Briggman, Anthony [en] - Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit [Oxford]

OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

General Editors

Gillian Clark Andrew Louth

THE OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarlyvolumes on the thought and history of the early Christian centuries. Coveringa wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources, the books are of interest totheologians, ancient historians, and specialists in the classical and Jewishworlds.

Titles in the series include:

Possidius of CalamaA Study of the North African Episcopate in the Age of Augustine

Erica T. Hermanowicz (2008)

Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox ChurchVolker L. Menze (2008)

The Christocentric Cosmology of St Maximus the ConfessorTorstein Theodor Tollefsen (2008)

Augustines Text of JohnPatristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts

H. A. G. Houghton (2008)

Hilary of Poitiers on the TrinityFrom De Fide to De Trinitate

Carl L. Beckwith (2008)

The Easter Computus and theOrigins of the Christian Era

Alden A. Mosshammer (2008)

The Letters of JeromeAsceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the

Construction of Christian Authority in Late AntiquityAndrew Cain (2009)

Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and theTransformation of Divine Simplicity

Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (2009)

The Asceticism of Isaac of NinevehPatrik Hagman (2010)

Palladius of HelenopolisThe Origenist Advocate

Demetrios S. Katos (2011)

Origen and ScriptureThe Contours of the Exegetical Life

Peter Martens (2012)

Irenaeus of Lyons andthe Theology of the

Holy Spirit

ANTHONY BRIGGMAN

1

3Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide inOxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi

New Delhi Shanghai Taipei TorontoWith ofces in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

# Anthony Briggman 2012

The moral rights of the author have been assertedDatabase right Oxford University Press (maker)

First published 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate

reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,

Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverand you must impose the same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataData available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataData available

Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, IndiaPrinted in Great Britainon acid-free paper by

MPG Books Group, Bodmin and Kings Lynn

ISBN 9780199641536

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

For Kelly

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements

Finishing a book is a happy moment, not least because it provides an oppor-tunity to recognize those who have made the completion of this project andthe preservation of my sanity possible. The expressions of gratitude containedin these words are the smallest token of my appreciation.

This book is a revised and expanded version of the doctoral dissertationI wrote at Marquette University, directed by Michel Barnes. I must rst thankthe Department of Theology and the Presidents Council of the University forconferring two research fellowships to support this project: a DissertationFellowship and a Rev. John P. Raynor, S.J., Fellowship. I greatly appreciatethe nancial support they provided, but even more, I was encouraged duringthe writing process by the regard that led to the awards.

My time at Marquette was marked by encounters with kind and generouspeople. My professors not only excelled in the classroom, but also gave muchtime outside the classroom to answer my questions. Their personal attentionto my interests and concerns made the study of theology a pleasurable andrewarding task. My fellow students also made doctoral studies a pleasantoccupation. I think in particular of Mike Harris, Dan Lloyd, and MikeNovak, with whom I spent time in class and out, though not as much astime out of class as I would have liked.

Five faculty members of the Theology Department consented to read andevaluate this work in its dissertation form. I would like to thank MichelBarnes, Ralph Del Colle, Deirdre Dempsey (who kindly agreed to ll in foranother board member), Alexander Golitzin, and William Kurz for the timethey invested in considering this study. I am particularly grateful to WilliamKurz and Deirdre Dempsey, with whom I had not studied before. This presentversion benets from their keen questions and erudite comments.

This study is either informed by or contains research done under thedirection of Michel Barnes, Ralph Del Colle, Alexander Golitzin, and AndreiOrlov. I am thankful for the expertise that each of these scholars brought to thismaterial and the way in which they have guided my own understanding of it.

Susan Barnes, former Managing Editor of CUA Press, read and critiqued alarge portion of the rst chapter in an effort to help me improve my writingstyle. Readers of the present form of this material will never know just howvaluable her comments were. Lewis Ayres has read portions of this book atvarious intervals, including the entire work in its penultimate form. This textand its readers benet from his perceptive criticisms and suggestions. Whetherin reading parts of this study for various presses or in offering professionalguidance and wisdom, his kindness and generosity have been unfailing. I amgrateful.

I am honored that Andrew Louth and Gillian Clark have chosen to publishthis study in the prestigious series Oxford Early Christian Studies. Theirmeticulous reading and astute comments and questions do them credit andensure the continuing signicance of the series. At Oxford, Tom Perridgekindly entertained my questions and saw this work through the acceptanceprocess with remarkable facility, while Tessa Eaton and Anne Leask ablydirected its production.

My relationship with Michel Barnes began with my rst day of courseworkat Marquette. He rst served as my instructor in a course on Tertullian andIrenaeus (the beginning of my fascination with the Bishop of Lyons), then asmy advisor and instructor of several more courses, and lastly as the director ofmy dissertation. In many ways, this study is an extension of his own researchthat he generously shared with me, among others, long before its publication.I have learned many things from Michel, including the importance of food toa sound pedagogy, but I value nothing more than the friendship developedover the years.

I suppose that some in-laws are not supportive when their son-in-lawdecides to go back to school, but that has never been the case with Glennand Shannon Kurtz. Their respect for my studies and encouragement has beenunfailing and I am grateful. I would not be where I am now were it not for myown parents, David and Maria Briggman. Their different personalities andinterests have shaped my own, including my interest in both history andtheology. I am thankful for the love and support that each of them has givenme.

Our daughter Katherine was born while I was writing the fourth chapter.As a result, much of the second half of this work was written amidst sleepdeprivation, during her naps, and at obscenely early hours of the morningallof which was wiped from my mind by just one of Kates smiles. She has beenthe source of immense joy as only a child can be. The second half of this bookwas written by a more tired but much happier father.

A few lines cannot begin to express my gratitude for my wife Kelly. Withouther support and encouragement I would not have begun my doctoral studiesand I certainly would not have completed this project. I am blessed to havemarried my best friend; she is the best person I know. Thank you foreverything, especially your love. This book is as much yours as it is mine.

Portions of this book have appeared previously in press, in revised forms,as Measuring Justins Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction andBinitarian Orientation, VC 63 (2009): 10737; The Holy Spirit as the Unctionof Christ in Irenaeus, JTS 61 (2010): 17193; Dating Irenaeus Acquisition ofTheophilus Correspondence To Autolycus: A Pneumatological Perspective,SP 45 (2010): 397402; Re-evaluating Angelomorphism in Irenaeus: The Caseof Proof 10, JTS 61 (2010): 58395; and as Revisiting Irenaeus PhilosophicalAcumen, VC 65 (2011): 11524.

viii Acknowledgements

Contents

Abbreviations xii

Preface xiv

Introduction 1

1. Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century 9

1.1 Trinitarian Convictions 111.2 Indistinct Activity of Spirit and Word: Binitarianism in

Conict with Trinitarianism 141.2.1 Rebuking the People of God 141.2.2 The Mechanism of Prayer 151.2.3 Adorning the Mind 161.2.4 The Inspiration of Prophecy 18

1.3 Spirit-Christology in 1 Apol 33 and Dial 8788:The Subordination of Trinitarian Conviction to BinitarianOrientation 211.3.1 The Incarnation 231.3.2 The Bestowal of Spiritual Gifts 25

2. The Beginning of a Pneumatology 32

2.1 Against Heresies 1 322.1.1 The Spirit as Creator 32

2.2 Against Heresies 2 372.2.1 The Divinity of the Holy Spirit 38

2.2.1.1 The Distinction of the Word and Spirit from Humanity 382.2.1.2 The Distinction of the Word and Spirit 40

2.2.2 The Creator God as Spirit 41

3. Pneumatological Expansion 46

3.1 Pentecost 463.2 The Pillar and Support of the Church 513.3 The Winged Spirit 53

4. The Emergence and Development of Foundational Themes 59

4.1 The Unction of Christ 594.1.1 The Anointing of Jesus Humanity by the Spirit 614.1.2 The Effect of the Anointing by the Spirit 66

4.1.2.1 The Anointing Spirit is the Holy Spirit 67

4.1.2.2 The Non-Qualitative Empowerment of Jesus Humanity 714.1.2.3 The Unction of Christ is the Medium of Salvation 73

4.1.3 Jesus Anointing within the Context of his Incarnationand Glorication 734.1.3.1 The Reception of Incorruptibility at his Incarnation 744.1.3.2 The Reception of Communicability at his Glorication 75

4.2 The Unction of the Church 784.2.1 The Analogy of the Dry Wheat 794.2.2 The Analogy of the Dry Tree 83

4.3 The Life-Giving Gift 864.4 The Creative Agency of the Spirit 89

Excursus: Irenaeus Reception of Theophilus To Autolycus 97The Signicance of Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX) 98The Signicance of AH 3.24.1 100

5. His Hand and Wisdom 104

5.1 The Hands of God 1045.1.1 The Source of the Hands Motif 1075.1.2 The Theological and Polemical Utility of the Hands Motif 119

5.2 The Spirit as Wisdom 1265.2.1 The Identication of the Spirit as Wisdom 1295.2.2 The Activity and Effect of Wisdom 136

6. The Salvic Spirit 148

6.1 The Presence of the Spirit to Humanity 1516.2 The Bipartite Constitution of the Human Being 1646.3 The Life-Giving Activity of the Holy Spirit 1666.4 Perfection, Likeness, Eternality 173

7. Trinitarian Convictions, Trinitarian Logic 182

7.1 Spirit-Christology 1827.1.1 Non-Spirit-Christological Passages 1837.1.2 Spirit-Christological Passages 190

7.2 Angelomorphic Pneumatology 1947.2.1 No Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and

Seraphim as Uncreated 1967.2.2 A Textual Basis for Understanding Cherubim and

Seraphim as Created 1987.2.3 The Grammatical Construction of Prf 10 does Not Permit

Lannes Reading 2007.2.4 An Alternative Reading of Prf 10 201

Conclusion and Epilogue 204Origen 206Tertullian 209Novatian 211

x Contents

Appendix: Language of Revelation in Justins First and Second Apologiesand Dialogue with Trypho 216

Bibliography 217Index Locorum 237General Index 242

Contents xi

Abbreviations

1 Apol Justin, First Apology

2 Apol Justin, Second Apology

ACW Ancient Christian Writers

AH Irenaeus, Against Heresies

ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers

Aug Augustinianum

AugStud Augustinian Studies

CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina

CQ The Classical Quarterly

CyF Ciencia y Fe

Dial Justin, Dialogue with Trypho

EHPR Etude dHistoire et de Philosophie Religieuses

Emb Athenagoras, Embassy for the Christians

FotC The Fathers of the Church

Greg Gregorianum

HMS Heythrop Monograph Series

HTR Harvard Theological Review

IKZ Internationale kirkliche Zeitschrift

ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JrnRel Journal of Religion

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

NRT Nouvelle Revue Thologique

NV Nova et Vetera

OECS Oxford Early Christian Studies

PA Origen, On First Principles

PO Patrologia Orientalis

Prax Tertullian, Against Praxeas

Prf Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

REA Revue des tudes Anciennes

RevBib Revue Biblique

ROC Revue de lOrient Chrtien

RSPhTh Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Thologiques

RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse

RTAM Recherches de Thologie Ancienne et Mdivale

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SC Sources Chrtiennes

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SP Studia Patristica

SVTQ St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly

Tim Plato, Timaeus

Trin Novatian, On the Trinity

TS Theological Studies

TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism / Texte und Studien zumAntiken Judentum

TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken; eine Zeitschrift fr das gesamteGebiet der Theologie

TU Texte und Untersuchungen

VC Vigiliae Christianae

VCS Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde derAlteren Kirche

Abbreviations xiii

Preface

Since the middle of the twentieth century patristic scholars have demonstrateda growing appreciation for the indebtedness of early Christian theology,especially but not exclusively that of the rst two centuries, to Second TempleJewish forms of thought often having only a minor presence in the NewTestament.1 Though numerous attempts have been made, it has provenalmost impossible to establish a denite connection between the Jewish tradi-tions used by these early Christian theologies and a particular Jewish commu-nity or a particular Jewish source, other than in a vague way to the HebrewScriptures. The usual approach now is to locate a Jewish motif within aparticular geographic provenance or to trace the presence of a Jewish motifthrough extra-canonical Jewish or non-Jewish sources in an effort to identifythe manner in which a motif may have been mediated to a later author. Thus,Jean Danilous broad description of these theologies as Christian thoughtexpressing itself in forms borrowed from Judaism remains apt.2 So too doeshis description of these theologies as Jewish Christian remain validas longas scholarly narratives minimizing or neglecting altogether the inuence ofJewish sources upon early Christian thought remain dominant.3

Our ability to recognize the inuence of Second Temple Judaism upon earlyChristian theology has received immeasurable benet from the investigationsinto that period, beginning early in the previous century but abounding inits latter half. These investigations have ranged broadly, addressing such topicsas apocalypticism, asceticism, mysticism, angelomorphism, Hellenizing inu-ences, wisdom literature, and the signicance of angels, exalted patriarchs,and mediatorial gures, to name a few. Of particular import to this study isthe great deal of attention that has focused upon the concept of spirit,including its connections to angelic beings, the gure of Wisdom, and othertraditions.4

1 An excellent discussion of the changes in the approach to Jewish-Christian relations in therst four centuries can be found in the Introduction to Becker and Reed (2003: 124).

2 Danilou (1964: 9).3 Despite its inability to account for much of early Christian theology, the still dominant

scholarly narrative holds that Christian theology emerged from a synthesis of Greek philosophyand early Christian tradition beginning with the apologists in the second century and continuingthrough the late fourth or early fth centuries. See, for example, Von Harnack (1958, 2: 16977;3: 1701).

4 Various facets of the Second Temple understanding of Spirit have been brought to light bysuch scholars as: Schoemaker, JBL 23 (1904: 1367) Dix, JTS, 28 (1926: 23350); Anderson, JSS 7(1962: 293303); Larcher (1969); Isaacs (1976); Manns (1983); Sekki (1989); Levison (1997).

The signicance of Jewish traditions of the Spirit to early Christian pneu-matology was recognized as early as the third quarter of the twentieth centuryin Christian Oeyens studies on Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr.5 Yetit seems that Oeyen was ahead of his time, for his studies had little inuenceupon scholarship until recent days.6 By the end of the twentieth century,however, the receptivity of scholars to such an inuence had changed dramat-ically. John R. Levison called for studies on early Christian pneumatology toutilize Israelite and early Jewish texts that present the Spirit as an angelic beingin order to understand early Christian texts in which the divine Spirit may beinterpreted as an angelic being.7 Alan F. Segal went one step farther when hewrote, Though Christianitys theology is trinitarian, it may not have appearedso in its original context. For one thing, Christian mention of the Holy Spiritwould neither have been considered unique nor heretical by the rabbis.8

Segals observation was noted by Michel Ren Barnes, whose subsequentresearch into this eld led him to offer two major theses in the rst-fruits ofhis work.9 First, early Christian pneumatology receives, continues and devel-ops Jewish pneumatology, or perhaps more accurately, early Christian pneu-matologies receive, continue and develop Jewish pneumatologies. Second, atthe beginning of the third century the Jewish theological superstructure forChristian pneumatology is rejected.10

The present study on Irenaeus pneumatology follows in the path of thisscholarship, for much of it demonstrates that Irenaeus theology of the HolySpirit consists of a combination of Jewish traditions with New Testamentdoctrine. Irenaeus assigned creative activity to the Spirit and identied theSpirit with the gure of Wisdom and one of the Hands of Godmoves whichcorrelate with Jewish traditions of the Spirit. His incorporation of thesetraditions produced the most complex Jewish-Christian pneumatology ofthe period, even within early Christianity as a whole. Moreover, the repudia-tion of each of these traditions by the theologians of the third and early fourthcenturies contributed to the frequent devaluation of the Spirit in their writings.

5 Oeyen, IKZ 55 (1965: 10220); Oeyen, IKZ 56 (1966: 2747); and Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1972:21521).

6 Oeyens studies feature prominently in the work of Bucur, VC 61 (2007: 381413); Bucur,JrnRel 88 (2008: 190208); as well as my own, Briggman, VC 63 (2009: 10737).

7 Levison, SBLSP 34 (1995: 46493, here 464). Levisons call was anticipated by Gieschen,SBLSP 33 (1994: 790803), and responded to by Bucur, VCS 95 (2009).

8 Segal (1999: 7395).9 Barnes, AugStud 39 (2008: 16986). The above-printed quotation by Segal introduces

Barnes article.10 Ibid. p. 170 for both quotations.

Preface xv

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This study is the result of a long-held interest in early Christian pneumatology.The development of doctrine intrigues me. The second-century ascription ofthe title Wisdom to theHoly Spirit and its subsequent repudiation in the thirdcentury caught my attention. My curiosity centered upon why the associationof Wisdom with the Spirit, an established aspect of Israelite thought, wasrejected with relative ease and rapidity at the turn of the century. The associa-tion of Christ and Wisdom in the New Testament writings played a role ofcourse, but that association did not dissuade the identication of the Spiritwith Wisdom by Theophilus nor by Irenaeus, whose high regard for Scriptureis beyond doubt. I soon discovered that a solid explanation for this develop-ment did not exist.1 Moreover, I realized that work needed to be done on thepresence of this identication in the second century before we could addressits subsequent disappearance.

My thoughts naturally turned to Irenaeus, the writer who made the mostuse of the identication of the Spirit and Wisdom. Many aspects of Irenaeustheology have received considerable attention and undergone thorough ana-lyses; his pneumatology has not. Though H.B. Swetes comments early lastcentury initiated a high regard in general for his doctrine of the Holy Spirit,2

that regard has not been universal3 nor has an adequate volume of literature

1 As of then; Michel Ren Barnes has since suggested that Origen appropriated Wisdompassages (e.g., Wisd. 7:25) to the Son in order to combat a Jewish-Christian hyper-pneumatology.He notes a similar move with regard to Tertullians attribution of Prov. 8:22 and Ps. 33:6 to the Son,citing a general lack of interest in Jewish-Christian theologicalmotifs as the reason why Tertullianis not interested in ascribing creative activity to the Spirit (Barnes 2008: 1834).

2 On the whole . . . the pneumatology of Irenaeus is a great advance on all earlier Christianteaching outside the canon . . .On the mission of the Holy Spirit or the Paraclete he is particu-larly full and clear. Swete (1912: 923).

3 For instance: A. von Harnack disparaged Irenaeus theology of the Spirit, questioning theclarity of his conception of the Spirits activity and the degree to which he distinguished theSpirits identity, going so far as to declare, the personality of the Spirit vanishes in AH 3.18.3(vol. 2 (1958): 267 n. 2; I offer a different reading of AH 3.18.3 in chapter 4, p.70 n. 45). A. Orbeviews Irenaeus as referring to the spirit or power common to the Father and Son in the passagesthat refer to the anointing of the Son by the Father with the Spirit (in this way, we can see that heagrees with von Harnacks interpretation of AH 3.18.3). Thus, the most prolic writer onIrenaeus often produces non-Trinitarian interpretations of passages, diminishing the identity

supported it.4 As I discovered how limited were the previous studies onIrenaeus account of the Holy Spirit, I determined to expand the parametersof this project.

The purpose of this study is threefold. The rst is to provide an in-depthexamination of certain principal, often distinctive, aspects of Irenaeus accountof the Holy Spirit. Second, I desire to demonstrate that Irenaeus theology ofthe Holy Spirit consists of a combination of Jewish traditions with NewTestament doctrine. This combination produces the most complex Jewish-Christian pneumatology of the period, even within early Christianity as awhole. My third purpose is to show Irenaeus to be the rst author, followingthe New Testament writings, to construct a theological account in whichbinitarian logic does not diminish either the identity or activity of the HolySpirit. I will examine the thought of Justin Martyr to show Christian thinkersof this period often utilized Jewish traditions of the Spirit in a way thatweakened the distinction between the identity and activity of the Spirit andthat of the Word.5 This effect contrasts with Irenaeus utilization of Jewishtraditions, which strengthens the distinction of the identity and activity of theSpirit, reinforcing his Trinitarian account.

My initial interest, broadly understood to be the developments in pneuma-tology that occurred within the second and third centuries, has remained at

or activity of the Holy Spirite.g. Orbe (1987, vol. 2: 6767); and Greg 65 (1984: 552, here 41,43). Even F.R.M. Hitchcock, who defended Irenaeus Trinitarianism in the Proof of the ApostolicPreaching against von Harnacks denigration, seems constrained to acknowledge Irenaeusunderstanding of the Spirit in Against Heresies as less than adequate (Hermathena 14 (1907):30737, here 337).

4 While discussions pertaining to Irenaeus conception of the Spirit appear in numerousworks, just two studies have focused on Irenaeus theology of the Spirit. At the beginning of thelast century A. dAls published LaDoctrine de lEsprit en saint Irne, RSR 14 (1924: 497538),a large portion of which focuses on grace not the Spirit. DAls, moreover, subverts his work byreading much of Irenaeus through the lens of scholasticism. H.-J. Jaschke produced the onlybook-length study of the pneumatology of Irenaeus in his volume that devotes more than half ofits pages to this subject: Der Heilige Geist im Bekenntnis der Kirche: Eine Studie zur Pneumato-logie des Irenus von Lyon im Ausgang vom altchristlichen Glaubensbekenntnis (1976). Thestrength of Jaschkes study resides in the fact that he touches on many different aspects ofIrenaeus thought, but this strength is also its weakness. The very breadth of his study prevents anin-depth consideration of any aspect of Irenaeus theology of the Spirit. This observation is notintended to reect negatively on his work, for his approach makes sense given that his analysis isthe rst of its kind. He provides a map of Irenaeus pneumatology, a very helpful aid to futurestudents of Irenaeus, including myself.

I would be remiss to not mention the Introduction that J.A. Robinson provided to histranslation of the apostolic preaching (St. Irenaeus 1920: 168). This Introduction contains alengthy discussion on Irenaeus doctrine of the Holy Spirit (pp. 2468) that includes some of themost insightful observations on the topic to date.

5 Justin serves as a good example for this study for three reasons. First the size of his writingspermits a better understanding of his logic in comparison to smaller works. Second, both menlived in the East and West, and so would have theoretically been exposed to similar traditions.Third, Irenaeus knew at least some of Justins works (see, for example, AH 4.6.2 and 5.26.2).

2 Introduction

the forefront of my mind throughout this work. Two major transitionsoccurred during this time period. My comparison of Justins thought to thatof Irenaeus illustrates the rst. While several studies entail the recognition thatthe accounts of the Holy Spirit provided by early Christian writers have alogical and traditional basis,6 it is also true that throughout the second centurythe theology of the Spirit received far less attention than that of the Word.7

The rst transition, then, can be seen in the difference between the theologicalaccounts of the Spirit offered by earlier writers of the second century includingJustin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagoras, and the account ofthe Spirit offered by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 35 and his Proof.8 In thislater portion of the writings of Irenaeus we nd the earliest theological accountthat secures the distinct identity and activity of the Spirit.9

The second major transition can be seen in the difference between theJewish-Christian pneumatology of Irenaeus and the repudiation of the Jewishidioms that sustained this theology by Origen and Tertullian at the turn of thethird century.10 I intend for this study to be not only an essay on Irenaeustheology of the Holy Spirit, but also to be a basis for future analyses of laterpneumatological accounts. In particular, I hope this explication of Irenaeuspneumatological reasoning will better enable us to recognize and evaluate howthe loss of Jewish traditions of the Spirit affected theological accounts in thethird and early fourth centuries, accounts that do not incorporate themescentral to Irenaeus pneumatology, and how the reappearance of some of thesetraditional motifs affected late fourth-century theologies.

A few topics peculiar to the study of Irenaeus need to be addressed beforeI conclude this introduction with a discussion of the chapters that constitutethis study. The coherence of Irenaeus thought was rst questioned byH.H. Wendt in 1882.11 Wendt argued Irenaeus maintained two incompatible

6 Early Christian pneumatologies receive, continue and develop Jewish pneumatologies(Barnes, AugStud 39 2008: 170). In addition, see among others: Gieschen, SBLSP 33 (1994: 790803); Levison, SBLSP 34 (1995: 46493); Stuckenbruck (2004: 30820); Bucur, VC 61 (2007: 381413) and JBL 127 (2008: 183204). For a discussion of studies on the Spirit in Justin see chapter 1,p. 9 n.1.

7 . . .Christianity of the period was much more concerned with the relationship betweenFather and the Son. The concept of the Holy Spirit was not a source for the same kind ofspeculation (Segal 1999: 79).

8 The reader will nd that I believe a dramatic difference exists in the understanding of theSpirit apparent in AH 1 and 2 in comparison to his understanding from AH 3 and afterward.

9 Swete observed, [Irenaeus] chief interest lies in the Incarnation of the Son, but thedoctrine of the Spirit is not overlooked, and for the rst time it takes its place in an orderlyscheme of Christian teaching (Swete 1912: 86).

10 With [the rejection of the Jewish theological superstructure] the old Jewish-Christianpneumatologies are set aside, and Christian pneumatology is developed on the basis of othertheological superstructures (Barnes, AugStud 39 2008: 170; see 1806 for Origen and Tertullian).

11 Die christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit (Gttingen, 1882). The failureto recognize the intellectual unity and theological programme within Irenaeus thought often ledto a low regard for his theology as a whole. For instance, J. Quasten wrote, The whole work

Introduction 3

strains of thought with regard to the original state of humanity, one thatinvolved the notion of a continual growth and increase toward perfection inwhich the Fall plays a positive role, and another that involved the notion of anoriginal perfection lost at the Fall.12 Many have followed Wendts evaluationof Irenaeus thought, including Adolf von Harnack13 and most importantly,Friedrich Loofs.14 The discernment of incompatible lines of thought in Ire-naeus work became the logical grounds for Loofs source-critical15 division ofAgainst Heresies which leads him to regard Irenaeus as a mere compiler of theideas that came before him. Irenaeus, according to Loofs, was as a theologicalwriter much smaller than we had supposed.16

Loofs theory and evaluation did not go unchallenged for long. A few yearsafter Loofs work D.B. Reynders wrote, Adverses haereses is the fruit of a greatwork . . . If it lacks a little order and if it repeats itself, it is neither without unitynor without erudition nor without method . . . Irenaeus has taken a position(on the problem of God, the world, and knowledge) too rm and too percep-tive to be something other than the spontaneous expression of his psycholo-gy.17Other studies followed over the succeeding decades, each substantiatingthe coherence of Irenaeus thought and the unity of his work.18 It was left toPhilippe Bacq, however, to conclusively establish the unity of Irenaeuswriting, as well as the harmonious existence of the two debated strains ofthought, with his analysis of the fourth Book of Against Heresies.19

Three decades ago Aloys Grillmeier wrote, Now that Irenaeus scholarshiphas once again come back to recognizing the inner unity of the theology of the

suffers from a lack of clear arrangement and unity of thought. Prolixity and frequent repetitionmake its perusal wearisome. . . .Evidently he did not have the ability to shape his materials into ahomogenous whole (Quasten 1950, vol. 1: 289).

12 Wendt (1882: 216, 29). These lines of thought were rst raised by L. Duncker whodiscussed the image and likeness of God in Irenaeus, but he afrmed the internal consistencyof his logic (Duncker 1843: 99104).

13 Von Harnack (1958, vol 2: 26974, esp. 274 n.1).14 Loofs (1930: 14).15 A. Benot (1960: 38) has noted the parallel between the rise of the source-critical and form-

critical treatments of Scripture and the application of these approaches to Irenaeus. ThoughBenot critiqued the merit of Loofs approach (1960: 335), Marrou has shown that Benothimself failed to grasp the unity of Irenaeus thought (Marrou, REA 65 1963: 4526).

16 Loofs (1930: 432).17 Reynders, RTAM 7 (1935: 527, here 267).18 F.R.M. Hitchcock, JTS 38 (1937: 1309, 25566) soon offered a stringent critique of Loofs

methodology and conclusions. G. Wingren then proposed a harmonious reading of the two linesof thought previously assessed as irreconcilable (Wingren 1959: esp. 2632, 504, 52 n. 33, on 27n.78). A. Rousseau aligned himself with Wingren and declared, If one wants to have somechance of getting back to the thought of a writer, one ought not rst seek to discover in himborrowings and plagiarismsas if it would sufce to make then a simple subtraction so that theresidue thus obtained represents the contribution belonging to the author! (SC 152 1969: 190).

19 Bacq (1978), see esp. his appendix devoted to AH 4. 379, pp. 36388, which includes adiscussion of past scholarship on this issue, pp. 3649.

4 Introduction

Bishop of Lyons . . . 20 If Grillmeier could make such a statement before Bacqswork, surely this particular episode in the history of scholarship has nowdrawn to a close and we have arrived at the point at which it no longer needs toplay a role in the study of Irenaeus.21

The dating of Proof of the Apostolic Preaching relative to the composition ofAgainst Heresies has yet to be settled. For many years the consensus heldthat Irenaeus wrote Proof after Against Heresies.22 The main support forthis determination came from the fact that Prf 99 refers to the denunciationof heretics that occurred in Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falselyso-called, the longer title for Against Heresies, thus indicating Proof waswritten second. Yves-Marie Blanchard, however, questioned the originalityof Prf 99100, contending the natural ending of the work is Prf 98.23 Havingnegated the reference to Against Heresies, Blanchard contended Proof is theearlier work.24 He argued that an exegetical method founded on the Christo-logical reinterpretation of Jewish Scriptures25 relegates Proof to a precedingera in which this style of argumentation was the norm, that of the Apologists.Blanchards evaluation of Prf 99100 may be correct,26 but his stylistic com-parison with earlier writers is not decisive, and is persuasive only if no othersubstantial observation suggests a later relative date.

Over the course of time, however, a number of comparisons have beendrawn between certain discussions in Against Heresies and Proof that suggestportions of the theology in Proof is more advanced. If we accept the premise

20 Grillmeier (1975, vol. 1: 98).21 Just as the failure to recognize the intellectual unity and theological programme within

Irenaeus thought often led to a low regard for his theology as a whole, as the recognition of hisintellectualunity grew, disparagement of his thought diminished. Sowe hearH.U. vonBalthasar say,Irenaeusworkmarks the birth ofChristian theology.With it, theologymerges as a reection on theworld of revealed facts, a reection which is not just a tentative, partial approximation but achievesthe miracle of a complete and organized image in themind of faith (von Balthazar 1984, vol. 2: 31).

22 Among others: von Harnack in Des heiligen Irenus Schrift zum Erweise der apostolischenVerkndigung (1907: 55); Hitchcock, JTS 9 (1908: 2849, here 2846); Swete (1912: 85); Robinson(1920: 2); Smith believes a later dating of Proof is more probable, but he reserves nal judgment (StIrenaeus 1952: 117 n. 18); Fantino (1986: 49); Rousseau, SC 406 (1995: 3523).

23 Blanchard (1993: 113 n. 2).24 Behr follows Blanchard in dating Proof prior to Against Heresies (St Irenaeus of Lyons

1997: 118 n. 229); and (2001: 112).25 Blanchard (1993: 116). According to Blanchard, Proof bears a striking resemblance to

the works of Justin and the Epistle of Barnabas and he contends it is in direct continuity with theexegetical tradition honored by them (pp. 11417; quotation at p. 117).

26 In addition to his form-critical analysis, Blanchard (1993: 113 n. 2) argues that the anti-heretical statements in Prf 99100 betray a later desire to deploy this text in opposition toGnosticism. This contention does not take into consideration the fact that the opening chapters,Prf 23, also contain anti-heretical statements. This being the case, we could argue just as wellthat the presence of anti-heretical comments in Prf 23 and 99100 form a natural inclusio,which supports the originality of Prf 99100. For a similar statement that focuses on differentaspects of these chapters, see Rousseau, SC 406 (1995: 778); for Rousseaus critique andrejection of Blanchards argument, see pp. 3523.

Introduction 5

that amore advanced theological account (for example amore concise or betterarticulated or more developed statement) is a more mature one, then we mayoffer an opinion on the relative dating of the two statements. Hitchcockbelieved Proof to assign greater importance to the Being of the Son thanAgainst Heresies,27 and held that it also throws more light on the problem ofthe relations of the Divine Persons to One Another.28 Swete offered the moresweeping opinion, [Proof] repeats all the chief doctrinal points of [AgainstHeresies], and sometimes throws further light on them.29 Behr has observedthat Irenaeus most detailed and sustained protological discussion occurs in Prf1115.30 Michel Ren Barnes has pointed out that the concept (and not simplythe title) of the Son gures more directly in Irenaeus exposition contained inProof than it does in Against Heresies, and that Prf 47 contains one of Irenaeusstrongest statements of the full divinity of the Second Person, and the strongeststatement of the full divinity of the Son specically.31 In addition to theseobservations, I will argue in this study that Irenaeus most advanced use of Ps.33:6 occurs in Prf 5 where it serves as the textual support for his most detailedand developed statement of the creative activity of the Spirit.32 The combinationof these observations suggests we have cause to believe Proofwas at the very leastwritten later in his composition of Against Heresies.33

The reader will discover that a central premise of this study is the recogni-tion that Irenaeus thought developed as he wrote Against Heresies and thenProof. While observing the close approximation of AH 2.34.2 to 4.38.13,Adelin Rousseau remarked that when

Irenaeus is writing his second book, he possesses already in his mind, with anastonishing precision, the developments that he will cause to appear in the fourth.One has the feeling that Adversus haereses must have been strongly thought out

27 Hitchcock, Hermathena 14 (1907: 309).28 Hitchcock, JTS 9 (1908: 284).29 Swete (1912: 85); following von Harnack and Hitchcock.30 Behr (2000: 86, 107). This does not dissuade Behr from dating Proof earlier.31 Barnes, NV 7 (2009: 67106, here 87); Barnes qualies his comments on Prf 47 by

acknowledging the possibility of a later gloss. Earlier in this article Barnes states that certaindifferences between doctrines in books of Against Heresies and the Demonstration make moresense if the Demonstration is later (p. 72).

32 See chapter 2, pp. 335, and the Excursus, pp. 97103.33 The possibility that Proof was composed during the last two books of Against Heresies or

after the completion of that whole work was suggested long ago by Bardenhewer (1913, vol. 1:409).

In chapter 5, the reader will discover that I believe the presence of the Hands of God motif inIrenaeus is due to his reception of Theophilus To Autolycus during the course of his compositionof AH 3. This argument bears on the relative dating of Proof. Since Hands language occurs in Prf11, the work cannot be dated prior to the later portion of AH 3 where an incipient form of theHands motif rst occurs in Against Heresies. Otherwise the absence of Hands language in AH 1and 2, its emergence in AH 3, and full-edged utilization in AH 4 and 5, cannot be explained.C.E. Hill has recently placed the writing of Proof soon after the completion of AH 3 (at the verylatest prior to the composition of AH 5.33.4) (Hill 2006: 76 n.13, 767).

6 Introduction

rst, then quickly written. Such a view does not favor of course the thesis stillrather generally admitted according to which Books III, IV, and V would only besuccessive extensions made to a work which, originally, must have consisted ofonly Books I and II.34

Rousseau may be correct that Irenaeus conceptualized the project as a whole,in fact I agree with such an opinion. The general understanding, however, isthat Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies and Proof of the Apostolic Preaching overthe course of some twenty years.35 Rousseaus statement leaves little room forthe acquisition of new sources, reection upon the ideas in those sources, oreven the maturation of Irenaeus thought over that course of time. It would bebetter to afrm that a broad conceptualization or a general outline of the vebooks of Against Heresies existed from the start, while at the same time leavingroom for a certain degree of formation with regard to the specic content ofeach portion of his work at the time of its composition. This study starts fromthis understanding, and its analyses and conclusions support this position.

It is left for me to offer a brief outline of this work. As I mentioned above,this study begins in chapter 1 with an examination of Justin Martyrs under-standing of the Spirit. The objective of that analysis is twofold. The rstobjective is to provide the reader with an example of the pneumatologicalmilieu that existed at the commencement of Irenaeuswriting. The second is toprovide a basis from which to compare and contrast Irenaeus pneumatologyand Trinitarian logic.

The next six chapters will progress according to the literary structure ofIrenaeus work. So, for example, chapter 2 deals with the theology of the Spiritfound in AH 1 and 2, chapters 3 and 4 deal with AH 3, and so on. Though I amnot always consistent, Imake an effort to address in any given chapter only thethought that occurs in that Book of Against Heresies or what has comebeforehand. This approach reects my belief that the literary structure largelyagrees with the chronological composition of the work.

Chapter 2 contains my discussions of AH 1 and 2, as I just mentioned. Incomparison to what we nd in the subsequent parts of Irenaeus work, thesebooks contain little to comment upon. On the whole, his thought here is moreprimitive than later, and reects the minimal development of pneumatology tothis point in Christian history. Nevertheless, we nd lines of thought thatpersist and occur in more developed form later in his thought.

34 Rousseau, SC 293 (1982: 3434). Rousseaus conclusion is not as straightforward as hethinks. The similarity between these passages can also be explained by supposing that Irenaeusreected upon and drew from AH 2 as he composed AH 4.

35 See for example, Fantino (1986: 489). Fantino suggests the dates for the composition ofAgainst Heresies as between AD 177 and AD 189, and Proof as around AD 190/200. The inability todetermine accurate dates keeps us from arriving at an exact determination of how long thecomposition took Irenaeus.

Introduction 7

The content of chapters 3 and 4 reect the veritable explosion of pneuma-tological reasoning that we discover in AH 3. This growth in Irenaeustheology of the Spirit is best characterized as a owering in which numerousshoots, aspects of his thought, emerge at once. While linear developmentexists, and will be highlighted in this study, the logic we nd in AH 3 cannotbe adequately described as only a linear development of AH 1 and 2. Manyaspects of his pneumatology appear in AH 3 that receive no earlier expressionin the rst two Books.

Certain aspects of Irenaeus pneumatology in AH 3 are important, evenfoundational, to his broader theology and polemic, but are relatively lessimportant to his pneumatology itself. These less important features of histheology of the Spirit still warrant our brief consideration, since they areevidence of the dramatic pneumatological expansion that occurs in thisBook. Chapter 3 documents these aspects of his thought. On the other hand,some aspects of Irenaeus theology of the Spirit in AH 3 continue to appear inone form or another over the course of his pneumatological development andthroughout this study. Chapter 4 considers these themes.

Chapter 5 details two central and distinctive aspects of Irenaeus theology oftheHoly Spirit: the identication of the Spirit as one of theHands of God and asWisdom. Both of these identications fall into the larger category of the Spirit asCreator tradition, for in each case the identication indicates a particular role increation. As aHand of God, the Spirit is involved in the formation of Adam. AsWisdom, the Spirit is responsible for the harmonious character of creation as awhole. It is my belief that Irenaeus attribution of creative activity to the Spirit isthe most important aspect of his pneumatology: it secures the divinity of theHoly Spirit, because the work of creation belongs to God alone, while alsodistinguishing the identity of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son.

Chapter 6 analyzes, for the most part, the salvic role ascribed to the HolySpirit in AH 5. This chapter contains a narrative that ties together manyaspects of Irenaeus pneumatology examined in previous chapters. It addressesthe perfection of the human being by the reception of the Holy Spirit;the identication of Irenaeus threefold concept of perfection, including theapproximation of the uncreated One by the human being in the possessionof eternal existence which renders the believer like God; the modulation oftemporal life to eternal life by means of the power/grace given by the Spirit;and the idea that the Spirit becomes more closely united to believers over thecourse of the divine economy, a notion that aligns with the movement of theeconomy from animation to vivication.

Finally, chapter 7 challenges two errant readings of Irenaeus. The rst is thenotion that, on occasion, Irenaeus identies the pre-existent Christ as theHolySpirit. The second is the determination that angelomorphism exists in Prf 10.This chapter conrms the Trinitarian logic of Irenaeus theology. Since thesenotions have no place in Irenaeus thought, neither does the binitarian orien-tation that often attends them.

8 Introduction

1Justin Martyr and the Pneumatologyof the Mid-Second Century

Past attempts to determine whether Justin Martyr recognized the Spirit to bedistinct in activity and identity have resulted in a general description ofJustins reasoning as confused.1 Yet, the studies that rendered this descriptionhave not provided a sufcient explanation for that confusion, whichI understand to be the result of the coexistence of statements of indistinctactivity, statements of indistinct identity, and statements of Trinitarian faith.The failure to explain the coexistence of these statements is itself the result ofincomplete analyses of Justins understanding of the activity of the Spirit andWord, a deciency that has prevented previous scholars from recognizing twofeatures of Justins thought. First, they have not recognized the extent to whichJustins failure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit and Word pervades hiswriting. Second, they have not recognized the connection between his regularfailure to distinguish their activity and his occasional failure to distinguishtheir identities. These two observations are the starting point of this chapter,and a demonstration and evaluation of their signicance form its content.

1 Past studies may be divided into three categories. First, there are those who hold the beliefthat a degree of confusion appears in Justins work with regard to the function of the Word andSpirit, even though their identities remain distinct. Here we may place Swete (1912: 389) andLebreton (1928, vol. 2: 465 and 4767). Second, there are those who believe that a degree ofconfusion appears in Justins work with regard to the function of the Word and Spirit and alsowith regard to their identities. Here we may place Barnard (1967: 102, 103, 105), Osborn (1973:88, 89), Rordorf, Aug 20 (1980: 28597, here 293, 296), and even G.N. Stanton, who despitearguing that Justin possesses a rich understanding of the Spirit still nds a lack of precisionconcerning the role of the Spirit in 1 Apol 33. (He later refers to 1 Apol 33.9 and 36.1, andsuggests that Justin awkwardly grafted his convictions about the Logos onto traditional phrase-ology relating to the Spirit (Stanton 2004: 322, 331).) The third category belongs to D. Vigne, forhe alone stands against this general perception of confusion. Vigne argues that in comparison tohis Trinitarian faith, the passages in which Justin confounds the Spirit with the Word are rareand unconvincing. In particular, the confusion caused by 1 Apol 33.6 and 36.1 is resolved by theexperience they designate: to be inhabited by the prophetic Spirit, is for Justin to live in andaccording to the Word (Vigne 2000: 341).

In this chapter I will argue that in Justins thought binitarian logic exists intension alongside Trinitarian belief, a combination that obscures the activity andidentity of the Spirit, andwhich explains the confusion scholars have attributed tohim. I have divided it into three sections by which I hope to clarify Justinsunderstanding of the relationship between the Spirit and the Word. In the rst,I will establish his Trinitarian convictions in order to provide a baseline fromwhich to work. In the second, I will document his failure to distinguish betweenthe activity of the Spirit and that of the Word, which is evidence of a binitariantendency in conict with Trinitarian convictions. And in the third, I will demon-strate the presence of a Spirit-Christology2 in his accounts of the Incarnation(1Apol 33) and of the bestowal of spiritual gifts (Dial 8788), which is evidence ofhis subordination of Trinitarian convictions to a binitarian orientation.

Erwin Goodenoughs work on the relationship of the Word and Spirit inJustin is the most relevant to this present study. I will engage three of hisconclusions. First, he determined that Justins confusion of the function of theHoly Spirit with that of the Word does not have to prevent their distinction.3

Second, the confusion of function between the Spirit and Word is the directresult4 of Justins tendency to consider the Spirit an aspect or activity of theWord.5 And third, the confusion is the indirect result of the ubiquity of theconcept of the Spirit in Hellenism and Judaism, which negated the need for itsintroduction or defense in his works.6

2 Bucur, ZNW 98 (2007: 12042, 121 n.7) provides a convenient denition: in this study,Spirit-Christology refers to the use of spirit language to designate Christwhether in refer-ence to his divinity as opposed to his humanity, or as a personal title. As Bucur observes,M. Simonetti draws this distinction (Simonetti, Aug 12 1972: 20132, esp. 2013). By Spirit-Christology I am not referring to the action of the Holy Spirit upon and with Jesus in theincarnation that is prevalent in contemporary discussions of Trinitarian doctrine. I will discussthis activity of the Spirit in chapter 4, where we will consider the Spirit as the Unction of Christ.

In his combination of binitarianism with Spirit-Christology Justin is not alone; Bucur hasuncovered its presence in both the Shepherd of Hermas and the writings of Clement ofAlexandria. His discussions of these authors have recently been brought together in his Ange-lomorphic Pneumatology, which also addresses Justin. I take the similarity of our readings ofJustin (which were arrived at independently) as mutually conrming.

3 Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 2356). Barnard alone, among the authors already men-tioned, seems tempted to make a case against this point though even he acknowledges that thepossibility of Justins believing in the Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son cannot beexcluded (Barnard 1967: 104).

4 Concerning the direct cause for the confusion of function, it would seem that Barnard andRordorf proffer similar determinations, andOsborn perhaps goes one step farther when speaking ofprophetic activity: Barnard (1967: 104); Rordorf, Aug 20 (1980: 293); Osborn (1973: 889).

5 Goodenough, (1923; repr. 1968: 180, 185). He concluded, Justin regarded the Holy Spirit asa Person, the third in divine rank, but allowed himself to speak impersonally of the Spirit whenhe found the impersonal language more convenient. Justins impersonal references to the Spiritwould be when he speaks of the Spirit as an aspect or activity of the Logos.

6 Goodenough, (1923; repr. 1968: 1878); contra Semischs theory that the Christian concep-tion of the Spirit was too idiomatic for Justin to attempt to present it to outsiders. Theevaluations of Barnard (1967: 106) and Stanton (2004: 330) would agree with Goodenoughhere, while Lebretons statement (1928, vol. 2: 472) noted that the Father and Son, rather than the

10 Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit

I will agree with his rst conclusion that Justins confusion of function doesnot have to prevent the distinction of the Holy Spirit and Word. Yet, I shallalso show that he does not distinguish their identity or activity in two passages.I will offer new explanations for his second and third conclusions, whichsuggest the direct and indirect causes for Justins confusion. I shall argue thedirect cause of the lack of clarity in Justins approach to the Spirit is not due toJustins tendency to consider the Spirit an aspect or activity of the Word (hissecond conclusion), but rather stems from a conict between a binitariantendency7 and a Trinitarian confession. This conict is apparent in his regularfailure to differentiate their activity and his occasional failure to differentiatetheir identity, both of which occur alongside clear statements of Trinitarianbelief. And I shall show that the indirect cause of his failure to distinguish, twotimes, the identities of the Word and Spirit, lies in his conception of both theSpirit and the Word as Powers, and not in the ubiquity of the concept ofthe Spirit inHellenism and Judaism (his third conclusion). We turn now to therst section of this chapter: Justins Trinitarian Convictions.

1 .1 TRIN ITARIAN CONVICT IONS

Several formulaic statements of faith included amongst Justins writingsexhibit his Trinitarian beliefs. In addition to these formulaic statements thatreect his liturgical experience,8 he also expresses his Trinitarian convictionsthrough a few of his own logical constructs. We will discuss the formulae rstand then move on to his constructs.

1 Apol 61.3 and 1013 reveal that early Baptismal ceremonies involved awashing in water in the name of God, the Father and Ruler of the universe, and

Spirit, were the primary focus of Justins polemic. Vigne alone attempts to dismiss the issue in itsentirety by positing a paucity of passages involved (2000: 341; he acknowledges only 1 Apol 33.6and 36.1). As will be seen, however, Justins failure to distinguish between the activity of theSpirit and the activity of the Word occurs throughout his work, including his discussion ofprophetic activity, which undermines Vignes conclusion (2000: 347) that Justins pneumatologyis powerfully articulated because of its strong link with prophecy.

7 The term binitarian points to a bifurcation of the divinity (as opposed to Unitarian),while preserving a monotheistic worldview (binitarian monotheism, as opposed to dualism)(Bucur, ZNW 98 2007: 121 n. 6). Examples of binitarianism may be found in Segal (1977: seeesp. his comments on Justin, 2205).

A binitarian tendency is not an uncommon feature of this periods theology. C. Stead (1994:156) states, the origin and function [of the Holy Spirit] are much less clearly worked out [thanthat of the Logos], and sometimes He almost disappears behind the Logos, so that historians ofdoctrine can speak of a binitarian tendency in the second century.

8 Lebreton, Kelly, and Rordorf note passages that refer to an existing tradition, and locateJustins Trinitarian statements in the life of the early Church: Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 4723);Kelly, (1960: 713); Rordorf, Aug 20 (1980: 2869).

Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century 11

of our savior, JesusChrist, andof theHoly Spirit.9 TheEucharistic liturgy familiarto Justin contains similar references to the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit.10

His clearest afrmation of aTrinitarian faith, however, emanates froma reectionon earlyChristian worship services. Refuting the charge of atheism, Justin writes:

we worship the Maker of the universe . . . (and) we will show that we worship withreason, having learned that he is the Son of the true God, holding him in thesecond place (), and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank ().11

Here, Justin both afrms the belief of early Christians in God (Indeed atheistswe are not), and differentiates the Father, Son, and Spirit according to theirrank. The hierarchical ascription of rank to the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritwas a common way to differentiate the Three in second-century theologicalaccounts, as the presence of similar expressions in Athenagoras, Clement ofAlexandria, and, even a little later, Origen indicates.12 Indeed, we may go sofar as to say that a hierarchical understanding of Trinitarian relations was thenorm during this period.13

In addition to statements based upon his liturgical experience, Justin offerssome original expressions that reveal his Trinitarian beliefs. Two passagesshow Justin himself thinks of the Spirit as having a distinct identity: 1 Apol60.67 and Dial 36.6.

(1 Apol 60.67) And as to [Platos] speaking of a third, since, as we said before,he read what was spoken by Moses, the Spirit of God is borne over the waters.For indeed he gives second place to the Word from God, who he said was -wisein the universe, and third (place) to the Spirit who was said to be borne over thewater, saying, And the third around the third.14

9 1 Apol 61.3. Quotations of Justin come from Miroslav Marcovichs Iustini MartyrisApologiae pro Christianis (1994), and Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (1997). Alltranslations of Justin are mine unless otherwise noted.

10 1 Apol 65.3 and 67.2; I will consider these passages in more detail later in this study.11 1 Apol 13.1, 3.12 Goodenoughs contention that a system of ranking is entirely incompatible with a doctrine

of the Trinity reects a fourth-century perspective and lacks credibility given its widespreadusage (Goodenough, 1923; repr. 1968: 186). Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives 42.20) andOrigen (PA 1.3.5) exhibit hierarchical understandings; Athenagoras uses to differentiatethe members of the Trinity in Emb 10.5. Origens understanding of hierarchy involves theascription of degrees of divinity to the Three that does not occur in earlier uses of hierarchy.

13 The pitfalls of using rank to differentiate the members of the Trinity were not clear in thesecond century, which explains why systems of ranking were utilized during that period ofChristian theology. By the time Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo constructed theirTrinitarian accounts, the perils of ranking the members of the Godhead had manifestedthemselves in subordinationist theologies in the third and early fourth centuries. This maderanking an untenable way to maintain Trinitarian diversity. Therefore, this statement by Justinembodies a typical, and sufcient, expression of Trinitarianism for the period.

14 1 Apol 60.67 For And the third around the third, see Ps-Plato, Ep. 2.38e. I understandthird (place) () to parallel third rank () in 1 Apol 13.3.


(Dial 36.6) After that the princes in heaven, seeing that he was without beauty,honor, or glory in appearance, and not recognizing him they asked, Who is thisKing of Glory? And the Holy Spirit answered them, either in the name of theFather or in his own, The Lord of Powers. He is this King of Glory.

Lebretons comments on these passages are insightful. With regard to theselection from 1 Apol 60.67, he observes that Justin believes he has foundun vestige dgur of the Mosaic writings in a quotation from Timaeus: heplaced him as an in the universe.15 Justin combines this selection fromTimaeus with one from Ps-Plato (And the third around the third.) to producea statement that refers to both the Word and the Spirit, but neither Timaeus36bc nor Ps-Plato Ep 2.38e refers to the spirit. According to Lebreton, Justinsexegesis is violente et arbitraire. We do not nd here the thought of Plato orthe author of the letter, rather the thought of Justin appears even more clearlybymeans of the change hemakes to his source. The alteration to the text revealsJustin will go to any length to nd references to the Father, the Word, and theSpirit. Such resolution demonstrates his commitment to Trinitarian belief.16

Dial 36 consists of several Old Testament quotations meant to show, as36.2 states, that Christ is called by parable God, and Lord of Powers, and ofJacob by the Holy Spirit. A crucial phrase occurs in 36.6: the Holy Spirit . . .either in the name of the Father or in his own. This expression cannot beunderstood if Justin does not conceive of the being of the Spirit in the same waythat he conceives of the being of the Father.17 Therefore, the reference to thename of the Spirit in contradistinction to that of the Father involves thedistinction of the Spirit.

Justin also distinguishes the activity of the Spirit by attributing to the Spirit aspecial role in testifying to the deity and sovereignty of the Father and Son.18

Dial 56.15 is the most interesting statement having to do with this particularactivity. Prior to this passage Trypho challenges Justin to prove that anotherGod, the Word, exists besides the Creator.19 Justin responds with severalpassages from Scripture, including Ps. 110.1 and 45.78, to afrm the HolySpirit called one other than the Creator, Lord.20 Then in Dial 56.15 Justin

15 Lebreton, among others, suggests Tim 36bc as the source for this quotation; I ndBarnards addition of Tim 34ab unconvincing as it lacks the crucial reference to E and Justinsdiscussion offers no conceptual parallels to 34ab (Barnard, ACW 56 1997: 169 n. 357).

16 Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 4756). Goodenough (1923; rep. 1968: 184) and Barnard (1967: 104)use this passage to make the same point.

17 Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 476). Though we will discuss Justins frequent conation ofprophetic agency, it does not occur in this passage; for the idea that the Spirit testies aboutChrist includes the distinction of the Spirit from Christ.

18 Based perhaps on 1 Cor. 12:3.19 Dial 56.12.20 Dial 56.14.


restricts the number of divine beings by challenging Trypho to state whetherthe Holy Spirit calls God and Lord any other besides the Father of all thingsand his Christ.21 Thus, the Holy Spirit holds a unique position of importance:his activity stands behind the texts of Scripture Justin uses to illustrate thedivinity of the Father and his Word. Moreover, the casual manner in whichJustin afrms statements about the Holy Spirit indicates that such an under-standing of the importance of the Spirit is not a contested, or even a foreign,concept to the Jews as represented by Trypho.

Thus, Justins writings evince his Trinitarian convictions in his references tothe liturgy of the early Church, in his testimony concerning Christian beliefs,and in passages containing his own theological constructions. He considersthe Spirit to be distinct in identity from the Father and the Son, and he regardsthe Spirit as following the Father and Son in rank, but grouped with them. Healso distinguishes the activity of the Spirit when he refers to the testimony ofthe Spirit about the Father and the Son. The following sections will exploreand explain, nonetheless, how Justins account of the Spirit does not provideadequate support for his Trinitarian convictions.

1 .2 THE INDISTINCT ACT IV ITY OF SPIRITAND WORD : BINITARIANISM IN CONFLICT

W ITH TRIN ITARIANISM

Despite the Trinitarian convictions documented in the rst section of this study,Justin seldom ascribes distinct activity to the Spirit. Thoughmany have describedJustins theology of the Spirit as confused because of his failure to distinguish theactivities of the Spirit andWord, no one has demonstrated that Justin consistentlyfails to distinguish the activity of the Spirit. As a result, the binitarian orientationin Justins logic has gone unnoticed. This has kept us from recognizing that theinadequacies of his approach to the Spirit are explained by the existence of abinitarian schema alongside Justins Trinitarian beliefs. In this section of thischapter I will examine four discussions in which Justin does not distinguish thework of the Spirit and Wordevidence of a persistent binitarian tendency.

1.2.1 Rebuking the People of God

Several times in 1 Apol 63 and once in Dial 38.2, Justin uses the term Kto say the Spirit rebukes the Hebrews for not knowing God or his Word. In

21 See also Dial 32.3, 33.2, 36.2, 36.6, 61.1, 124.4.


1 Apol 63, however, he does not limit his use of the word to theHoly Spirit, forhe also attributes this activity to Jesus.22

(1 Apol 63.23) Wherefore the prophetic Spirit through Isaiah, the prophetmentioned before, rebuked (K) them . . . And Jesus Christ, because theJews did not know what is the Father and what the Son, rebuking (K)them likewise even said himself . . .

(1 Apol 63.1213) Wherefore the prophetic Spirit also rebuked (K) themsaying . . . and Jesus again, as we have shown, in their presence said . . .

(1 Apol 63.14) Therefore the Jews having always supposed that the Father of theuniverse had spoken to Moses, though the one who spoke to him was the Son ofGod, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are rightly rebuked (K) bythe prophetic Spirit and by Christ himself, since they knew neither the Father northe Son.

As the chapter progresses, Justin intensies the rebuke of the Jews by pilingup ever more evidence for their guilt and by presenting the Spirit and Jesusas increasingly united in their confrontation of the Hebrew position. Therebuke of the Spirit in 1 Apol 63.2 is followed by Jesus rebuke in 63.3,which Justin qualies with

(likewise) to accentuate their engage-ment in the same activity. Justin repeats the shared rebuke in 1 Apol63.1213, where the phrase and Jesus again, as we have shown returnsthe reader to the earlier description of Jesus activity in 1 Apol 63.3, therebycontinuing to call attention to the joint nature of that activity. At the heightof his argument against the Jews, Justin presents their activity as the mostunited: the Jews are rebuked by the prophetic Spirit and by Christ himself.The deliberate manner in which Justin uses language to relate the Spiritand the Incarnate Word in their activity indicates that his presentation oftheir unity in the activity of the rebuke is not coincidental. Though Justindifferentiates the Spirit and Christ throughout this passage, he intends toascribe to them the same activity.

1.2.2 The Mechanism of Prayer

Justin does not discriminate between the roles of the Spirit and the Son in oneof the most common features of the Christian life when he writes that believerspray through the Spirit and the Son, without distinguishing the function of

22 Cf. Stanton (2004: 328). As Stanton points out, when Justin uses the term K, thesubject is the prophetic Spirit, but Stanton has not noted that when he uses the term O(Dial 37.2 and 124.4) to refer to a parallel activity, the subject is the holy Spirit. Though thisobservation is worth making, its signicance remains unclear.


either one. In his well-known description of the celebration of the Eucharistthe ofciant sends forth praise and glory to the Father of all things throughthe name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.23 Then comes the formula,we bless the Maker of all through his Son, Jesus Christ, and through theHoly Spirit.24

Such statements may not be as revealing as other instances considered inthis study, because Justins understanding may reect the ambiguity of NewTestament passages with regard to the roles of the Son and the Spirit in prayer.In John 15:16, Jesus directs his followers to make their requests to the Father inhis name, and in Eph. 5:20 believers should be giving thanks always for allthings to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eph. 6:18 bearsa similar thought with regard to the Spirit: with all prayer and petition pray atall times in the Spirit.25

Texts like these could account for Justins approach, yet the liturgicalpractices Justin recounts have heightened the similarity of the roles of theSon and the Spirit. New Testament writings never instruct believers to pray inthe name of the Holy Spirit, but that phrase is present in Justin as seen in thequotation from 1 Apol 65.3. While this move may indicate a desire to value thework and position of both the Son and the Spirit, the lack of differentiation intheir roles limits the degree to which we may distinguish them.26

1.2.3 Adorning the Mind

(Dial 4.1) Is there, then [the Old Man] asked, in our mind such and so great apowerdoes not [the mind] quickly comprehend through the perception of thesenses? Or will the human mind see God when not adorned () bythe Holy Spirit?

(Dial 7.1) Long before the time of all those called philosophers, a long time ago,there were those who were blessed and righteous and loved by God, who spokeby the divine Spirit and declared things to come . . . And they call themprophets . . . who spoke only that which they heard and saw when lled() by the Holy Spirit.

23 1 Apol 65.3: a F O F F d F I.24 1 Apol 67.2: PF . . . a F F PF IF F d a F .25 John 15:16. K H O ; Eph. 5:20: K O F H F F; Eph.

6:18: K . The use of K in these New Testament selections but a by Justin should notcause concern since each preposition refers to both the Son and the Spiritso the roles are notdistinguished by means of particular prepositions. Moreover, Col. 3:17 uses both prepositions toconvey the same idea, revealing a certain degree of overlap in meaning and convention: Andwhatever you do, in word or in deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus (K O F), giving thanks to God the Father through him ( PF).

26 Cf. Kretschmar (1956: 190).


The earliest chapters of Dial feature the Spirit. Dial 4.1 contains Justinsconversion narrative in which he declares, through the voice of the OldMan, that the Holy Spirit adorns the human mind in order to overcome itsinability to see God. The statement of the Spirits adorning activity in 4.1follows Dial 3.7, where the philosophers cannot speculate correctly or speaktruly of Godthose who have never seen or heard God can have no knowl-edge of him. The adorning activity of the Spirit in Dial 4.1 enables one to seeGod and, the reader presumes, also enables one to hear from God. When inDial 7.1 Justin continues the discussion of 4.1 and denes the propheticprediction of future events as being what the prophets heard and saw whenlled by the Holy Spirit, he states that the adorning of the Spirit referred to in4.1 has the same effect as the lling of the Spirit in 7.1.Dial 4.1 and 7.1 establish,then, that adorning activity is that activity, that particular lling, whereby theSpirit empowers a person to hear and see divine thingsthe necessary precon-dition for one to speculate correctly or speak truly of God.Therefore, the Spiritis a source of knowledge other than the human mind, the source of knowledgethat grants insight into divine things.27 The prophets, lled with the adorningSpirit, possess the source of knowledge needed for correct speaking andspeculation, that the aforementioned philosophers do not. The activity of theSpirit in Dial 4.1 resembles the activity of Christ in Dial 7.3:28

Above all, pray for the gates of light to be opened for you, for [these truths] areneither visible nor comprehensible, unless God and his Christ give understanding(H ).

Justins reference to the activity of God and his Christ at the end of Dial 7.3prompts one to question whether Justin distinguishes the adorning activity of theSpirit in 4.1 and 7.1 from the activity of God and his Christ in 7.3. In the lastsentence of 7.3 Justin writes that knowledge of God and creation are neithervisible nor comprehensible, unless God and his Christ give understanding. GodandChrist also act as a source of knowledge other than the humanmind, a sourcethat grants an insight similar to the Spirits, into divine things.

I have shown that the adorning or lling of the Spirit is the differencebetween the philosophers who cannot see and hear God in Dial 3.7 and theprophets who foretell what they have seen and heard in 7.1. In this regard,Justins use of for the activity of the Spirit in Dial 4.1 conveys the sameidea as in 7.1. On the other hand, the role Christ plays in 7.3 is less

27 van Winden (1971: 701).28 Stanton considers Dial 4.1 and 7.1, but he misses the connection between the adorning

activity of the Holy Spirit in 4.1 and the activity of the prophets (lled by the Spirit) in 7.1. Whatis more important for our present study, he misses the resemblance between the adorningactivity of the Holy Spirit in 4.1 and the activity of Christ in 7.3, stating instead that the activityof the Holy Spirit in 4.1 foreshadows that of Christ in 7.3 (Stanton 2004: 3234).


clear. The difculty stems from whether (in 7.3) should beunderstood to parallel (4.1) and (7.1). In 7.3 Justin says theunbelieving prophets who are lled (K) with an erring and uncleanspirit have never done miracles as true prophets have done. Here Kparallels the lling () of the true prophets with the Holy Spirit in 7.1.Dial 7.3 ends with the Old Man imploring Justin to pray for the opening of thegates of light, thereby avoiding the blindness characterizing the false prophets,for things are neither visible nor comprehensible, unless God and his Christgive understanding. Since the understanding given by God and Christ wouldenable the one who prays to be with sight, this activity would seem to havethe same effect as the adorning and lling activity of the Spirit.

Good reason exists, however, not to rush to the conclusion that Justinattributes to them the same activity: could just as well distin-guish the activity of God and his Christ from the activity of the Spirit denedby and . Justin would then be positing one activity in whichthe involvement of all three persons is distinct, but such an explanation wouldsurpass Justins grasp of activity within the Godhead.29 Therefore, since theeffect of the Spirits adorning activity in Dial 4.1 is identical to the activity ofGod and his Christ, and since Justin does not indicate that the various verbsare intended to function as a means of differentiation, we ought to concludethat Justin conceives of the adorning activity as belonging to the Spirit and toGod and his Christ without distinction.

1.2.4 The Inspiration of Prophecy

The frequent use of the title prophetic Spirit by Justin would seem to suggestthat he considers the Spirits role in producing prophecy to be a distinguishingactivity.30 Justins statements, however, about the agency of the Word andSpirit in the production of prophecy do not support such a conclusion. WhileJustins discussion of this topic in 1 Apol 33.9 is more succinct, 1 Apol 3651 ismore signicant. 1 Apol 3851 unpacks the statement made in 36.12:

29 Fundamental to such an account is an explanation of how the Three are united as One, andhow the One is differentiated as Three. Only after one can articulate the diversity and unity of themembers of the Godhead, can one express how the Three can engage in one activity and remaindistinct. I hope to show in the nal section of this chapter that Justins logic is far from being ableto express the fundamental feature necessary to this reasoning.

30 The title prophetic Spirit is Justins most common way to refer to the Spirit of God. Thereis no reason to think that Justin conceives of more than one Spirit: a holy Spirit, a propheticSpirit, etc. We nd conrmation of this in the fact that he understands the seven spirits of Isa.11:13, including the spirit of foreknowledge/prophecy, to refer to the one Spirit of God (Dial39.2 and 87.2; see Section 1.3.2).


But when you hear the sayings of the prophets spoken as if from a person, youshould not believe they are spoken from the inspired persons themselves, but fromthe divine Word who moves them. For sometimes He speaks as one announcingfuture things that are to be; sometimesHe speaks as if from the person of God theFather andMaster of all; sometimes as if from the person ofChrist; sometimes as iffrom the person of the people answering the Lord and His Father.31

In this pericope Justin explains that the divine Word moves the prophets inthe process of inspiration by communicating with them under four differentpersonae. In the sections that follow, however, he says it is the propheticSpirit who communicates with the prophets under the same four personae.First, the prophetic Spirit speaks from the person of Christ in 1 Apol 38.1.32

Second, 1 Apol 3943 contains Justins discussion about the communication offuture things that are to be. The initial lines of 39.1 open the discussion, whenas one prophesying future things, the prophetic Spirit says things that are to be;and the opening lines of section 42.1 initiate the conclusion of the discussion,when the prophetic Spirit speaks of future things that are to be.33 Third, theholy prophetic Spirit speaks as if from [the person of] God the Master andFather of all things in 1 Apol 445.34 And fourth, in 1 Apol 47.1 Justin notes theprophetic Spirit said words that were spoken as if from the person of thepeople.35 1 Apol 48.4 and 49.1 combine to refer again to the Spirit predictingas if from the person of Christ himself.36 The presence of nearlyidentical wordings with regard to the activity of the Spirit in the sectionsfollowing 1 Apol 36 as we nd for the Word in 1 Apol 36.12 warrants the

31 b a H H Ie I, c I PHH K , I Ie F F Pf b ba H H a , j b b H Ie F d e F , b b H Ie F F, b b H Ie H I H d H d P. Though on occasion producinga stilted translation, I have always rendered I as from in order to highlight the continuity inJustins language.

32 ` e F F . In 1 Apol 37.1, Justin introduces a quotation saying, thewords were spoken from the person of the Father through the aforementioned prophet Isaiah.The most recent quotation of Isaiah occurs in 35.5 where Marcovich supplies e eF to clarify the ambiguity with regard to the subject of . However, this attribution isnot clear-cut given the fact that references to the divine Word as the agent of inspiration bracketthis passage (in 1 Apol 36.1, and esp. 1 Apol 33.9 where none other than the divine Wordinspires). Thus, from the person of the Father in 1 Apol 37.1 could be given rst place in thisdiscussion. Nevertheless, I have chosen not to include it because it lacks the explicit reference tothe prophetic Spirit that occurs in the other locationsa problematic deciency since theprevious reference to the inspiring agent of Isaiah remains uncertain.

33 1 Apol 39.1: b F a B e e F; and42.1: b e e F a . . . .

34 1 Apol 44.2: Ie F e H d F.35 1 Apol 47.1: Y . . . Ie H.36 1 Apol 49.1: Ie PF F F.


conclusion that Justin intends to assign the same activity of revelation to boththe Spirit and Word in 1 Apol.

The failure to distinguish between the Spirit and the Word in the activity ofinspiration is not limited to 1 Apol but also occurs in his Dial.37 Two observa-tions illustrate this fact. First, a survey of the text reveals that of the nineteendifferent verbs Justin uses inDial to refer to the Spirit or theWord as the agentsbehind revelation, eleven are used of the Spirit alone, two of the Word alone,and ve of both the Spirit and the Word.38 So, while in Dial Justin uses moreverbs to refer to the agency of the Spirit than that of the Word, at least seven,and possibly eight, of the nineteen verbs apply to the Word. This revealsconsiderable overlap in the language he uses to discuss revelatory activity.

Second, the more interesting, and perhaps more illuminating, observationstems from the fact that Justin refers only to the Spirit as the agent ofrevelation in the early portion of Dial, but changes his practice at the momenthe begins a focused argument for the divinity of the Word in Dial 5562.There, the majority of his references are to theWord as the agent of revelation.References to the Spirit as the agent of revelation predominate once againwhen the divinity of the Word ceases to be his primary concern, though therevelatory activity of the Word remains present.39 Justins emphasis on therevelatory agency of the Word during the course of his argument serves as asecondary justication for the Words divinity. The fact that he makes use ofthis additional device highlights the freedom with which he alternates theactivity of revelation in Dial when it suits his purpose.40

Justins ascription of prophetic agency to both the Spirit and the Wordattenuates the signicance of prophetic activity for our understanding ofJustins conception of the Spirit. It also diminishes how much the titleprophetic Spirit, his most frequent name for the Holy Spirit, differentiatesthe Spirit from the Word.41 Nevertheless, the ever-present title propheticSpirit ought to be recognized as Justins attempt to say something distinct

37 Justin makes no statements applicable to this discussion in 2 Apol.38 See the chart appended to the end of this essay. In addition to the ve verbs that are used

for both the Spirit and the Word, Justin uses in Dial 56.14 with regard to the Spirit, inparallel with O in Dial 56.13 with regard to theWord. Thus, of the nineteen words used inDial, six could be used for both the Spirit and the Word.

39 According to my count, Justin refers to the Spirit as the agent of revelation nine times inDial 154; to the Spirit seven times and to the Word eight times in Dial 5562; to the Word twicein Dial 63, which may be seen as a continuation of Dial 5562 or the beginning of the discussionof the Words incarnation; to the Spirit eleven times and to the Word six times in Dial 64142.

40 That the ascription of prophetic activity to the Word is an aspect of Justins argument inDial weighs against Lebretons proposal that Justin attributes this activity to the Word when hisreaders are more receptive to that idea than to the inspiration of the Spiritthat is, the Greekreaders of 1 Apol (Lebreton 1928, vol. 2: 4645).

41 Contra, Vigne (2000). At the root of Vignes argument lies the understanding that the Spiritpossesses a peculiar link to the concept of prophecy in Justins mind. This analysis underminessuch a determination.


about the activity of the Spirit,42 even if he fails in this attempt.43 Therefore,Justin attributes prophetic agency to both the Spirit and the Word, negatingmuch of its ability to distinguish between the Spirit and the Word. Distinct,however, the Spirit and the Word do remain in these discussions, even if withlittle justication.

Justin fails to distinguish between the activity of the Spirit and the Word ineach of these four examples, which serves as evidence for his binitarianorientation. Yet, the recognition of this binitarian schema cannot lead us todiscount that he continues to afrm their distinction, even if his logic entailsno justication for doing so. We must afrm, then, that in these passages hemanifests a binitarian theological account alongside Trinitarian theologicalconvictions. We may attribute this discord between logic and afrmationto the early Christian transition from binitarian to Trinitarian theologicalaccounts.44 Given this state of transition, it should not surprise the reader tond in Justin elements of a binitarian orientation that extend beyond thefailure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit and the Word to a failure todistinguish the identity of the Spirit and the Word. The last section of thisstudy will document two such occurrences, wherein Spirit-Christology furtherreveals a binitarian tendency in Justin.

1 .3 SPIRIT-CHRISTOLOGY IN 1 APOL 33 AND DIAL8788: THE SUBORDINATION OF TRIN ITARIANCONV ICTION TO BIN ITARIAN ORIENTATION

The nal section of this chapter will show that Justin twice fails to differentiatethe identities of the Word and Spirit, and that we should recognize both ofthese occasions as instances of Spirit-Christology. We have already found abinitarian tendency in Justin by observing his frequent failure to distinguishthe activity of the Spirit from that of the Word. The presence of Spirit-Christology in 1 Apol 33 and Dial 8788 should be understood as rare

42 Though I remain unconvinced by Vignes argument (2000: 343) that the title propheticSpirit is equivalent to that of holy Spirit, I commend his desire to understand the signicance ofthe title, rather than to assume its obvious character. For previous attempts to understand thetitle prophetic Spirit see Robinson (1920: 25) and Grant (1993: 12).

43 The distinction Justin intends to present contradicts Osborns statement (1973: 89) thatfrom the subject matter of prophecy it is clear that only the logos can be its author. On the otherhand, it reafrms Goodenoughs critique of von Engelhardt, who referred prophetic inspirationultimately to the Logos, and considered the Holy Spirit to be only the personal agent whom theLogos used for that purpose. Von Engelhardt adduces no evidence for the suggestion becausethere is none to adduce (Goodenough 1923; repr. 1968: 181).

44 Segal (1999: 79).


occurrences in which Justin subordinates his Trinitarian convictions to abinitarian orientation. We will see that the binitarian tendency that manifestsitself in Justins failure to distinguish between the activity of the Spirit and theactivity of the Word, twice manifests itself as a binitarian account of theGodhead.

Goodenoughs analysis of Dial 128 went a long way toward nding in Justina doctrine of Spirit-Christology when he showed Justin understands the Wordto be classed among irreducible Powers, a certain category of angels, since theyshare origin and function.45 His contention that Justin conceived of the originof theHoly Spirit along the same linesthe Spirit, like theWord, went forth asa Power from the Fatherwould have completed the picture if he had beenable to produce a text in which Justin afrms the Spirit to be a Power.He couldnot do so, leaving him to argue for the connection, and that but weakly: Justinhad but one theory for the generation of Divine Beings, that of emanationfrom the One Divine Source . . . There is no reason for trying to imagine forJustin a d

Documents

Briggman, Anthony [en] - Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit [Oxford]