Research Bank PhD Thesis Divine simplicity in the theology of Irenaeus Simons, Jonatán C. Simons, Jonatán C. (2021). Divine simplicity in the theology of Irenaeus [PhD Thesis]. Australian Catholic University Institute of Religion and Critical Inquiry https://doi.org/10.26199/acu.8w716 This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International DIVINE SIMPLICITY IN THE THEOLOGY OF IRENAEUS Submitted by Jonatán C. Simons MA and MDiv A thesis submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Religion and Critical Inquiry Faculty of the Theology and Philosophy Australian Catholic University 2020 Declaration or Statement of Authorship and Sources This thesis contains no material that has been extracted in whole in or part from a thesis that I have submitted towards the award of any other degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. Statement of Appreciation or Dedication First, I want to thank Australian Catholic University for granting me the Postgraduate Award which funded my studies. I also want to thank the members of the Institute of Religion and Critical Inquiry in Melbourne, especially the members of the Modes of Knowing Research team: Dr. Sarah Gador-Whyte, Dr. Michael Hanaghan, Dr. Dawn LaValle Norman, and Dr. Jonathan Zecher.They answered questions, helped with translations, and treated me as a colleague and a friend. I also want to thank Dr. Jonathan Zecher and Dr. Ben Edsall for their helpful feedback at the candidature milestone seminars. Second, I want to thank my advisory team Dr. Lewis Ayres, Dr. Michael Champion, and Dr. Matthew Crawford. Lewis took a chance on me, and he was right, ACU was the best place for me. Thank you for providing calming clarity while walking, talking and shopping. Michael talked me out of bad ideas, taught me to be less unfair to history, and he read meticulously. Thank you for your patient teaching. Matt asked the hard questions, gave advice that saved me months of work, and simplified problems to make them manageable. Thank you for your encouragement. This entire thesis intertwines innumerable conversations with all of you, so sufficient acknowledgement of your work is impossible. As the lingering problems of this thesis demonstrate, I stubbornly hold to some bad thinking and writing habits, but I am so grateful for your patient guidance. Also, thank you for exemplifying the balance between being a spouse, parent, and scholar. This experience was better than I could have imagined. Lastly, I am grateful to my dad, for teaching me to hound a question until it became many questions, and a mi mamá, por sacrificar tanto y por enseñarme como hacer algo, pero bien hecho. I am especially grateful to my best friends, Teresa, Norah, Caedmon, and Lina. You made the early drafts of this thesis useful by turning its pages into colouring pages and paper airplanes, you made daily pressures seem insignificant by asking if I saw anything special on the way home, and you personify what it means to be a theologian. It has been a pleasure to see the world with you. You have, consistently, been the best part of my day. Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Irenaeus’s Mobility and Correspondence .................................................................. 3 2. Irenaeus’s Usage of Sources ...................................................................................... 8 3. Dissertation Structure .............................................................................................. 13 PART 1: Divine Simplicity in haer. 2.13 ....................................................................... 15 Chapter 1: Theological Claims in Book 2 of Against Heresies......................................... 15 1. Beyond “purely negative polemic”: Theological Claims in Books 1-2 .................. 16 2. The Rule of Truth (haer. 1.10 and 1.22) ................................................................. 18 3. The One God is Creator (haer. 2.1-2) ..................................................................... 22 4. God is Simple (haer. 2.12-13) ................................................................................. 29 5. God is Revealed in the Harmony of Scripture (haer. 2.25-28) ............................... 34 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 43 Chapter 2: Definition and Explanation of Divine Simplicity in haer. 2.13 ...................... 45 1. haer. 2.13.3-4a: Irenaeus’s definition of Divine Simplicity .................................... 48 1.1 simplex, non compositus, similimembrius .................................................. 54 1.2 totus ............................................................................................................ 60 2. haer. 2.13.4b-10: Parameters for Language about God .......................................... 67 2.1 Parameter 1: The Creator/Creature Differentiation ................................... 69 2.2 Parameter 2: God’s Mutually Entailing Names and Powers ..................... 81 3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 87 PART 2: Theological Implications of Divine Simplicity ............................................. 90 Chapter 3: Divine Will for Creation in the Containment Metaphor of haer. 2.1-6 ........... 90 1. Spatial Meaning of “containing, not contained” ..................................................... 92 2. Temporal Meaning of “containing, not contained” ................................................. 94 3. Cognitive Meaning of “containing, not contained” ................................................. 95 4. Providential Meaning of “containing, not contained” ............................................. 97 4.1 God’s Will, Thought, and Act Together .................................................... 99 4.2 Creation Caused by Angels and Powers or by the Will of God ............... 102 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 108 Chapter 4: Divine Generation and a Simple God ............................................................ 109 1. Second-century Descriptions of the Simple God and Divine Generation ............. 110 2. Metaphors for Divine Generation in Irenaeus (haer. 2.17.2) ................................ 116 3. Distinction in a Simple, Uniform, Equal, and Similar Generation ........................ 126 i 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 131 Chapter 5: Divine Activity in the Hands of God Metaphor of haer. 4.20 ....................... 133 1. Scriptural Exegesis for the Hands of God Metaphor ............................................ 134 2. Terminology of Divine Simplicity in the Activity of Father, Son, and Spirit ....... 141 3. Potential Challenges to Other Readings of haer. 4.20 .......................................... 149 3.1 God’s Mutually Entailing Love and Greatness ........................................ 149 3.2 God Creating Without Instruments .......................................................... 154 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 159 Chapter 6: Divine Powers and Divine Titles ................................................................... 161 1. Powers, Names, and Titles of “one and the same” God in haer. 2.35.3-4 ............ 162 2. Mutually Entailing Powers of God in Creation ..................................................... 165 2.1 Will and Power for Creation in haer. 2.30.9 and 4.20 .......................... 167 2.2 Power, Wisdom, and Goodness “displayed together” in haer. 4.38 ........ 172 3. Mutually Entailing Titles and Names of God in Scripture .................................... 177 3.1 Titles of “God” and “Lord” Applied to Father and Son in haer. 3.6.1 . 180 3.2 Title “Christ” and the Divine Activity of Anointing in haer. 3.18.3 .... 185 3.3 The Son’s Name Entails the Father’s Activity in haer. 4.17.6 ............. 189 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 192 Conclusion and Historical Implications .......................................................................... 194 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 201 ii Abstract Scholars have examined early Christian appropriations of the philosophical language of divine simplicity, but there is no extended study focused specifically on Irenaeus, even though he provides the earliest extant Christian explanation of the concept. This thesis argues that Irenaeus develops a rich account of divine simplicity that is intrinsically related to several other more well-known aspects of his thought. This account emerges from a complex appropriation