Adversus Haereses, Adversus Alexandrinos: Unveiling the Connections Between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus

In this exploration, I aim to present three parallel passages from the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, highlighting their verbatim agreement. By examining these primary sources and the existing body of scholarship on this subject, we can uncover a broader pattern that has previously been overlooked. This pattern demonstrates that Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses was composed after Clement's Stromata, contrary to the traditional assumption that Clement was citing Irenaeus.

Reassessing the Dating of Adversus Haereses

A significant factor contributing to the misunderstanding of the relationship between Clement and Irenaeus is the latter's citation of a Roman episcopal list in Book Three of Adversus Haereses. Scholars have commonly interpreted this citation as implying that Irenaeus wrote his tome during the episcopate of Eleutherius, around 175-189 CE. However, in a previous paper, I identified a critical flaw in this interpretation. Irenaeus is not claiming to have lived during Eleutherius's time; instead, he is attributing Hegesippus's episcopal material to Polycarp. This "error" amplifies the authority of the original information by revalidating it through an apostolic figure, thus lending it a status akin to the gospels or the epistles of the New Testament.

Recognizing Irenaeus's "misidentification" of his source material allows us to properly date the verbatim citations in the Stromata to the early third century, around 195 CE—coinciding with the time when Irenaeus advised Victor to reconcile with the churches of Asia Minor. This new dating also suggests that, while Irenaeus was "making peace" with Asia, he was concurrently marginalizing Alexandria in his advisory role within the Roman episcopal See.

The Three Undisputed References to Clement of Alexandria in Adversus Haereses

There are at least three instances where Irenaeus unequivocally incorporates the writings of Clement of Alexandria into Adversus Haereses:

1. Stromata 6.16.140.2-6.16.141.7 / Adversus Haereses 1.14.6, 8

Clement of Alexandria writes:

For the [number] six is included in the order of the numbers, but the sequence of the oral letters makes known that the ἐπίσημον is unwritten. Thus, according to the numbers themselves, each monad is preserved in sequence, up to the hebdomad and the ogdoad. But according to the number of oral letters, the zeta becomes sixth, and the eta seventh. But when the ἐπίσημον—I don’t know how—slips into writing (should we pursue it in this manner) the hebdomad becomes the sixth [letter], and the ogdoad the seventh. … So also, it is said that in the sixth [day] the human was made, becoming faithful to the ἐπίσημον, so as to receive straightaway the rest of the Lord’s inheritance. Even the sixth hour of the divine plan of salvation indicates this sort of thing; in it the human was perfected. Indeed, there are seven intermediates of eight things, and there seem to be six intervals of seven things. For there is that other saying, when the hebdomad glorifies the ogdoad and “the heavens declare to the heavens the glory of God.” The oral letters that are our vowels are perceptible types of these things. So also the Lord himself is said to be “alpha and o[mega], beginning and end,” “through whom everything came into being, and without him not even one thing came into being.”

Irenaeus echoes:

And because of this, Moses said that the human being came into existence on the sixth day, and the divine dispensation, on the sixth day [of the week], i.e. the Day of Preparation, in which the last human being is manifest for the rebirth of the first man. The beginning and end of this divine dispensation was the sixth hour, when he was nailed to the wood … He [Marcus] says: Therefore, just as the seven powers glorify the Logos, so also the soul in infants, crying and wailing, glorifies Marcus himself. Because of this, David also said, “From the mouth of infants and sucklings, you have perfected praise,” and also, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

The verbatim reproduction in these passages opens up three plausible interpretations:

1. Irenaeus knew Clement and identified him as a follower of Marcus.
2. Clement read Irenaeus's condemnation of the Marcosians and decided to adopt the condemned statements as his own.
3. Irenaeus and Clement were both citing the same "Marcosian" text, with Clement either endorsing the material or presuming it to be orthodox and apostolic, while Irenaeus copied it to condemn those propagating such views.

Evaluating the Interpretations

The first interpretation, which suggests that Irenaeus recognized Clement as a follower of Marcus, has not been previously suggested. The second argument has been proposed by scholars such as Armand Delatte, Niclas Förster, and Joel Kalvesmaki. The third solution has garnered support from scholars like Arthur Cushman McGiffert, George Salmon, John Peter Arendzen, and more recently, Mariusz Szram.

However, it is evident that Clement embraced the Marcosian tradition condemned by Irenaeus, deeming it acceptable, if not apostolic. Clement's practice of providing verbatim quotations, mentioning the quoted author's name, and identifying the source of the quotation supports this view. Annewies Van den Hoek's study concludes that Clement avoids naming authors who transmit an apostolic or Alexandrian tradition, naming authors only to emphasize their authority or individuality.

The idea that Clement randomly adopted a list of condemned beliefs from Adversus Haereses is untenable. Scholars proposing this have not fully considered the implications of their suggestion. Regarding the alternative proposal that both Irenaeus and Clement drew from a common source text, it still implicates Clement as a follower of Mark. The examples that follow confirm that there is only one viable explanation: Irenaeus identified Clement as a follower of Mark.

Conclusion

In summary, the examination of parallel passages between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus reveals a more complex relationship than previously understood. Recognizing the influence of Clement on Irenaeus and properly dating their works reshapes our understanding of early Christian textual transmission and theological development. This nuanced view not only repositions Clement within early Christian scholarship but also invites further research into the intricate connections between these early Christian writers.