the origin of sin in irenaeus and jewish pseudepi-graphical literature.pdf

7/23/2019 The Origin of Sin in Irenaeus and Jewish Pseudepi-Graphical Literature.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-origin-of-sin-in-irenaeus-and-jewish-pseudepi-graphical-literaturepdf 1/30

Vigiliae

hristianae

2,

161-190;

?

North-Holland

ublishing

ompany

978

THE

ORIGIN

OF

SIN IN

IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH PSEUDEPI-

GRAPHICAL LITERATURE

BY

D.

R.

SCHULTZ

INTRODUCTION

The

purpose

of this

paper

is to

argue

that

renaeus

depended

on an

earlier

Jewish

radition

or

he

final

ormulationf

his

own deas on sin

and its

origin.

his

earlier

Jewish

radition

s

substantially

vailableto

us

in

the

Apocrypha

nd

Pseudepigrapha

f theOld

Testament. or

Irenae-

us,

the

Old Testament

Apocrypha

elonged

o

theBiblical

anon,

but

he

article

mainly

focuses

on

pseudepigraphical

material

which

even

from

Irenaeus's

standpoint

was non-Biblical. he

motifs

rom

his

iterature

which

haped

his

thinking

bout

sin

and

its

origin

were

pseudepigraph-

ical.

The

article

oes

not

aim

at

providing

new

view

oncerning

he

mean-

ing

of sin n

the

theology

f

Irenaeus.

Rather,

t

is

the

ntention

f

the

article

nly

o

identify

he

sources f

renaeus's

various tatements

bout

the

origin

f

in.

Though

he

rticle

xplicitly

oncludes

o

Irenaeus's

dependence

n

the

pseudepigraphical

radition orhis

thinking

bout

sin's

origin,

traises

he

question

of

how

dependent

n such sources

was

the entire

body

of

Patristic

hought.

An

inquiry

nto renaeus's

notions

n sin

reveals

hat

he offers

many

and varied

xplanations

or in

and

its

origin.

Another

nquiry

nto

ate

Jewish

seudepigraphical

iterature eveals deas

so

similar

o those

of

Irenaeus

hat

morethancoincidence

must

be

posited

s

a

cause

for

ike-

ness.

In

fact,

ome

dependence

nd

familiarity

n the

part

of

Irenaeus

with on-canonical

seudepigraphical

otionsmust

e maintained.

The method f this rticlewillbe to treat he most mportanthemes

which elate o Irenaeus's

peculations

n

sin and

its

origin.

hese

themes

concern

Adam,

Angels,

nd the

fusion

f thesetwo motifs.

Within

he

treatmentf

each

of

these hemes

he nfluencef ateJewish

seudepigra-

phical

deas

upon

the

hought

f renaeuswill

be

shown.



162 D. R. SCHULTZ

ADAM

We

know hat renaeus ontrasts dam and Christmore r ess as does

Paul

in

Romans

5

and

1

Corinthians

5.

In

fact,

renaeus'suse of

these

passages, ombinedwith ometexts fEphesians,nthisview, ormed he

basis

upon

which

he

early

ChurchFather onstructed

is

Adam-Christ

typology,'

n

which he

first dam

is

paralleled

with

he second Adam.2

At east

renaeus's

xegesis

f

Romans

,19,

s found n Adversus

aereses

3,21,16

3,30),3

ncludes

his

understanding

f

1

Corinthians

5,21-25

nd

Ephesians

,10.4

hat

s,

the etters o Romans

and

1

Corinthiansreat he

theme ffirst

nd second

Adam,

while

phesians

rovides

he

erminology

(the

verb

form of

&vaUK~cpaaiootg)

for

renaeus

to

speak

about the re-

lationship

etweenhe woAdams.

Recapitulatio,

or

renaeus,

s

basically

he

ink

between he

twomotifs

of

exalted nd sinful

Adam.

It is

God's

plan

thatAdam be

once

in

his

pristine lory,

ecome

sinful,

nd once

again

be

restored o

his

original

exalted

tate n

the econd

Adam.5

On

theother

and,

Paul's

emphasis

n

Adam's

sin is

chiefly

ntended

o

contrast

Adam's

disobediencewith

Christ's bedience. n

order o

speak

of

death,

Paul

speaks

of

Adam,

but

1

J.T.

Nielsen,

Adam and Christ

n

the

Theology f

Irenaeus

of

Lyons

Assen,

Van

Gorcum nd

Co.,

1968) 11-23;

56-67.

Cf.,

lso,

Julius

ross,

ntstehungsgeschichte

des

Erbsundendogmas.

on

der Bibel bis

Augustinus

Munich,

Reinhardt

Verlag, 1960)

vol.

1,

who

says

hat

renaeus

was

completelyubjected

o

thePauline

Adam-Christ

speculation.

2

F.

Schiele,

ie

rabbinischenarallelen u

1

Kor.15:45-50,

Zeitschrift

iir

Theo-

logie

42

(1899)

20-31,

concludes hat

Paul

first ses

the term

first

nd second

Adam.

3

For

as

by

one man's

disobedience,

in

entered,

nd

death btained

a

place)

throughin; oalso,by he bedience foneman, ighteousness,aving eenntroduc-

ed,

shall

ause

ife o

fructify

n

those

ersons

ho

n imes

ast

were ead

..

so

did

He

who s the

Word,

ecapitulating

dam n

Himself,

ightly

eceive

birth,

nabling

im

to

gather

p

Adam

into

Himself)

.. It

was that here

might

ot

be

another ormation

called

nto

eing,

or

ny

therwhich hould

require

o)

be

saved,

ut

hat

ery

ame

formation

hould e

ummed

p

in

Christs thad xisted

n

Adam),

he

nalogy aving

been

preserved.

ince

he

nglish

ranslations basedon

Stieren's

aragraph

umber-

ing system

A.Stieren,

Sancti Irenaei

Episcopi

Lugdunensis uae

Supersunt

Omnia

(Leipzig

848-1853)

ols.

-II

-

those umbers ill e firstited.

eferences

o

Harvey's

edition

-

W.W.

Harvey,

Sancti

Irenaei

Episcopi Lugdunensis

ibros

quinque

adversus

haereses

Cambridge

857)

vols.

-II

-

follow

n

brackets. he

English

ranslation,

exceptwhere therwisendicated,s thatofA.Roberts ndJ.Donaldsoneds.),The

Ante-Niceneathers

NewYork,

cribners

Sons,

1899)

ol.

.

4

Compare

om.

,19;

1

Cor.

15,21-22.

5-49;

Eph.

1,10.

3

with dversus

aereses

(Henceforth

imply

hortenedo

A.H.)

3,16,6

3,17,6);

,18,7

3,19,6);

,19,3

3,20,3);

3,21,10

3,30);

5,1,2

ibid.); 5,14,1

ibid.).

5

A.H.

3,22,3

3,32,1).



IRENAEUS

AND JEWISHPSEUDEPIGRAPHICALLITERATURE

163

his

major

goal

is eternal ife

hrough

esus

Christ .6 aul does not

want

to

show

any

positive

relationbetweenChirst

and

Adam.

Rather,

he

contrasts

he act

of Adam which

brings

eath

to the act of Christ

which

bringsife.

Although

here

re several imilarities

n

Paul

and

Irenaeus's

view

of

man's

wretched

ondition,

he

principal

differenceetween hese

two

authors'

portrayal

f man's unnatural

tateresults

rom

heir

ndividual

usage

of

first

nd second

Adam.

Paul

speaks

of

a first

Adam

who re-

presents

in

nd death

s

well

s a second

Adam

who

represents

ighteous-

ness and

life.

His

first

dam

is not

a fallen

Adam,

however,

ecause a

fallenAdam

requires

n exalted

Adam.

Irenaeus,

on the other

hand,

knows firstxalted, henfallen r sinful irst dam as wellas a second

Adam,

Christ.

The

sinful

irst

Adam

is

contrasted

o

both

the

exalted

first

nd second

Adam.

Yet,

this

heory

f

recapitulation

s

not

simply

contrast

f

two

Adams;

it

functions

s

a connection

etween heexalted

first dam

and

the

eschatological

econd

Adam

who unites

n

history

he

sinful

nd the

xalted

irst

dam.

As

was

said,

Paul's letters ontain

no trace

f a

thorough

ecapitulation

which

onnects

r unites

hetwo

Adams,

because Paul did not

speculate

upon

the tate fthefirst dam.

However,

Robbin

Scroggs

maintains hat

Paul was

well

aware

of

the

speculation

oncerning

xalted

Adam

which

was

contemporary

n Jewish

irclesof

his

day.'

But

even

according

o

Scroggs,

aultransferred

heseJewish

scriptions

fAdam's excellence

o

his ast

Adam,

Christ.

hus,

renaeus

could

not

have derived is

view

of

the

exalted

first dam

from

aul,

but must

have been aware of

the ate

Jewish

peculations

imself,

ince n Irenaeus he

xaltation ontinues o

be

attributed

o

the

firstAdam.

This attribution

s

but the

first

ign

among

many

hat renaeus

depended

pon

Jewish

peculation

n

forming

some of

his notions

of

the

exalted

and sinfulAdam

in his

theory

f

recapitulation.8

6

Rom.5,21.

7

Robbin

croggs,

he

astAdam

Philadelphia,

ortress

ress,

966)

00.

Cf.

lso,

C.

F.

Burney,

hrist

s

the

APXH of

Creation,

TS

27

1925-26)

75ff. ho

discussed

Paul's

use of

Rabbinical

radition

oncerning

he

irst-begotten

f ll creation.ee

also,

JacobJervell,mago ei G6ttingen,anderhoeckndRuprecht,960).

8

Onlyby way

of

mplication

ill

his rticle reat xalted

Adam

n

renaeus nd

pseudepigraphical

iterature.

he

argument

hat

he

exalted

Adam of renaeus nd

the

glorious

dam of

pocalyptic

iterature

re

the

ame

requires

n extensive

reat-

ment f

texts

ealing

with

oth

renaeus's

heory

f

recapitulation

nd

eschatology

as

found

n

ateJewish

seudepigraphical

ritings.

et

t

suffice

o

say

that renaeus's



164 D. R.

SCHULTZ

Other

motifs n

Irenaeus's

discussion

of Adam bear the marks

of

influence

romateJewish

seudepigraphicalpeculation.

IRENAEUS NDPSEUDEPIGRAPHICALN THE PAINOFTHESTROKE

A

very

triking

otionof renaeus's

oncerning

man's

anguish,

which

he suffered

fter

Adam's

transgression,

s

that

related

o the

phrase

pain

of the

troke .He uses

this

phrase

n

explaining

ow God shall heal

the

anguish

f

his

people

and do

away

with he

pain

ofthe

troke .9 bvious-

ly,

this

phrase

represents

mankind's

uffering.

ut

Irenaeus has

much

more

to

say

about the

pain

of

the stroke han that

t is

the cause

of

man's

anguish,

or

he

explains

hat the

pain

of

the

stroke

means

that

inflicted t the

beginning

pon

disobedientman in

Adam,

that

is,

death .10 he

phrase

pain

of

the stroke

s

related o

Irenaeus's

heory

of

corporate

in

in

Adam,

since t is

clear thatthe strokes isited n

Adam

for

his

in

re

also inflictedn all

humanity.

The

stroke f God is

first

mentioned

n

saiah

where

theLord binds

up

thehurt f

His

people,

nd heals he

wounds nflicted

y

His

blow . 1

his

is

partially

he

hought

f

renaeus;

but

the

stroke f God

in

renaeus

s

related

o

Adam,

his disobedience nd death.

For

reasons f

comparison

some terms

oncerning

he

strokes

f

God will

appear

n

latinand be

italicized.)

...

quando

sanabit

contritionem

opuli

sui,

et

dolorem

lagae

suae

sanabit.

Dolor

autem

lagae

st,

perquam percussus

st

homo

nitio

n

Adam

inobediens,

oc est

mors

uam

anabit

eus

resuscitans

os mortuist

restituens

n

patrum

aeredita-

tem.12

Adam,made n the image nd ikeness fGod,A.H. 4,20,1 4,34,1),making im

(Adam)

he

pattern

nd

father

f

thehuman

ace,

A.H.

3,21,10

3,30);

3,22,3

3,32,1);

3,23,2

3,33,1); 4,7,14

4,14);

4,20,1

4,

34,1);

5,1,2 ibid.);

5,15,3

ibid.);

5,15,4 ibid.);

5,16,2

5,16,1-2),

s

very

imilar,

f

not he ame

magery

f

1

Enoch

7,1;60,8;85-90;

Wisd. Sol.

10,1;

Jub.2,33; 19,24-25;

Apoc. Mos.41,3;

Vita

Adae et

Evae

27,3;

and 4

Ezra

6,53-56,

whichmakesAdamthe

first athernd Patriarch

f

all

creation. ike-

wise,

renaeus's

roof

1-12,

which xalts

Adamto the

Master nd Lord of

every-

thing

n

earth,

as the ame theme

s that

proposed

n

Sirach

9,16;

1

Enoch

9,9;

50,1;

58,2; 103,2f;

4

Ezra

6,54; 8,51;

2

Enoch30,12;

Apoc.

Mos.21,2. 6;

24,4;

28,4;

39,2;

2

Baruch

5,8;51,1-5;

nd

54,5.

1.

Also,

renaeus's

erception

f

Adam

being

createdike he

ngels

s well s

Lordover he

ngels

n

those ame extss

the

choing

thought fApoc.Mos. 7,2; Vita Adae etEvae 4; 2; 1Enoch69,11; 2 Enoch30,10-14; 2

Baruch

51,10;

and

1

Enoch 104.

9

Cf.

A.H.

5,34,2

ibid.).

10

Ibid.

11

Isa.

30,25-26.

12

A.H.5,34,2

(ibid.).



IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

165

The

reference

n

saiahdoesnot nvolve

dam,

ve,

in r

death,

ut

n

the

seudepigraphical

iterature

uch

connection

s

made nd

only

here

arethe strokes

entioned

n such

relationship.

n

the

Apocalypsef

Moses briefxplanationsmade oncerninghe trokesfGod.

He

charged

s

not

o

at

..

She

te f he

ree

..

Thenhe

ave

lsome o at nd

God was

wrath

with

s

...

and said

..'I

have

brought pon

hy ody

XXplagas.

The rouble

t he irst

laga

s the

olorem

f he

yes,

he

econd

troken ffec-

tion f

he

earing,

nd

ikewise

n urn

ll he

lagae

hall efall

hee.'

In the bove

passages,

s well s

in

a

lengthier

ecension

f heAdam

Books,

he

ife f

Adam nd

Eve,14

he

pain

of he troke

s

elaborated

upon,

ssociated ith he

disobediencef

Adam,

elated

o

numerous

pains,

nd,

finally,

eath. he

Apocalypsef

Moses

explains

ow God

was

angry

ith

Adam

for

his

disobediencend

brought

pon

his

body

seventy-two

trokes.hen

ollowed

he

numeration

f

hose

trokes ith

theconclusion

hat ll the trokes

hallbefall

Adam

until

inally

He

(Adam)

..

will

ie .15

So

also n theVitaAdae t

Evae,

heLordwas

angry

ith

Adam

nd

Eve for heir isobedience

nd

brought

pon

Adam's

body

seventy

strokes

with

diverse

riefs.

n this

account,

God

speaks

to Adam

saying:

... eo

quod

dereliquisti

andatum

eum

t

verbum

uod

onfortavi

ibi

on usto-

disticce nducam

n

orpus

uum

XX

lagas;

iversisoloribusb nitio

apitis

..16

The accounts

fthe trokesoundn

the

writings

f renaeus

nd the

Vita

Adaeet Evae have

everal

oints

f

agreement,

ome fwhich

re

verbatim

n

the atin

ranslations.renaeus ses nobediens

n

referenceo

Adam's deedwhereas hepseudepigraphicaluthor aysdereliquisti

mandatum.

oth uthors se

nitioo

ndicate

he

ime

f

Adam's

in.

The

word

for

strokes

s

plagae

n

both accounts.

renaeus,

fter

ome

reflection,

ombines

olorem

ith

lagae

o

qualify

he

strokes

f

God.

The

pseudepigraphical

uthor

oes

use

various

orms

f

dolor

ut

n

reference

o thatwhich esults

rom he

lagae.

n

fact,

ften

oesAdam

13

Apoc.

Mos.6,3-9,3.

It

should e

noted hat he

Apoc.

Mos.

and

theVit.Adae

et

Evae are recensionsfa bookor booksbearinghename fAdam.Cf.R.H.Charles,

The

Apocrypha

nd

Pseudepigrapha f

the

Old

Testament

Oxford,

Clarendon

Press,

1913)

23-133.

14

VitaAdae et

Evae,

cc.

31-35.

15

Apoc.

Mos.

3,6.

16

Vita

Adae

et

Evae

34,1-2.



166 D. R.

SCHULTZ

in

the

apocalyptic

ccount

omplain

f

thedolorem

hichhe must

uffer

at thehands

of

the

plagae.

Within

he

pace

of

seventeen

erses,

olor

r

some form

f thatroot s

used no fewer

han

seven

imes

nd

always

n

relation o the lagae.Moreover,hefinal esult fthese ains dolor) nd

strokes

plagae)

is

that his

(Adam's)

soul

shall

go

off

his

body ,

the

explanation

or renaeus's

mors

death).

Also,

n

the

pseudepigraphical

ritings

he

strokes

f

God are

treated

in thecontext f God's

healing

heeffects

hich

he

strokes

ave had

upon

mankind ecause

of

Adam.

Therefore,

he

reatment

f

the

trokes

of God found n theBooks

of

Adam

and Eve

(Apocalypse f

Moses,

the

Vita Adae et

Evae)

and Adversus

aereses

are

strikingly

imilar,

o that

the strokes rerelated o Adam and Eve,their isobedience,nd death.

Furthermore,

he

strokes

n the

pseudepigraphical

radition re

so

often

related o dolorthat the

phrase

dolorem

lagae

(pain

of

the

stroke),

s

coined

by

renaeus,

ook

ittle,

f

any

reflectionor

ts

formulation

rom

this

seudepigraphical

radition.t

is

almost

ertain, hen,

hat

renaeus's

use

of

the

phrase pain

of the stroke

n connection

ith

Adam,

sin,

nd

death shows

knowledge

f a

source

similar

o that of

the Vita

Adae

et

Evae

and the

Apocalypse f

Moses.

THE

SKILL

OF

GOD AND

NDIVIDUAL

RESPONSIBILITYN

IRENAEUS ND

2

BARUCH

If for

some

purpose

renaeus can

emphasize

man's

corporate

in

in

Adam

as

the

origin

f

sin,

viewwhich ould

seem

o

diminish

ndividual

responsibility,

e

can

at

other imes

mphasize

ndividual

esponsibility

for sin. It

appears

that

here,too,

he

utilizes

Jewish

seudepigraphical

notions.

This

appears

in

a

passage

in

whichhe

emphasized

hat

man,

rather han

God,

is

responsible

or in:

The skill

f

God,

therefore,

s not

defective

..

but

he

man

whodoesnot

obtain t

s

the

auseto himselffhis

own

mperfection

..

Those

persons,

herefore,

ho

have

apostatized

..

and

transgressed

..

have

done so

through

heir wn fault

ince

they

have

been

reated

ree

gents

nd

possessed

f

power

ver

hemselves

..

thosewho

fly

rom he

ternal

ight

f God ... are

themselveshe

ause

to

themselvesf their

inhabiting

ternal

arkness,

estitutef ll

good

hings,aving

ecome

o

themselves

the

ause

f

theironsignment

o)

n

bode f hat

ature.17

The thoughthere is somewhat ike that of Sirach 15,11-15,which

proclaims

hat God

is not

the cause

of

man's

wretchednessr sin

but

17

A.H.4,39,3

(4,64,2-3).



IRENAEUS

AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

167

rather,

man

himselfs the cause.

Yet,

Irenaeus,

n

this

passage,

s

more

likely

choing

he

hought

imilar o that f2 Baruch

who states:

Forthough damfirstinnedndbrought ntimelyeath pon ll,yet hosewho

werebornfrom

im,

ach

one

of themhas

prepared

orhis own soul

torment

o

come

...

but

now,

as

for

you, ye

wicked

..

For

His

works

have not

taughtyou,

nor

has the kill f

his

creation,

hich s at all

time,

ersuaded

ou.

Adam

s

therefore

not

he ause ave

only

fhis

own

oul,

but

achofus has been heAdam

of

his

own

soul. s

What

Irenaeus

says

s that

God

is

not

responsible

orman's sin

and

torment

ut rather

ach

person

s

responsible

orhis own eternal

estiny.

The

imagery

sed is

that of

man

fleeing

rom

ternal

ight

nto eternal

darkness. ach man s thecause to himselffhisown

perfection

r im-

perfection.

ach

man,

through

is

own

fault,

s his own cause or

has be-

come to

himself

hecause of his

nhabiting

ternal

ight

r

darkness,

e-

cause

such cause

cannot

be

attributedo the skill f

God .

These deas

certainly

cho the

hought

f2

Baruch,

lthough

he

motive

is

different.

renaeus wishes

to exonerateGod from

responsibility

or

man's

sin,

while

2 Baruch

exonerates

Adam.

This fact

does

not

argue

against

renaeus's

se

of2

Baruch,

utrather

hat

renaeus

ould

not have

used 2 Baruch s a

sourcefor his view

of

Adam,

since

renaeus

and 2

Baruch

osition

Adam

quite

differently

n

their chemes

f

creation.

What

shouldbe noted

s that

when renaeus

does

exonerate

dam

from

uilt

n

transgression,

t is to

make

a

different

oint

from

2

Baruch's

and for

reasons otherthan those

offered

y

him.19

But the

fact remains hat

Irenaeus,

who

blames

all

men

for

sinning

n

Adam ,20

an also

speak

words

imilar

o those

f

2 Baruch.

hat

s,

man

who

s

the ause to

him-

self , men,

who

through

heir

wnfault , who

have

power

overthem-

selves ,

who

are

themselves

hecause and have

become

to themselves

the

cause ,

are

phrases

not

too

much

unlike

hoseof 2

Baruchwho states

that

each

one

of

them

has

prepared

or

his

own

soul

torment nd each

of

us has

been

the

Adam of his own soul .

Yet,

a

remarkable

imilarity

between hese

wo

writings

ccurs n

an

examination

f

Baruch's

torment

to

come . Such

an

examination an be

made

in the verses

mmediately

following

aruch's

lea

for ndividual

esponsibility.

ere

s a

description

of the individual orment f those who turnaway fromthe bright

18

Baruch

54,15-19.

19

Irenaeus xonerates dam

from lame or

isown

ransgression,

Baruch rom

blame ormankind'sinfulness.

20

A.H.

5,17,1

ibid.); ,16,3

ibid.).



168

D. R.

SCHULTZ

lightening 21

nto

he

darkness

fblack

waters .22

hus,

he

equence

f

thought

n

both Irenaeus

and 2 Baruch

s individual

esponsibility

o

eternal

ight

r darkness.

Still, hemost trikingimilarityetweenhese wowritingssperceived

in

the two

phrases

the skill of God and

the

skill of creation .The

phrase

skill

of

God ,

which

s

used

by

renaeus,

s a reference

tressing

the

person

f God whereas Baruch's he

skillof

creation

s a

reference

stressing

od's

activity.

s

they

re

used

n the wo

passages,

t s

readily

perceived

hat renaeus stressed

he

person

rather han God's

activity

because he wished o exonerate he

person

of God

for

man's

individual

imperfect

ctions.23

However, t appears that renaeus,whenusingnotionssimilar o 2

Baruch

n

his

argument

oncerning

man's

personalresponsibility

orhis

sinful nd

eternal

tate,

had to

change

the

phrase

skill

of creation o

skill

of God because

renaeus

perceived

God's

act of creation s some-

thing

ess

than

perfect.

urthermore,

his

hange

an

easily

be seen n the

fact

that

prior

o the

passage

which ontains

he

phrase

skill of

God

Irenaeus

had discussed hat

skill

horoughly,

hich

iscussion s

totally

concerned

ithGod's

act ofcreation.

Irenaeus, then,

exonerating

od forman's individual

mperfection,

making

man thecause of his own soul's

fate n eternal

ight

r

darkness,

uses

a

similar

ramework

s

thatof

2

Baruch,

who exonerates

dam for

man's

sinfulness

nd

makes man

the

cause

of

his

own

soul's

fate n the

brightightening

r darkness f blackwaters.

renaeusnot

only

xpresses

these

asic deas

n the

ame

scheme

s 2

Baruch

nd

with

imilar

magery,

but

also reveals even

greater

dependenceupon

a

tradition

imilar o

Baruch

n

his

use

of lmost dentical

hrasing

orGod's

creative

ct.

THE

APOSTASYOF

THE

ANGELS

So

far in has been

traced ack

to

a

source n Adam

and Eve.

Also,

t s

wellknown hat atan

appears

n

the

writings

f

renaeus

s the

tempter

of

Adam.24

However,

renaeus

often

ypasses

Adam

in his treatment

f

Satan

and

angels,

so

that

this evil

spirit

world

directly

rings

bout

21

Baruch72,1.

22

Baruch56,5.

23

Although

renaeuswishes o makeGod

responsible

or

hefallof

Adam,

he

does

not

wish

o

makeGod

responsible

or

he

ins f

ach ndividual.

hat

esponsibil-

ity

alls

pon

atan. ee

below

.

172.

24

A.H.

5,21,3

ibid.);

4,

Pref., 4, Pref., ); Proof16;

A.H.

3,20,1 3,21,1).



IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

169

mankind's inful

ondition.

n

effect,hen,

renaeus

ometimesttributes

the

origin

f sin

directly

o Satan and

his

forces n

terms

trongly

em-

iniscent

f

1

Enoch,

Jubilees,

nd other ate

Jewish

seudepigraphical

writings.

This

investigation

onnectedwith the

spirit

world

as

the

possible

origin

f

sin

will now

attempt

o relate

renaeus

to

some of the sources

for

his

thought.

he

first

oint

o be made concerns

renaeus'sreference

to the

existence

f seven heavens of

angelic

powers.

The

existence f

theseheavens

was

an idea

common

o

both

renaeus

nd

his

adversaries,

the

gnostics.

n

fact,

Franz

Cumont

attests

o

the fact that the seven

heavens was

a

common

notion

which

ame

from

ran but which

flour-

ished

throughout

much of the Mediterraneanworld in the time of

Christ.25

What Irenaeus

has to

say

about

these

heavens,however,

s

something

uite

differentrom hat

of

the

gnostics.

n

fact,

he

heavens

and

their

reation

were

n essential

art

ofthe ontention

hat xisted e-

tween

renaeus

nd his

adversaries.26hat

is,

the

gnostics

erceived

he

heavens

as

emanating

rom

n

original primordial

ather ,

whereas

man

was created

y

the

demiurge.27

renaeus,

n theother

and,

held

fast

to thecreation f the

heavens, arth,

nd

all

things hrough

hehands of

God. It

would

be a

bold

assumption

o

maintain,

hen,

hat

renaeus's

sole ntroduction

o

theseheavenswas

through

is

gnostic

dversaries.n

fact,

he

would

have

dismissed

ny

idea

coming solely

from

gnostic

thought.

ather,

he

ess

bold

assumption

ould

be thathe believed

n the

existence f

even

heavens

ndependently

fthe

gnostics.

This

s

not

a New

Testament

oncept, lthough

aul shows

knowledge

of

multiple

eavenswhen

he

refers o

the third

eaven .28

Also

a

single

passage in the Old Testament29

s

at best

a

vague

reference o these

heavens.

However,

he

book

of Jubilees

efers o

the

seven

great

works

(heavens)

which

God

created

on the

first

ay,30

he Testament

f

Levi

gives

a

description

f these

heavens,31

nd the

authorof

2

Enoch

visits

each one

as a

favoured

uest.32

25

Franz

Cumont,

Astrology

nd

Religion

among

the

Greeks

and

Romans

(New

York,

Dover

Publications

nc.,1960)

9.

26

Nielsen,

p.

cit.,

41-67.

27

Ibid.,39-41.

28

2

Cor.

12,2-4.

29

Isa.

11,2.

30

Jub.

,3.

31

Test.Levi

3,

Cf.

also,

Ascensio

sa. 10.

32

2 Enoch 3.



170

D. R.

SCHULTZ

Irenaeus

hereforeeed not

have

accepted

he sevenheavens

directly

from

nosticism

r

ranian

ources,

ince

t was an

idea

flourishing

n the

literature f the

late Jewish

eriod.

Moreover,

he seven heavens of

pseudepigraphical

iterature ere created

solely

by

God and were n-

habited

y

angels

nd

archangels,

claim

lso

made

by

renaeus.

Furthermore,

he

statements

egarding

he

sevenheavens which re

made

by

renaeus

ppear

to involve ome

dependence

pon

pseudepigra-

phical

sources.

Joseph

mith,

.

J.,

n

his

translation

f Irenaeus's

Proof

of

the

Apostolic

reaching,33

hinks hat

renaeus

took

directly

r

in-

directly

he

sevenheavens

from

Jewish

radition. e

cites he

Testa-

ment

f

Levi 3 and the

Ascensio

saiah 10

as

the

wotraditions romwhich

Irenaeus

borrowed he

dea.34

When

these

nd other

assages

are

read

n

conjunction

with

renaeus's

statementsf the

heavens ,

here

ppears

not

only

n

undeniably

imilar

equence

f

thought

utalso

a

remarkable

verbal

greement.

In A.H.

1,52

1,1,9),

renaeus

imply

tates

hat

He

(God)

created

lso

seven

heavens .

n A.H.

4,16,2

4,27,2)

he

locates

these

heavenswhenhe

says

that the earth s

encompassed y

seven

heavens .

The

emphasis

n

this nd following assages s mine.)ButinProof9 he elaboratesupon

this nitial

tatement

nd also

upon

the

nature

of the

heavens,

aying

(heavens)

n which dwell

powers,

nd

angels,

and

archangels

iving

homage

o the

lmighty

od

who created ll

things .

Jubilees

,2-3

explains

hatGod

created

he

heavenson the first

ay:

He

(God)

created

he

heavens.

ater,

Jubilees

,4

affirms

he

reation

f

seven

heavens:

for even

great

worksdid He

(God)

create

n thefirst

day.

Jubilees lso

locatesthoseheavens which

re above

the

earth nd

thewaters .35 he samebookimmediatelyttests o thehomagepaid to

God,

declaring,

and

all the

spirits

which

erve

before

Him

(God),

the

angels.

A

lengthy

escription

f these

angels

and the

restof creation

follows.

However,

he

Testament

f

Levi

3,1-8

elaborates

t

some

ength egard-

ing

the

nature f the

sevenheavens :

... in

the

highest

f all dwelleth

the

Great

Glory,

ar bove all

holiness. n

(the

heaven

next

o)

it

are the

archangels,

ho ministernd

make

propitiation

o theLord

...

offering

o

the Lord a sweet avour, reasonable nd a bloodlessoffering.nd (in

33

See

Chapter

wo,

n. 1.

34

JosephP.mith,

roof of

the

Apostolic

reaching London,

The Newman

ress,

1952)

47-48.

35

Jub.

,

3.



IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE 171

the

heavenbelow

his)

re the

ngels

who bearanswers o the

ngels

f

the

presence

f

the

Lord.

And

in the heaven next to this

are

thrones nd

dominions,

n which

lways hey

ffer

raise

oGod.

Thispassageis theonlyone outsideof Irenaeuswhich ssociatesthe

seven

heavenswith

angels,

rchangels,

nd other

heavenly

eings

who

always

are

praising

God.

This

passage

whichdiscusses he sevenheav-

ens

describes heseheavens

n

approximately

he

same

manner

s did

Irenaeus.His

statement

bout those

who

dwell

n

the heavens

giving

homage

to

God differs

rom

hatfound

n

the

Testament

f

Levi in

only

one obvious

way.

The

Testament

f

Levi reads thrones nd

dominions

where

renaeus

reads

powers .

The answer o this

ingle

ifferencen the wo

readings

ies n renaeus's

dependence

pon

Paul's letters hilehe uses

pseudepigraphical

otions

o

interpret

aul.

Irenaeus

knew

that

Paul

(or

a

subsequent

uthor

of the

pauline

school)

spoke

about

heavenly

places

in

Ephesians

1,21

and

Colossions

,16.

These

two

verses re

very

imilar o

each other.

6Yet,

n

neither

f

these

passages

does

the

author

peak

about seven

heavens ,

where

well

ngels

nd

archangels

who

constantly

ay

homage

or

praise

to God.

But

renaeus

knew hat n the Testament

f

Levi

or

some other

pseudepigraphical

ource ll of

these deas were

placed

n

relation o

one

another.

herefore,

renaeushad both Paul's letters nd some

pseudepi-

graphical

ource ike

the Testament

f

Levi

before

him

when he

wrote

about the seven

heavens . With the words

thrones nd

dominions

from

he

pseudepigraphical

ource,

renaeus

urned

o the etters

f

Paul

which

poke

about

heavenly

laces.

But nstead f

turning

o

Paul's text

of Colossians

,16

which eads thrones nd

dominions ,

renaeus

urned

to the

passage

ike

t,namely, phesians ,21,

which eads

powers .Thus

his

explanation

f

the sevenheavens

aken

from

he

pseudepigraphical

sourcereadsthe

ame

as the

Testament

f

Levi

except

or he

ubstitution

of

powers

from

ph. 1,21)

for

thrones nd

dominions

s

found n

Levi. The latter re

also

mentionedn the

parallel

ext f Col.

1,16.

Other

answers or

his

difference

n

reading

re

that

renaeus

was

not

familiar

with

Col.

1,16

(which

s

unlikely)

r

that

he

had some

preference

or

powers

ver thrones nd

dominions .

36

Eph.

1,21:

...ev

Zoig

xoupaviotq

6brcp6vo

icar1g

ApXi

g

Kai

t?ouoiag

Kaic

8ovdlagc

t

Kti

Kupt6o

rog

Col.

1,16:

rd

advra

ev

rotq

bpavoig

...

izts 4p6vot

dits

Kupt6zIrl

g

izsEpTai

it

oE

i

ocit.



172

D.

R. SCHULTZ

IRENAEUS

ND

HE

SEUDEPIGRAPHICALHAIN F

APOSTASY

However,

he

role of

Satan in

man's

sinfulnesss

a

prominent

ne for

Irenaeus,

s

(Satan)

takes

on

many

ifferentitles. e is referredo as the

strongman ,37 hedevil,38nd the postate ngel.39tbecomes vident

that renaeususes

all

of thesenames to

signify single

reature

who is

angelic

n nature

nd

the

hief

dversary

f

God.40

Sin

is

directly

elated

o

angelicpowers

nd

principally

o the

eader

of

these

owers,

atan.

He is

the

firsto sin

against

God

and later ead others

to that

in

or

apostasy.41

renaeus

claims

that

It

must

be affirmed

hat

He

(God)

has ascribed

ll

who

are

of

the

postasy

o himwho

s the

ring-

leader of the

transgression .42

atan, then,

s the

sole

cause

of

apostasy

and

transgression.

Irenaeus

explicitly

tates

his about

the

devil,

who

first ecame the

cause

of

apostasy

o

himself

nd

afterwardso

others .43

he others

and

first o follow atan

in

apostasy

re a

group

of

angels

who revolted

from

state f

submission o

God.

Many passages

peak

of the

postasy.

Irenaeus

refers

o

the Chief of the

apostasy

..

and those

angels

who

became

apostates

long

with

him ,44

the

angels

who

transgressed

nd

became

postates ,45

nd

the

postasy

f the

ngels

who

transgressed .46

Thus,

the

apostasy

eaches rom atan to other

ngels

whofollowhis

lead n

sin,

ransgression,

nd

revolt.

Moreover,

he

postasy

which

egan

with

atan

and continued

hrough

he

postate ngels

lso

extends

o

the

whole of mankind.

renaeus,

peaking

of

all

those

whom God should

punish

n theeternal

ires,

ists

the

angels

who

transgressed

nd became

37

A.H.5,22,1-2ibid.).

38

A.H.5,24,3ibid.).

39

A.H.5,21,3

ibid.);Proof

6.

40

Gustaf

Wingren,

an and the

ncarnation

Philadelphia,

Muhlenberg

ress,

1959) 4,

ays

hat he

devil,

atan,

nd

erpent

efero

exactly

he ame

eality,

o that

Irenaeus ses

differentameswithout

making

ny

real

distinctionetween

hem. f.

Fragmenta

6,

the

erpent

s

a demon.A.H.

4,

pref.,

(4,

pref.,

); 4,40,3

4,66,2);

5,23,1

ibid.),

he

erpent

s a wicked

ngel.

atan

s also

dentified

ith

he

erpent

n

some

passages,

ut

n

others

atan

hides

himself

n

the

disguise

f the

erpent

r uses

the

erpent

s

an instrument

orhis

evil

work.

Cf. A.H.

4, 4,

pref.,

);

5,23,1

ibid.);

Proof

6.See

also

pp.

24ff.

41

Apostasy

illhave n

equivalent

eaning

o

that

f inor

transgression

hen

used nthis rticle ecauserenaeus ses he ermnthatense.

42

A.H.4,40,1 (4,65).

43 A.H.4,41,34,68,1).

44

A.H.

3,23,3ibid.).

45

A.H.

1,10,3

1,2).

46

A.H.

1,10,31,4).

Cf.

lso,

,28,72,43,2);

,16,24,27,2).



IRENAEUS

AND JEWISH

PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

173

apostates,

ogether

ith he

ungodly,

nd

unrighteous,

nd

wicked,

nd

profane

mong

men .47

Yet,

this

chain of

apostasy

and

transgression

beginning

with

Satan,

extending

own

through

he

angels,

and

finally

bringingman to that ameapostasy ogically races heorigin f sinback

to Satan.

It is

understandable,hen,

hat

renaeus

would

proclaim

atan

as

the

ringleader

f

all

transgressions .

Therefore,

ot

only

does renaeus

gree

with

Jubilees

nd the Testament

of

Levi

in his

description

f the

angelicbeings

who

worship

God in

the

heavens,

he

shows further

ependence

n

pseudepigraphical

iterature

whenhe describes

ow the

fallen

ngels pread

in

to

humanity.

hat

is,

thechain

of

apostasy,

eginning

ith

atan,

extending

own

through

he

angels,

nd

finally ringing

manto that ame

corruption,

id notcome

from

a

reading

of the New

Testament,

which

only

briefly

escribes

Satan's

being

cast out

of heaven with

his

angels.48

No

explanation

s

offered

y

the

New

Testament

or such action nor is

theremade

any

relationship

etweenthese

events and man's

sinful

condition.49

et,

Irenaeus

definitely

nderstands hat thereexists

a

causal

relationship

between

Genesis

,1-4

and

the

wickedness

hatfollows n

Genesis

,5.50

But

he need not

have come to such

an

understanding

ithout ome

assistance,

ecause this

peculation

n

Genesis

ad

already

een

worked

out

and

set

down

in

Jewish

pseudepigraphical

iterature.

Although

47

A.H.1,10,1

1,2).

48

2

Pet.

,4;

Jude

;

Lk.

10,18;

Jn.

2,31;

Rev.

12,7-12.

49

Some

llusion

might

e

made o the

apostasy

n

2 Pet.

2,4

or

Jude

. But

uch

vague

eferences

annot erve s the

ole

ource f renaeus's

hought

n the

ubject.

50

Cf.

p.

14.

Gerhard on

Rad,

Genesis

Philadelphia,

he

Westminster

ress, 961)

109-114, iscusses owtheNephilimameto berenderednEnglish mightynes ,

strong

nes ,

or heroes .

he LXX

reading

s

gigantes

nd,

therefore,

he

Nephilim

became

known

s

giants .

n this

book,

von Rad also

argues

hatGenesis

,5,

the

prologue

o

the

lood,

epresents

he

narrator's

wn

reflections,

inking

enesis

,4,

he

sinsof

angels,

with

he

deluge

hat ollowed

n the

rest

f the

hapter.

e

states

hat

The

Yahwist

wanted

o showman's

general orruption.

e

wanted

o

represent

he

mixing

f

superhumanpiritual owers

with

man,

kind

f

demonic'

nvasion,

nd

point

out a furtheristurbance

aused

by

sin .

Thus,

according

o

von

Rad,

the

Yahwistic

arrator ished

o

say

hat

here

adoccurred deterioration

f

ll creation.

In

addition, ,5

s the

uthor's

wn

tatement

urposely

ritten

o ink he

deluge

with

thedeteriorationhich ook

place

n

6,4.

The

arguments

fvon

Rad arethreefoldnd

the trongestneappears obe the ast,whichrgueshat eteriorations shownn6,4

because

God

cut

hort he

ife fthe bastards

orn

rom he

marriage

f

angels

nd

men.

f

von Rad

is

correct bout

the

Yahwist's

ntentions,

o otherOld Testament

author ad demonstrated

wareness

f

hese

ntentions.

hose

whofirstndicateduch

purpose

n Genesis were he

seudepigraphical

uthors hen

hey peculated

pon

he

fall

f he

ngels

ndtheir

ausing great

lood ocome

pon

he arth.



174

D.R. SCHULTZ

Irenaeus

elaborates

substantially pon

the brief

New

Testament

exts

regarding

atan,

his

thought

n the

ubject ppearsquite

fragmentary

n

the

ight

f the

engthier

reatment

ound

n

the ate

Jewish

seudepigraphi-

cal tradition.

Enoch statesthat

the

whole

earth

has been

corrupted hrough

he

works

hatwere

aught

y

Azazel

(Satan);

to him scribe

ll

sin .51

ere

Satan s

positioned

s the

head of ll

apostasy.

noch,moreover,

escribes

in

detail

hefallof

the

ngels

who swore

n oath and boundthemselveso

their

wn

defilement.

his

act

was

done under

he

eadership

f

Semjaza,

who

s

later

eferred

o as

Satan.52

'Come etus choosewives rommong he hildrenfmen ndbeget schildren'.

And

Semjaza,

who

was

their

eader,

aidunto hem:

I

fear

e

will

ot ndeed

gree

o

do this

eed,

nd alone hall

have o

pay

he

penalty

f

great

in

..'

Let us swear

an

oath,

nd all

bind

urselves

y

mutual

mprecation

ot

o

abandon

his

lan

but

to

do

this

hing.53

Also,

Enoch

laborates

pon

the

corruption

hat esulted

mongst

men

becauseof

this

postasy

f

the

ngels.

And

there rose

much

odlessness,

nd

they

ommitted

ornication,

nd

they

were

led stray,ndbecameorruptn lltheir ays.54

...Jubilees

ikewise

peaks

of the

watchers

angels),55

ho

had

sinned

with he

daughters

f

men;

for hesehad

begun

o

unite

hemselveso as

51

1

Enoch

10,8.

52

Moreover,

hese

ngels

r

watchers

ossessed

eadership

nder

hedominance

of

what

ppears

s a

whole

ost f

ngels.

ee

1

Enoch

,7-8;8,1-3;69,2-13.

However,

thedevil ossessesmany ifferentames hroughouthis iterature.atona, atamail,

Devil,

2 Enoch

40,7;

Test. Dan

5,6;

-

Devil, Apoc.

Mos. cc.

16-17;

Wisd.

Sol.2,24;

-

Beliar,

Test.

Benj.6,1;

Test.

Levi

3,3;

18,12;

Test.

Iss.7,7;

Test.

Can.5,1;

Test. Reub.

6,3;

Test.

Zeb.9,8;

Test.

Naph.2,6;

Jub.

,20; 15,33;

-

Belial,

CD

4,13-15;

6,9-10; 8,2;

12,2;

-

Spirit

f

Darkness,

Test.

Levi

19;

Test.Jos.

7,20.

53

1

Enoch

6,2-5.

Cf.

also,

1

Enoch

7,1-2.

54

1

Enoch

8,2-3.

55

In late

Jewish

iterature,

peculation

bout

the

cause

of evil

n theworldwas

based

upon

the

mysterious

egend

f

angels

which s found

n the ccount

f

Genesis

6,1-4.

The

Nephilim

ecame

known

s watchers ecause

hey

were

riginally

he

Holy ngels

who

watch

1

Enoch

0,1)

nd who

leep

not

bove

n the

Heavens

1

Enoch 9,12-13; 0,2; 61,12; 1,7). nitially,heywere llgood, esidingn the High,

Holy,

nd

eternal

eaven

1

Enoch

5,3-12),

njoying

iberty

2

Baruch

6,10-16),

nd

demonstrating

eneficence

o

mankind

Jubilees

,15).

But

at

leasttwo

hundred

f

these watcher

ngels

escended

pon

the

arth,

ccording

o

1 Enoch

,6-7,1

nd

2

Baruch

6,13.

or a

history

f

the

myth

f

thedescent

fthe onsof

God,

see

J.Mor-

genstein,

he

Mythological

ackground

fPsalm

2,

HUCA 14

1939)

6-114.



IRENAEUS

AND JEWISH

PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

175

to

be

defiledwith

the

daughters

f

men .56

Again,

the

Testament

f

Naphtali

mentions

hat the watchers

..

changed

the order of

their

nature .57 o

too, Baruch,

peaking

bout the

angels, ays

and

some

of

themdescended nd

mingled

withthewomen .58

Moreover,

t is clear

that he

direction

f sin

began

with

atan,

passed

through

he

ngels,

nd

finally

ound ts

resting

lace amongst

men.

The

Lord of

spirits

may

ake

vengeance

n

them

or heir

nrighteousness

n

be-

coming

ubject

o

Satan nd

eading

stray

hose

who

dwell

n the

arth.59

...

and

the

whole

arth

ad been

orrupted

hrough

he

works hat

were

aught

y

Azazel

Satan).60

They hallbeevil pirits pon he arth.. andthe piritsfgiantsfflicted,ppress,

destroy,

ttack,

o

battle,

nd

work

estruction

pon

he

arth.61

The

chainof

postasy

rom atan

to

man,

which

ppears

n the

writings

of

Irenaeus,

was first

onceived

n

late

Jewish

peculation.

t is

this

traditionwhich s

responsible

or

renaeus's laimthatSatan

is

the

ring-

leader of

apostasy.

t

is

also this tradition

hat

helps clarify

renaeus's

thought

oncerning

he inof

Satan,

ngels,

nd men.

UNLAWFULUNIONS

AND

GIANTS N

IRENAEUS

ND

PSEUDEPIGRAPH-

ICAL

ITERATURE

Further

larification

s

achieved

hrough

n examination

f

themanner

in

which

Satan's

apostasy

s

extended o mankind.

renaeus

has

two

different

escriptions

f the

angels defiling

mankind.

One

description

s

concerned

with unlawful nions 62

f

angels

with

offspring

rom

he

daughters

f men.

This

unlawful nion

produces giants 63

pon

the

earthwhich auseman'ssinfulness;nd thesegiants,whichrenaeus alls

the

infamousrace

of

men ,64

erformed

ruitless nd

wicked

deeds.

Such s the

hought

f

1

Enoch.

56

Jub.4,22.

57

Test.

Naph.

,5.

58

2Baruch

56,13.

59 1Enoch 4,6.

60

1

Enoch

0,8.

61

1

Enoch

5,10-11.

62

Proof

18

63

Ibid.

64

A.HI.4,36,4

4,58,4).



176 D. R.

SCHULTZ

And

hey

ore

reat iants

..

who onsumedll

the

cquisitions

f

men.65

...

and thewomen ave

born

iants

nd

the

whole

arth as

thereby

eenfilled ith

blood

nd

unrighteousness.66

Destroy.. the hildrenf hewatchersecause hey avewronged ankind.67

Thus,

both

renaeus

nd

pseudepigraphical

riters

reat

he

subject

f

giants

nd unlawful nions .

Evil

spirits

ave

proceeded

rom

heir

odiesbecause

hey

re

born

rom

men

nd

from he

holy

watcherss

their

eginning

nd

primal rigin:

hey

hall

be evil

pirits

on the arth ndevil

pirits

hall

hey

e

called.68

Elsewhere

n

the

pseudepigraphical

iterature,

imilar tatements

ttest

to thewickedness f the giants .Jubilees as lengthynd numerous

statements

oncerning

hem.

And t came o

pass

when he hildrenf

men

began

o

multiply

n theface f the

earth

nd

daughters

ere orn o

them,

hat he onsofGod saw

them n

a certain

year

f his

Jubilee,

hat

hey

were

eautiful

o ook

upon;

nd

they

ook hemselves

wives f all whom

hey

hose,

nd

they

oreunto

hem ons

nd

they

were

iants.

And

awlessness

ncreasedn the arth

nd

all

flesh

orrupted

ts

way

.. All

of hem

corrupted

heir

ays

nd their

rders nd

they

egan

o devour

ach

other,

nd aw-

lessnessncreased

n the arth

..

and all that

were

pon

the arth

ad

wrought

ll

mannerfevil .. andagainsthe ngelswhom e hadsent ponthe arth.He was

exceedingly

rath

..

and

against

heir ons went

orth

command

..

that

hey

should e smitten

ith

he word.69

...

the nclean

emons

egan

o

ead

astray

he hildrenf he

onsof

Noah,

nd to

make

oerr nd

destroy

hem.70

For

see

..

thedemons

ave

begun their)

eductions

gainst

ou

nd

against

our

children.

1

Although

t has

been

previously

roposed

hat renaeuswas

alluding

o

thebook ofEnoch,72hequestion emains s to what xtentrenaeuswas

dependent

pon

this

pseudepigraphical

radition.

id the

early

Church

Fatherhave

the book

of Enoch

or

other

pseudepigraphical

extsbefore

65

1

Enoch

7,3-4.

66

1

Enoch

9,9.

67

1 Enoch

10,15.

68

1

Enoch

15,9.

f.

lso,19,1;106,13-17.

9

Jub.

,1-4.

70

Jub.10, .

71

Jub.

,27.

Cf.

also,

Wisd. ol.

14,6; Cd.3,3-4,10.

72

N.

P.

Williams,

The deas

of

theFall and

of Original

in

(New

York,

Longman's

Green nd

Co.,

1927)

90,

sserts

hat TheWatcher

tory

n

the roof f he

Apostolic

Preaching

8

is

clearly

ased on

1

Enoch

,1 .Also,

B.Hemmerdinger,

bservations

critiques

ur

Ir6n6e,

I,

JTS

17

1966)

309makes he ame

ssertion.



IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH

PSEUDEPIGRAPHICALLITERATURE

177

him

whenhe

wrote

bout

unlawful

nions

and the

giants

produced

from

uch

unions?

Neither the Old Testamentnor

pseudepigraphical

uthors

use

the

phrase unlawfulunions . Moreover, he text fromGenesisdoes not

mention

nything

ndicating

hat heunion

of

angels

nd

the

daughters

f

menwas

unlawful.

ut

there

s

no

question

hat

he

author f

Enoch

nd

apocalyptic

writers onsidered heunion of

angels

with he

daughters

s

unlawful. Enochconsiders his

union one

in which he

angels

com-

mit

sin

and

transgress

he

law .73 Likewise

according

o

Jubilees he

unions

were

those

in

which the

angels

(watchers)

sinned

with the

daughters

f

men .74The reason

for

these

unions

being

unlawful

n

Jubileess that thewatchers

angels)

against

he aw of their rdinances

went

whoring

fter

he

daughters

f

men .75More

precisely

oes the

Testament

f

Naphtali

xplain

his

nlawfulness

aying

hat

the

watchers

(angels)

changed

the

order of theirnaturewhom the

Lord

cursed .76

That,

then,

which

best describes

hese

unions n

pseudepigraphical

rit-

ings

s

renaeus's

hrase,

unlawful

nions .

In

conjunction

ith

unlawful

nions renaeus tates hat he

angels

linked hemselves ith

he

offspring

f the

daughters

f men.

This

s

not

the

manner

n

which heunion

s

expressed

n

theOld

Testament

ecause

the

Old

Testament

ays

that

the

ons

of God

(angels)

took

o

wife

uchof

them

the

daughters

f

men)

as

they

hose

Gen.

6,2)

and that

the

sons

ofGod came nto

he

daughters

fmen

6,4).

However,

1

Enochrelateshow

the

angels

have connected

hemselves

with

women ,

7 and

have

united

hemselves

ith

women .78

Again

Jubilees

ays

that

these

watchers-angels)

egan

to unite

hemselveso

as

to be defiledwiththe daughters f men. 79 renaeus'sexpression f

Angels

inking

hemselves ith he

offspring

f the

daughters

s

closer

to the

wording

of the

pseudepigraphical

ccounts than to the Old

Testament

xpressions

came into or took to wife . t was the

pseud-

epigraphical

xpression,

hen,

which eems o have

nfluenced

renaeus.

Furthermore,

renaeus

proceeds

o

say

that he

daughters

f

men

bore

73

1

Enoch

06,14.

74 Jub.4,22.

75

Jub.7,21.

76

Test.

Naph. ,5.

77

1

Enoch

9,1.

78

1

Enoch

106,14.

79

Jub.

,22.



178

D. R.

SCHULTZ

to them

angels)

sons who on

accountof

their

xceeding reat

ize

were

called

gigantes

n theBiblewhich e

read.s0

The

LXX translates

nephilimn

in Gen.

,4

as

gigantes.)

is

mentioning

their

xceeding

reat

ize ,

how-

ever,

may

be morethana

simple

nference rom he LXX translation f

nephilim.

noch

had

already

stated

that

they the daughters

f

men)

bear

great

giants

whose

height

was three-thousandlls .81

Elsewhere,

Enoch

says

that

through

his

union

they

the

daughters

f

men)

have

begot

children

y

them

angels)

and

they

shall

produce

on

the

earth

giants .82

lso

Jubilees

tates hat

they thedaughters

f

men)

bore

unto

them

angels)

sons,

and

they

were

giants .83

he

emphasis

n

the

great

size of

the

offspring

eems to

owe more to Enoch than to

any

other

source.

1

ENOCH

AND

RENAEUS

N EVIL TEACHINGS

According

o Irenaeusthe

other

manner

n

which he

angels

brought

about

man's

defilement as

through

vil

teachings.

single

eferencen

the

New Testament

oncerning

he

Doctrineof Demons 84

might

e

a

vague

reference

o the

apostate ngels

or

the

giants

roduced

rom he

union

of

angels

nd men.

However,

his

New Testament

assage

does not

adequately

ccount or renaeus's laborate reatment

n

the

eachings

f

angels,

nor

does the

New Testament

erve

s

a

background

o Irenaeus's

whole unified

reatment

f

unlawful

nions ,

production

f

giants ,

and evil

doctrines.His

source

for

these notions must

come from

a

familiarity

ith tradition imilar

o that

found

mainly

n the

first ook

of Enoch. t

is in

thiswork hat he

ngels

took unto

themselves

ives 85

...

from

mong

he hildren fmen 86

..

and

began

to

go

in

unto

hem

and to defile hemselves ithwith hem 87o that theywives)became

pregnant

nd

they

ore

greatgiants .88

t

is here hat

they

aught

hem

(wives)

charms nd

enchantments,

nd

the

cutting

f

roots,

and made

80

Proofl8.

81

1

Enoch.

,2.

Cf.

also,

Apoc.

Abraham,

. 23

where

Adam

s

of

enormous ize

whichs

eithern

allusion o the

giants

roduced

y

he

postasy

fAzazelor

merely

an

exaltationf

Adam ound lso

n

other

ritings.

ee

Scroggs,p.cit.,

5-38.

82

1

Enoch

106,

17.

83

Jub., ,2.

84

1

Tim.4,1.

85

1

Enoch

7,1.

86

1

Enoch

6,2.

87

1

Enoch

7,1.

88

Ibid.



IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH


179

them

acquainted

with

plants .89

Elsewhere

n

1

Enoch

are

numerous

passages

describing

man's

defilement

hrough

the

evil

teachings

of

angels,90

o that the

doctrine of

demons

mentioned

n the

New

Testamentnd Irenaeus's laboration pondemonic octrines as clarif-

icationfrom

previous

eveloped

radition. hat

tradition

ppears

n

1

Enoch,

nd

becausetherewas

such

tradition,

renaeus

was able to

relate

the

teachings

f

angels

with man's sinfulness.

nly

this

background,

which

emphasizes

he evils

brought

bout

by

the

teachings

f

angels,

could

permit

renaeus o

explain

hatwickedness

rought

pon

the

arth

by

the

teaching

f

angels

was

propagated

o

overflowing.

oreover,

he

Old Testament

makesno

reference

o the

teachings

f the

angels

s does

late Jewish

seudepigraphical

iterature, hich,without

uestion,

iews

the

eachings

s evil

eachings.91

By

way

of

comparison

one

finds

that

Irenaeus

enumerates

hose

teachings

s follows:

the

virtues

f

roots and

herbs,

nd

dyeing

nd

cosmetics,

nd

discoveries

f

precious

materials,

ove

philtres,

atreds,

amours,

passions,

constraints f

love,

the

bonds of

witchcraft,

very

sorcery

nd

dolatry,

ateful o

God. 92

However,

n

1 Enoch

nother numerationf the

vil

teachings

mpart-

ed to men smade.This other

isting

orresponds

uite

closely

o thatof

Irenaeus.

Enoch states

that the

angels

taught

hem

the

daughters

f

men)

charms nd enchantmentsnd

the

cutting

f

roots

and

made them

acquainted

with

lants

.. and made known o them

metals

of

the

earth)

and

the

art of

working

hem,

nd bracelets nd ornaments nd theuse of

antimony,

nd the

beautifying

f

eyelids

nd

all kindsof

costly

tones,

and

all

coloring

inctures

..

Various

fallen

ngels

lso

taught

nchant-

ments

nd

root

cuttings ,

the

resolving

f

enchantments ,astrology ,

constellations ,

knowledge

f

the

clouds ,

signs

of the

earth ,

signs

of

the

un ,

course f

the

moon .93

From

the

above

passage,

which ists

the

eachings

f

angels,

nd from

Irenaeus's

numeration

fthe

ngels'

vil

teachings

ppear

characteristics

peculiar

o the wotraditions.

ach

one

ofthe

eachings

isted

y

renaeus

is

similarly

numeratednd

expressed

n

1

Enoch.And of

those

teachings

listed,

t is

ust

as

difficult

o

determine ow

the

virtues

f

roots,

yeing,

89

1

Enoch

8,3.

90

1

Enoch

,1-2. -4; 9,4; 16,3; 9,4-12.

91

1

Enoch

9,6; 10,8-9;

13,2; 16,3.

92

Proof.

18. cf.

also,

1

Enoch

69,4-12.

93

1

Enoch

7,1-8,4.



180

D. R. SCHULTZ

cosmetics

nd discoveries

f precious

materials

re

teachings

f evil to

Irenaeus

s

it s

to

determinehat he

utting

f

roots,

ll

coloring

inctures,

bracelets,

rnaments,

se

of antimony

nd

the

working

f

the

metals

f

the

earth reevil othe uthor f1Enoch.

Moreover,

he

sequence

of

thought

ound

n

Irenaeus,

namely,

nlaw-

ful

unions

where

he

angels

united

hemselves

ith

he

daughters f

men,

who bore

great iants,

ollowed

y

the

evil

teachings

f

angels

s the

ame

sequence

found

n 1 Enoch with

trikingly

imilar,

f

not

identical,

x-

pression.

IRENAEUS'S SEUDEPIGRAPHICALAUSE

FORTHEDELUGE

Irenaeusfostered he notion that these angels and theirapostasy

brought

bout the

deluge

r were he

only

ause for uch.94

urthermore,

he

states hat He

(God) justly

brought

n

the

deluge

for

he

purpose

of

extinguishing

hat

most nfamous

ace

of

men .95

Yet,

Irenaeus

s not

consistent

n

his

thought

bout the

purpose

of

the

deluge

because some

of the fallen

angels

continue

presently

o influenceman toward evil

ways.

n

speaking

bout

heretics,

e

says

hat this lass ofmen

have

been

instigated

y

Satan .96

lsewhere,

e

explains

ow menwere aved

both

from hemostwicked

pirits,

nd from

very

ortof

apostate

power .97

This was

done

by calling

pon

Him

God)

at a time fter he

deluge

nd

before

he

oming

f

our

Lord,

Christ ..

and

for his eason

do

the

Jews

evennow

put

demons o

flight .98

t even

greaterengths

oes

he

discuss

present

men

whobecame nfluenced

y

thedevil nd

his

ngels.

For this

eason,

herefore,

e has

termed

hese

ngels

f

he

devil

ndchildrenf he

wicked

ne,

who

give

heed

to

the

devil

nd

do

his works

..

but

when

hey

ave

apostatized

nd fallen

nto

ransgression,

hey

re

ascribed

o

their

hief,

hedevil

to himwhofirst ecame he auseof postasyohimselfndafterwardsoothers.99

It would

appear

that

renaeus

ees

the

deluge

as

sweeping way

the

rebellious

world ,

yet

he

fallen

ngels

till ontinue o exist.But

such n-

consistency

s also to be

noted

among

pseudepigraphical

uthorswho

continue

o

keep

demons and

giants ctively

nfluencing

en after

the

ime f

Noah.100

94

A.H.

,29,2Ibid.).

95

A.H.4,36,34,58,4).

96

A.H.

,21,11,14,1).

97 A.H. 2,6,2 2,4,6).

98

Ibid.

99

A.H.

4,41,2(468,1).

100oo

ubilees

,26-39; 10,1-15.

Cf.

also,

1Enoch

89,10.



IRENAEUS AND JEWISH

PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

181

Although

he deathat

he

ngels

ndtheir

postasy rought

bout he

deluge

s

foreign

othe

New

Testament,

t

s

explicitly

reatedn

the

nter-

testamental

ewishiterature.101t

is a

pseudepigraphical

otion

which

serveds a focalpoint roundwhich iscussionsnman's infulness

centered.102

everal orks ontainhis

houghtoncerning

he

ngels

nd

the

eluge.103

Some of

the

angels

of

heaven

ransgressed

..

and have united

hemselves

ith

women

... and

they

hall

produce

on the earth

giants

.. and there

hall

be

a

great

punishment

n

theearth nd there hallcome

a

great

estruction

ver he

whole

earth,

nd

therehall

e a

deluge

..104

In

like

manner

he

watchers

lso

changed

he rder ftheir

ature,

hom he

Lord

cursed t theflood, nwhose ccountHe madethe arthwithoutnhabitantsnd

fruitless..105

For

owing

o these hree

hings

ame

he lood

pon

he

arth,

amely,

wing

o the

fornication

hereinhewatchers

gainst

he aw of

their

rdinances

ent

whoring

after

he

daughters

f

men nd took

hemselvesives fall which

hey

hose:

and

they

made

he

beginning

f

uncleanness

..

and

theLord

destroyedverything

rom

off

heface

f

the

arth;

ecause

fthewickednessf

the

deeds nd

because f

the

bloodwhich

hey

ad hed

nthemidst f he

arth,

e

destroyedverything

..106

Thisnotion hat

he

unlawful

nions

f

ngels

ndthe

daughters

f

men

rought

bout he

eluge

lso

rgues

or

renaeus's

ependence

pon

some

seudepigraphical

radition.

In the

Old Testament

he

deluge

ollows

pon

he

marriage

f

angels

with he

daughters

f menbut

there s no

explicit

ndicationhat he

deluge

esultedecause

fthe

marriage.107

ather,

heflood

ppears

o

result rom

man'swickedness hich

might

ave

ome

mplicit

elation-

ship

othe

marriage

f

ngels

nd

men.

Yet, renaeus'sommixturef wickednesss mentionedreciselyn

relation

o the

apostasy

f

angels

nd this

s the ause

which

rings

about he

eluge.

hat

eluge weeps

way

he rebellious

orld

ndthe

infamous

eneration

r

infamous

aceof men

whocouldnot

bring

forth ruit

o

God

since he

angels

hat

inned ad

commingled

ith

101

Jubilees

,21-25.

102

See Jubileesnd

theBooks f

Adam

nd

Eve.

103

F. R.Tennant, heFall andOriginalin Cambridge,ambridge niv.Press,

1902)

38.

Williams,

p.

cit.,

5.

104

1

Enoch

106,13-16.

105

Test.

Naph.3,5.

106

Jubilees

,21-25.

107

See note 50.



182 D. R. SCHULTZ

them .108

ikewise

n

1

Enoch,Jubilees,

nd theTestament

f

Naphtali

he

flood

s

due to thefornication

f

thewatchers

apostasy

fthe

ngels)

who

begat

sons and

made

the

beginning

f

all

uncleanness.

he flood

s

also

for hepurpose fdestruction,estroyingverythingrom ff hefaceof

the

earth,

leansing

he earth

of

wickedness,

nd

rendering

t

without

inhabitantsnd fruitless.n the

pseudepigraphical

ccount,

he arth ould

not

bring

orth ruit fter he

deluge,

while

n

renaeus's

ccount

he arth

was

destroyed

ecause t

could not

bring

orth ruit

efore

heflood.

The

sequence

of Irenaeus's

thought

nd that of

pseudepigraphical

authors

oncerning

he

deluge

follows

pon

the

marriage

f

angels

and

men as found

n the

Old Testament.

et,

as was

said,

the

Old Testament

does notexplicitlyelate heflood, tscauses,and purpose o the mar-

riage

s

do Irenaeus nd

pseudepigraphical

riters. his

explicit

elation-

ship

s

peculiar

o these

wo traditionsnd

the

most

ikely

xplanation

s

that

renaeus

depended

upon

pseudepigraphical

otions

orunderstand-

ing

both heOld and New

Testaments.

FUSION

A third

xplanation

f the

origin

f sin results

when

hese

wo

themes

are fused

ogether.

hat

is,

man's

sinfulness,

esulting

rom hefall of

Adam

and

Eve

through

he

nstigation

f

Satan,

s

a

notion

onsequent

upon

the

fusing

f the

paradise

narrative f Genesis and

the

ngelic

all

story

f Genesis

6.

Thus,

the role

of Satan and

his

angels

s combined

with

the

Adamic

fall

from

aradise

to

explain

the

origin

f

man's

sin-

fulness.

Irenaeus,

hen,

as attributedhe

origin

f

therace

and of

sin to Adam

and Eve.109

Many

texts

elate in

olely

o

Adam,

while

he

tempter

f

Adam

is not

mentioned.

n

other

exts,

he

sourceof sin

s

traced

o

the

devil and

his

apostasy.110imilarly,

n

these exts here

s

no

mention

f

Adam

or Eve and

the

postasy

s

related

olely

o the

fall fthe

ngels.

Elsewhere,

renaeus

offers

dam and

Eve as the

cause of

sin,

while

making

he

serpent

he

tempter

n

the fall

of

the first

arents.

he most

obvious

portrayal

f

fusion

ppears

n Irenaeus's

Proof

of

the

Apostolic

108

A.H.4,36,4

(4,58,4).

109

A.H.3,20,1 (3,21,1); 3,23,1.

3

(3,32,2.

3,33,2);

4, Pref.,

(4,

Pref.,

3);

5,21,2.

3

(ibid.);

,23,1ibid.); ,24,3-4

ibid.).

110

A.H.

1,27,4 1,25,2); 4,40,3 4,66,2); 5,23,1

ibid.); 5,26,2 ibid.);

4,

Pref.,

4

(4,

Pref.,3).



IRENAEUS

AND JEWISH


183

Preaching; ll

where he

apostate ngel

the

devil)

first

uinedhimself

nd

is

placed

in the

primary osition

n

bringing

bout

Adam's fall.

This

happens

by

means of the

serpent;

nd it would

appear

that he

orderof

disobediencen the mind of Irenaeusbeganwith heangel Satan), ex-

tended o the

bearer f

the

lander

the erpent),

nd

finally

uinedman

by

making

Adam

a

sinner,

which

eriesof

events

brings

bout the

deluge.

Further estruction

esults

pon

the arth

hrough

he

postasy

f

angels

and

their

unlawful nions .112

hus

results hefusion f

the wodistinct

biblical

tories f Genesiswhich urther

ssociates renaeuswith

seudep-

igraphical

otions.

Moreover,

t

is

not too

much

to

say

that,

n the

pas-

sages

in

Irenaeus

now under

discussion,

ne sees

the

irst heologically

consistent

usion of

thestories n Genesis3 and 6, and the one which

dominated

ubsequent

hristian

heology.

dam

is

created

good,

but

is

tempted

y

a

previously

allen

ngel,

atan,

who

through

im

gains

power

over

hehuman

ace,

power

which

s broken

nly

by

Christ,

he second

Adam ,

who

successfully

efeats he

empter

nd

opens

he

way

o freedom

and life.

Satan, however,

s not

conceived f

quite

as an evil

god,

since

Genesis allowedhim

o be

relegated

o

the

roleof a fallen

ngel.113

hat

Irenaeus

neededfor hefusion

f Genesis and 6

was to

reverse hose wo

accounts,

making

atan,

because of his

fall,

nducethe fallof

humanity

through

Adam. The fusion n Irenaeus erves s a

systematically

ogent

statementf how

sinfirst

ame ntothe

world

hrough

he

postate ngel

(Satan),

which

tatement

rotects

he

goodness

of creation nd leads to

the solution

offered,

s

Irenaeus

saw

it,

in

Christianity.

he main

in-

gredients

f

Irenaeus's

fusionof Genesis and

6

were

alreadypresent,

111

Proof 6.

112

Proof18.

113

A

very

nteresting

assage,

.H.

1,15,6

1,8,17),

ttestso Satan's

ole

s that

f

a fallen

ngel.

Here renaeus

n

condemning

he

gnostic,

arcus,

ites divine lder

who

s unknowno

present

eaders f renaeus. his lder escribes arcus s

being

skilled

n

consulting

he

tars nd

n

the

performance

f

postate

works.n

addition,

it s

Satan

by

means f

Azazel,

hat

allen nd

yet

mightyngel

hatmakesMarcus

n

author

f

impious

ction .

he

thought

ontained

nthis

itation

s

one

of he eaders

of

the

watchers

n

1

Enoch.

However,

zazel used

n

relation

o Satanwho educes

Adam

nd

Eve s not

ontained

n

the

book

ofEnoch. his usion f

Azazel,

ne

ofthe

fallen

ngels,

with

atan,

the

seducer f

Adam,

s the workof the

Apocalypse

f

Abrahamcc.22-23).Here lso, consultinghe tars c.20) sanaccepted racticeor

furthering

ne's

knowledge.

his work s

somewhat

nostic ccording

o G.H.Box

(see

p.

178,

n.

81),

but

undoubtedly

uch f the iteraturef that

ime

ad

gnostic

elements ithout

eing

lassed s

gnostic

iterature.

hus,

renaeus

was

writing

bout

Satan

Azazel)

from

pseudepigraphical

radition hen

he

cited he lder

who was

using

tradition hich hared

reat ffinity

ith he

Apocalypse

fAbraham.



184

D. R.

SCHULTZ

however,

n

Jewish

seudepigraphical

iterature,

here he two Genesis

fall

stories

were reversed o

that

the atter

would be seen to cause

the

former.

Irenaeus,spreviouslyentioned,ften eferso Satanunder arious

titles uch

s

devil ,

apostate

ngel ,

or

serpent .114

n

using

hese

dif-

ferent

itles,

e

explains

atan'srole

n

bringing

bout

Adam's

fall.

THE

INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE

SERPENT

IN

IRENAEUS

AND PSEUDEPI-

GRAPHICAL

ITERATURE

Although

atan r

the

evils

often

dentified

ith

he

erpent

f he

Paradise

arrative,115

renaeus

nconsistently

ut

learly

akes distinc-

tion etweenhese wo iguresithhe laim hat atansonlyursed

through

he urse

hichs

placed pon

he

erpent.116

hat

ppears

obe

a

simple

dentificationf

the

erpent

nd

Satan

s rendered

omewhat

complex

henrenaeus

laces

causal

onnection

etweenhe

postasy

of

ngelic

owers

nd he all

fAdam.

hat

s,

renaeus aintainshat

the

postatengel,

atan,

ffectedhe

isobedience

fmankind

y

means

of

he

erpent.

For stheerpenteguiledve .. thepostatengel avingffectedhe isobedience

ofmankind

y

meansf he

erpent,

magined

hat ehad

scaped

otice.117

What

must

e

noted

n

renaeus's

hought

s

that atan s under

ome

sort f

disguise

hen e

causes dam

r

Eve o sin. hat

isguise

s

the

serpent

n

he

arden.

So Godrebukedhe

erpent,

ho adbeen he earer

f

he

lander,

nd his urse

fell

pon

he

nimal

tself,

nd he

ngel,

atan,

urking

idden ithin

t.lis

Thus hedevil, idden ithinhe erpent,empted anby peakingo

114

Wingren,

p. cit.,

4,

ays

hat he

devil, atan,

nd

serpent

efer o

exactly

he

same

eality,

o

that renaeus

sesdifferent

ameswithout

aking

ny

eal

distinction

betweenhem. f.

Fragmenta

6,

the

erpent

s a demon.

A.H.

4,

pref., (4, pref., );

4,40,3

4,66,2); ,21,2

ibid.);

3,23,3

3,33,2); roof

6,

he

erpent

s an

apostate

ngel.

A.H.

1,27,4(1,25,2);

,

pref.,

(4,

pref.,

); 4,40,3

4,66,2); ,23,1

ibid.);

he

erpent

s

a

wicked

angel.

Satan is also identified

iththe

serpent

n

some

passages,

but

in

others,

Satanhideshimselfn

the

disguise

fthe

erpent

r usesthe

erpent

s an instrument

forhis evilwork.Cf.A.H. 4, pref., (4, pref., ); 5,23,1ibid.);Proof 6.See also,

pp.

24ff.

115

A.H.

1,27,41,25,2);

,40,3

4,66,2);

,23,3

3,33,2).

116

A.H.4,40,3

4,66,2).

117

A.H.

4,

pref.,

4,

pref.,

).

Cf.

lso,

5,21,2

ibid.).

118s

Proofl

6.



IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH


185

thewoman.

This makes

he

erpent

he

nstrumenthedevilused to

cause

thefallofAdam

and Eve.

As also nthebeginning,e Satan) edman strayhroughhenstrumentalityf he

serpent,

oncealing

imselfs

itwere

rom

God.119

Additionally,

renaeus,

iting

John

,44,

states hat

the devil s

a liar

from he

beginning .

e then

urther

xplains

how well

practiced

n

false-

hood

is

Satan.

Irenaeus's

xample

s

that

of the

paradise

narrative hen

Satan,

lying gainst

he

Lord,

tempted

man,

s

the

cripturesay

that he

serpent

aid

to

the woman .120

bviously,

atan

is

using

he

serpent

o

speak

to Eve and the

serpent

s

the nstrument

f Satan.

Thus Irenaeus

characterizeshe

erpent's

ole s a vessel nthehandsofSatan.

Nowhere

n

theOld Testament

s

the

devil,

r

Satan,

dentifiedr inked

with he

erpent

fthe

paradise

narrative. his dentification

irst

ppears

in the

ate

Jewish

iterature

romwhich

t s

passed

on to the

New

Testa-

ment.

The

New

Testament

imply

makesthe

dentificationf Satan

and

the

serpent,

with

no

explanation

oncerning

he

instrumentality

f the

serpent.121

et

one

passage

might

ave some

referenceo Satan's

seduc-

tion

of

Eve,

for

even Satan

disguises

himself

s an

angel

of

light .122

But

this ext

tanding y

tselfs too

vague

to

support

renaeus's

hought.

It

is

conceivable

that Irenaeus could have used the New

Testament

identification

f

Satan with

the

serpent

nd then reflected

pon

the

paradise

narrative f Genesis o account for Satan's seduction

f

man-

kind'sfirst

arents,

ut

such

reflection

ould neither

make

Satan

an

apo-

state

angel

nor offer easons for his

falling

beforeAdam.

Irenaeus's

accountof the

seduction

nd his elaboration

pon

the

instrumentality

of the erpentsalmost ertainlyerived rom seudepigraphicalources.

Furthermore,

he

dentification

nd

instrumentality

f the

serpent

o

Satan

contain

he

play

oftwo

disparate houghts.

ne

is

therole of Satan

regarding

hefallofthe

ngels

nd theother s the

role

of Satan

regarding

the

fall of Adam.

The

two ideas

are not

completely

econciled

n

the

writings

f

renaeus,

but

rather

mingle

n the

background

f his

thought

when

he

speaks

boutman's sinful ondition.

The fact hat renaeus

ometimes

dentifieshe

serpent

with atan and

sometimesmakestheserpentn instrumentfSatan s best xplained y

119

A.H.

5,26,2

ibid.).

120

A.H.

5,23,1

ibid.).

121

Rev.12,9.

122

S

Cor.l11,14.



186 D. R. SCHULTZ

maintaining

renaeus's

familiarity

ith he

thought

hat

s

contained

n

a recension f

the

Books of Adam

and

Eve,

namely,

he

Apocalypse

f

Moses.

Chapters

15-30

of thisbook

give

an elaborate ccount

of

Eve's

fall,describingowshe s seducedbythedevil hroughhe nstrumental-

ity

fthe

erpent.

ere,

lso

implied,

s

the eversal

f

Gen.

3 and

6.

And he evil

poke

othe

erpent

.. Fear

not,

nly

e

my

esselnd shall

peak

through

hy

mouth ordso

deceive im. nd

nstantly

e

hung

imself

rom

he

wall f

paradise

.. then

atan

ppeared

n

he

orm

f n

angel

..

and

(Eve)

bent

over

hewall nd aw

him ike n

angel.

ut

he

said o me

.. and said

to him .. the

devil

nswered

hrough

he

mouth

f he

erpent

..

and took f

he ruitnd ate

...

and

orthwith

knew hat

was

bare f

he

ighteousness

ith hich

had

been

clothed

.. I cried ut

n

that

ery

our,

Adam,Adam,

where rtthou

..

whenhe

came openedmymouthnd he evilwas peaking.. and peedilypersuaded

him ndhe te

..

Buthe

urned

othe

erpent

nd

aid,

Since hou

asdone

his

and ecomethankless

essel

.. 123

Thus

t

appears

ikely

hat

renaeus's

aying

hat

atan used the

erpent

as

an

instrument,

hat

he

imagined

hathe

had

escaped

notice

thereby,

and

that

he lurkedwithin he

serpent

s

dependent

n the

fuller

ecen-

sion

as

found

n the

Apocalypse f

Moses.

In

other

writings

f

pseudep-

igraphical

iterature,

ve is

tempted

nto

committing transgression

nd

the

tempter

s

obviously

ne of the fallen

ngels.

Thus

1

Enochaccuses

Gadreel,

ne of the eaders

f

the

watchers,

f

eading

Eve

astray.124

lso

it

s

quite

clear

n

the

VitaAdae et

Evae

that

hedevil

s the

gent

f Eve's

deception.'25

he

closest

parallel,

however,

s between

renaeus nd the

Apocalypse

f

Moses

version.

There re

further

imilaritiesetween

renaeus's

passages

on the educ-

tion

of Eve

and that

of the

Apocalypse

f

Moses. Thus when

renaeus

says

that God

rebuked

he

serpent,

he

bearer

f slander nd

that

the

curse

fell

upon

the animal and

Satan hidden

within ,126

e is

probably

echoing

he

ccount ound n

the

Apocalypse

f

Moses,

whereGod

is said

to have

cursed he

serpent

or

having

erved

s the nstrument

f

Satan

( a

thankless

essel )

26,1).

The term

vessel for atan n

the

Apocalypse

of

Moses

seems

o

have been

applied

by

renaeus

o

Adam,

who

became

a vessel n

Satan's) possession ,

inceSatan held

him under

his

power

and thusmadeuse

of

him,127

ust

as he

did

ofthe

erpent.

123

Apoc.

Mos.

cc.

16-26.

Cf.

Vita

Adae

et Evae

cc. 12-17.

124

1

Enoch

69,6.

125

VitaAdae et

Evae

16,4; 33,2-3.

Cf.

also,

Wisd.

ol.

2,24

and

2 Enoch

31,4-6.

126

Proof

16.

127

A.H.3,23,1 (3,32,3).



IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

187

The

principal

ifferenceetween hetwo

accounts

s that n

Irenaeus's

viewSatan's

deception

onsisted n his

hiding

within

he

erpent,

hile n

the

Apocalypse f

Moses the

deception

s carried urther. here

Satan

appeared

n theform fan

angel

nd

sang

hymns

ike he

ngels

oGod.

Thus

whenEve

looked t the

erpent,

he

saw him like n

angel 17,1

f.).

If

renaeuswas

dependent

pon

the

Apocalypse f

Moses or some

related

tradition,

e

appears

o

have

implified

he

deception

omewhat.

In

any

case,

t s not

feasible

o

imagine

hat

renaeusderived hecom-

bination f two

distinct all

stories

nd the

nstrumentality

f

the

erpent

from he

New

Testament.

Rather,

t is from he

writings

f

late Jewish

pseudepigraphicalpeculation

hat

renaeus

borrowed nd

composed

his

thought

o thathe could

say

that

Adam was

injured

y

the

serpent

nd

thatfrom he

beginning

he

serpent

ecame

an

instrument

nd Adam a

vessel n

Satan's

possession.128

lso,

Satan

as the

postate ngel,

ffecting

the

disobedience f

mankind

by

means of the

serpent

nd

imagining

thathe

had

escaped

notice ,

s

obviously

erived rom

seudepigraphical

sources.

IRENAEUS'S

SEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

AUSE

ENVY)

OR

ATAN'S

ALL

One

final

point

which

ssociates

renaeus with

ate

Jewish

seudepi-

graphical peculations

oncerns

atan's reasonfor

ausing

Adam

or Eve's

transgression.

he

reason

offered

y

renaeus

forSatan's

action

against

mankind s

one of

ealousy

and

envy,maintaining

hatmankind

was led

astrayby

the

angel

who had

become

ealous

of

the man.

Irenaeus ex-

plicitly

tates

his,

nd offers

ride,

he

ause of

envy,

s

thereasonfor

he

serpent's

ction.

AlthoughheNewTestament lso identifieshedevil ndthe erpent,t

fails

to

offer

ny

reason for Satan's

hostility gainst

man. It

might

e

argued

that this

dea of

invidia ame from he

book of

Wisdom,

hich

states:

But

through

he

devil's

envy

deathentered he

world. 129

ow-

ever,

Irenaeus

adds

much

more to the

simple

statement f

Wisdom,

maintaining

he reason

for

Satan's

envy

to be

God's

favours130

nd

workmanship.131

128

A.H.3,23,13,32,2).tis nterestingo note hat parallelhoughtscontained

in 3

Baruch

,9

where

he

devil,

ut

of

nvy,

eceived

dam

hrough

isvine.

Needless

to

say,

he ine

was

hereafterursed.

129

Wisd.

ol.2,24.

Cf.

Tennant,p.

cit.,

47.

130

A.H.4,40,34,66,2).

131

Proof16.



188 D.

R.

SCHULTZ

Envy

as

the cause

of the

devil's

deception

s

the notion

clothed n a

lengthy

ccount

by

Eve of

her

transgression,

ound

n

the

Life of

Adam

and

Eve.132

n

thiseditorial evision he devil enviesthe

great

oy

and

luxury hatAdam and Eve wereenjoyingn paradise, joy and luxury

that

atan,

himself,

reviously

ad but ost.

The devil

poke:

O

Adam.

All

myhostility,nvy,

nd

sorrow

s

for

hee

..

and we

were

rieved

hen

we

saw

thee n such

oy

and

uxury

nd with

uile

cheated

hy

wife.'133

This

pseudepigraphicalpeculation,

hen,

ontains deas which end o

clarify hy

renaeus

nd

late

Jewishwriters

ould

unite wo

completely

disparate

peculations

n the

origin

of sin. That

is,

theassociationof

Satan's

fall

withAdam's

transgression

eeded some

rationalbasis. That

basis

became the

envy

of Satan

which

was first

roposed

n

late

Jewish

pseudepigraphical

peculation

nd was

later

dopted

by

renaeus.

t was

adopted

because

Satan's

envy

its o

wellwith

renaeus's

eachings

bout

the

first xalted nd

glorious

Adam,

who would

necessarily

ender atan

somewhat nvious.

However,renaeus,

with he

help

ofPaul

(Eph.2,2)places

the

devilover

the

fallen

ngels

nd

claims

hat he

reason

for

he

devil

ausing

Adam's

fallwas one of

envy:

Likewise,

lso,

the

devil,

eing mong

hose

ngels,

who

are

placed

over

the

spirit

f

air

...

becoming

nvious

of

man,

was

rendered

n

apostate

rom

hedivine

aw

...

and his

the

devil's)

postasy

was

exposed

to

man

..

he

thedevil)

ethimself

ith

reater

nd

greater

determination

n

opposition

o

man,

envying

is

life,

nd

wishing

o

in-

volvehim

man)

n his

the

devil's)

wn

apostate

ower. '134

In addition,renaeusgivesreasonsfor hedevil'senvywhenhe says:

Man

...

being

misled

y

the

ngel,

who

becoming

ealous

oftheman

and

132

Vita

Adae

t

Evae

cc.

12-17.A

lengthy

nd

most

larifying

reatment

oncerning

thenotion

f

nvy

n

ts

Greek,

Gnostic,

nd

Jewish

ontextss

well s its elevance

o

the

paradise

arratives contained

n an

essay

by

W.C.

van

Unnik,

er

Neid n der

Paradiesgeschichte

ach

inigen nostischen

exten,

n:

Martin

rause

ed.),

Essays

n

the

Nag

Hammadi

exts nHonour

f

Alexander

Bbhlig

Leiden,

.J.

Brill,

972)

120-

132.

This

rticle

learly

rgues

hat

renaeus

erceived

dam's

fall s a result f

nvy,

on

the

part

f

Satan,

lthough

here ad been

theory

hat

he

rohibition

n

Paradise

wastheresult fGod's envy pp. 125-126). he Books of AdamandEve somewhat

support

his atter

heory

ith

he laim

hat

atan

ttributed

nvy

o God

in His

pro-

hibition

p. 126).

However,

lsewhere

n

theBooks

ofAdam nd Eve

envy

s attributed

not o God but

o the

Devil

nd

erpentpp.

128-129).

133

Ibid.,16,3-4.

134

A.H.

5,24,4

ibid.).

f.

Eph.

,2.



IRENAEUS

AND

JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

189

looking

on him

with

envy

because of man's

many

favours

which He

(God)

had bestowed n the

man,

bothruined imselfnd made theman a

sinner. 135

Some furtherttestationo Satan's envyand cause for suchenvy s

seen

as Irenaeuswrites: We learn

thatthiswas

the

apostate ngel

and

the

enemy

because

he

was

enviousof God's

workmanship

nd

took

in

hand to

render

his

workmanship

n

enmity

withGod. He turned he

enmity

y

which

the

devil)

had

designed

o make

man)

the

enemy

f

God

against

the authorof it ...

sending

t

upon

the

serpent. 36

ere,

again,

the

devil

and

serpent

ppear

to

be

identified

s

well

as in

another

passage

which

says:

the

pride

of

reason,

therefore,

hichwas in

the

serpent

was

put

to

nought. '37

hat

is,

the

pride

ofreasonwas inSatan

but

s here ttributedo the

erpent

ecause

ofthe

imple

dentification.

Even

though

hebook of

Wisdom

irst ecords hat

through

he

devil's

envy

death

entered nto the

world ,138

he

reasonfor

uch

envy

nd the

instrumentality

f

the

erpent,

t the

hands

of

Satan,

re

not

derived

rom

thatbook.

Rather,

he

reason forthe

devil's

envy

s

well as the nstru-

mentality

f

the

serpent

re

notions irstwrittenn

the Books

of

Adam

and Eve.

The

narration f

Vita

Adae et

Evae cc. 12-17

concerns he

devil's

banishment rom

heaven for

refusing

o

worship

Adam.

After anish-

ment,

he

devil and

thosewho were

banishedwithhim

wereovercome

with

grief

when

hey

aw Adam in

such

oy

and

luxury .139

hus

with

envy

and

guile,

the

devil caused

Adam and Eve

to be

expelled

from

paradise

as the devil

had

previously

een

expelled

from

his

glory.

The

joy

and

luxury

f the

first

arents

s

here

paralleled

with he

glory

f

the

devil nd his

angels

before heir all.

However,

hedevil's

ccount f

Adam's joy and luxury which s recordedby thepseudepigraphical

author

parallels

renaeus's

workmanship

nd

favours

which

God

had

bestowed

pon

the

man. These

parallel

notions

re

for

both renaeus

nd

the

pseudepigraphical

uthor he

reason for Satan's

envy

which

aused

thedevil o

bring

bout

Adam's

expulsion

rom

aradise.

CONCLUSION

In

the

pesudepigraphical

ccountof Adam's fall

s

the

combination

f

135

Proof

16.

136

A.H.4,40,3 (4,66,2).

137

A.H.

5,21,2

ibid.).

138

Wisd.

ol.

2,24.

139

VitaAdae tEvae

16,4.



190 D.

R.

SCHULTZ

ideas

including

he

nstrumentality

f

the

serpent,

he

ealousy

of

Satan,

and thereasons or uch

nvy.

he

Books of

Adam and Eve

place

all

three

of these

notions

equentially

s does Irenaeus

n

his

Proof

f

the

Apostolic

Preaching.140oreover,renaeusnotonlyreversed heorderofGenesis

3 and 6

and

then used

his

two

accounts,

s did the

Books

of Adam

and

Eve as found

n

the

Apocalypse

f

Moses

and

the

VitaAdae et Evae141

the

latter ecension

ess

clearly

hanthe

former),

ut

he

wrotewith

certain

affinity

f

expression.

uch

faithfulness

o

pseudepigraphical

xpression

and

thought

rder

rgues trongly

or

Irenaeus's

dependence pon

such

source.

Although

no one

single

xpression

r

idea

which

has

been

examined

gives complete

icture

oncerninghe extent f renaeus'sdependence

upon pseudepigraphical

iterature,

ll

of those

expressions

nd ideas

examined

do

offer basis

from

which

ome

estimation an

be

made.

First,

renaeus

definitely

as

dependent

pon

pseudepigraphical

deas

for

nterpreting

he Old and

New

Testaments.

econd,

he also borrowed

ideas

solely

from the

pseudepigraphical

radition

n

formulating

is

theory

f

recapitulation,nvolving

irst

nd

second

Adam.

Particularly

s

this true

concerning

in,

ts

origin,

nd

its

effects

n a

sinful

humanity.

Third,

hisuse of the

pseudepigraphical

raditionwas not from casual

acquaintance

with hetradition ut

rather n

extensive ne which

roved

an

aid to

formulating

is

theology

n

a

pseudepigraphical

equence

of

ideas. These

ideas were also

expressed

n

terms

which

he derived

rom

pseudepigraphical

ources.

Finally,

t shouldbe

proposed,

ince renaeuswas so

dependent pon

speculations

utside

the

Old and

New

Testaments

n

formulating

is

argumentsgainst

the

gnostics

nd

developing

his

ideas on

sin,

that

possibly

ther

arly

Church

athers

were

ikewise

ependent

pon

sources

outside

heOld

and

New Testaments

n

formulating

heir

deas on sin.

Villanova,

a

19085,

Villanova

University,

Department

f

Religious

tudies

140

Although

renaeus

n

Proof

equentially

reats enesis

(the

fall fAdam

nd

Eve)

before

enesis

(the

all

f he

Angels),

he

rder ound

n

theOld

Testament,

he

fall f

Adam

n

Proof resupposes

he

xistence

f deceiver

Proof 2).

That

s,

Adam

is misled ythe ngel whohadpreviouslyrebellednd fallenway .. (and)was

called

n

Hebrew atan

Proof 6).

The

relationship

f

Satan

to the all f

the

ngels

of

the origin of sin in irenaeus and jewish pseudepi-graphical literature.pdf

Documents