Methodology

Though we have argued that the method of this study extends previous analysis of Irenaeus’ use of scripture, it is not without precedent.163 _{For the intertextual}

analysis of scripture, Ellen Van Wolde proposes the following procedure: (1) identify a particular intertextual relationship between two or more texts and study each text on its own, (2) compose an inventory of the repetitions of the compared texts, (3) analyze the new network of meaning generated from the meeting of the two texts. S. D. Giere follows a modified version of Van Wolde’s criteria. Giere’s study is also a diachronic analysis assessing a broad range of ancient texts. Our study, on the other hand, is a focused synchronic examination of a singular pericope throughout

161 _{Steenberg, Irenaeus, 21.}

162 _{Smith, “Chiliasm,” Steenberg, Irenaeus, 49-60.}

163 _{James W. Voelz, “Multiple Signs and Double Texts: Elements of Intertextuality,” in Intertextuality In} Biblical Writing: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel (Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok: Kampen, 1989); Ellen Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” BibInt 5.1 (1997); S. D. Giere, A New Glimpse of Day one: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1:1-5 (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 2009). Van Wolde is effectively a simplified version of Voelz’s more detailed approach and Giere follows Van Wolde with some modifications. Stead synthesizes a diachronic and synchronic approach in his “‘contextual’ intertextuality.” Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1-8, 18-9.

the work of a single author. In our present study we will apply a revised version of Van Wolde’s procedure, which has other similarities to Giere.

First, we have identified all the allusions to Gen 1-3 in Adversus Haereses.164

The basis for this identification is the indices of the critical editions in Sources Chrétiennes (SC), and we have also cross-referenced these allusions with those cited in Biblia Patristica (BP) to ensure that all relevant texts are identified. We have also compared these allusions with the passages identified in Antonio Orbe’s translation and commentaries of AH 4 and AH 5.165_{BP is much more generous, and not all}

suggested allusions could be verified or accepted. We have noted these instances in the introduction to each appropriate chapter.

Second, we have identified the intertexts that are hermeneutically and contextually linked with the allusions to Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus. In most cases these intertexts are scripture passages, but there are also several extra-biblical

references. The identification of these intertextual allusions will rely again upon SC

and BP. The references to Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s) form the intertextual relationship(s) that are the focus for this study. As we will show, the relationship between Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s) sheds light upon the “meaning and function” of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus.166 _{We readily admit that this notion of “text” and “intertext”}

are a framework imposed upon Irenaeus and the use of “text” or “intertext” does not assume priority or hierarchy within the rhetorical argumentation of Irenaeus.167

Third, we have identified theological, structural, or linguistic markers uniting the texts.168 _{Similar to Van Wolde’s second step, these repetitions and}

intertextual markers include various “signs” such as: words, semantic fields, concepts, imagery, structures, themes, characters, actions, or narratological

representations.169 _{The most consistent means of connection are what Philippe Bacq}

terms “linking words” or mot chrochets. 170 _{However, not all textual connections may}

be attributed to philological connections. Some are more conceptually, theologically

164 _{We have identified all the uses of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus’ Epideixis, which we will mention wherever} appropriate. However, we will reserve the comprehensive evaluation of the intertextual

performance in the Epideixis for a separate publication. 165 _{Orbe, Teología IV, V.1-3.}

166 _{Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7.} 167 _{cf. Clark, Reading, 5.}

168 _{Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12.}

169 _{Van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue”, 7-8; Giere, A New Glimpse, 12. Voelz refers to this as “matrixed”} saying, “…textual events or ideas are matrixed with other textual events or ideas.” Voelz, “Multiple Signs,” 30.

or structurally related. If we cannot identify any type of intertextual relationship, or if the relationship is not theologically or contextually apparent, we will not make any case for intertextual connections, and we will not argue that these texts

contribute to Irenaeus’ use of Gen 1-3. This step protects this study from the charge of arbitrary connections that extend ad infinitum.

Fourth, similar to Van Wolde’s third step, we will analyze the “new network of meaning” that originates from the connection of Gen 1-3 and the intertext(s).171

However, this study is distinct from Van Wolde (but similar to Giere’s) in that we are not creating new meanings, but using intertextuality as a “foundational lens through which to make ‘new’ observations of ‘old’ exegesis.”172 _{This step allows us to}

make new observations of the meaning and function of Gen 1-3 in Irenaeus and examine how his networking of scripture shapes his theological perspective. Finally, we concluded each chapter with a summary description of Irenaeus’ scriptural networking framed by a set of conceptual terms that define the multiple aspects of his intertextual reading of Gen 1-3.