1978

VigiliaeChristianae
32,161-190;? North-Holland
Publishing
Company

THE ORIGIN OF SIN IN IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE

BY

D. R. SCHULTZ

INTRODUCTION

The purposeof thispaper is to argue thatIrenaeusdependedon an

earlierJewishtraditionforthefinalformulation
of his own ideas on sin
and itsorigin.This earlierJewishtraditionis substantially
availableto us
in theApocryphaand Pseudepigraphaof theOld Testament.For Irenaeus, the Old TestamentApocryphabelongedto theBiblicalcanon,butthe
articlemainlyfocuseson pseudepigraphical
materialwhicheven from
Irenaeus's standpointwas non-Biblical.The motifsfromthis literature
whichshaped his thinkingabout sin and its originwerepseudepigraphical.
The articledoes notaim at providinga newviewconcerning
themeanof
sin
in
the
is
intention
of the
ing
theologyof Irenaeus. Rather,it the
articleonlyto identify
thesourcesof Irenaeus'svariousstatements
about
theoriginofsin.
concludesto Irenaeus'sdependenceon the
Thoughthearticleexplicitly
tradition
for
histhinking
about sin'sorigin,itraisesthe
pseudepigraphical
question of how dependenton such sources was the entirebody of
Patristicthought.
An inquiryinto Irenaeus'snotionson sin revealsthathe offersmany
and variedexplanationsforsin and its origin.Anotherinquiryintolate
Jewishpseudepigraphical
literaturerevealsideas so similarto those of
Irenaeusthatmorethancoincidencemustbe positedas a cause forlikeness. In fact,some dependenceand familiarity
on the part of Irenaeus
withnon-canonicalpseudepigraphical
notionsmustbe maintained.
The methodof thisarticlewill be to treatthe mostimportantthemes
whichrelateto Irenaeus'sspeculationson sinand itsorigin.Thesethemes
concernAdam, Angels,and the fusionof thesetwo motifs.Withinthe
treatment
ofeach ofthesethemestheinfluence
oflateJewishpseudepigraideas
be
the
of
Irenaeus
will
shown.
upon
thought
phical

162

D. R. SCHULTZ

ADAM

We knowthatIrenaeuscontrastsAdam and Christmoreor less as does

Paul in Romans5 and 1 Corinthians
15. In fact,Irenaeus'suse of these
combined
some
texts
of
with
passages,
Ephesians,in thisview,formedthe
his Adam-Christ
basis upon whichtheearlyChurchFatherconstructed
typology,'in whichthefirstAdam is paralleledwiththesecond Adam.2
At leastIrenaeus'sexegesisofRomans5,19,as foundin Adversus
Haereses
his
1
includes
of
Corinthians
15,21-25and
3,21,16(3,30),3
understanding
That
and
the
letters
to
Romans
Corinthians
treatthe
1
is,
Ephesians1,10.4
themeoffirst
and secondAdam,whileEphesiansprovidestheterminology
(the verb form of

&vaUK~cpaaiootg)

for Irenaeus to speak about the re-

lationshipbetweenthetwoAdams.
forIrenaeus,is basicallythelinkbetweenthetwomotifs
Recapitulatio,
of exaltedand sinfulAdam. It is God's plan thatAdam be once in his
pristineglory,become sinful,and once again be restoredto his original
exaltedstatein thesecondAdam.5On theotherhand,Paul's emphasison
Adam's sin is chieflyintendedto contrastAdam's disobediencewith
Christ'sobedience.In orderto speak of death,Paul speaksofAdam,but
1

J.T. Nielsen, Adam and Christin the Theologyof Irenaeusof Lyons (Assen, Van

Gorcumand Co., 1968) 11-23; 56-67.Cf.,also, JuliusGross,Entstehungsgeschichte

des Erbsundendogmas.Von der Bibel bis Augustinus(Munich, ReinhardtVerlag, 1960)

vol. 1, who saysthatIrenaeuswas completely

subjectedto thePaulineAdam-Christ
speculation.
2 F. Schiele,Die rabbinischen
Parallelenzu 1 Kor.15:45-50, Zeitschrift
fiir Theologie42 (1899) 20-31,concludesthatPaul firstuses theterm"first"and "second"
Adam.
3 "For as by one man'sdisobedience,
sin entered,
and deathobtained(a place)
sin;so also,bytheobedienceofoneman,righteousness,
through
havingbeenintroducinthosepersonswhointimespastweredead ... so didHe
ed,shallcauselifeto fructify
whois theWord,recapitulating
AdaminHimself,
receivea birth,
rightly
enablingHim
to gatherup Adam(intoHimself)... It wasthattheremightnotbe anotherformation
calledintobeing,noranyotherwhichshould(requireto) be saved,butthatverysame
formation
shouldbesummed
as ithadexistedinAdam),theanalogyhaving
up (inChrist
beenpreserved."
SincetheEnglishtranslation
is basedon Stieren's
numberparagraph
ing system- A.Stieren, Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensisquae SupersuntOmnia

vols.I-II - thosenumbers
willbe first
cited.References
toHarvey's
(Leipzig1848-1853)

edition - W.W. Harvey, Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Lugdunensislibrosquinqueadversus

haereses(Cambridge1857)vols. I-II - followin brackets.The Englishtranslation,

is thatof A.Robertsand J.Donaldson(eds.),The
exceptwhereotherwise
indicated,
Ante-Nicene
Fathers
& Sons,1899)vol.I.
(NewYork,Scribners
4 CompareRom.5,19; 1 Cor. 15,21-22.
45-49; Eph. 1,10.23 withAdversusHaereses
to A.H.) 3,16,6(3,17,6);3,18,7(3,19,6);3,19,3(3,20,3);
(Henceforth
simplyshortened
3,21,10(3,30); 5,1,2(ibid.); 5,14,1(ibid.).
5 A.H. 3,22,3(3,32,1).

IRENAEUSAND JEWISHPSEUDEPIGRAPHICALLITERATURE

163

his majorgoal is "eternallifethroughJesusChrist".6Paul does notwant

to show any positiverelationbetweenChirstand Adam. Rather,he
contraststheact of Adam whichbringsdeathto theact of Christwhich
bringslife.
in Paul and Irenaeus'sview of
Althoughthereare severalsimilarities
betweenthese two
man's wretchedcondition,the principaldifference
authors'portrayalof man's unnaturalstateresultsfromtheirindividual
usage of firstand second Adam. Paul speaks of a firstAdam who rerighteouspresentssinand deathas wellas a secondAdam whorepresents
ness and life.His firstAdam is not a fallenAdam, however,because a
fallenAdam requiresan exalted Adam. Irenaeus,on the otherhand,
knowsa firstexalted,thenfallenor sinfulfirstAdam as wellas a second
Adam, Christ.The sinfulfirstAdam is contrastedto both the exalted
is not simplya
firstand secondAdam. Yet, thistheoryof recapitulation
contrastof two Adams; it functionsas a connectionbetweentheexalted
firstAdam and theeschatologicalsecondAdam who unitesin historythe
Adam.
sinfuland theexaltedfirst
As was said,Paul's letterscontainno traceofa thoroughrecapitulation
whichconnectsor unitesthetwo Adams,because Paul did not speculate
Adam. However,RobbinScroggsmaintainsthat
uponthestateofthefirst
Paul was well aware of the speculationconcerningexaltedAdam which
in Jewishcirclesof his day.' But even accordingto
was contemporary
theseJewishascriptionsofAdam's excellenceto
Scroggs,Paul transferred
his last Adam, Christ.Thus,Irenaeuscould not have derivedhis viewof
theexaltedfirstAdam fromPaul, but musthave been aware of thelate
Jewishspeculationshimself,sincein Irenaeustheexaltationcontinuesto
be attributedto the firstAdam. This attributionis but the firstsign
amongmanythatIrenaeusdependedupon Jewishspeculationin forming
some of his notionsof the exalted and sinfulAdam in his theoryof
recapitulation.8
6

Rom.5,21.

Fortress
TheLastAdam(Philadelphia,
Press,1966)100.Cf.also,
7 RobbinScroggs,
whodiscussed
JTS27 (1925-26)175ff.
Christas theAPXH ofCreation,
C. F. Burney,
ofall creation.
See also,
thefirst-begotten
Paul'suseofRabbinicaltradition
concerning
andRuprecht,
Vanderhoeck
JacobJervell,
1960).
ImagoDei (G6ttingen,
willthisarticletreatexaltedAdamin Irenaeusand
8
Onlybywayofimplication
The argument
thatthe"exaltedAdam"of Irenaeusand
literature.
pseudepigraphical
treatan extensive
arethesamerequires
literature
the"gloriousAdam"ofapocalyptic
and eschatology
mentoftextsdealingwithbothIrenaeus'stheoryof "recapitulation"
to saythatIrenaeus's
Let itsuffice
as foundin lateJewish
writings.
pseudepigraphical

164

D. R. SCHULTZ

Other motifsin Irenaeus's discussionof Adam bear the marks of

fromlateJewishpseudepigraphical
influence
speculation.
IRENAEUSANDPSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL
ON THE"PAIN OF THESTROKE"

notionof Irenaeus'sconcerningman's anguish,which

A verystriking
afterAdam's transgression,
he suffered
is thatrelatedto thephrase"pain
of thestroke".He uses thisphrasein explaininghow God "shall heal the
anguishofhispeopleand do awaywiththepain ofthestroke".9ObviousBut Irenaeus has much
ly, this phrase representsmankind'ssuffering.
more to say about the "pain of the stroke"than thatit is the cause of
man's anguish,forhe explainsthat "the pain of the strokemeans that
inflictedat the beginningupon disobedientman in Adam, that is,
death".10The phrase"pain of thestroke"is relatedto Irenaeus'stheory
of corporatesin in Adam, sinceit is clear thatthe "strokes"visitedon
on all humanity.
Adam forhissinarealso inflicted
The strokeofGod is first
mentionedin Isaiah where"theLord bindsup
thehurtofHis people,andhealsthewoundsinflicted
byHis blow"."1This
is partiallythethoughtofIrenaeus;butthe"strokeof God" in Irenaeusis
relatedto Adam,hisdisobedienceand death.(For reasonsofcomparison
some termsconcerningthe "strokesof God" willappear in latinand be
italicized.)
... quando sanabit contritionempopuli sui, et doloremplagae suae sanabit. Dolor

autemplagaeest,perquam percussus
esthomoinitioin Adam inobediens,
hoc est
morsquamsanabitDeus resuscitans
in patrumhaereditanosa mortuis
etrestituens
tem.12
Adam,madein the"imageand likeness"of God, A.H. 4,20,1(4,34,1),makinghim
and father
ofthehumanrace,A.H. 3,21,10(3,30);3,22,3(3,32,1);
(Adam)thepattern
3,23,2 (3,33,1); 4,7,14 (4,14); 4,20,1 (4, 34,1); 5,1,2 (ibid.); 5,15,3 (ibid.); 5,15,4 (ibid.);

ifnotthesameimagery
of 1 Enoch37,1;60,8;85-90;
5,16,2(5,16,1-2),is verysimilar,
Wisd. Sol. 10,1; Jub.2,33; 19,24-25; Apoc. Mos.41,3; Vita Adae et Evae 27,3; and 4

Ezra 6,53-56,whichmakesAdamthefirst
fatherand Patriarch
of all creation.Likewise,Irenaeus'sProof11-12,whichexaltsAdamto the"Masterand Lord" ofeverythingon earth,has thesamethemeas thatproposedin Sirach49,16; 1 Enoch39,9;
50,1; 58,2; 103,2f; 4 Ezra 6,54; 8,51; 2 Enoch30,12; Apoc. Mos.21,2. 6; 24,4; 28,4;

ofAdambeing
39,2;2 Baruch15,8;51,1-5;and 54,5.21. Also,Irenaeus'sperception
createdliketheangelsas wellas Lordovertheangelsinthosesametextsis theechoing
thoughtof Apoc. Mos. 7,2; VitaAdae et Evae 4; 2; 1 Enoch 69,11; 2 Enoch 30,10-14; 2
Baruch51,10; and 1 Enoch 104.
9 Cf. A.H. 5,34,2(ibid.).
10 Ibid.
11 Isa. 30,25-26.
12
A.H.5,34,2 (ibid.).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

165

Thereference
inIsaiahdoesnotinvolve
Adam,Eve,sinordeath,butin
ismadeandonlythere
sucha connection
thepseudepigraphical
literature
arethe"strokes"
in sucha relationship.
In theApocalypse
mentioned
of
is
the
strokes
ofGod.
Mosesa brief
explanationmadeconcerning
shegavealsometoeatand
Hecharged
usnottoeat... Sheateofthetree... Then
God was wrathwithus ... and said ...'I havebrought
uponthybodyLXXplagas.

thesecond
stroke
anaffecatthefirst
oftheeyes,
Thetrouble
plagais thedolorem
allthe
shall
befall
andlikewise
inturn
tion
ofthehearing,
3
plagae
thee.'
oftheAdam
recension
In theabovepassages,as wellas in a lengthier
is elaborated
the"painofthestroke"
Books,theLifeofAdamandEve,14
of Adam,relatedto numerous
upon,associatedwiththedisobedience
The
death.
Apocalypse
ofMosesexplainshowGod
pains,and,finally,
and brought
was angrywithAdamforhisdisobedience
uponhisbody
ofthosestrokes
with
strokes.
Thenfollowed
theenumeration
seventy-two
"He
thatall thestrokesshallbefallAdamuntilfinally
theconclusion
...
will
die".15
(Adam)
So also in theVitaAdaeetEvae,theLordwas angrywithAdamand
and broughtupon Adam'sbody"seventy
Eve fortheirdisobedience
strokes"withdiversegriefs.In thisaccount,God speaksto Adam
saying:
etverbum
meum
tibinoncusto... eo quoddereliquisti
mandatum
quodconfortavi
incorpus
LXXplagas;diversis
doloribus
abinitio
tuum
disti
ecceinducam
capitis...16

ofIrenaeusandthe
foundin thewritings
The accountsofthestrokes
someofwhichare
VitaAdaeet Evae haveseveralpointsofagreement,
to
inreference
in
translations.
Irenaeus
uses
inobediens
the
Latin
verbatim
authorsays dereliquisti
Adam's deed whereasthe pseudepigraphical
toindicate
thetimeofAdam'ssin.The
Bothauthors
useinitio
mandatum.
wordfor"strokes"is plagae in bothaccounts.Irenaeus,aftersome
ofGod.
the"strokes"
withplagaeto qualify
dolorem
combines
reflection,
authordoes use variousformsof dolorbut in
The pseudepigraphical
fromtheplagae.In fact,oftendoesAdam
to thatwhichresults
reference
13
Apoc. Mos.6,3-9,3. It shouldbe notedthattheApoc. Mos. and the Vit.Adae et
ofa book or booksbearingthenameofAdam.Cf.R. H. Charles,
Evae arerecensions

The Apocryphaand Pseudepigraphaof the Old Testament(Oxford, Clarendon Press,

1913)123-133.

14 VitaAdae et Evae, cc. 31-35.

15 Apoc. Mos. 3,6.
16

VitaAdae et Evae 34,1-2.

166

D. R. SCHULTZ

in theapocalypticaccountcomplainof thedoloremwhichhe mustsuffer

at thehandsof theplagae. Withinthespace of seventeenverses,doloror
some formof thatroot is used no fewerthanseventimesand alwaysin
relationto theplagae. Moreover,thefinalresultofthesepains(dolor)and
strokes(plagae) is that "his (Adam's) soul shall go offhis body", the
explanationforIrenaeus'smors(death).
the"strokesofGod" are treated
Also, in thepseudepigraphical
writings
in thecontextof God's healingtheeffects
whichthe "strokes"have had
thetreatment
of thestrokes
upon mankindbecause of Adam. Therefore,
of God foundin theBooks of Adam and Eve (Apocalypseof Moses, the
VitaAdae et Evae) and AdversusHaereses are strikingly
similar,so that
the strokesare relatedto Adam and Eve, theirdisobedience,and death.
the strokesin thepseudepigraphical
traditionare so often
Furthermore,
relatedto dolorthatthe phrasedoloremplagae (pain of the stroke),as
coined by Irenaeus,took little,if any reflection
forits formulation
from
thispseudepigraphical
tradition.It is almostcertain,then,thatIrenaeus's
use of thephrase"pain ofthestroke"in connectionwithAdam, sin,and
death shows knowledgeof a sourcesimilarto that of the Vita Adae et
Evae and theApocalypseofMoses.
THE SKILL OF GOD AND INDIVIDUALRESPONSIBILITY
IN IRENAEUSAND 2
BARUCH

If for some purpose Irenaeuscan emphasizeman's corporatesin in

Adam as theoriginofsin,a viewwhichcould seemto diminishindividual
he can at othertimesemphasizeindividualresponsibility
responsibility,
for sin. It appears that here,too, he utilizesJewishpseudepigraphical
notions.This appears in a passage in whichhe emphasizedthat man,
ratherthanGod, is responsible
forsin:
TheskillofGod,therefore,
is notdefective
... butthemanwhodoesnotobtainitis
thecauseto himself
ofhisownimperfection
whohave
... Thosepersons,therefore,

apostatized ... and transgressed... have done so throughtheirown faultsince they

havebeencreatedfreeagentsand possessedofpoweroverthemselves
... thosewho
thecauseto themselves
oftheir
flyfromtheeternallightof God ... are themselves
eternaldarkness,
destitute
ofall goodthings,
inhabiting
havingbecometothemselves

thecauseof(their
consignment
to)anabodeofthatnature.17

The thoughthere is somewhatlike that of Sirach 15,11-15,which

or sin but
proclaimsthat God is not the cause of man's wretchedness
17 A.H.4,39,3 (4,64,2-3).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

167

rather,man himselfis the cause. Yet, Irenaeus,in thispassage,is more

likelyechoingthethoughtsimilarto thatof2 Baruchwhostates:
For thoughAdamfirstsinnedand brought
deathuponall,yetthosewho
untimely
werebornfromhim,each one of themhas preparedforhis ownsoul torment
to
come ... but now, as foryou, ye wicked ... For His works have not taughtyou, nor

has theskillof hiscreation,

whichis at all time,persuadedyou.Adamis therefore
notthecausesaveonlyofhisownsoul,buteachofus has beentheAdamofhisown
soul."s

What Irenaeus says is thatGod is not responsibleforman's sin and

tormentbutrathereach personis responsibleforhis owneternaldestiny.
The imageryused is that of man fleeingfrometernallightinto eternal
darkness.Each man is thecause to himselfof his own perfection
or imEach
his
own
is
his
own
cause
or
has
beman,through
fault,
perfection.
come to himselfthecause of his inhabitingeternallightor darkness,because sucha cause cannotbe attributed
to the"skillofGod".
Theseideas certainly
echo thethoughtof2 Baruch,althoughthemotive
is different.
Irenaeus wishesto exonerateGod fromresponsibility
for
2
Baruch
exoneratesAdam. This fact does not argue
man's sin, while
againstIrenaeus'suse of2 Baruch,butratherthatIrenaeuscouldnothave
used 2 Baruchas a sourceforhis view of Adam, since Irenaeusand 2
BaruchpositionAdam quitedifferently
in theirschemesofcreation.What
shouldbe notedis thatwhenIrenaeusdoes exonerateAdam fromguiltin
it is to make a different
transgression,
point from2 Baruch'sand for
reasons otherthan those offeredby him.19But the fact remainsthat
Irenaeus,who blamesall men for"sinningin Adam",20can also speak
wordssimilarto thoseof2 Baruch.That is, "manwho is thecause to himself","men,who throughtheirown fault","who have poweroverthemthecause" and "have becometo themselves
selves","who are themselves
thecause", are phrasesnot too muchunlikethoseof 2 Baruchwho states
that"each one of themhas preparedforhis own soul torment"and each
of us has been "theAdam of his own soul". Yet, a remarkablesimilarity
betweenthesetwowritings
occursin an examinationofBaruch's"torment
to come". Such an examinationcan be made in the versesimmediately
Here is a description
followingBaruch'splea forindividualresponsibility.
of the individualtormentof those who turn away fromthe "bright
18 Baruch54,15-19.

19 Irenaeusexonerates
Adamfromblameforhisowntransgression,
2 Baruchfrom
blameformankind's
sinfulness.
20 A.H.
5,17,1(ibid.);5,16,3(ibid.).

168

D. R. SCHULTZ

intothe"darknessofblackwaters".22Thus,thesequenceof
lightening"21
to
thoughtin both Irenaeus and 2 Baruchis individualresponsibility
eternallightor darkness.
is perceived
betweenthesetwowritings
Still,themoststriking
similarity
in the two phrases"the skill of God" and "the skill of creation".The
stressing
phrase"skillof God", whichis used by Irenaeus,is a reference
thepersonof God whereas2 Baruch'sthe"skillofcreation"is a reference
God's activity.
As theyare used in thetwopassages,it is readily
stressing
that
Irenaeus
stressedthe personratherthan God's activity
perceived
because he wishedto exoneratethepersonof God forman's individual
actions.23
imperfect
However,it appears that Irenaeus,when using notionssimilarto 2
forhis
Baruchin his argumentconcerningman's personalresponsibility
sinfuland eternalstate,had to changethe phrase "skillof creation"to
"skillof God" becauseIrenaeusperceivedGod's act ofcreationas somethischangecan easilybe seenin the
thingless thanperfect.Furthermore,
factthatpriorto the passage whichcontainsthephrase"skill of God"
whichdiscussionis totally
Irenaeushad discussedthat"skill"thoroughly,
concernedwithGod's act ofcreation.
Irenaeus, then,exoneratingGod for man's individualimperfection,
makingman thecause of his own soul's fatein eternallightor darkness,
uses a similarframework
as thatof 2 Baruch,who exoneratesAdam for
and makesman the cause of his own soul's fatein the
man's sinfulness
or darknessofblackwaters.Irenaeusnotonlyexpresses
brightlightening
thesebasicideas in thesameschemeas 2 Baruchand withsimilarimagery,
but also reveals even greaterdependenceupon a traditionsimilarto
Baruchin hisuse ofalmostidenticalphrasingforGod's creativeact.
THE APOSTASYOF THEANGELS

So farsinhas beentracedback to a sourcein Adam and Eve. Also, it is

ofIrenaeusas the"tempter"
wellknownthatSatan appearsin thewritings
of
of Adam.24However,IrenaeusoftenbypassesAdam in his treatment
Satan and angels, so that this evil spiritworld directlybringsabout
21

22

Baruch72,1.
Baruch56,5.

forthefallof Adam,he
AlthoughIrenaeuswishesto makeGod responsible
ThatresponsibildoesnotwishtomakeGod responsible
forthesinsofeachindividual.
ityfallsuponSatan.See belowp. 172.
23

24

A.H. 5,21,3 (ibid.); 4, Pref.,4 (4, Pref.,3); Proof16; A.H. 3,20,1(3,21,1).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

169

mankind'ssinfulcondition.In effect,
then,Irenaeussometimesattributes
the originof sin directlyto Satan and his forcesin termsstrongly
reminiscentof 1 Enoch,Jubilees,and otherlate Jewishpseudepigraphical
writings.
This investigationconnectedwith the spiritworld as the possible
originof sin will now attemptto relateIrenaeusto some of the sources
forhis thought.The firstpointto be made concernsIrenaeus'sreference
to the existenceof "sevenheavens"of angelicpowers.The existenceof
theseheavenswas an idea commonto bothIrenaeusand his adversaries,
the gnostics.In fact,Franz Cumontatteststo the factthatthe "seven
heavens"was a commonnotionwhichcame fromIran but whichflourished throughoutmuch of the Mediterraneanworld in the time of
Christ.25What Irenaeus has to say about these heavens,however,is
fromthatof thegnostics.In fact,the heavens
somethingquite different
thatexistedbeand theircreationwerean essentialpartofthecontention
That is, the gnosticsperceivedthe
tweenIrenaeusand his adversaries.26
heavens as emanatingfroman original"primordialFather", whereas
manwas createdbythedemiurge.27
Irenaeus,on theotherhand,heldfast
to thecreationof theheavens,earth,and all thingsthroughthehandsof
God. It would be a bold assumptionto maintain,then,thatIrenaeus's
to theseheavenswas throughhisgnosticadversaries.In
sole introduction
he
have
would
dismissedany idea coming solely fromgnostic
fact,
thought.Rather,thelessbold assumptionwouldbe thathe believedin the
ofthegnostics.
existenceofsevenheavensindependently
This is not a New Testamentconcept,althoughPaul showsknowledge
of multipleheavenswhenhe refersto the"thirdheaven".28Also a single
passage in the Old Testament29is at best a vague referenceto these
heavens.However,the book of Jubileesrefersto the sevengreatworks
(heavens) whichGod createdon the firstday,30the Testamentof Levi
givesa descriptionof theseheavens,31and the authorof 2 Enochvisits
each one as a favouredguest.32
25

Franz Cumont, Astrologyand Religion among the Greeks and Romans (New

York,DoverPublications
Inc.,1960)69.
26 Nielsen,
op. cit.,41-67.

Ibid., 39-41.
2 Cor. 12,2-4.
29 Isa. 11,2.
30 Jub.2,3.
31 Test.Levi
3, Cf. also, AscensioIsa. 10.
32 2 Enoch 3.
27
28

170

D. R. SCHULTZ

neednothave acceptedthe"sevenheavens"directly
Irenaeustherefore
in the
or Iraniansources,sinceit was an idea flourishing
fromgnosticism
literatureof the late Jewishperiod. Moreover,the "seven heavens"of
pseudepigraphicalliteraturewere createdsolely by God and were ina claimalso madebyIrenaeus.
habitedbyangelsand archangels,
the
statements
Furthermore,
regardingthe "sevenheavens"whichare
made byIrenaeusappearto involvesomedependenceupon pseudepigraphical sources.JosephSmith,S. J.,in his translationof Irenaeus'sProof
thinksthat Irenaeus took directlyor inof the ApostolicPreaching,33
the
a Jewishtradition.He citestheTesta"seven
heavens"
from
directly
fromwhich
mentofLevi 3 and theAscensioIsaiah 10 as thetwotraditions
Irenaeusborrowedtheidea.34Whentheseand otherpassagesare read in
of the "heavens",thereappears
conjunctionwithIrenaeus's statements
notonlyan undeniablysimilarsequenceofthoughtbutalso a remarkable
verbalagreement.
In A.H. 1,52(1,1,9),Irenaeussimplystatesthat"He (God) createdalso
sevenheavens".In A.H. 4,16,2(4,27,2)he locatestheseheavenswhenhe
says that"theearthis encompassedby sevenheavens".(The emphasisin
thisand followingpassagesis mine.)But in Proof9 he elaboratesupon
this initialstatementand also upon the natureof the heavens,saying
"(heavens) in which dwell powers,and angels, and archangelsgiving
Godwho createdall things".
homagetothealmighty
Jubilees2,2-3 explainsthatGod createdthe heavenson thefirstday:
"He (God) createdtheheavens."Later,Jubilees2,4 affirms
thecreationof
"seven"heavens:"forsevengreatworksdid He (God) createon thefirst
day." Jubileesalso locatesthoseheavens"whichare above theearthand
thewaters".35
The same book immediately
atteststo thehomagepaid to
all
the
servebeforeHim (God), the
"and
which
God, declaring,
spirits
angels." A lengthydescriptionof theseangels and the restof creation
follows.
However,theTestament
ofLevi 3,1-8elaboratesat somelengthregardthe
nature
of
the
"seven
heavens": "... in thehighestof all dwelleth
ing
theGreatGlory,farabove all holiness.In (theheavennextto) it are the
whominister
and makepropitiation
to
to theLord ... offering
archangels,
the Lord a sweetsavour,a reasonableand a bloodlessoffering.
And (in
33 See ChapterTwo,n. 1.
JosephP.
Smith,Proof of theApostolicPreaching(London,The NewmanPress,
1952)147-48.
34

35 Jub.2,3.

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

171

theheavenbelowthis)aretheangelswhobearanswersto theangelsofthe
presenceof the Lord. And in the heaven next to this are thronesand
inwhichalwaystheyoffer
dominions,
praisetoGod."
This passage is the onlyone outsideof Irenaeuswhichassociatesthe
seven heavenswithangels,archangels,and otherheavenlybeingswho
alwaysare praisingGod. This passage whichdiscussesthe "sevenheavthe same manneras did
ens" describestheseheavensin approximately
Irenaeus.His statementabout thosewho dwellin the "heavens"giving
fromthatfoundin theTestamentofLevi in only
homageto God differs
one obviousway.The TestamentofLevi reads"thronesand dominions"
whereIrenaeusreads "powers".
The answerto thissingledifference
in thetworeadingsliesin Irenaeus's
Paul's
letters
while
he
uses pseudepigraphical
notionsto
dependenceupon
Paul. IrenaeusknewthatPaul (or a subsequentauthorof the
interpret
pauline school) spoke about heavenlyplaces in Ephesians 1,21 and
Colossions1,16.Thesetwoversesare verysimilarto each other.36Yet,in
neitherof thesepassages does the authorspeak about "sevenheavens",
wheredwellangelsand archangelswho constantly
pay homageor praise
to God. But Irenaeusknewthatin the TestamentofLevi or some other
sourceall of theseideas wereplaced in relationto one
pseudepigraphical
another.Therefore,
Irenaeushad both Paul's lettersand some pseudepisource
like
the Testamentof Levi beforehim when he wrote
graphical
about the "seven heavens". With the words "thronesand dominions"
fromthepseudepigraphical
source,Irenaeusturnedto thelettersof Paul
whichspoke about heavenlyplaces. But insteadof turningto Paul's text
of Colossians1,16whichreads"thronesand dominions",Irenaeusturned
to thepassagelikeit,namely,Ephesians1,21,whichreads"powers".Thus
his explanationof the"sevenheavens"takenfromthepseudepigraphical
sourcereadsthesame as theTestament
ofLevi exceptforthesubstitution
of "powers"(fromEph. 1,21) for"thronesand dominions"as foundin
Levi. The latterare also mentionedin theparalleltextof Col. 1,16.Other
answersforthisdifference
in readingare thatIrenaeuswas not familiar
with Col. 1,16 (whichis unlikely)or that he had some preferencefor
"powers"over"thronesand dominions".

36

Eph. 1,21: ...ev Zoig xoupaviotq 6brcp6vo icar1g ApXig Kai t?ouoiag Kaic
t
8ovdlagc Kti Kupt6o rog Col. 1,16: rdadvra ev rotqobpavoig ... izts 4p6vot dits
oE
Kupt6zIrlgdEpTai
izs
it i ocit.

172

D. R. SCHULTZ

ANDTHEPSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL
IRENAEUS
CHAINOFAPOSTASY
is a prominentone for
However,therole of Satan in man's sinfulness
titles.He is referred
to as the
Irenaeus,as (Satan) takeson manydifferent
the
and
the
evident
becomes
It
apostateangel.39
"strongman",37 devil,38
thatIrenaeususes all of thesenamesto signifya singlecreaturewho is
angelicin natureand thechiefadversaryofGod.40
to theleaderof
Sin is directly
relatedto angelicpowersand principally
to sinagainstGod and laterlead others
thesepowers,Satan.He is thefirst
that
to thatsin or apostasy.41
Irenaeusclaimsthat"It mustbe affirmed
is
the
He (God) has ascribedall who are oftheapostasyto himwho
ringleaderof the transgression".42
Satan, then,is the sole cause of apostasy
and transgression.
Irenaeusexplicitlystatesthis about the devil, "who firstbecame the
cause of apostasyto himselfand afterwards
to others".43The "others"
and firstto followSatan in apostasyare a groupof angelswho revolted
froma stateof submissionto God. Many passagesspeak oftheapostasy.
Irenaeusrefersto "the Chiefof the apostasy ... and those angels who
and
became apostatesalong withhim",44"the angelswho transgressed
and "theapostasyoftheangelswho transgressed".46
becameapostates",45
Thus, theapostasyreachesfromSatan to otherangelswho followhis
lead in sin,transgression,
and revolt.Moreover,theapostasywhichbegan
withSatan and continuedthroughtheapostateangelsalso extendsto the
whole of mankind.Irenaeus,speakingof all those whom God should
and became
punishin theeternalfires,lists"theangelswho transgressed
37

(ibid.).
A.H.5,22,1-2

42

A.H.4,40,1 (4,65).

38 A.H.5,24,3(ibid.).
39 A.H.5,21,3(ibid.);Proof16.
40 Gustaf
Man and theIncarnation
Press,
Wingren,
(Philadelphia,Muhlenberg
so that
refer
toexactlythesamereality,
1959)44,saysthatthedevil,Satan,andserpent
nameswithoutmakinganyrealdistinction
betweenthem.Cf.
Irenaeususesdifferent
16, theserpentis a demon.A.H. 4, pref.,4 (4, pref.,3); 4,40,3(4,66,2);
Fragmenta
in
withtheserpent
is a wickedangel.Satanis also identified
5,23,1(ibid.),theserpent
or uses
in thedisguiseoftheserpent
somepassages,butin othersSatanhideshimself
theserpent
as an instrument
forhisevilwork.Cf.A.H. 4, (4, pref.,3); 5,23,1(ibid.);
Proof16.See alsopp.24ff.
41 "Apostasy"
when
willhavean equivalent
to thatofsinor transgression
meaning
usedinthisarticlebecauseIrenaeususestheterminthatsense.
43 A.H.4,41,3(4,68,1).
44 A.H.3,23,3
(ibid.).
45 A.H. 1,10,3
(1,2).
46 A.H. 1,10,3
(1,4).Cf.also,2,28,7(2,43,2);4,16,2(4,27,2).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

173

and wicked,and
apostates,togetherwiththeungodly,and unrighteous,
profaneamong men".47Yet, this chain of apostasy and transgression
beginningwith Satan, extendingdown throughthe angels,and finally
bringingmanto thatsame apostasylogicallytracestheoriginofsinback
to Satan. It is understandable,
then,thatIrenaeuswould proclaimSatan
ofall transgressions".
as the"ringleader
notonlydoes IrenaeusagreewithJubileesand the Testament
Therefore,
Levi
in
his
of
descriptionof the angelicbeingswho worshipGod in the
literature
heavens,he shows furtherdependenceon pseudepigraphical
whenhe describeshow thefallenangelsspreadsin to humanity.That is,
thechainof apostasy,beginningwithSatan,extending
downthroughthe
man
to
that
same
and
did not come
finallybringing
corruption,
angels,
from a reading of the New Testament,which only brieflydescribes
Satan's being cast out of heaven withhis angels.48No explanationis
offeredby the New Testamentfor such action nor is theremade any
relationshipbetweenthese events and man's sinfulcondition.49Yet,
understandsthat thereexists a causal relationship
Irenaeus definitely
betweenGenesis6,1-4 and the wickednessthatfollowsin Genesis6,5.50
But he need not have come to such an understanding
withoutsome
assistance,because thisspeculationon Genesishad alreadybeen worked
out and set down in Jewishpseudepigraphicalliterature.Although
47 A.H.1,10,1(1,2).
48 2 Pet.
2,4;Jude6; Lk. 10,18;Jn.12,31;Rev.12,7-12.
49 Someallusionmight
be madeto the"apostasy"in2 Pet.2,4orJude6. Butsuch
cannotserveas thesolesourceofIrenaeus'sthought
on thesubject.
vaguereferences
TheWestminster
50 Cf.p. 14.GerhardvonRad, Genesis
(Philadelphia,
Press,1961)
in English"mighty
109-114,discusseshowtheNephilimcameto be rendered
ones",
theNephilim
strongones",or "heroes".The LXX readingis gigantesand,therefore,
becameknownas "giants".In thisbook,von Rad also arguesthatGenesis6,5,the
thenarrator's
ownreflections,
Genesis6,4,the
linking
prologueto theflood,represents
sinsof angels,withthedelugethatfollowedin therestof thechapter.He statesthat
He wantedto represent
"The Yahwistwantedto showman'sgeneralcorruption.
the
spiritual
powerswithman,a kindof 'demonic'invasion,and
mixingof superhuman
caused by sin". Thus, accordingto von Rad, the
disturbance
pointout a further
a deterioration
ofall creation.
narrator
wishedtosaythattherehadoccurred
Yahwistic
to linkthedelugewith
In addition,
written
6,5is theauthor'sownstatement
purposely
ofvonRad arethreefold
thedeterioration
whichtookplacein6,4.Thearguments
and
is shownin6,4
thestrongest
oneappearsto be thelast,whicharguesthatdeterioration
ofangelsand
becauseGod cutshortthelifeofthe"bastards"bornfromthemarriage
no otherOld Testament
men.If von Rad is correctabouttheYahwist'sintentions,
oftheseintentions.
indicated
such
awareness
Thosewhofirst
authorhaddemonstrated
authorswhentheyspeculated
uponthe
purposeinGenesis6 werethepseudepigraphical
falloftheangelsandtheircausinga greatfloodtocomeupontheearth.

174

D.R.

SCHULTZ

Irenaeus elaboratessubstantially
upon the briefNew Testamenttexts
in
regardingSatan,his thoughton thesubjectappearsquitefragmentary
treatment
foundinthelateJewishpseudepigraphithelightofthelengthier
cal tradition.
Enoch statesthat "the whole earthhas been corruptedthroughthe
worksthatweretaughtbyAzazel (Satan); to himascribeall sin".51Here
describes
Satanis positionedas thehead ofall apostasy.Enoch,moreover,
to
in detailthefalloftheangelswho sworean oathand boundthemselves
This act was done undertheleadershipof Semjaza,
theirown defilement.
to as Satan.52
whois laterreferred
ofmenand begetus children'.
'Come letus choosewivesfromamongthechildren
AndSemjaza,whowastheirleader,saiduntothem:'I fearyewillnotindeedagreeto
ofa greatsin...' Letus swear
do thisdeed,andI aloneshallhaveto paythepenalty
notto abandonthisplanbut
an oath,and all bindourselves
bymutualimprecation
todo thisthing.53

thatresultedamongstmen
Also, Enochelaboratesupon thecorruption
becauseofthisapostasyoftheangels.
and theywere
and theycommitted
And therearosemuchgodlessness,
fornication,
inall theirways.54
ledastray,
andbecamecorrupt

...Jubileeslikewisespeaks of "the watchers(angels),55who had sinned

so as
withthedaughtersof men; forthesehad begunto unitethemselves
1 Enoch10,8.
underthedominance
52 Moreover,
theseangelsor "watchers"
possessedleadership

51

ofwhatappearsas a wholehostofangels.See 1 Enoch6,7-8;8,1-3;69,2-13.However,

thisliterature.
namesthroughout
thedevilpossessesmanydifferent
Satona,Satamail,

Devil, 2 Enoch 40,7; Test. Dan 5,6; - Devil, Apoc. Mos. cc. 16-17; Wisd. Sol.2,24; Beliar, Test. Benj.6,1; Test. Levi 3,3; 18,12; Test. Iss.7,7; Test. Can.5,1; Test. Reub.
6,3; Test. Zeb.9,8; Test. Naph.2,6; Jub.1,20; 15,33; - Belial, CD 4,13-15; 6,9-10; 8,2;
12,2; - Spiritof Darkness, Test.Levi 19; Test.Jos.7,20.
53 1 Enoch 6,2-5. Cf. also, 1 Enoch7,1-2.
54 1 Enoch 8,2-3.

about thecause of evilin theworldwas

literature,
speculation
55 In late Jewish
baseduponthemysterious
legendof angelswhichis foundin theaccountof Genesis
the
becausetheywereoriginally
6,1-4.The Nephilimbecameknownas "watchers"
"Holyangelswhowatch"(1 Enoch20,1)and "whosleepnotaboveintheHeavens"(1
inthe"High,
Enoch39,12-13;40,2;61,12;71,7).Initially,
theywereall good,residing
(2 Baruch56,10-16),and
liberty
Holy,andeternalheaven"(1 Enoch15,3-12),enjoying
to mankind(Jubilees
beneficence
4,15). But at leasttwo hundredof
demonstrating
to 1 Enoch6,6-7,1and 2
these"watcher
upontheearth,according
angels"descended
ofthemythofthedescentofthesonsofGod, seeJ.MorBaruch56,13.For a history
ofPsalm82,HUCA 14(1939)76-114.
TheMythological
Background
genstein,

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

175

to be defiledwith the daughtersof men".56Again, the Testamentof

Naphtali mentionsthat the "watchers... changed the order of their
nature".57So too, Baruch,speakingabout theangels,says "and some of
themdescendedand mingledwiththe women".58Moreover,it is clear
thatthedirectionof sinbeganwithSatan,passed throughtheangels,and
founditsrestingplace amongstmen.
finally
The Lord of spiritsmaytakevengeanceon themfortheirunrighteousness
in becomingsubjecttoSatanandleadingastraythosewhodwellontheearth.59
theworksthatweretaughtby
... and thewholeearthhad beencorrupted
through
Azazel(Satan).60
ofgiantsafflicted,
Theyshallbe evilspirits
upontheearth... andthespirits
oppress,
attack,do battle,andworkdestruction
destroy,
upontheearth.61

The chainofapostasyfromSatan to man,whichappearsin thewritings

of Irenaeus, was firstconceivedin late Jewishspeculation.It is this
traditionwhichis responsibleforIrenaeus'sclaimthatSatan is theringleader of apostasy.It is also thistraditionthathelps clarifyIrenaeus's
thesinofSatan,angels,and men.
thoughtconcerning
"UNLAWFULUNIONS" AND"GIANTS"IN IRENAEUSAND PSEUDEPIGRAPH-

ICALLITERATURE
is achievedthroughan examinationofthemanner
Furtherclarification
in which Satan's apostasy is extendedto mankind.Irenaeus has two
different
descriptionsof the angelsdefilingmankind.One descriptionis
concernedwith"unlawfulunions"62of angels withoffspring
fromthe
daughtersof men. This "unlawfulunion" produces"giants"63upon the
earthwhichcause man's sinfulness;and thesegiants,whichIrenaeuscalls
the "infamousrace of men",64performedfruitlessand wicked deeds.
Such is thethoughtof 1 Enoch.

56 Jub.4,22.

57 Test.Naph.3,5.
58 2 Baruch56,13.
59 1Enoch54,6.
60 1 Enoch10,8.
61 1 Enoch15,10-11.
62

Proof18
Ibid.
64 A.HI.4,36,4(4,58,4).
63

176

D. R. SCHULTZ

Andtheyboregreatgiants... whoconsumed
all theacquisitions
ofmen.65
and
the
women
have
and
borngiants thewholeearthhasthereby
beenfilledwith
...
bloodandunrighteousness.66
ofthewatchers
becausetheyhavewronged
mankind.67
Destroy... thechildren

writerstreatthesubjectof
Thus,bothIrenaeusand pseudepigraphical
and
"unlawful
unions".
"giants"
Evil spiritshaveproceededfromtheirbodiesbecausetheyare bornfrommenand
fromtheholywatchers
as theirbeginning
andprimalorigin:theyshallbe evilspirits
on theearthandevilspirits
shalltheybe called.68

similarstatements
Elsewherein thepseudepigraphical
attest
literature,
to the wickednessof the "giants".Jubileeshas lengthyand numerous
them.
statements
concerning
ofmenbeganto multiply
Anditcameto pass whenthechildren
on thefaceofthe
werebornto them,thatthesonsofGod sawthemon a certain
earthand daughters
thattheywerebeautiful
to lookupon;andtheytookthemselves
yearofthisJubilee,
wivesofall whomtheychose,and theyboreuntothemsonsand theyweregiants.
increased
on theearthandall fleshcorrupted
Andlawlessness
itsway... All ofthem
theirwaysandtheirordersandtheybeganto devoureachother,andlawcorrupted
on theearth... and all thatwereupontheearthhad wrought
lessnessincreased
all
mannerofevil... and againsttheangelswhomhe had sentupontheearth.He was
wrath... and againsttheirsons wentfortha command... thatthey
exceedingly
withthesword.69
shouldbe smitten
ofthesonsofNoah,andto
... theuncleandemonsbeganto leadastraythechildren
them.70
maketoerranddestroy
For I see ... thedemonshavebegun(their)seductions
againstyouand againstyour
71
children.

Althoughit has beenpreviously

proposedthatIrenaeuswas alludingto
thebook ofEnoch,72thequestionremainsas to whatextentIrenaeuswas
tradition.Did the earlyChurch
dependentupon thispseudepigraphical
Fatherhave the book of Enoch or otherpseudepigraphical
textsbefore
65

1 Enoch 7,3-4.
1 Enoch 9,9.
67 1 Enoch 10,15.
68 1 Enoch 15,9.Cf.also,19,1;106,13-17.
66

"9 Jub.5,1-4.
70

Jub.10,1.

71 Jub.7,27. Cf. also, Wisd.Sol. 14,6; Cd.3,3-4,10.

72

N. P. Williams,The Ideas of theFall and of OriginalSin (New York, Longman's

GreenandCo., 1927)190,assertsthat"TheWatcher
storyintheProofoftheApostolic
Observations
Preaching18 is clearlybased on 1 Enoch7,1".Also,B.Hemmerdinger,
surIr6n6e,
VI, JTS17(1966)309makesthesameassertion.
critiques

IRENAEUS AND JEWISHPSEUDEPIGRAPHICALLITERATURE

177

him whenhe wroteabout "unlawfulunions" and the"giants"produced

fromsuchunions?
Neither the Old Testamentnor pseudepigraphicalauthors use the
phrase "unlawfulunions". Moreover,the text fromGenesisdoes not
mentionanything
indicatingthattheunionofangelsand thedaughtersof
menwas unlawful.But thereis no questionthattheauthorofEnochand
apocalypticwritersconsideredtheunion of angelswiththedaughtersas
unlawful.1 Enochconsidersthis"union" one in whichtheangels"commit sin and transgressthe law".73 Likewise accordingto Jubileesthe
unions were those in which the angels (watchers)"sinned with the
daughtersof men".74The reason for these unions being unlawfulin
Jubileesis that"thewatchers(angels)againstthelaw of theirordinances
wenta whoringafterthe daughtersof men".75More preciselydoes the
Testament
of Naphtaliexplainthisunlawfulness
sayingthat"thewatchers
(angels) changed the order of theirnaturewhom the Lord cursed".76
writThat, then,whichbestdescribestheseunionsin pseudepigraphical
is
Irenaeus's
unions".
"unlawful
ings
phrase,
In conjunctionwith"unlawfulunions"Irenaeusstatesthatthe"angels
of thedaughtersof men."This is not
linkedthemselves
withtheoffspring
themannerin whichtheunionis expressedin theOld Testamentbecause
theOld Testamentsaysthat"thesonsof God (angels)tookto wifesuchof
them(thedaughtersof men)as theychose" (Gen. 6,2) and that"thesons
ofGod cameintothedaughtersofmen"(6,4).
However,1 Enochrelateshow the angels"have connectedthemselves
with women",77"and have unitedthemselveswith women".78Again
Jubileessaysthat"these(watchers-angels)
so as
beganto unitethemselves
to be defiledwith the daughtersof men."79Irenaeus's expressionof
of thedaughters"is closer
withthe offspring
"Angelslinkingthemselves
to the wording of the pseudepigraphicalaccounts than to the Old
Testamentexpressions"came into" or "took to wife".It was thepseudIrenaeus.
then,whichseemsto haveinfluenced
epigraphicalexpression,
Irenaeusproceedsto say thatthedaughtersof menbore
Furthermore,
73 1 Enoch106,14.
74 Jub.4,22.
75 Jub.7,21.

76 Test.Naph.3,5.
77 1Enoch19,1.

1 Enoch 106,14.
4,22.
79 Jub.
78

D. R. SCHULTZ

178

to them(angels) sons who on accountof theirexceedinggreatsize were

calledgigantesin theBiblewhichhe read.s0(The LXX translates
nephilimn
in Gen.6,4as gigantes.)His mentioning
"theirexceedinggreatsize",howfromtheLXX translationof
ever,maybe morethana simpleinference
nephilim.Enoch had alreadystatedthat "they(the daughtersof men)
bear great giantswhose heightwas three-thousand
ells".81Elsewhere,
Enoch says thatthroughthisunion they(the daughtersof men) "have
begot childrenby them(angels) and theyshall produce on the earth
giants".82Also Jubileesstatesthat"they(thedaughtersofmen)boreunto
them(angels) sons, and theyweregiants".83The emphasison thegreat
seems to owe more to Enoch than to any other
size of the offspring
source.
1 ENOCHANDIRENAEUSON EVIL TEACHINGS

Accordingto Irenaeusthe othermannerin whichthe angelsbrought

about man's defilement
was throughevil teachings.A singlereference
in
theNew Testamentconcerningthe "Doctrineof Demons"84mightbe a
to theapostateangelsor the"giants"producedfromthe
vaguereference
unionofangelsand men.However,thisNew Testamentpassagedoes not
on theteachingsof
adequatelyaccountforIrenaeus'selaboratetreatment
angels,nordoes theNew Testamentserveas a backgroundto Irenaeus's
whole unifiedtreatment
of "unlawfulunions",productionof "giants",
and evil doctrines.His source for these notions must come froma
witha traditionsimilarto thatfoundmainlyin thefirstbook
familiarity
ofEnoch.It is in thisworkthattheangels"tookuntothemselves
wives"85
... "and beganto go in untothem
... "fromamongthechildrenofmen""86
and to defilethemselves
withwiththem""87
so that"they(wives)became
bore
and
is
herethat"theytaughtthem
It
pregnant they
greatgiants".88
charms
and
the
and
(wives)
enchantments,
cuttingof roots,and made
80 Proofl8.

81 1 Enoch.
c. 23 whereAdamis of enormoussize
7,2. Cf. also, Apoc.Abraham,
whichis either
an allusiontothe"giants"producedbytheapostasyofAzazelormerely
an exaltation
ofAdamfoundalso inotherwritings.
See Scroggs,
op.cit.,15-38.
82 1
Enoch 106, 17.
83
84

85
86
87
88

Jub.,5,2.
1 Tim.4,1.
1 Enoch 7,1.
1 Enoch 6,2.
1 Enoch7,1.
Ibid.

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

179

them acquainted with plants".89Elsewherein 1 Enoch are numerous

passages describingman's defilementthroughthe evil teachingsof
angels,90so that the "doctrineof demons" mentionedin the New
Testamentand Irenaeus'selaborationupon demonicdoctrineshas clarificationfroma previousdevelopedtradition.That traditionappearsin 1
Irenaeuswas able to relate
Enoch,and becausetherewas sucha tradition,
the teachingsof angels withman's sinfulness.Only this background,
whichemphasizesthe evils broughtabout by the teachingsof angels,
could permitIrenaeusto explainthatwickednessbroughtupon theearth
Moreover,the
by theteachingof angelswas propagatedto overflowing.
to theteachingsof theangelsas does
Old Testamentmakesno reference
late Jewishpseudepigraphical
literature,
which,withoutquestion,views
theteachingsas evilteachings.91
By way of comparisonone findsthat Irenaeus enumeratesthose
teachingsas follows: "the virtuesof roots and herbs,and dyeingand
cosmetics,and discoveriesof preciousmaterials,love philtres,hatreds,
amours,passions, constraintsof love, the bonds of witchcraft,
every
sorceryand idolatry,hatefulto God."92
oftheevilteachingsimpartHowever,in 1 Enochanotherenumeration
ed to menis made. This otherlistingcorrespondsquitecloselyto thatof
Irenaeus. Enoch statesthat "the angels taughtthem(the daughtersof
and thecuttingof rootsand made them
men) charmsand enchantments
acquaintedwithplants... and made knownto themmetals(of theearth)
and theart of workingthem,and braceletsand ornamentsand theuse of
of eyelidsand all kindsof costlystones,
antimony,and the beautifying
and all coloringtinctures..." Variousfallenangelsalso "taughtenchantmentsand root cuttings","theresolvingof enchantments",
"astrology",
"constellations",
"knowledgeof theclouds", "signsof theearth","signs
ofthesun","courseofthemoon".93
Fromthe above passage,whichliststheteachingsof angels,and from
Irenaeus'senumeration
oftheangels'evilteachingsappearcharacteristics
Each one oftheteachingslistedbyIrenaeus
peculiarto thetwotraditions.
is similarlyenumerated
and expressedin 1 Enoch.And of thoseteachings
to determinehow the virtuesof roots,dyeing,
listed,it is just as difficult
89

1 Enoch 8,3.

90 1 Enoch8,1-2.3-4; 9,4; 16,3;69,4-12.

91 1 Enoch 9,6; 10,8-9; 13,2; 16,3.
92 Proof. 18. cf.also, 1 Enoch 69,4-12.
93 1 Enoch 7,1-8,4.

180

D. R. SCHULTZ

cosmeticsand discoveriesof preciousmaterialsare teachingsof evil to

thatthecutting
Irenaeusas itis to determine
ofroots,all coloringtinctures,
use ofantimony
and theworking
bracelets,ornaments,
of themetalsof the
earthareevilto theauthorof 1 Enoch.
Moreover,the sequenceof thoughtfoundin Irenaeus,namely,unlawwiththedaughtersof men,
ful unionswherethe angelsunitedthemselves
who bore greatgiants,followedbytheevilteachings
ofangelsis thesame
similar,if not identical,exsequencefoundin 1 Enoch withstrikingly
pression.
IRENAEUS'SPSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL
CAUSEFORTHEDELUGE

Irenaeus fosteredthe notion that these angels and their apostasy

broughtabout thedelugeor weretheonlycause forsuch.94Furthermore,
he statesthat"He (God) justlybroughton thedelugeforthepurposeof
thatmost infamousrace of men".95Yet, Irenaeusis not
extinguishing
consistentin his thoughtabout thepurposeof the delugebecause some
of the fallenangels continuepresentlyto influenceman toward evil
he saysthat"thisclass ofmenhavebeen
ways.In speakingaboutheretics,
instigated
by Satan".96Elsewhere,he explainshow "menweresavedboth
fromthemostwickedspirits,and fromeverysortof apostatepower".97
This was done "bycallingupon Him (God)" at a timeafterthedelugeand
"beforethecomingof ourLord, Christ... and forthisreasondo theJews
At evengreaterlengthsdoes he discuss
evennowputdemonsto flight".98
bythedeviland hisangels.
presentmenwhobecameinfluenced
ofthe
He hastermed
theseangelsofthedevilandchildren
Forthisreason,therefore,
wickedone, who giveheedto thedeviland do his works... butwhentheyhave
andfallenintotransgression,
theyareascribedto theirchief,thedevilapostatized
and afterwards
to others.99
to himwhofirst
becamethecauseofapostasyto himself

It would appear thatIrenaeussees the delugeas "sweepingaway the

rebelliousworld",yetthefallenangelsstillcontinueto exist.But suchinauthorswho
consistencyis also to be noted among pseudepigraphical
men after
continueto keep "demons"and "giants"activelyinfluencing
thetimeofNoah.100
94 A.H.5,29,2
(Ibid.).

95 A.H.4,36,3(4,58,4).
96

A.H.1,21,1
(1,14,1).

A.H. 2,6,2(2,4,6).
98 Ibid.
99 A.H. 4,41,2(468,1).
100ooJubilees7,26-39; 10,1-15. Cf. also, 1 Enoch 89,10.
97

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

181

theideathattheangelsandtheirapostasy
aboutthe
brought
Although
itis explicitly
totheNewTestament,
treated
intheinterdelugeis foreign
literature.101
Jewish
It is a pseudepigraphical
notionwhich
testamental
on man'ssinfulness
servedas a focalpointaroundwhichdiscussions
Severalworkscontain
thisthought
theangelsand
centered.102
concerning
thedeluge.103
Some of the angelsof heaventransgressed
with
... and have unitedthemselves
women ... and theyshall produce on the earth giants ... and thereshall be a great

on theearthand thereshallcomea greatdestruction

overthewhole
punishment
earth,andthereshallbe a deluge...104
also changedtheorderoftheirnature,whomtheLord
In likemannerthewatchers
inhabitants
cursedat theflood,on whoseaccountHe madetheearthwithout
and
fruitless...105

camethefloodupontheearth,namely,
For owingto thesethreethings
owingto the
wenta whoring
wherein
thewatchers
fornication
againstthelaw oftheirordinances
wivesofall whichtheychose: and
afterthedaughters
ofmenand tookthemselves
... and theLord destroyed
ofuncleanness
from
everything
theymadethebeginning
ofthedeedsand becauseofthe
offthefaceoftheearth;becauseofthewickedness
bloodwhichtheyhadshedinthemidstoftheearth,He destroyed
everything
...106

unions"ofangelsandthedaughters
Thisnotionthatthe"unlawful
of
aboutthedelugealsoarguesforIrenaeus's
menbrought
dependence
upon
tradition.
somepseudepigraphical
thedelugefollowsuponthemarriage
ofangels
In theOld Testament
thatthe
of menbutthereis no explicitindication
withthedaughters
thefloodappearsto
becauseofthemarriage.107
Rather,
delugeresulted
relationwhichmighthavesomeimplicit
resultfromman'swickedness
men.
and
ofangels
shiptothemarriage
is mentioned
in
of wickedness
Yet, Irenaeus'scommixture
precisely
relationto the"apostasyof angels"and thisis thecausewhichbrings
world"andthe
aboutthedeluge.Thatdelugesweepsawaythe"rebellious
race
of
men
or
who
could
notbring
"infamous
generation" "infamous
with
forthfruitto God sincetheangelsthatsinnedhad commingled
101

Jubilees7,21-25.

102 See Jubilees

andtheBooksofAdamandEve.
103 F. R. Tennant,
Univ.Press,
TheFall and OriginalSin (Cambridge,
Cambridge
1902)238.Williams,
op.cit.,85.
104 1 Enoch 106,13-16.
105 Test. Naph.3,5.
106 Jubilees7,21-25.
107 See note 50.

182

D. R.SCHULTZ

them".108
and theTestament
Likewisein 1 Enoch,Jubilees,
ofNaphtalithe
floodis due to thefornication
ofthewatchers(apostasyoftheangels)who
begat sons and made thebeginningof all uncleanness.The floodis also
fromoffthefaceof
forthepurposeof destruction,
destroying
everything
the earth,cleansingthe earthof wickedness,and renderingit without
inhabitants
andfruitless.
In thepseudepigraphical
account,theearthcould
not bringforthfruitafterthedeluge,whileinIrenaeus'saccounttheearth
becauseitcouldnotbringforthfruitbeforetheflood.
was destroyed
The sequence of Irenaeus's thoughtand that of pseudepigraphical
authorsconcerningthe delugefollowsupon the marriageof angelsand
men as foundin theOld Testament.Yet, as was said, theOld Testament
does not explicitly
relatetheflood,its causes,and purposeto the "maras
do
Irenaeus
and pseudepigraphical
writers.
Thisexplicitrelationriage"
is
to
these
the
two
traditions
and
most
likelyexplanationis
ship peculiar
thatIrenaeusdependedupon pseudepigraphical
notionsforunderstandingboththeOld and New Testaments.
FUSION

A thirdexplanationof theoriginof sin resultswhenthesetwo themes

are fusedtogether.That is, man's sinfulness,
resultingfromthe fall of
of Satan, is a notionconsequent
Adam and Eve throughtheinstigation
upon thefusingof theparadisenarrativeof Genesis3 and theangelicfall
storyof Genesis6. Thus, the role of Satan and his angelsis combined
withthe Adamic fall fromparadiseto explainthe originof man's sinfulness.
theoriginoftherace and of sinto Adam
Irenaeus,then,has attributed
and Eve.109Many textsrelatesinsolelyto Adam,whilethe"tempter"of
Adam is not mentioned.In othertexts,the sourceof sin is tracedto the
deviland his apostasy.110
in thesetextsthereis no mentionof
Similarly,
Adam or Eve and theapostasyis relatedsolelyto thefalloftheangels.
Elsewhere,Irenaeus offersAdam and Eve as the cause of sin, while
makingtheserpentthetempterin thefallof thefirstparents.The most
obvious portrayalof fusionappearsin Irenaeus'sProofof theApostolic

108
109

A.H.4,36,4 (4,58,4).
A.H.3,20,1 (3,21,1); 3,23,1. 3 (3,32,2. 3,33,2); 4, Pref.,4 (4, Pref.,3); 5,21,2. 3

(ibid.);5,23,1(ibid.);5,24,3-4(ibid.).

110 A.H.
1,27,4 (1,25,2); 4,40,3 (4,66,2); 5,23,1 (ibid.); 5,26,2 (ibid.); 4, Pref.,4 (4,
Pref.,3).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

183

Preaching;"ll wheretheapostateangel(thedevil)firstruinedhimselfand

is placed in the primaryposition in bringingabout Adam's fall. This

happensby meansof theserpent;and it would appear thattheorderof
disobediencein the mind of Irenaeusbegan withthe angel (Satan), extendedto thebeareroftheslander(theserpent),and finallyruinedmanby
makingAdam a sinner,whichseriesof eventsbringsabout the deluge.
Furtherdestruction
resultsupon theearththroughtheapostasyof angels
and their"unlawfulunions".112
Thus resultsthefusionofthetwodistinct
biblicalstoriesof Genesiswhichfurther
associatesIrenaeuswithpseudepigraphicalnotions.Moreover,it is not too muchto say that,in thepassages in Irenaeus now under discussion,one sees thefirsttheologically
consistent
fusion of the storiesin Genesis3 and 6, and the one which
dominatedsubsequentChristiantheology.Adam is createdgood, but is
fallenangel,Satan,who throughhimgainspower
temptedbya previously
overthehumanrace,a powerwhichis brokenonlybyChrist,the"second
defeatsthetempter
and opensthewaytofreedom
Adam",who successfully
and life.Satan, however,is not conceivedof quiteas an evil god, since
Genesis6 allowedhimto be relegatedto theroleofa fallenangel.113
What
Irenaeusneededforthefusionof Genesis3 and 6 was to reversethosetwo
accounts,makingSatan, because of his fall,inducethe fallof humanity
cogent
throughAdam. The fusionin Irenaeusservesas a systematically
statement
of how sinfirstcame intotheworldthroughtheapostateangel
protectsthe goodnessof creationand leads to
(Satan), whichstatement
The main inthe solutionoffered,as Irenaeus saw it, in Christianity.
Irenaeus's
3
6
of
fusion
of
Genesis
and
were
gredients
alreadypresent,
111 Proofl6.
112 Proof18.
113 A very
to Satan'sroleas thatof
interesting
passage,A.H. 1,15,6(1,8,17),attests
thegnostic,
a fallenangel.HereIrenaeusincondemning
Marcus,citesa "divineelder"
to present
readersofIrenaeus.Thiselderdescribes
Marcusas being
whois unknown
thestars"andintheperformance
ofapostateworks.In addition,
"skilledinconsulting
itis Satan"bymeansofAzazel,thatfallenandyetmighty
angel"thatmakesMarcusan
inthiscitation
is oneoftheleaders
contained
authorof"impiousaction".Thethought
in 1 Enoch.However,Azazelusedin relationto Satanwhoseduces
ofthe"watchers"
inthebookofEnoch.ThisfusionofAzazel,oneofthe
AdamandEve isnotcontained
fallenangels,withSatan,the seducerof Adam,is the workof theApocalypse
of
for
thestars"(c. 20) is an acceptedpractice
Abraham
(cc.22-23).Herealso,"consulting
This workis somewhatgnosticaccordingto G.H.Box
one's knowledge.
furthering
muchof theliterature
of thattimehad gnostic
(see p. 178,n. 81), but undoubtedly
about
elements
without
Thus,Irenaeuswas writing
beingclassedas gnosticliterature.
traditionwhenhe citedtheelderwhowas
Satan(Azazel) froma pseudepigraphical
whichsharedgreataffinity
withtheApocalypse
ofAbraham.
usinga tradition

184

D. R. SCHULTZ

wherethe two Genesis

however,in Jewishpseudepigraphical
literature,
fall storieswere reversedso thatthe latterwould be seen to cause the

former.
as previously
oftenrefers
to Satanundervarious
Irenaeus,
mentioned,
titlessuchas "devil","apostateangel",or "serpent".114
In usingthesedifferent
aboutAdam's fall.
titles,he explainsSatan'sroleinbringing
THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE SERPENT IN IRENAEUS AND PSEUDEPI-

GRAPHICALLITERATURE

Satanorthedevilis often
identified
ofthe
withtheserpent
Although

Paradisenarrative,115
Irenaeusinconsistently
makesa distincbutclearly

tionbetween
thesetwofigures
withtheclaimthatSatanis onlycursed
the
curse
Whatappears
tobe
which
isplacedupontheserpent.116
through
a simple
identification
oftheserpent
andSatanis rendered
somewhat
whenIrenaeus
between
theapostasy
complex
placesa causalconnection
ofangelic
andthefallofAdam.Thatis,Irenaeus
maintains
that
powers
theapostate
means
effected
the
of
mankind
disobedience
Satan,
angel,
by
oftheserpent.
Forastheserpent
Eve... theapostate
thedisobedience
effected
beguiled
angelhaving
ofmankind
oftheserpent,
thathehadescaped
notice.117
bymeans
imagined

is thatSatanisunder
WhatmustbenotedinIrenaeus's
some
thought
sortofdisguise
whenhecausesAdamorEvetosin.Thatdisguise
isthe
inthegarden.
serpent
So Godrebuked
theserpent,
whohadbeenthebearer
oftheslander,
andthiscurse
fellupontheanimal
andtheangel,
hidden
within
itself,
Satan,lurking
it.lis

Thusthedevil,hiddenwithin
theserpent,
manbyspeaking
to
tempted
114
Wingren,
op.cit.,44,saysthatthedevil,Satan,and serpentrefertoexactlythe
samereality,
so thatIrenaeususesdifferent
nameswithout
makinganyrealdistinction
between
them.Cf.Fragmenta
is a demon.A.H. 4, pref.,4 (4, pref.,3);
16,theserpent
is an apostateangel.
4,40,3(4,66,2);5,21,2(ibid.);3,23,3(3,33,2);Proof16,theserpent
A.H. 1,27,4(1,25,2);
4 (4,pref.,3); 4,40,3(4,66,2);5,23,1(ibid.);theserpent
is a
4, pref.,

wicked angel. Satan is also identifiedwiththe serpentin some passages, but in others,

Satanhideshimself
in thedisguiseoftheserpent
or usestheserpent
as an instrument
forhisevilwork.Cf. A.H. 4, pref.,4 (4, pref.,3); 5,23,1(ibid.);Proof16. See also,
pp. 24ff.
115 A.H. 1,27,4(1,25,2);4,40,3(4,66,2);3,23,3(3,33,2).
(4,66,2).
116 A.H.4,40,3
117 A.H.4,pref.,
4 (4,pref.,
3). Cf.also,5,21,2(ibid.).
118s

Proofl 6.

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

185

thedevilused to cause
thewoman.Thismakestheserpenttheinstrument
thefallofAdam and Eve.
theinstrumentality
ofthe
he(Satan)ledmanastraythrough
As also inthebeginning,
himself
as itwerefromGod.119
concealing
serpent,

Irenaeus,citingJohn8,44,statesthat"the devilis a liar

Additionally,
fromthebeginning".He thenfurther
explainshowwellpracticedin falsehood is Satan. Irenaeus'sexampleis thatof theparadisenarrativewhen
Satan,"lyingagainsttheLord,temptedman,as thescriptures
saythatthe
serpentsaid to the woman".120Obviously,Satan is usingthe serpentto
of Satan. Thus Irenaeus
speak to Eve and the serpentis the instrument
characterizes
theserpent'sroleas a vesselin thehandsofSatan.
or linked
Nowherein theOld Testamentis thedevil,or Satan,identified
withtheserpentoftheparadisenarrative.This identification
firstappears
in thelate Jewishliterature
fromwhichit is passed on to theNew Testaof Satan and
ment.The New Testamentsimplymakestheidentification
no
the
the serpent,with explanationconcerning instrumentality
of the
Yet one passage mighthave some reference
to Satan's seducserpent.121
tion of Eve, "foreven Satan disguiseshimselfas an angel of light".122
But thistextstandingbyitselfis too vagueto supportIrenaeus'sthought.
It is conceivablethat Irenaeus could have used the New Testament
of Satan with the serpentand then reflectedupon the
identification
paradise narrativeof Genesisto accountfor Satan's seductionof mankind'sfirstparents,butsuchreflection
wouldneithermake Satan an apostate angel nor offerreasons for his fallingbeforeAdam. Irenaeus's
accountof theseductionand his elaborationupon the "instrumentality"
oftheserpentis almostcertainly
derivedfrompseudepigraphical
sources.
the identification
and instrumentality
of the serpentto
Furthermore,
Satan containtheplay oftwodisparatethoughts.One is theroleof Satan
thefalloftheangelsand theotheris theroleofSatan regarding
regarding
the fall of Adam. The two ideas are not completelyreconciledin the
of Irenaeus,but ratherminglein thebackgroundof his thought
writings
whenhe speaksaboutman'ssinfulcondition.
theserpentwithSatan and
The factthatIrenaeussometimesidentifies
of Satan is bestexplainedby
sometimesmakestheserpentan instrument
119 A.H.5,26,2(ibid.).
120 A.H.5,23,1(ibid.).
121 Rev.12,9.
122 S Cor.l11,14.

186

D. R. SCHULTZ

withthe thoughtthatis containedin

Irenaeus'sfamiliarity
maintaining
a recensionof the Books of Adam and Eve, namely,the Apocalypseof
Moses. Chapters15-30 of thisbook give an elaborateaccountof Eve's
fall,describinghow she is seducedbythedevilthroughtheinstrumentalityoftheserpent.Here,also implied,is thereversalofGen.3 and 6.
... Fearnot,onlybemyvesselandI shallspeak
Andthedevilspoketotheserpent
the
hehunghimself
him.Andinstantly
from
wordstodeceive
thymouth
through
intheform
ofanangel... andI (Eve)bent
... thenSatanappeared
wallofparadise
overthewallandsawhimlikean angel.Buthesaidtome ... andI saidtohim... the

andI ate
themouth
oftheserpent
devilanswered
... andI tookofthefruit
through
I hadbeen
withwhich
I knewthatI wasbareoftherighteousness
... andforthwith

clothed... I criedoutinthatveryhour,"Adam,Adam,whereartthou"... whenhe

I persuaded
... andspeedily
andthedevilwasspeaking
cameI openedmymouth
andsaid,"Sincethouhasdonethis
totheserpent
himandheate... Butheturned
vessel
andbecome
a thankless
..."123
Thus itappearslikelythatIrenaeus'ssayingthatSatan used theserpent
thathe imaginedthathe had escaped noticethereby,
as an instrument,
and thathe "lurkedwithin"theserpentis dependenton thefullerrecension as foundin theApocalypseof Moses. In otherwritingsof pseudepand
a transgression
Eve is temptedintocommitting
igraphicalliterature,
the tempteris obviouslyone of thefallenangels.Thus 1 Enochaccuses
Also
Gadreel,one oftheleadersofthewatchers,ofleadingEve astray.124
itis quiteclearin the VitaAdae et Evae thatthedevilis theagentof Eve's
deception.'25The closestparallel,however,is betweenIrenaeusand the
ApocalypseofMoses version.
Thereare further
similarities
betweenIrenaeus'spassageson theseduction of Eve and thatof the Apocalypseof Moses. Thus whenIrenaeus
saysthat"God rebukedtheserpent,thebearerof slander"and that"the
he is probably
cursefellupon the animal and Satan hiddenwithin",126
echoingtheaccountfoundin theApocalypseofMoses,whereGod is said
of Satan
to have cursedthe serpentforhavingservedas theinstrument
the
"vessel"
for
Satan
in
The
term
thankless
Apocalypse
("a
vessel")(26,1).
ofMoses seemsto have beenappliedbyIrenaeusto Adam,who "became
a vesselin (Satan's) possession",sinceSatan heldhim"underhispower"
and thusmadeuse ofhim,127
just as he did oftheserpent.
123

Apoc. Mos. cc. 16-26. Cf. VitaAdae et Evae cc. 12-17.

124 1 Enoch 69,6.

125

VitaAdae et Evae 16,4; 33,2-3. Cf. also, Wisd.Sol. 2,24 and 2 Enoch 31,4-6.

126 Proof16.

127

A.H.3,23,1 (3,32,3).

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

187

The principaldifference
betweenthetwo accountsis thatin Irenaeus's
viewSatan's deceptionconsistedin hishidingwithintheserpent,whilein
the Apocalypseof Moses the deceptionis carriedfurther.
There "Satan
appearedin theformof an angeland sanghymnsliketheangels"to God.
Thus whenEve lookedat theserpent,
shesaw him"likean angel"(17,1f.).
If Irenaeuswas dependentupon theApocalypseofMoses or some related
he appearsto havesimplified
thedeceptionsomewhat.
tradition,
In anycase, it is notfeasibleto imaginethatIrenaeusderivedthecombinationof twodistinctfallstoriesand theinstrumentality
of theserpent
fromthe New Testament.Rather,it is fromthe writingsof late Jewish
pseudepigraphical
speculationthatIrenaeusborrowedand composedhis
so
that
he
could say thatAdam was injuredby theserpentand
thought
thatfromthe beginningthe serpentbecame an instrument
and Adam a
vesselin Satan's possession.128
Also, Satan as theapostateangel,effecting
the disobedienceof mankindby means of the serpentand imagining
"thathe had escapednotice",is obviouslyderivedfrompseudepigraphical
sources.
PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL
CAUSE(ENVY)FORSATAN'S
FALL
IRENAEUS'S
One finalpoint whichassociatesIrenaeuswithlate JewishpseudepigraphicalspeculationsconcernsSatan's reasonforcausingAdam or Eve's
The reason offeredby IrenaeusforSatan's actionagainst
transgression.
mankindis one ofjealousy and envy,maintaining
thatmankindwas led
the
who
had
become
of
the
man. Irenaeusexastrayby
angel
jealous
states
this,and offers
plicitly
pride,thecause ofenvy,as thereasonforthe
serpent'saction.
thedeviland theserpent,it
AlthoughtheNew Testamentalso identifies
fails to offerany reason for Satan's hostilityagainstman. It mightbe
arguedthatthisidea of invidiacame fromthe book of Wisdom,which
states:"But throughthedevil'senvydeathenteredtheworld."129However, Irenaeus adds much more to the simple statementof Wisdom,
maintainingthe reason for Satan's envy to be God's favours130and
workmanship.131
128 A.H.3,23,1(3,32,2).It is interesting
to notethata parallelthought
is contained
in 3 Baruch4,9wherethedevil,outofenvy,deceivedAdamthrough
hisvine.Needless
tosay,thevinewasthereafter
cursed.
129 Wisd.Sol.2,24.Cf.
Tennant,
op.cit.,247.
130 A.H.4,40,3(4,66,2).
131 Proof16.

188

D. R. SCHULTZ

Envy as the cause of the devil's deceptionis the notionclothedin a

foundin theLife of Adam
lengthyaccountby Eve of hertransgression,
and Eve.132In thiseditorialrevisionthe devil enviesthe greatjoy and
luxurythatAdam and Eve wereenjoyingin paradise,a joy and luxury
had butlost.
thatSatan,himself,
previously
The devilspoke: 'O Adam.Allmyhostility,
envy,andsorrowis forthee... andwe
weregrievedwhenwe saw theein suchjoy and luxury
and withguileI cheatedthy
wife.'133

This pseudepigraphical
speculation,then,containsideas whichtendto
clarifywhyIrenaeusand late Jewishwriterscould unitetwo completely
disparatespeculationson the originof sin. That is, the associationof
neededsome rationalbasis. That
Satan's fallwithAdam's transgression
basis became the envyof Satan whichwas firstproposedin late Jewish
speculationand was lateradoptedby Irenaeus.It was
pseudepigraphical
Satan's
because
envyfitsso wellwithIrenaeus'steachingsabout
adopted
renderSatan
thefirstexaltedand gloriousAdam,who would necessarily
somewhatenvious.
However,Irenaeus,withthehelpofPaul (Eph.2,2)placesthedevilover
thefallenangelsand claimsthatthereasonforthedevilcausingAdam's
fallwas one ofenvy:"Likewise,also, thedevil,beingamongthoseangels,
who are placed over the spiritof air ... becomingenviousof man, was
renderedan apostatefromthedivinelaw ... and his(thedevil's)apostasy
was exposedto man ... he (thedevil)sethimselfwithgreaterand greater
in oppositionto man,envyinghis life,and wishingto indetermination
volvehim(man) in his(thedevil's)ownapostatepower."'134
In addition,Irenaeusgivesreasonsforthedevil'senvywhenhe says:
"Man ... beingmisledbytheangel,who becomingjealous ofthemanand
132
andmostclarifying
treatment
VitaAdaeetEvaecc. 12-17.A lengthy
concerning
to
contexts
as wellas itsrelevance
thenotionofenvyinitsGreek,Gnostic,andJewish
is containedin an essayby W.C. vanUnnik,Der Neid in der
theparadisenarrative
nacheinigen
Texten,in: MartinKrause(ed.),Essayson
gnostischen
Paradiesgeschichte
theNag HammadiTextsinHonourofAlexander
Bbhlig(Leiden,E.J.Brill,1972)120Adam'sfallas a resultofenvy,
132.ThisarticleclearlyarguesthatIrenaeusperceived
inParadise
thattheprohibition
therehad beena theory
on thepartofSatan,although
was theresultof God's envy(pp. 125-126).The Books ofAdamand Eve somewhat
withtheclaimthatSatanattributed
envyto God in His prosupportthislattertheory
intheBooksofAdamandEve envyis attributed
elsewhere
hibition
(p. 126).However,
notto God buttotheDevilandserpent
(pp. 128-129).
133
134

Ibid.,16,3-4.

A.H.5,24,4(ibid.).Cf.Eph.2,2.

IRENAEUS AND JEWISH PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL

LITERATURE

189

looking on him withenvy because of man's many favourswhich He

(God) had bestowedon theman,bothruinedhimselfand madetheman a
sinner."135
Some furtherattestationto Satan's envyand cause for such envyis
seen as Irenaeuswrites:"We learnthatthiswas the apostateangel and
the enemybecause he was enviousof God's workmanshipand took in
hand to renderthisworkmanshipan enmitywithGod. He turnedthe
enmityby which(the devil) had designedto make (man) the enemyof
God againstthe authorof it ... sendingit upon the serpent.""36
Here,
as well as in another
again,thedeviland serpentappear to be identified
whichwas in the
passage whichsays: "the pride of reason, therefore,
to
That
was
the
of
reason
was in Satan
is,
serpent
pride
put nought."'37
to theserpentbecauseofthesimpleidentification.
butis hereattributed
Eventhoughthebook of Wisdomfirst
recordsthat"throughthedevil's
thereasonforsuch envyand the
envydeathenteredinto theworld",138
oftheserpent,at thehandsofSatan,are notderivedfrom
instrumentality
thatbook. Rather,the reason forthe devil'senvyas well as the instruof the serpentare notionsfirstwrittenin the Books of Adam
mentality
and Eve. The narrationof VitaAdae et Evae cc. 12-17concernsthedevil's
banishmentfromheaven for refusingto worshipAdam. Afterbanishment,the deviland thosewho werebanishedwithhim "wereovercome
withgrief"whentheysaw Adam "in suchjoy and luxury".139
Thus with
envy and guile, the devil caused Adam and Eve to be expelledfrom
paradise as the devil had previouslybeen expelledfromhis glory.The
"joy and luxury"of thefirstparentsis hereparalleledwiththe"gloryof
thedevil"and his angelsbeforetheirfall.However,thedevil'saccountof
Adam's "joy and luxury"whichis recordedby the pseudepigraphical
authorparallelsIrenaeus's"workmanship
and favours"whichGod had
bestowedupon theman. Theseparallelnotionsare forbothIrenaeusand
the pseudepigraphical
authorthe reason for Satan's envywhichcaused
thedevilto bringaboutAdam's expulsionfromparadise.
CONCLUSION

In thepesudepigraphical
accountof Adam's fallis the combinationof
135 Proof16.
136

A.H.4,40,3 (4,66,2).
A.H.5,21,2(ibid.).
138 Wisd.Sol. 2,24.
139
VitaAdaeet Evae 16,4.
137

190

D. R. SCHULTZ

ideas includingtheinstrumentality
of theserpent,thejealousy of Satan,
and thereasonsforsuchenvy.The Books ofAdam and Eve place all three
as does Irenaeusin hisProofoftheApostolic
ofthesenotionssequentially
Moreover,Irenaeusnot onlyreversedtheorderof Genesis
Preaching.140
3 and 6 and thenfusedhis two accounts,as did theBooks of Adam and
Eve as foundin theApocalypseofMoses and the VitaAdaeet Evae141
(the
latterrecensionless clearlythantheformer),
but he wrotewitha certain
of expression.Such faithfulness
to pseudepigraphical
affinity
expression
and thoughtorderarguesstrongly
forIrenaeus'sdependenceupon sucha
source.
Althoughno one singleexpressionor idea whichhas been examined
givesa completepictureconcerningtheextentof Irenaeus'sdependence
upon pseudepigraphicalliterature,all of those expressionsand ideas
examineddo offera basis fromwhichsome estimationcan be made.
ideas
was dependentupon pseudepigraphical
First,Irenaeus definitely
theOld and New Testaments.Second,he also borrowed
forinterpreting
ideas solely from the pseudepigraphicaltraditionin formulatinghis
is
involvingfirstand secondAdam. Particularly
theoryof recapitulation,
thistrueconcerningsin, its origin,and its effectsin a sinfulhumanity.
traditionwas not froma casual
Third,his use of the pseudepigraphical
rather
an extensiveone whichproved
with
the
tradition
but
acquaintance
an aid to formulating
his theologyin a pseudepigraphical
sequence of
from
in
he
derived
ideas. These ideas werealso expressed termswhich
sources.
pseudepigraphical
Finally,it shouldbe proposed,sinceIrenaeuswas so dependentupon
his
speculationsoutside the Old and New Testamentsin formulating
that
his
ideas
on
the
and
sin,
gnostics
developing
argumentsagainst
possiblyotherearlyChurchFatherswerelikewisedependentupon sources
outsidetheOld and New Testamentsin formulating
theirideas on sin.
Pa 19085,VillanovaUniversity,
Villanova,
DepartmentofReligiousStudies
140
treatsGenesis3 (thefallofAdamand
Irenaeusin Proofsequentially
Although
the
Eve) beforeGenesis6 (thefalloftheAngels),theorderfoundintheOld Testament,
fallofAdaminProofpresupposes
theexistence
ofa deceiver
(Proof12).Thatis,Adam
is "misledbytheangel"whohad previously
"rebelledand fallenaway ... (and) was
ofSatanto thefalloftheangels
calledin HebrewSatan"(Proof16).The relationship
and the "giants"(Proof18) is not treatedin thisbook, but the chainof apostasy
inthe
withSatan,leadingto theangels,andthentoAdamis wellestablished
beginning

teachingsofAdversusHaereses. See pp. 12ff.

141
Apoc. Mas. cc. 16-26; VitaAdae et Evae cc. 12-17.