Adversus Haereses, Adversus Alexandrinos: Unveiling the True Origins of Gospel Citations

The historical debate regarding the origins of Gospel citations has taken a significant turn with a fresh analysis suggesting that Clement of Alexandria, rather than Irenaeus, was the first Church Father to cite the Gospel of Luke by name. This conclusion emerges from a meticulous comparison of parallel passages in the writings of Clement and Irenaeus, which reveals verbatim agreements that have been previously overlooked in their broader context. By bringing these parallels together, we can discern a new perspective on the relationship between these two influential figures and their sources.

Re-examining the Traditional Model

The traditional scholarly model posits that Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) was the first explicit witness to the existence of the Gospel of Luke, dated around 175-189 CE. This dating is partly based on Irenaeus's appeal to Hegesippus's Roman episcopal succession list. However, this assumption has a critical flaw. Irenaeus does not claim to have lived during the time of Eleutherius but rather quotes Polycarp, who did. Recognizing this mistake opens the door to a new dating for Adversus Haereses, placing it around 195 CE. This revised timeline coincides with Irenaeus's advisory role to Victor during the Quartodeciman controversy, suggesting that Irenaeus copied multiple passages from Clement’s writings into his own work.

Clement and Irenaeus: Three Key Parallels

There are at least three clear examples where Irenaeus appears to have used Clement's writings in Adversus Haereses:

1. Stromata 6.16.140.2 - 6.16.141.7 / Adversus Haereses 1.14.6, 8: Both passages discuss the numerical and symbolic significance of the number six and its relation to creation and divine dispensation. Clement writes about the sequence of numbers and letters, culminating in a discussion about the sixth day of creation and its spiritual significance. Similarly, Irenaeus elaborates on the sixth day as the time of creation and the crucifixion, emphasizing the divine plan. The textual parallels are striking and suggest direct borrowing or a shared source.

2. Comparative Analysis of Psalm Citations: Both authors cite Psalm 18:2 (19:1) in the context of glorifying divine creation. Clement uses it to highlight the spiritual symbolism of numbers and letters, while Irenaeus employs it to illustrate the glorification of the Logos by the seven powers. The consistent use of the same Psalm in a similar theological framework further supports the hypothesis of textual dependence.

3. Philo of Alexandria's Influence: Both Clement and Irenaeus discuss the transformation and corruption of numbers and letters, echoing Philo's On the Eternity of the World. They use similar examples, such as the transposition of the letter Z to H, indicating a shared intellectual heritage and possible direct borrowing.

Evaluating the Evidence

The verbatim agreements between Clement and Irenaeus raise three possible scenarios:

1. Irenaeus Knew Clement's Work: Irenaeus might have read Clement's writings and integrated them into his own, viewing Clement as a follower of Marcus, a figure he condemned.

2. Clement Adopted Irenaeus's Views: Clement could have encountered Irenaeus’s condemnation of the Marcosians and incorporated those ideas, though this seems unlikely given Clement's established theological framework.

3. A Common Source: Both could have been drawing from a common "Marcosian" text, with Clement citing it approvingly and Irenaeus condemning it. However, given other instances where Irenaeus directly cites the Stromata, this theory is less plausible.

Scholarly Perspectives

Various scholars have weighed in on these scenarios. Armand Delatte, Niclas Förster, and Joel Kalvesmaki support the idea that Irenaeus knew Clement’s work. Others, like Arthur Cushman McGiffert, George Salmon, John Peter Arendzen, and Mariusz Szram, suggest a common source text. Annewies Van den Hoek’s study on Clement's citation habits lends credence to the idea that Clement embraced Marcosian traditions as apostolic and orthodox, making the notion that he randomly adopted condemned beliefs from Adversus Haereses implausible.

The Big Picture

Combining the proverbial "tail," "trunk," and "body" of the elephant, we see a broader pattern indicating that Irenaeus was likely referencing Clement's writings rather than the other way around. This shift not only repositions Clement as the first to cite Luke by name but also challenges longstanding assumptions about the development and transmission of early Christian texts.

In conclusion, this new perspective invites us to reconsider the relationship between early Church Fathers and their sources, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of textual transmission and theological development. By recognizing Clement’s influence on Irenaeus, we gain deeper insight into the intellectual and spiritual landscape of early Christianity.