discussing Christian thought in the first centuries or discussing God and the authorship of evil. As seen above in chapters two and three, the dominant thought recognized in early Christians texts was a commitment to the denial of God’s authorship of evil. God does bring good out of evil, but evil remains evil. Conversely it was Marcion, a heretic, that viewed God as a willful worker of evil. He would have claimed the Creator reached down and dragged his fingers across the earth wreaking havoc, destruction, and death. In opposition to this view, prevailing readings see that for Irenaeus and his community of faith such a thought offered a problematic and blasphemous understanding of God. God is not responsible for evil. 7 Realizing Hick’s contrasting reading on this thought helps bring it back into focus. In treatment of the problem of evil, Irenaeus and his community ought to be understood accurately.

examples, see John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil, rev. and expanded ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 34–41, 46–62, 69–72; Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 10–12, 18–27; Mark S. M. Scott, Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 2–4, 29– 41. 7 See above, pp. 60, 63–65, 67, 71, 74, 76. Likewise as Heine pointed out, Origen viewed the understanding of God as responsible for the evil wrought by Satan as a view “unworthy of God.” Ronald E. Heine, Origen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 128. 6 For a few

154

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

As Clark has pointed out, the employment of literary or critical theory has offered the humanities “new conversation partners.” 8 Since her call for early Christian studies to join in the use of Theory, it has continued to be employed within early Christian studies. 9 Yet Hick’s reading and use of Irenaeus ought to give pause. As Clark wrote, “no historical construction is ‘politically innocent’ but is driven by the problems and questions set by the historian in the present.” 10 This reality however, is not limited to discussions in the past, but includes contemporary ones. 11 Hick serves as an example of Clark’s statement. While not employing Theory in his reading, Hick’s focus on his questions and problems seemingly drove his reading of Irenaeus. 12 This leads to one aspect or idiosyncrasy of Irenaeus’s text focused upon to the negligence of another and resulted in a reading in contrast to prevailing Irenaean scholarship’s reading.13 He focused on Irenaeus’s discussion of God bringing good from Elizabeth Clark, History, Theory, Text (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 2. 9 While Clark’s call explicitly sought further use of Theory with early Christian texts, the application of Theory in analyzing them had already begun. For a helpful discussion and chronical of approaches see David Brakke, “The Early Church in North America: Late Antiquity, Theory, and the History of Christianity,” CH 71 (2002): 480–91. For a few examples following Clark’s call see Judith Chelius Stark ed., Feminist Interpretations of Augustine (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2007); Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds., Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Jonathan Cahana, “Dismantling Gender: Between Ancient Gnostic Ritual and Modern Queer BDSM” ThSex 18, no. 1 (2012): 60–75. 10 Clark, History, Theory, Text, 7; Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2015), 450. 11 Including Clark’s own historiography and mine. 12 While Hick does not purposefully pursue a Theory in his reading of Irenaeus, his presuppositions can be understood to be theoretical as the interpreter may be unaware of the Theory and beliefs that inform their reading. Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 3–4, 6. 13 In explanation of Theory, Tyson pointed to the limitation the focus of a Theory necessarily causes, Critical Theory Today, 2–3. 8

5. CONCLUSION

155

death, while ignoring his dominant discussion of death as evil. Doing so, he limited his reading of Irenaeus. His “Irenaean” theodicy included tenets that the bishop of Lyon is understood to have explicitly opposed. While all historical presentations remain driven by contemporary problems and questions, Theory offers lenses for reading early Christian sources explicitly driven by the readers’ purpose. 14 The focus of Theory upon texts of early Christianity does offer helpful nuance in interpreting them. 15 However as Adair has pointed out, such readings can lead to an “imbalanced reading” of the text.16 Their focus on the reader’s contemporary questions and disputes make them especially vulnerable to the problem’s Hick’s readings of Irenaeus evidence. 17 While all interpreters run the risk of allowing their own 14

For example, King’s discussion of “Gnosticism” is admittedly driven by her desire to critique the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy, Karen King, What Is Gnosticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 239. See Tyson’s explanation of the purposes of the readers in use of Theory, Critical Theory Today, 449–51. 15 For an explanation of benefits of Theory see Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 2. 16 John A. Adair, “Paul and Orthodoxy in Justin Martyr” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2008), 232. Adair particularly focused on Lyman’s reading of Justin and pointed out her contributions and shortcomings. Good argued that the primacy of the present within Theory reveals a need for a greater balance in readings. Graham Good, “Presentism: Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Postcolonialism,” in Theory’s Empire: An Anthology of Dissent, ed. Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 297. 17 Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2015), 3. My concern is not to argue against use of Theory. I am however, seeking to highlight what Hamilton pointed out in regards to the new historicism. The contemporary historian and ancient text writer are equally susceptible to their own bias. Paul Hamilton, Historicism, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2003), 3. Similarly, King agreed with Veeser who highlighted the reality that the employer of Theory risks reproducing the very practice it seeks to unmask. H. Aram Veeser, introduction to The New Historicism, ed. H. Aram Veeser, (New York: Routledge. 1989), xi; King, What Is

156

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

context to hinder their reading of texts, theorists purposefully read texts through their contemporary needs. Their readings are driven by their current context. Thus, the risk all interpreters have of their own personal problems and questions hindering their readings is markedly at risk for theorists. To alleviate this problem, readings ought to attend to the fullness of a text and its content. 18 A theorist’s helpful nuance should not lose sight of all other aspects of a text while focused on a particular reading of a text. Hick’s reading and use of Irenaeus offers a helpful reminder for scholarship. It reveals the need to attune to the whole of the texts rather than being limited by one’s contemporary problems and questions.

Gnosticism, 338. For a counter to Tyson’s and Clark’s enthusiasm for the use of Theory, see the compilation of articles in Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral, eds. Theory’s Empire: An Anthology of Dissent (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). 18 Adair, “Paul and Orthodoxy in Justin Martyr” 236.

BIBLIOGRAPHY EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by B. Ehrman. Loeb Classical Library 24–25. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Athenagoras. Legatio and De Resurrectione. Edited and translated by William R. Schoedel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Clement of Alexandria. Stomateis: Books One to Three. Translated by John Ferguson. Ancient Christian Writers 85. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1991. Iamblichus. De Anima: Text, Translations, and Commentary. Translated by John F. Finamore and John M. Dillon. Philosophia antiqua 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translated by Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1885. Reprint Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Irenaeus. Against the Heresies, Book 1. Translated and annotated by Dominic J. Unger, with further revisions by John J. Dillon. Ancient Christian Writers 55. New York: Newman Press, 1992. Irenaeus. Against the Heresies, Book 2. Translated and annotated by Dominic J. Unger, with further revisions by John J. Dillon. Ancient Christian Writers 65. New York: Newman Press, 2012. 157

158

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Irenaeus. Against the Heresies, Book 3. Translated and annotated by Dominic J. Unger, with further revisions by Irenaeus M. C. Steenberg. Ancient Christian Writers 64. New York: Newman Press, 2012. Irenaeus. Contre les heresies, Book 1. Edited, translated, and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau. 2 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 263, 264. Paris: Cerf, 1979. Irenaeus. Contre les heresies, Book 2. Edited, translated, and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau. 2 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 293,294. Paris: Cerf, 1982. Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 3. Edited, translated, and annotated by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau. 2 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 210, 211. Paris: Cerf, 1974. Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 4. Edited, translated, and annotated by Adelin Rousseau with the collaboration of Bertrand Hemmerdinger, Louis Doutreleau, and Charles Mercier. 2 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 100.1, 100.2. Paris: Cerf, 1965. Irenaeus. Contre les hérésies, Book 5. Edited, translated, and annotated by Adelin Rousseau, Louis Doutreleau and Charles Mercier. 2 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 152, 153. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Irenaeus. Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique. Translated and annotated by Adelin Rousseau. Sources chretiennes, no. 406. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Irenaeus. On the Apostolic Preaching. Translated by John Behr. Popular Patristics Series. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997. Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated and annotated by Joseph P. Smith. Ancient Christian Writers 16. New York: Paulist Press, 1952. Irenaeus. Libros quinque adversus haereses, textu graeco in locis nonnullis locupletato, versione latina cum codicibus claromontano ac gnosticorum prolusione, fragmenta necnon graece, syriace, armeniace, commentatione perpetua et indicibus variis. Edited by W. W. Harvey. 2 vols. Cambridge: Typis Academicis, 1857. Reprint Rochester: St. Irenaeus Press, 2013.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

Irenaeus. The Scandal of the Incarnation: Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Selected and with an introduction by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Translated by John Saward. San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1990. Justin. Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. Miroslav Marcovich. Patristische Texte und Studien 47. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Justin. The First and Second Apologies. Translated and annotated by Leslie William Barnard. Ancient Christian Writers 56. New York: Newman Press, 1997. Lightfoot, Joseph B. ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, Part 1, Clement vol. 1. 2d ed. London: Macmillan, 1890. Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Ancient Christian Writers 71. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1982. Plutarch. “De communibus notitiis contra stoicos.” In Moralia. Translated and edited by Harold Cherniss, vol. 12.2, 622–873. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. Plutarch. “De Iside et Osiride.” In Moralia. Translated and edited by Frank Cole Babbitt, vol. 5, 6–253. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. Tatian. Oratio ad Graecos. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. Patristische Texte und Studien 43. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Tertullian. Contre Marcion. By René Braun. 4 vols. Sources chretiennes, nos. 365, Paris: Cerf, 1990. Theophilus. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. Patristische Text und Studien 44. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995.

BOOKS Adams, Marilyn McCord, and Robert Merrihew Adams, eds. The Problem of Evil. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

160

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Allert, Craig D. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation: Studies in Justyn Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Andrus, Paul F. Why Me? Why Mine? New York: Abingdon Press, 1975. Armstrong. Gregory T. Die Genesis in der alten Kirche. Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik 4. Tübingen: Mohr,1962. Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. Clement of Alexandrian on Trial: The Evidence of ‘Heresy’ from Photius’ Bibliotheca. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 101. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Astley, Jeff, David Brown, and Ann Loades, eds. Evil. Problems in Theology 2. New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Bacq Philippe. De l’ancienne á la nouvelle Alliance selon S. Irénée: unite du livre IV de l’adversus haereses. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres des Facultés universitaires NotreDame de la Paix, no. 58. Paris: Lethielleux, 1978. Barnard, Leslie W. Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic. Théologie historique 18. Paris: Beauchesne, 1972. Behr, John. Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement. Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Behr, John. Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity. Christian Theology in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Rev. and enlarged ed. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1953. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. Irenaeus’ Use of Matthew’s Gospel in Adversus Haerses. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 7. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Birnbaum, David. God and Evil. Hoboken: Ktav, 1989. Blosser, Benjamin P. Become Like the Angels: Origen’s Doctrine of the Soul.Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

Bonwetsch, G. Nathanael. Die Theologie des Irenäus. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie. R2: B9. Gürersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925. Bousset, W. Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des alten und neuen Testaments, n.s., no. 6 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915. Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des christentum bis Irenaeus. 2d ed. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des alten und neuen Testaments, n.s., no. 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. Bouteneff, Peter C. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myths, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Bray, Gerald. Augustine on the Christian Life: Transformed by the Power of God. Theologians on the Christian Life. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015. Briggman, Anthony. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit. Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Henry Chadwick and Andrew Louth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000. Cheetham, David. John Hick. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Clark, Elizabeth. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Literary Turn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Comby, Jean. Irénée: aux origines de l’Église de Lyon, 177–1977. Lyon: Profac, 1977. Couliano, Ioan P. The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992. Creegan, Nicola Hoggard. Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

162

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. D’Costa, Gavin. John Hick’s Theology of Religions. New York: University Press of America, 1987. Davies, Brian. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. New York: Continuum, 2006. Davis, Stephen T. ed. Encountering Evil. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Davis, Stephen T. ed. Encountering Evil. New ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. de Andia, Ysabel. Homo Vivens: Incorruptibilité et divinization de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyon. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986. de Jong, Albert. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 133. New York: Brill, 1997. Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Rev. ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Donovan, Mary Ann. One Right Reading. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997. Dunn, Geoffrey D. Tertullian. The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge, 2004. Dunn, Geoffrey D. Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Patristic Monograph Series 19. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008. Edwards, Mark Julian. Origen Against Plato. Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity, ed. Mark Edwards, Patricia Cox Miller, and Christoph Riedweg. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002. Ehrman, Bart. Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Fantino, Jacques. L’Homme image de Dieu chez saint Irenee de Lyon. Paris: Cerf, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

Fantino, Jacques. La theologie d’Irénée. Lecture des Écritures en reponse à l’exégèse gnostique: Une approche trinitaire. Cogitatio fidei 180. Paris: Cerf, 1994. Farkasfalvy, Denis. Inspiration and Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil. Rev. and expanded ed. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004. Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism. Translated by Anthony Alcock. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Floyd, W. E. G. Clement of Alexandria’s Treatment of the Problem of Evil. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Friesenhahn, Jacob. The Trinity and Theodicy. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Galligan, Michael. God and Evil. New York: Paulist Press, 1976. Geivett, R. Douglas. Evil and the Evidence for God. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. Gokey, Francis X. The Terminology for the Devil and Evil Spirits in the Apostolic Fathers. New York: AMS, 1961. Reprint, New York: AMS, 1982. Gonzalez-Faus, J. I. Creación y progreso en la teología de San Ireneo. Barcelona: San Cugat del Valles, 1968. Graham, Christopher. The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Grant, Robert M. Irenaeus of Lyons. The Early Church Fathers, ed. Carol Harrison. London: Routledge, 1997. Green, William Chase. Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944. Griffen, David Ray. Evil Revisited. New York: State University of New York Press, 1991. Griffen, David Ray. God, Power, and Evil. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

164

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Hall, Stuart G. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. London: SPCK, 2005. Hamilton, Paul. Historicism. 2nd ed. The New Critical Idiom. New York: Routledge, 2003. Hart, William. Evil. New York: St. Martin’s, 2004. Hauke, M. Heilsverlust in Adam: Stationen griechischer Erbsündlehre: Irenäus-Origenes-Kappadozier. Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien, 58. Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1993. Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. Christian Theology in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hewitt, Harold, Jr., ed. Problems in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hick, John. Between Faith and Doubt: Dialogues on Religion and Reason. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Hick, John. Christianity at the Centre. SCM Centrebooks. London: SCM, 1968. Hick, John. Death and Eternal Life. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. Hick, John. Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan, 2010. Hick, John. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Hick, John. Faith and Knowledge. 2nd ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966. Hick, John. Faith and Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957. Hick, John. God and the Universe of Faiths. Oxford: Oneworld, 1993. Hick, John. God has Many Names. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982. Hick, John. John Hick: An Autobiography. Oxford: Oneworld, 2002. Hick, John. The Centre of Christianity. London: SCM, 1977. Hill, C. E. Who chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hill, Charles E. From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. Wissenschaffliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 186. Tübingen: Mohr, 2006. Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery. Irenaeus of Lugdumum: A Study of His Teaching. Charleston, SC: Nabu Public Domain Reprints, 1914. Holsinger-Friesen, Thomas. Irenaeus and Genesis: A Study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics. Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplement 1. Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Houssiau, Albert. La Christologie de Saint Irénée. Louvain: Publications univeritaires de Louvain, 1955. Jefford, Clayton N. The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Johansen, Karsten Friis. A History of Ancient Philosophy: From the Beginnings to Augustine. Translated by Henrik Rosenmeier. New York: Routledge, 1998. Karavites, Peter. Evil, Freedom, and the Road to Perfection in Clement of Alexandria. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 43. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

166

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Kearsley, Roy. Tertullian’s Theology of Divine Power. Rutherford Studies in Historical Theology. Edinburgh: Paternoster, 1998. Kelly, Joseph A. The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002. King, Karen. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Kreeft, Peter J. Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994. Lashier, Jackson. Irenaeus on the Trinity. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 127. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Lauro, Elizabeth Ann Dively. The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity 3, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham. Leiden: Brill, 2005. le Boulluec, Alain. La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque IIe–IIe siècles. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1985. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Essais de théodicée. Amsterdam: Troyel, 1710. Little, Bruce A. A Creation-Order Theodicy. New York: University Press of America, 2005. Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutstamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 187. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Long, Thomas G. What Shall We Say? Evil Suffering, and the Crisis of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Loofs, Friedrich. Theophilus von Antiochien: Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaus. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930. Louth, Andrew. Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013. Lubec, Henri de. Histore et spirit: L’intelligence de l’Écriture d’après Origène. Paris: Aubier, 1950. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 58. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Lyman, J. Rebecca. Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius, and Athanasius. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923. Markschies, Christoph. Gnosis: An Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Martens, Peter W. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Oxford Early Christian Studies, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Mathews, Charles T. Evil and the Augustinian Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. May, Gerhard. Schöpfung aus dem Nichts: Die Entstehung der Lehre von der creation ex nihilo. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978. McBrayer, Justin P., and Daniel Howard-Snyder. The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013. McCloskey, H. J. God and Evil. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974. McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Mesle, C. Robert. John Hick’s Theodicy. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Minns, Denis, and Paul Parvis, eds. and trans. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. Oxford Early Christian Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Minns, Denis. Irenaeus. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Minns, Denis. Irenaeus. Outstanding Christian Thinkers. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994. Moringiello, Scott D. The Rhetoric of Faith: Irenaeus and the Structure of the Adversus Haereses. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019. Moss, Candida. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. New York: HarperCollins, 2013.

168

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Murphy, Nancy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, eds. Physics and Cosmology. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Mutschler, Bernhard. Irenäus als johnannischer Theologe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Nielson, J. T. Adam and Christ in the Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1968. Noormann, Rolf. Irenäus als Paulusinterpret: Zur Rezeption und Wirkung der paulinischen und deuteropaulinischen Briege im Werk des Irenäus von Lyon. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neun Testament 2 Reihe 66. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Norris Jr, Richard A. God and World in Early Christian Theology. New York: Seabury 1965. O’Brien, Carl Séan. The Demiurge in Ancient Thought: Secondary Gods and Divine Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. O’Keefe, John J., and R. R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005. Ochagavia, Juan. Visibile Patris Filius: A Study of Irenaeus’ Teaching on Revelation and Tradition. Orientalia Christian Analecta, no. 171. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1964. Oden, Thomas C. Classic Christianity. NY: HarperOne, 2009. Oden, Thomas C. The Living God, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. Olson, Mark Jeffrey. Irenaeus, the Valentinian Gnostics, and the Kingdom of God (A. H. Book V): The Debate about 1 Corinthians 15:50. New York: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992. Orbe, Antonio. Antopologia de San Ireneo. Biblioteca de autores christianos 286. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1969. Orbe, Antonio. Espiritualidad de San Ireneo. Analecta Gregoriana, no. 256. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Orbe, Antonio. Introduction a la teologia de los siglos II y III. 2 vols. Analecta Gregoriana, no. 248. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1987. Orbe, Antonio. Telogia de San Ireneo: comentario al Libro V del “Adversus haereses.” 3 vols. Biblioteca de autores christianos, nos. 25, 29, 33. Madrid: La Editorial Católica, 1985–88. Osborn, Eric Francis. Justin Martyr. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 47. Tübingen: Mohr, 1973. Osborn, Eric. Irenaeus of Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Ottati, Douglas F. Theology for Liberal Protestants: God the Creator. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Pagels, Elaine. Beyond Beief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003. Paget, James Carleton. The Epistle of Barnabas. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neun Testament 2. Reihe 64. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Pak, Kenneth K. Diving Power and Evil: A Reply to Process Theodicy. Ashgate Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies Series. New York: Routledge, 2016. Patai, Daphne, and Will H. Corral, eds. Theory’s Empire: An Anthology of Dissent. New York, Columbia University Press, 2005. Penner, Todd, and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds. Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Peterson, Michael L. God and Evil. Boulder: Westview, 1998. Phillips, D. Z. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Phillips,John. Order From Disorder: Proclus’ Doctrine of Evil and Its Roots in Ancient Platonism. Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts 5. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Reprint, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1977. Pomazansky, Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. 2nd ed. Edited and translated by Seraphim Rose. New York: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994.

170

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Presley, Stephen O. The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons. Bible in Ancient Christianity 8. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Procter, Everett. Christian Controversy in Alexandria: Clement’s Polemic against the Basilideans and Valentinians. American University Studies Series 7. Theology and Religion 172. New York: Peter Lang, 1995. Puttanil, Thomas. A Comparative Study of the Theological Methodology of Irenaeus of Lyon and Sankaracharya. Religionswissenschaft 4. New York: Peter Lang, 1990. Rasimus, Tuomas. Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Orphite Evidence. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 68. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reventflow, Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Vol. 1: From the Old Testament to Origen. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Reydams-Schils, Gretchen. Demiurge and Providence: Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus. Monothéismes et Philosophie. Turnhout: Brepolis, 1999. Roberge, Michel. The Paraphrase of Shem (NH VII, 1): Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 72. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Rogers, Rick. Theophilus of Antioch: The Life and Thought of a Second-Century Bishop. New York: Lexington, 2000. Sanford, John A. Evil. New York: Crossroads, 1981. Scott, Mark S. Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil. Academy Series. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2012. Scott, Mark S. M. Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Smith, John Clark. The Ancient Wisdom of Origen. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1992. Southgate, Christopher. The Groaning of Creation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Stark, Judith Chelius, ed. Feminist Interpretations of Augustine. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Stead, Christopher. Philosophy in Christian Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Steenberg, M. C. Irenaeus on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga of Redemption. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 91. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Steenberg, M. C. Of God and Man: Theology as Anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Still, Todd D., and David E. Wilhite, eds. Tertullian and Paul. Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. Stoeber, Michael. Evil and the Mystics’ God: Towards a Mystical Theodicy. London: Macmillan, 1990. Stoeber, Michael. Reclaiming Theodicy. Library of Philosophy and Religion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Surin, Kenneth. Theology and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Reprint, Signposts in Theology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992. Tallon, Phillip. The Poetics of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Tarrant, Harold. Plato’s First Interpreters. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000. Tarrant, Harold. Skepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Thomassen, Einar. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians.” Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Tilley, Terrence W. The Evils of Theodicy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991. Timothy, H. B. The Early Christian Apologists and Greek Philosophy: Exemplified by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Philosophical Texts and Studies. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972. Trigg, Joseph Wilson. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

172

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Tzamalikos, P. Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time. Supplements to Vigiliae christianae 77. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Vallée, Gérard. A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 1. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981. Veeser, H. Aram, ed. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge. 1989. Vermeer, Paul. Learning Theodicy. Empirical Studies in Theology 3. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Wilkinson, Michael B., with Hugh N. Campbell. Philosophy of Religion. New York: Continuum, 2010. Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Wilson, Daniel E. Deification and the Rule of Faith. Bloomington, IN: Cross, 2010. Wingren, Gustof. Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1959.

ARTICLES AND ESSAYS Aagaard, Anna Marie. “‘My Eyes Have Seen Your Salvation.’: On Likeness to God and Deification in Patristic Theology.” Translated by Edward Broadbridge. Religion and Theology 17, no. 3–4 (2010): 302–28. Allen, Diogenes. “Natural Evil and the Love of God.” Religious Studies 16, no. 4 (1980): 439–56. Allert, Craig D. “The State of the New Testament Canon in the Second Century: Putting Tatian’s Diatessaron in Perspective.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 1–18. Alston, William P. “John Hick: Faith and Knowledge.” In God, Truth and Reality, edited by Arvind Sharma, 24–30. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Altermath, F. “The Purpose of the Incarnation according to Irenaeus.” Studia Patristica 13, no. 2 (1975):63–68. Amo Usanos, Rafael. “‘La Carne Habituada a Portoar Vida’ (Adv. Haer. V, 3, 3: Aclaraciones al uso de ζωή en la obra de san Ireneo.” Estudios eclesiásticos 83, no. 326 (2008): 425–55. Armstrong, A. H. “Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian.” In Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern 6, edited by Richard T. Wallis, 33–54. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. “Clement of Alexandria on Creation of Eve: Exegesis in the Service of a Pedagogical Project.” Studia Patristica 66, no.14 (2013): 53–59. Awad, Najeeb G. “How the Church Fathers Read the Gospel of Mark as a Reliable Theological Text: A Comparison between Early and Modern Scholarship.” Near East School of Theology Theological Review 29, no. 2 (2008): 83–114. Balás, David L. “The Use and Interpretation of Paul in Irenaeus’s Five Books Adversus Haereses.” The Second Century 9 (1992): 27–39. Basevi, Claudio. “El hombre, Dios y la sociedad según Rom 1, 18–32: Un ejemplo de exegesis cristian de los primeros siglos.” Scripta Theologica 17, no. 1 (1985): 193–212. Behr, John. “Andrew Louth.” In Meditations of the Heart: The Psalms in Early Christian Thought and Practice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Louth, Studia Traditionis Theologiae: Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology 8, edited by Andreas Andreopoulos, Augustine Casiday, and Carol Harrison, ix–xiii. Tournhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011. Behr, John. “Irenaeus AH 3.23.5. and the Ascetic Ideal.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1993): 305–13. Behr, John. “Nature, Wounded and Healed in Early Patristic Thought.” Toronto Journal of Theology 29, no. 1 (2013) 85–100. Behr, John. “Scripture and Gospel: Intertextuality in Irenaeus.” In Intertextuality in the Second Century, edited by D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford, 179–94. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

174

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Behr, John. “Scripture, The Gospel, and Orthodoxy.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43, nos. 3–4 (1993): 223–48. Behr, John. “The Word of God in the Second Century.” Pro Ecclesia 9, no. 1 (2000): 85–107. Bekoff, Marc. “Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures.” Bioscience 50, no. 10 (2000): 861–70. Betty, L. Stafford. “Making Sense of Animal Pain: An Environmental Theodicy.” Faith and Philosophy 9, no. 1 (1992):65–82. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Christianizing Divine Aseity: Irenaeus Reads John.” In Gospel of John and Christian Theology, edited by Richard Baukham and Carl Mosser, 53–67. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Himself within Himself: The Father and His Hands in Early Christianity.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 47, no. 2 (2005): 137–51. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Hope in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76, no. 4 (2000): 265–82. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Irenaeus and Hebrews.” In Christology and Hermeneutics of Hebrews, edited by Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier. Library of New Testament Studies 423. 48–73. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Irenaeus on Gnostic Biblical Interpretation.” Studia Patristica 40 (2006): 367–79. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Irenaeus Reads Romans 8: Resurrection and Renovation.” In Early Patristic Readings of Romans, edited by Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn, 114–132. Romans Through History and Cultures Series. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Knowledge and Love in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Studia Patristica 36 (2001): 184–99. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “Reading Martyrdom: Intertextuality in the Letter from Vienne and Lyons.” In Intertextuality in the Second Century, edited by D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford, 163–78. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “The Apocalypse, Christ, and the Martyrs of Gaul.” In In the Shadow of the Incarnation, edited by Peter W. Martens, 11–28. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Bingham, D. Jeffrey. “The Bishop in the Mirror: Scripture and Irenaeus’s Self-Understanding in Adversus haereses Book One.” In Tradition and The Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Lienhard S.J. edited by Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang, 48–67. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Boersma, Hans. “Accmodation to What? Univocity of Being, Pure Nature, and the Anthropology of St Irenaeus.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 8, no. 3 (2006): 266–93. Boersma, Hans. “Irenaeus, Derrida and Hospitality: On the Eschatological Overcoming of Violence.” Modern Theology 19, no. 2 (2003): 163–80. Boersma, Hans. “Redemptive Hospitality in Irenaeus: A Model for Ecumenicity in a Violent World.” Pro Ecclesia 11, no. 2 (2002): 207–26. Bokedal, Tomas. “The Rule of Faith: Tracing Its Origins.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 2 (2013): 233–55. Bos, Abraham P. “‘Aristotelian’ and ‘Platonic’ Dualism in Hellenistic and Early Christian Philosophy and in Gnosticism.” Vigiliae christianae 56, no. 3 (2002): 273–91. Bos, Abraham P. “Basilides as an Aristotelianizing Gnostic.” Vigiliae christianae 54, no. 1 (2000): 44–60. Bounds, Christopher Todd. “Irenaeus and the Doctrine of Christian Perfection.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (2010): 161– 76. Boyd, James W., and Donald A. Crosby. “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47, no. 4 (1979): 557–88. Brakke, David. “The Early Church in North America: Late Antiquity, Theory, and the History of Christianity.” Church History 71 (2002): 473–91.

176

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Braun, René. “Introduction Générale.” In Contre Marcion, by Tertullian, 11–94. Sources chretiennes 365. Paris: Cerf, 1990. Briggman, Anthony. “Re-Evaluating Agelomorphism in Irenaeus: The Case of Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 10.” Journal of Theological Studies 61, no. 2 (2010): 583–95. Briggman, Anthony. “Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen.” Vigiliae christianae 65, no. 2 (2011): 115–24. Briggman, Anthony. “The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus.” Journal of Theological Studies 61, no. 1 (2010): 171–93. Brown, Robert F. “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (1975): 17–25. Brox, Norbert. “Irenaeus and the Bible.” In Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, edited Charles Kannengiesser, The Bible in ancient Christianity 1, 483–506. Leiden: Brill 2006. Buckareef, Andrei A., and Allen Plug. “Hell and the Problem of Evil.” In The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, edited by Justin P. McBrayer, and Daniel Howard-Snyder, 128– 48. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013. Burns, Dylan M. “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism according to the Gnostics.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 24, no. 1 (2016): 55–79. Burns, J. Patout. “The Economy of Salvation: Two Patristic Traditions.” Theological Studies 37, no. 4 (1976): 598–619. Burns, J. Patout. Introduction to Theological Anthropology, translated and edited by J. Patout Bruns, 1–22. Sources of Early Christian Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Bushur, James G. “Patristic Exegesis: Reading Scripture in the Eucharistic Gathering.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 74, no. 3–4 (2010): 195–208. Cahana, Jonathan. “Androgyne or Undrogyne? Queering the Gnostic Myth.” Numen 61 (2014): 509–24. Cahana, Jonathan. “Dismantling Gender: Between Ancient Gnostic Ritual and Modern Queer BDSM.” Theology and Sexuality 18, no. 1 (2012): 60–75.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Canlis, Julie. “Being made Human: the Significance of Creation for Irenaeus’ Doctrine of Participation.” Scottish Journal of Theology 58, no. 04 (2005): 434–54. Chiapparini, Giuliano. “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus: Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Church of Rome around the Middle of the Second Century.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 18, no. 1 (2014): 95–119. Church, F. Forrester. “Sex and Salvation in Tertullian.” Harvard Theological Review 68, no. 2 (1975): 83–101. Clarke, Thomas E. “The Problem of Evil: A New Study.” Theological Studies 28, no. 1 (1967): 119–28. Clayton, Philip, and Steven Knapp. “Divine Action and the ‘Argument from Neglect.’” In Physics and Cosmology, edited by Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, 179– 94. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Constantelos, Demetrios. “Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views of Human Nature.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1989): 351–63. Cooper, Stephen. “Communis Magister Paulus: Altercation Over the Gospel in Tertullian’s Against Marcion.” In Tertullian and Paul. Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1, edited by Todd D. Still, and David E. Wilhite, 224–46. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. Corke-Webster, James. “A Literary Historian: Eusebius of Caesarea and the Martyrs of Lyons and Palestine.” Studia Patristica 66, no. 14 (2013): 191–202. Couvenhoven, Jesse. “Augustine’s Rejection of the Free Will Defense: An Overview of the Late Augustine’s Theology.” Religious Studies 43, no. 3 (2007): 279–98. Curry, Carl. “The Theogony of Theophilus.” Vigiliae christianae 42, no. 4 (1988): 318–26. Davis, Stephen T. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 58–61. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.

178

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Davis, Stephen T. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 58–62. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Davis, Stephen T. “Rejoinder In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 65–72. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. 65–72. de Lubac, Henri. Introduction to On First Principles by Origen, xi– xxxii. Notre Dame: Ave Maria, 2013. de Vere, Amber J. “Where are We in the Study of Animal Emotions?” WIREs: Cognitive Science 7, no. 5 (2016): 354–62. Dillon, John. “Pedantry and Pedestrianism? Some Reflections on the Middle Platonic Commentary Tradition.” In Reading Plato in Antiquity, edited by Harold Tarrant and Dirk Baltzly, 19–31. London: Duckworth, 2006. Donovan, Mary Ann. “Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St. Irenaeus.” Theological Studies 49 (1988): 293–97. Donovan, Mary Ann. “Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship.” The Second Century 4, no. 4 (1984): 219–41. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Tertullian, Paul, and the Nation of Israel.” In Tertullian and Paul. Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1, edited by Todd D. Still, and David E. Wilhite, 79–97. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. Dunning, Benjamin H. “Virgin Earth, Virgin Birth: Creation, Sexual Difference, and Recapitulation in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Journal of Religion 17, no. 1 (2007): 57–88. Fantino, Jacques. “Le passage du Premier Adam au Second Adam comme expression du salut chez Irénée de Lyon.” Vigiliae christianae 52, no. 4 (1998): 418–29. Farrow, Douglas. “St. Irenaeus of Lyons: The Church and the World.” Pro Ecclesia 4, no. 3 (1995): 333–55. Ferguson, Thomas C. K. “The Rule of Truth and Irenaean Rhetoric in Book 1 of Against Heresies.” Vigiliae christianae 55, no. 4 (2001): 356–75. Finlay, Barbara. “Was Tertullian a Misogynist? A Reconsideration.” Journal of the Historical Society 3, no. 3–4 (2003): 503–25.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Fischer-Mueller, E. Aydeet. “Yaldabaoth: The Gnostic Female Principle in Its Fallenness.” Novum Testamentum 32, no. 1 (1990): 79–95. Fredriksen, Paula. “Hysteria and the Gnostic Myths of Creation.” Vigiliae christianae 33, no. 3 (1979): 287–290. Gavrilyuk, Paul. “Creation in Early Christian Polemical Literature: Irenaeus against the Gnostics and Athanasius against the Arians.” Modern Theology 29, no. 2 (2013): 22–32. Gillis, Chester. “An Interpretation of An Interpretation of Religion.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Harold Hewitt Jr., 28–45. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Good, Graham. “Presentism: Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Postcolonialism.” In Theory’s Empire: An Anthology of Dissent, edited by Daphne Patai and Will H. Corral, 287–97. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Goodacre, Mark. “How Reliable is the Story of the Nag Hammadi discovery?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35, no. 4 (2013): 303–22. Graham, Susan. “Irenaeus as Reader of Romans 9–11: Olive Branches.” In Early Patristic Readings of Romans, edited by Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn, 87–113. Romans Through History and Cultures Series. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Grant, Robert M. “Fragments of Greek Apologists and Irenaeus.” In Biblical and Patristic Studies: In Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, edited by J. Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson, 179– 218. New York: Herder, 1963. Grant, Robert M. “The Problem of Theophilus.” Harvard Theological Review 43, no. 3 (1950): 179–96. Graves, Thomas H. “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy from an African Perspective.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 18, no. 1 (1991): 23–37. Greer, Rowan A. “The Dog and the Mushrooms: Irenaeus’s view of the Valentinians Assessed.” In The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978. Studies in the History of Religions 41. Leiden: Brill, 1981.

180

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Griffen David Ray. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 52–56. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Griffen, David R. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 53–55. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Guida, Augusto. “Ireneo, Contra Haereses 3, 11, 8–9.” Vigiliae christianae 31, no. 4 (1977): 241–43. Hall, Stuart George. “Patristic Divergences about the Image of God in Man.” In Discipline and Diversity: Papers read at the 2005 Summer Meeting and the 2006 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. Edited by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory. Studies in Church History 43, 69–79. Rochester: Bloydell and Brewer, 2007. Harrison, Verna E. F. “Children in Paradise and Death as God’s Gift: From Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons to Gregory Nazianzen.” Studia Patristica 43 (2013): 367–71. Hart, Trevor A. “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption.” in Christ in our Place, edited by Trevor Hart and Daniel Thimell, 152–81. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1989. Hawthorne Gerald F. “Tatian and His Discourse to the Greeks.” Harvard Theological Review 57, no. 3 (1964): 161–88. Hefner, Philip. “Theological Methodology and St. Irenaeus.” Journal of Religion 44 (1964): 192–309. Hewitt, Harold Jr. “In Defense of Hick’s Theodicy.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Harold Hewitt Jr., 173–75. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Hick John. “An Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 38–52. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Hick, John H. “An Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 39–52. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Hick, John H. “Response to Critics.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 63–68. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Hick, John H. “Theological Table-Talk.” Theology Today 19, no. 3 (1962): 402–11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

Hick, John. “A Pluralistic View.” In More than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips. ed. Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Hick, John. “A Response to Gerard Loughlin.” Modern Theology 7, no. 1 (1990): 57–66. Hick, John. “Belief and Life: The Fundamental Nature of the Christian Ethic.” Encounter 20, no. 4 (1959): 494–516. Hick, John. “Coherence and the God of Love Again.” Journal of Theological Studies 24, no. 2 (1973): 522–28. Hick, John. “D. Z. Phillips on God and Evil.” Religious Studies 43, no. 4 (2007): 433–41. Hick, John. “Evil, The Problem of.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Hick, John. “Evil, The Problem of.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, 1972. Hick, John. “Evil, The Problem of.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. Vol. 3. Detroit: Thompson Gale, 2006. Hick, John. “God, Evil and Mystery.” Religious Studies 3 no. 2 (1968): 539–56. Hick, John. “Jesus and the World Religions.” In The Myth of God Incarnate, edited by John Hick, 167–85. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Hick, John. “Preface to the 2010 Reissue.” In Evil and the God of Love, xii–xiv. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Hick, John. “Present and Future Life.” Harvard Theological Review 71, no. 1–2 (1978): 1–15. Hick, John. “Problem of Evil in the First and Last Things.” Journal of Theological Studies 19, no. 2 (1968): 591–602. Hick, John. “Reply to Rowe.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Harold Hewitt Jr., 134–37. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991.

182

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Hick, John. “Response to Mesle.” American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25, no. 3 (2004): 265–69. Hick, John. “Response to Mesle.” In John Hick’s Theodicy, 115–34. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991. Hick, John. “Straightening the Record: Some Response to Critics.” Modern Theology 6, no. 2 (1990): 187–95. Hick, John. “The Outcome: Dialogue into Truth.” In Truth and Dialogue in World Religions, edited by John Hick, 140–55. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Hochban, John I. “St. Irenaeus on the Atonement.” Theological Studies 7, no. 4 (1946): 525–557. Hoitenga, Dewey J. “Is a Christian Theodicy Possible?” Reformed Journal 17, no. 9 (1967): 15–19. Hvidt, Niels Christian. “The Historical Development of the Problem of Evil.” In Physics and Cosmology, edited by Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, 1–34. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “The Importance of Genesis 1–3 in the Theology of Irenaeus.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 8 (2004): 299–316. Kannengeiser, Charles. “The ‘Speaking God’ and Irenaeus’s Interpretive Pattern: the Reception of Genesis.” Annai di storia dell’ esegesi 15, no. 2 (1998): 337–52. Kim, Dai Sil. “Irenaeus of Lyons and Teilhard De Chardin: A Comparative Study of ‘Recapitulation’ and ‘Omega.’” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 13, no. 1 (1976): 69–93. Larrimore, Mark. Introduction to Chapter 6: Irenaeus of Lyon of The Problem of Evil, edited by Mark Larrimore, 28. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Lashier, Jackson. “Irenaeus as Logos Theologian.” Vigiliae christianae 66, no. 4 (2012): 341–61. Layton, Bentley. “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism.” In The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, 334–350. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

Lewis, Nicola Denzey, and Justine Ariel Blount. “Rethinking the Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014): 399–419. Litwa, M. David. “The Wondrous Exchange: Irenaeus and Eastern Valentinians on the Soteriology of Interchange.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 22, no. 3 (2014): 311–41. Logan, Alastair. “The Apocryphon of John and the Development of the ‘Classic’ Gnostic Myth.” Adamantius 18 (2012): 136–50. Löhr, Winrich. “Christian Gnostics and Greek Philosophy in the Second Century.” Early Christianity 3, no. 3 (2012): 349–77. MacDonald, Nathan. “Israel and the Old Testament Story in Irenaeus’s Presentation of the Rule of Faith.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3, no. 2 (2009): 281–98. Maller, Mark. “Animals and the Problem of Evil in Recent Theodicies.” Sophia 48, no. 3 (2009): 299–317. Mansfeld, Jaap. “Bad World and Demiurge: A ‘Gnostic’ Motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo.” In Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, edited by R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, 261–314. Leiden Brill, 1981. Martinez-Gayol Fernandez, Nurya. “Ireneo De Lyon: La idea de ‘Reparación’ en el context de la ‘Recapitulación.’” Estudios eclesiásticos 85, no. 332 (2010): 3–42. McLaughlin, Ryan Patrick. “Evidencing the Eschaton: ProgressiveTransformative Animal Welfare in the Church Fathers.” Modern Theology 27, no. 1 (2011): 121–46. McRay, John. “Scripture and Tradition in Irenaeus.” Restoration Quarterly 10, no. 1 (1967): 1–11. Meconi, David Vincent, and Carl E. Olson. “Chapter One: The Scriptural Roots of Christian.” In Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, edited by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson, 17–39. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016.

184

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Meconi, David Vincent. “Chapter Four: No Longer a Christian but Christ: Saint Augustine on Becoming Divine.” In Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, edited by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson, 82–100. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016. Meijering, E. P. “God Cosmos History Christian and Neo-Platonic views on Divine Revelation.” Vigiliae christianae 28, no. 4 (1974): 248–76. Mesle, C. Robert. “Does God hide from us? John Hick and Process Theology on Faith, Freedom and Theodicy.” Philosophy of Religion 24 (1988): 93–111. Mesle, C. Robert. “Humanism and Hick’s Interpretation of Religion.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Harold Hewitt Jr., 54–71. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Morris, Marla Beth. “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 17, no. 2 (1993): 4–17. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard. “Marcion’s Jealous God.” In Disciplina Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans, edited by Donald F. Winslow, 93–113. Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979. Murphy, Nancey. “Science and the Problem of Evil: Suffering as a By-Product of a Finely Tuned Cosmos.” In Physics and Cosmology, edited by Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, 131–51. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Namikawa, Miyako. “La paciencia del crecimiento y la maduración: del hombre recién hecho al hombre perfecto de Ireneo de Lyon.” Estudios eclesiásticos 83, no. 324 (2008): 51–85. Nispel, Marek D. “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia.” Vigiliae christianae 53, no. 3 (1999): 289–304. Norris, Richard A., Jr. “Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Later Second Century.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 52, no. 1–2 (1998): 43–59.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Norris, Richard A., Jr. “Irenaeus and Plotinus Answer the Gnostics: A Note on the Relation between Christian Thought and Platonism.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 36, no. 1 (1980): 13– 24. Norris, Richard A., Jr. “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul in his Polemic Against the Gnostics.” In Recent Studies in Early Christianity: A Collection of Scholarly Essays, ed. Everett Ferguson, 101–24. London: Routledge, 1999. Norris, Richard A., Jr. “The Insufficiency of Scripture: Adversus haereses 2 and the Role of Scripture in Irenaeus’s Anti-Gnostic Polemic.” In Reading in Christian Communities: Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church, edited by Charles A. Bobertz and David Brakke, 63–79. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002. Norris, Richard A., Jr. “Theology and Language in Irenaeus of Lyon.” Anglican Theological Review 76, no. 2 (1994): 285–95. O’Keefe, John. “Environmental Crisis and Christian Identity: Lessons from a Secular Gaia.” Religion and Identity, edited by Ronald A. Simkins and Thomas M. Kelly, Journal of Religion & Society Supplement 13 (2016), 202–15. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/toc/SS13.html. Orbe, Antonio. “Sobre los inicios de la teología: notas sin importancia.” Estudios eclesiásticos 56, no. 218–19 (1981): 689– 704. Ortiz, Jared. “Chapter Three: Deification in the Latin Fathers.” In Called to Be Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, edited by David Meconi, and Carl E. Olson, 59–81. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2016. Osborn, Eric, F. “Love of Enemies and Recapitulation.” Vigiliae christianae 54, no. 1 (2000): 12–31. Osborn, Eric, F. “Reason and the Rule of Faith in the Second Century AD.” In The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick edited by Rowan Williams, 40–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Osborn, Eric. “Irenaeus: Rocks in the Road.” Expository Times 114, no. 8 (2003): 255–58.

186

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Pagels, Elaine H. “‘The Demiurge and his Archons’: A Gnostic view of the Bishop and Presbyters?” Harvard Theological Review 69, no. 3/4 (1976): 301–24. Pears, Colin David. “Congruency and Evil in Plato’s Timaeus.” Review of Metaphysics 69, (2015): 93–113. Peckham, John C. “Epistemological Authority in the Polemic of Irenaeus.” Didaskalia 19, no. 1 (2008): 51–70. Perkins, Pheme. “On the Origin of the World (CG II,5): A Gnostic Physics,” Vigiliae christianae 34, no. 1 (1980): 36–46. Petersen, William L. “Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy.” In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism edited by Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, 311–325. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992. Peterson, Michael L. “Introduction.” In The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings, edited by Michael L. Peterson, 1–19. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992. Peterson, Michael L. “Recent Work on the Problem of Evil.” American Philosophical Quarterly 20, no. 4 (1983): 321–39. Phillips, D. Z. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 56–58. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Presley, Stephen O. “The Demonstration of Intertextuality Irenaeus of Lyons.” In Intertextuality in the Second Century, edited by D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton Jefford, 195–213. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Pricopi, Victor-Alexandru. “From Ancient Gnostics to Modern Scholars: Issues in Defining the Concept of ‘Gnosticism.’” Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala 5, no. 2 (2013): 41–56. Puccetti, Roland. “Loving God: some Observations on John Hick’s Evil and the God of Love.” Religious Studies 2, no. 2 (1967): 255–68. Purves, James G. M. “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyon” Evangelical Quarterly 68, no. 2 (1996): 99–120.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Quispel, Gilles. “The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic.” Vigiliae christianae 50, no. 4 (1996): 327–52. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “Euangelion: Orality, Textuality, and the Christian Truth in Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses.” Vigiliae christianae 56, no. 1 (2002): 11–46. Rist, John M. “Coherence and the God of Love.” Journal of Theological Studies. 23, no. 1 (1972): 95–105. Robinson, Charles K. “St. Irenaeus on General Revelation as Preparation for Special Revelation.” Duke Divinity School Review 43, no. 3 (1978): 169–80. Roth, John K. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 61–63. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Roth, John K. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil. New ed., edited by Stephen T. Davis, 62–65. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Russell, Robert John. “Entropy and Evil.” Zygon 19, no. 4 (1984): 449–68. Ruston, Thomas William. “The John Hick Papers: Religious Pluralism in the Archives.” Expository Times 128, no. 1 (2016): 4–19. Schneider, John. “The Fall of ‘Augustinian Adam’: Original Fragility and Supralapsarian Purpose.” Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 949–69. Schoedel, William R. “Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus.” Vigiliae christianae 13, no. 1 (1959): 22–32. Schoedel, William R. “Theological Method in Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 2.25–28).” Journal of Theological Studies 35, no. 1 (1984): 31–49. Schoedel, William R. “Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?” Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993): 279–97. Schultz, D. R. “The Origin of Sin in Irenaeus and Jewish Pseudepigraphical Literature.” Vigiliae christianae 32, no. 3 (1978): 161– 90. Scott, Mark S. M. “Suffering and Soul-Making: Rethinking John Hick’s Theodicy.” Journal of Religion 90, no. 3 (July 2010): 313– 34.

188

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Skarsaune, Oskar. “The Development of Scriptural Interpretation in the Second and Third Centuries—Except Clement and Origen.” In Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), edited by Magne Saebo, vol. 1: Part 1 Antiquity, 373–442. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996. Slusser, Michael. “How Much Did Irenaeus Learn From Justin.” Studia Patristica 40. (2006): 515–20. Smith, Joseph P. Introduction to Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, by Irenaeus, 3–4. Ancient Christian Writers 16. New York: Paulist Press, 1952. Sontag, Frederick. “Critique of Irenaean Theodicy.” In Encountering Evil, edited by Stephen T. Davis, 55–58. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Southgate, Christopher, and Andrew Robinson. “Varieties of Theodicy: An Exploration of Responses to the Problem of Evil Based on a Typology of Good-Harm Analyses.” In Physics and Cosmology, edited by Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, 67–90. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Speak, Daniel. “Free Will and Soul-Making Theodicies.” In The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, edited by Justin P. McBrayer, and Daniel Howard-Snyder, 205–21. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013. Steenberg, Irenaeus M. C. “Tracing the Irenaean Legacy.” In Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy, edited by Paul Foster and Sara Parvis, 199–211. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Steenberg, M. C. “An Exegesis of Conformity: Textual Subversion of Subversive Texts.” In Discipline and Diversity: Papers read at the 2005 Summer Meeting and the 2006 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. Studies in Church History 43, edited by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory, 25–35. Rochester: Bloydell and Brewer, 2007. Steenberg, M. C. “Children in Paradise: Adam and Eve as ‘Infants’ in Irenaeus of Lyons.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12, no. 1 (2004): 1–22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Steenberg, M. C. “Impatience and Humanity’s Sinful State in Tertullian of Carthage.” Vigiliae christianae 62, no. 2 (2008): 107– 32. Steenberg, M. C. “Irenaeus on Scripture, Graphe, and the Status of Hermas.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2009): 29–66. Steenberg, M. C. “The Role of Mary as Co-Recapitulator in St Irenaeus of Lyons.” Vigiliae christianae 58, no. 2 (2004): 117–37. Steenberg, M. C. “Two-Natured Man: An Anthropology of Transfiguration.” Pro Ecclesia 14, no. 4 (2005): 413–32. Steenberg, Matthew C. “The Gospel of Truth and the Truth of the Gospel: Assessing the Scope of Valentinian Influence on the Thought of Irenaeus.” Studia Patristica 50 (2011): 89–103. Striver, Dan R. “Hick Against Himself: His Theodicy versus his Replica Theory.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Harold Hewitt Jr., 162–72. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Stump, Eleonore. “The Problem of Evil.” Faith and Philosophy 2, no. 4 (1985): 392–423. Tabor, James D. “The Theology of Redemption in Theophilus of Antioch.” Restoration Quarterly 18, no. 3 (1975): 159–71. Tarrant, Harold. “Platonism Before Plotinus.” In The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 1:63–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Thompson, James W. “The Alleged Persecution of the Christians at Lyons in 177.” American Journal of Theology 16, no. 3 (1912): 359–84. Tilley, Terrence W. “The Problems of Theodicy: A Background Essay In Physics and Cosmology, edited by Nancy Murphy, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger, 35–51. Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007. Tilley, Terrence W. “The Use and Abuse of Theodicy.” Horizons 11, no. 2 (1984): 304–19. Trethowan, Illtyd. “Dr. Hick and the Problem of Evil.” Journal of Theological Studies 18, no. 18 (1967): 407–16.

190

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Turner, John D. “The Setting of the Platonizing Sethian Treatises in Middle Platonism.” In Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts, edited by John D. Turner and Ruth Majercik, 179–224. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. van den Broek, R. “The Present State of Gnostic Studies.” Vigiliae christianae 37, no. 1 (1983): 41–47. Vieker, Jon D. “Unity and Diversity in Irenaeus as Paradigm for Contemporary Lutheran Ceremonial Consensus.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64, no. 2 (2000): 83–104. Vogel, Jeff. “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption.” Anglican Theological Review 89, no. 3 (2007): 443–59. von Harnack, Adolf. “Der Presbyter-Predifer des Irenäus.” In Philotesia. Paul Kleiner zum 70. Geburstag, edited by Adolf von Harnack and Paul Kleinert., 1–37. Berlin: Trowitzch und Sohn, 1907. Vorster, Nico. “The Augustinian Type of Theodicy: Is it Outdated?” Journal of Reformed Theology, 5 no. 1 (2011): 26–48. Ward, Keith. “Freedom and the Irenaean Theodicy.” Journal of Theological Studies 20, no. 1 (1969): 249–54. Watson, JoAnn Ford. “Contemporary views on the Problem of Evil.” Ashland Theological Journal 24 (1992): 27–33. White, Benjamin L. “How to Read a Book: Irenaeus and the Pastoral Epistles Reconsidered.” Vigiliae christianae 65, no. 2 (2011): 125– 49. Whittaker, John. “Plutarch, Platonism and Christianity.” In Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays in honour of A. H. Armstrong, edited by H. J. Blumenthal and R. A. Markus, 50– 63. London: Variorum, 1981. Williams, Robert R. “Theodicy, Tragedy, and Soteriology: The Legacy of Schleiermacher.” Harvard Theological Review 77, no. 2–4 (1984): 395–412.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Woudenberg, René. “A Brief History of Theodicy.” In The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil, edited by Justin P. McBrayer, and Daniel Howard-Snyder, 177–91. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013. Xintaras, Zachery C. “Man, the Image of God according to the Greek Fathers.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1, no. 1 (1954): 48–62. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “The Descent of Ishtar, the fall of Sophia, and the Jewish roots of Gnosticism.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 143–75. Zwaanstra, Henry. “Louis Berhof.” In Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development, edited by David F. Wells, 135–56. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Adair, John A. “Paul and Orthodoxy in Justin Martyr.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2008. Anderson. A. K. “Evil and the God of Narrative.” PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2005. Broome, James Jefferson. “The Theodicy of John Hick: A Critical Defense.” PhD diss., University of Southern Colorado, 1998. Burns. J. Patout. “Irenaeus of Lyons: the Economy of Creation and Salvation” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Patristics Society, Chicago, May 2014. Bushur, James G. “‘Joining the End to the Beginning’ Divine Providence and the Interpretation of Scripture in the Teaching of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons.” PhD diss., University of Durham, 2009. Hoff, Eric. “Augustine and Irenaeus on the Perfection of Adam” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, November 2018. Hardeman, Christopher. “The Theodicies of Josiah Royce and John Hick.” PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 1982. Hick, John. “The Relationship between Faith and Knowledge.” DPhil thesis, Oriel College, 1950.

192

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Hick, John. Papers of John Hick. Cadbury Research Library, Birmingham, UK. Lashier, Jackson Jay. “The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons.” PhD diss., Marquette University, 2011. Mackie, Myra Beth. “John Hick’s Theodicy.” PhD diss., Duke University, 1980. Martin, Edward N. “The Evidential Argument of Evil in Recent Analytic Philosophy.” PhD diss., Purdue University, 1995. McDonald, Michael. “Towards a Contemporary Theodicy.” PhD diss., University of Hawaii, 1995. O’Keefe, John. “Irenaeus and Teilhard de Chardin: Is There Such a Thing as a Christian Evolutionary Theodicy?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Patristics Society, Chicago, May 2013. Rainwater, Robert E. “John Hick’s Theodicy: A Critical Analysis.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980. Schultz, Donald Robert. “The Origin of Sin in Irenaeus and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” PhD diss., MacMaster University, 1972. Thomas, James. “Is the so called “Irenaean” Theodicy Fictitious?” Paper presented at the XVIII International Conference on Patristics Studies, Oxford, August 2019.

INDEX Apostolic Fathers 1 Clem. 3.4 2 Clem. 20.1 2 Clem. 20.2 Barn. 12.5 Barn. 14.5 Barn. 20.1–2 Barn. 20.2 Diogn. 9 Pol. Phil. 7.1–2

56n34 56n35 56n36 56 56 56–57 57n39 57 92n51

Athenagoras Leg. 3.1 Leg. 11 Leg. 24–25 Res. 1.1 Res. 12

58n42 95n58 58n43, 58n45 57n40 58n43, 58n44

Strom. 7.2

72n141

Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.1–3 Hist. eccl. 5.1.29 Hist. eccl. 5.5.8 Hist. eccl. 5.15 Hist. eccl. 5.20–6 Hist. eccl. 5.20.1

81n5 82n7 82n7 82n11, 82n12 80n2, 140n58 82n11, 82n12, 128n4 Hist. eccl. 5.20.5–7 80n4 Hist. eccl. 5.23–24 82n13 Hist. eccl. 5.23–24.9 96n63 Hist. eccl. 5.23.1 96n62 Hist. eccl. 5.24.10–18 96n64 Hist. eccl. 5.24.13 96n65 Hist. eccl. 5.24.18 80n3

Clement of Alexandria Paed. 1.3 72n139 Protr. 1 71n134, 71n135 Protr 10 71n136 Protr. 11 71n133, 71n135, 71n136, 72n140, 72n142 Strom. 2.6 71n34 Strom. 4.23 71n134

Iamblichus De Anima I.375 83n21 De Anima I.380 83n21 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.Pref.1 82n8, 84n18, 101n84, 102n86 1.Pref.3 83n16

193

194

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

1.Pref.2 1.1–8 1.1.3 1.2.3 1.6.2–4 1.8.1

79n1, 84n21 104–6 99n78 99n78 95n59 88n38, 97n68, 98n72 110n121 90–91 84n18, 110n121, 114n153, 121n193 90n47 110n121 101n84, 106n103 101n84, 105n96 105n96 105n97 104n94 95n59 101n84 82n9 82n8 110n121 110n121 105n97 107n105 115n157 103–4n93 107n106 103–4n93 106n104 102n86 108n112, 108n113,

1.9.2 1.10 1.10.1

1.10.2 1.10.3 1.11.1 1.12.1 1.12.3 1.13 1.13–21 1.13.1–2 1.13.1 1.13.1–5 1.13.1–7 1.15.5 1.19.1–2 1.23 1.25.1–2 1.25.2 1.25.4 1.25.4–5 1.25.5 1.25.6 1.26.3 1.27.2

1.27.3 1.28 1.28.1 1.29 1.29.1 1.29.4 1.30 1.30.7 1.31 1.31.3 2.Pref 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.2.4 2.7.3 2.9.1–2 2.10.1–2 2.10.2 2.10.3 2.11.1 2.14 2.14.2–6 2.15.3 2.16.3 2.19.2 2.19.9 2.25.2 2.25.4 2.26.3 2.27.2 2.28.1

2.28.7 2.30.9 2.31.1

108n115, 110n121 108n111 62n70 102n86 107–8 102n86 107n109 107n110 119n180 107n107 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 111n123 101n84 110n121 105n99 110n121 121n194 110n121 103n91 95n59 111n123 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 111n124 110n121, 112n141, 112n143 98n74, 110n121 110n121 110n121

INDEX 2.32.1 2.33.2 2.34.2–3 2.35.2–4 3 3.1–12 3.1.2 3.2.2 3.3.3 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.8.3 3.12.13 3.14.3 3.3 3.3.4 3.4.3 3.10.3 3.10.5 3.11.1–2 3.11.4 3.11.7 3.11.8–9 3.12.5 3.12.9 3.12.11–12 3.12.12 3.16–25 3.16.8 3.20.1 3.20.2 3.21.2–3 3.21.10 3.22.1

135 50n5 110n121 110n121 103–4n93 98n73 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 101n85 110n121 114n153 99n78 87n31 55n30 102n86 110n121, 112n138 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 97n70 110n121 110n121 110n121 116, 128n4, 140n59 98n73 84n19 119–20n181, 132–33 110n121, 133–34 88n37 110n121 111n127

195 3.22.3 3.23.1–8 3.23.1 3.23.6–7 3.23.7 3.24.1–2 3.24.1 3.24.1 3.24.2 3.25.3 3.25.5 3.25.7 3.28.1 4.Pref.3–4 4.Pref.4 4.1.1–2 4.1.1 4.2.2 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.5.3 4.6.2 4.6.4 4.6.6 4.7.3 4.9 4.9.2–3 4.9.3 4.11.2 4.14–16 4.18.4 4.20 4.20.1 4.24.1 4.26.1

110n121, 121n194 117 111n129, 135n31 122n200 116n167, 117, 118n177 110n121 88n40, 89–90 89n44, 90n46 89n43, 111n128 110n121 110n121 110n121 121n194 110n121 84n19 110n121 92n52 110n121 110n121 92n52 110n121 55n30, 110n121 110n121 110n121 110n121 98n73 110n121 114n151 110n121 128n3 110n121 98n73 110n121, 111n125, 111n128 110n121 87n30

196

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

4.27.1 4.28.2 4.33.2 4.34.2 4.35.4 4.37 4.37.1–7 4.37.1 4.37.5 4.37.7 4.38.1–4 4.38.1 4.38.2

133n22 84n18 110n121 110n121 110n121 111n132 111n131 111n130, 111n133 135n34 113n145 113n144 128n3, 135n34 115n161, 128n3, 135n34 115n158, 128n3 128–29 112n137, 112n143 116n167, 117– 19 110n121 27n25 113n145, 122n201, 128n3 136n35 128n3, 129–32 129–32 133n22 79n1, 84n21 110n121 115n158, 136– 37 83n17, 98n74 114n156 84n19, 115n158 121n196 83n17, 84n18 110n121

4.38.3 4.39.1 4.39.2 4.40.3 4.40.4 4.37.5 4.37.7 4.38 4.39.1 4.39.2 4.48.1 5.Pref 5.4.1 5.6.1 5.7.1 5.8.1 5.9.3 5.12.1 5.13.1 5.13.6

5.14.4 5.16.3 5.17.1 5.18.2–3 5.19.2 5.21–24 5.21.1–2 5.21.3

5.24.1 5.22.1 5.22.2 5.23.1–2 5.23.1

5.25.5 5.26.2 5.27.2 5.28.4 5.29.1 5.33.4 5.36.3

110n121 110n121 110n121, 111n128 110n121 110n121 115–16 116 119–20n181, 120n182, 120n183 115n166 110n121 92–93 92–93 11n29, 120n186, 120n192 110n121, 110n122 110n121 121n193 55n30 112n136 55n30 112n139, 115n158, 120n185

Epideixis tou apostolikou kērygmatos 1 114n154, 115n157 2 95n58 4 55n30 5 110n121, 111n126

INDEX 8 11

12

14 15–17 15 16

17 31

32 34 37 Justin 1 Apol. 5 1 Apol. 5.2 1 Apol. 6 1 Apol. 10.2–6 1 Apol. 28 1 Apol. 43 1 Apol. 44 1 Apol. 61 1 Apol. 65

111n128, 119n181 111n126, 111n128, 111n134, 112n142, 113n146, 113n147, 113n148, 115n162, 119n181, 131n14, 132–33 111n128 11n29 111n128 11n29, 119n181, 120n182, 120n185, 128n3 120n187 115n160, 120n184, 120n190 111n127 121n194 121n194

60n54 60n55 59n51 61n65 59n51, 60n56, 60n57, 60n60, 60n61 60n56, 60n60 59n51, 60n57 59n1 95n58

197 2 Apol. 4.2 2 Apol. 5 2 Apol. 5.3 2 Apol. 7 2 Apol. 15 2 Apol. 17.2 Dial. 12.4

Dial. 102 Dial. 124 Dial. 118 Dial. 141

59n50, 61n65 59n51, 60n55 60n55 59n51 59n47, 60n61 60n55 59n52, 60n53, 61n68 59n50, 61n62 61n65 61n63 60n54 92n51 59n51, 60n53, 60n54 60n57 60n58 60n54, 61n64, 61n67 59n51, 60n59 61n67 60n57 59n51, 61n66

Lactantius Ir. 13

50n3

Dial. 41 Dial. 41.1 Dial. 44 Dial. 45 Dial. 80 Dial. 88 Dial. 92 Dial. 95 Dial. 100

Nag Hammadi Texts Apocryphon of John 103–4n93, 117n110, 119n180 A Valentinian Exposition 103– 4n93 (First) Apocalypse of James 103– 4n93 Gospel of the Egyptians 103– 4n93 Gospel of Judas 107

198

AGAINST “IRENAEAN” THEODICY

Gospel of Philip Gospel of Truth

103–4n93 103–4n93, 105n100 Hypostasis of the Archons 103– 4n93, 107n110, 119n180 On the Origin of the World 103– 4n93, 107n110, 119n180 Paraphrase of Shem 103–4n93 Second Treatise of the Great Seth 103–4n93 Sophia of Jesus Christ 103–4n93 Tripartite Tractate 103–4n93, 105n98 Zostrianos 103–4n93, 102n87 Origen Cels. 2.17 Cels. 2.69 Cels. 4.40

74n155 74n160 75n164, 75n165 Cels. 4.65 73n149, 73n150 Cels. 6.43 75n163 Cels. 7.69 75n162 Comm. Jo. 1.18 75n163 Comm. Jo. 20.18 75n162 Hom. Ezech. 1.2.3 76n171 Hom. Gen. 15 87n32 Hom. Luc. 16 72n146 Princ. Pref.3 74n156 Princ. Pref.4 75n161 Princ. 1.3.8 76n173, 76n174 Princ. 2.9.6 78n177

Princ. 3 Princ. 3.1.17 Princ. 4.1–2

74n157, 74n159 76n172 73n148

Plato Tim. 27d–58c Tim. 29a Tim. 29b Tim. 29d–30a Tim. 29d–32 Tim. 29e Tim. 42d–e Tim. 52d–53e Tim. 75b Tim. 81e–82a

51n14 51n9 52n18 51n13 51n10 51n11 51n13 51n14 51n12 51n15

Plutarch Comm. not. 1065b Is. Os. 369d Is. Os. 369e–f Is. Os. 370 Stoic. Rep. 1049f Stoic. Rep. 1076c

53n22 53n21, 53n26 53n27 54n58 53n25 53n26

Tatian Add. 6 Add. 7

Tertullian Adv. Jud. 2.2–6 Adv. Jud. 2.2 An. 38.2 Exh Cast. 2.2–5 Exh. Cast. 2.3–5 Jejun. 3.2 Marc. 1.14

62n71 38n100, 62n72, 62n73

70n127 70n124 69n114 70n126 70n124 70n123 108n114

INDEX Marc. 2.4.1 Marc. 2.4.4 Marc. 2.5–10 Marc. 2.5.1–2 Marc. 2.5.3–4 Marc. 2.5.5–6 Marc. 2.5.5 Marc. 2.6 Marc. 2.6.1 Marc. 2.6.2–7 Marc. 2.6.8 Marc. 2.7.1 Marc. 2.7.2 Marc. 2.7.3–4 Marc. 2.7.4 Marc. 2.7.5 Marc. 2.8.1 Marc. 2.8.2–3

69n114, 70n120 70n121, 70n125 67 67 67n100 67n101, 67n103 67n102 68 68n105 68n104 68n106 68–69, 68n107 68n108, 68n109 69n110 69n111 69n112 69n113 69n116

199 Marc. 2.8.2 Marc. 2.8.7 Marc. 2.10.1 Marc. 2.10.4–5 Marc. 2.10.4 Pat. 5 Theophilus Autl. 1.7 Autl. 2 Autl. 2.16 Autl. 2.17 Autl. 2.24–26 Autl. 2.24 Autl. 2.25 Autl. 2.26 Autl. 2.27 Autl. 2.28

69n115 69n116 70n122 69n117 69n118, 69n119 70n128

65n89, 65n90 63–65 64n86 63n76, 64n84, 64n87, 65n88, 65n92 38n101 63n80 64n82, 64n83, 64n84 65n91, 65n93, 65n94 63n77, 63n78 64n85