Evidence for Irenaeus’s Familiarity with the Stromata in the Preface to Adversus Haereses

The Acknowledgment of Erudition and the Appeal for Assistance

In the seventh reference to Clement’s Stromata within the Preface to Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus acknowledges the superior erudition of his opponents, highlighting their excellence in composition and persuasive style. This recognition of the sophistication of the Stromata sets the stage for an unusual request from Irenaeus, which contrasts with his typically authoritative tone.

Irenaeus’s Praise and Request

Irenaeus writes in the Preface:

"I am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. But whilst thou thyself (as being more capable than I am) wilt expand those ideas of which I send thee, as it were, only the seminal principles; and in the comprehensiveness of thy understanding, wilt develop to their full extent the points on which I briefly touch, so as to set with power before thy companions those things which I have uttered in weakness."

Here, Irenaeus humbly admits to his lack of rhetorical flair and composition skills, contrasting his work with the stylistically superior Stromata. Guy Stroumsa has noted the purposefully ornate construction of the Stromata, designed to protect the truth from those unworthy or unable to grasp it. This recognition by Irenaeus underscores the complexity and sophistication of Clement's writings.

The Unusual Appeal for Reader Assistance

Following his acknowledgment of his rhetorical limitations, Irenaeus makes an unusual request for assistance from his reader. He asks the reader to expand and develop the ideas presented in Adversus Haereses, a request that stands in stark contrast to his typically uncompromising and confident tone.

This meek appeal raises questions about Irenaeus’s motivations and uncertainties regarding his portrayal of the Marcosians and the Valentinians. It suggests that Irenaeus was aware of the potential challenges to his depiction of these groups and sought feedback to gauge the reception of his work beyond Rome. His request reflects a cautious approach, possibly driven by the contentious nature of his claims and the anticipated backlash from the Alexandrian tradition.

The Philosophumena and the Revision of Irenaeus’s Work

Supporting this cautious approach is the Philosophumena, a third-century reworking of Adversus Haereses, which accepted Irenaeus’s offer to correct inaccuracies in his reporting. The circumstances that prompted this revision effort are significant. The Philosophumena reports that when the Marcosians read Irenaeus's work, it caused an uproar in the Church. This reaction led to the author of the Philosophumena, often identified as Hippolytus, to tone down certain aspects of Irenaeus's portrayal.

Dunderberg assumes this investigation took place in Rome, but there are compelling reasons to suggest it occurred in Alexandria. The Philosophumena references the community having a “bishop,” a term not typically associated with a “philosophical school.” Additionally, Irenaeus did not call the Marcosians a school like other Valentinians, but a cult society (θίασος), a term Clement interestingly uses to describe the true Christian community.

The Overreach of Irenaeus

The Philosophumena also highlights Irenaeus’s overreach in claiming that a "second baptism" practice was widespread among Valentinian groups. This exaggeration raises further questions about the accuracy and motivations behind Irenaeus’s depiction of the Marcosians and the Alexandrian tradition. By falsely attributing unique practices of the Alexandrian tradition to all Valentinians, Irenaeus aimed to diminish their stature in the Christian community.

If the followers of Mark gathered as a θίασος rather than a διατριβή, if they were overseen by a bishop rather than a headmaster, and if they engaged in religious mysteries rather than philosophical discussions, they cannot properly be identified as “Valentinians.” Irenaeus’s misreporting of the facts about this tradition seems intended to undermine its legitimacy and influence.

Conclusion: The Battle for Truth and Authority

The seventh reference to the Stromata in the Preface to Adversus Haereses reveals the ongoing battle for truth and authority within early Christianity. Irenaeus’s acknowledgment of the superior erudition of his opponents and his unusual appeal for assistance reflect the contentious and complex nature of this struggle. The Philosophumena further underscores the challenges Irenaeus faced in his efforts to discredit the Alexandrian tradition.

Understanding these dynamics provides deeper insight into the development of early Christian thought and the efforts to establish a unified doctrine. The examination of Irenaeus’s familiarity with Clement’s Stromata enriches our understanding of the intricate interplay between different Christian traditions and the quest for orthodoxy in the formative years of the Church.