• 1  A. von Harnack, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 6: Die Entstehung des Neuen Te (...)
• 2  Harnack, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, p. 3-5 (The Origin of the New Testament, p. 11-12).
• 3  Harnack, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, p. 4-5, writes: ‘Vom Boden des apostolischen Zeitalt (...)
• 4  Harnack, The Origin of the New Testament, p. 12 (Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments, p. 5).

1In his book on the origin of the New Testament,1 Adolf von Harnack raises some questions that research on this issue should try to answer. Since, at the end of the second century, every Christian group possessed a normative collection of apostolic writings, the Prussian scholar wonders—particularly regarding the Großkirche, which I will call here ‘ecclesiastical Christianity’—why and how this came to happen and, particularly related to this issue, why a normative collection of Scriptures of Israel or a Christian version of them was not enough, or why Christians kept the ancient Scriptures besides the new collection of apostolic writings.2 According to Harnack, these options, so persuasive as they could appear,3 ‘had their strength in forces which lay on the surface’. ‘Still, far down beneath the movements of the time, a more sure preparation was being made for that which was to come, namely the New Testament, than for all the other possibilities. […] Under the surface a new spirit was working from the beginning, and was striving to come to light.’4

• 5  Harnack, Die Entstehung des Neues Testaments, p. 10 (The Origin of the New Testament, p. 15): ‘Das (...)

2However, Harnack did not raise a more radical question, namely, that of the writing itself, assuming that the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, somehow founded on the Old Covenant, was the motive that explained the existence of a collection of Christian writings. If the Old Covenant had its writings, then the New Covenant had to have its own as well. But then the question turns into this one: why did the Old Covenant need written documents? Harnack seems to be satisfied on this matter with the explanation that a covenant, to come into effect, must have some sort of official writings associated with it.5 But, apparently, this is not an argument built on the logic of the history of salvation, although the logic of the Sinai Covenant probably guided Harnack’s reflections on the question.

• 6  Cf. J. C. Ossandón Widow, The Origins of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible. An Analysis of Josephus an (...)
• 7  This is what we have tried to show in the article quoted in the note on the title, p. 235.

3In Harnack’s defence, it should be pointed out that this question was rarely raised in early Christianity. In practice, it was evident that first the Jewish people and then the New Israel needed a written witness to Revelation. As Jesus himself did, the first disciples consciously assumed Israel’s Scriptures as their own. As generally acknowledged, these were undoubtedly authoritative but did not yet constitute an entirely closed entity.6 However, as we have already observed, the fact that, according to those first disciples’ faith, the prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Jesus; that this life was poured out through the Spirit to his disciples as a life-giving, ultimate and permanent presence; and that this living reality was transmitted as a κανών,7 justifies the question: why did early Christians actually need a written testimony to Revelation?

• 8  A. Orbe, ‘Sobre los inicios de la teología. Notas sin importancia’, Estudios eclesiásticos 56, 198 (...)
• 9  ‘Ni San Justino hubiera condensado tanta cristología, a no haber tenido a Trifón por adversario; n (...)

5In an article devoted to outline the origins and first steps of Christian theology, the Spanish Patristic scholar Antonio Orbe argued that the Valentinians were the first Christian stream to build a complete, complex, and homogeneous theological system, which dealt with all doctrinal topics, from God itself to eschatology, considering not only the Scriptures of Israel but also the apostolic writings.8 In response to this spontaneous theology, born out of an inclination to speculation, the first ecclesiastical systematic theology was conditioned by and in opposition to that of its opponents, as we find it attested in the work of Irenaeus.9

• 11  For Tradition in Irenaeus in his anti-Valentinian polemic, see A. Sáez, ‘La tradition d’Irénée et (...)

7These lines belong to the third book of Adversus haereses, whose first part is devoted to defending the four gospels as written normative testimony of the one true and living Gospel. It is known that in this context Irenaeus employs with a new and profound theological density the concept of ‘Tradition’ within the ecclesiastical stream, precisely trying to withstand the Valentinian’s use of the Scriptures, especially of the gospels, and of the concept of ‘Tradition’ itself.11

• 12  An example of disagreement in such a matter is probably the controversy on Easter in the second ce (...)

8Coming to Irenaeus’ lines, we may notice that the two questions raised by the bishop of Lyons highlight the value of the apostolic testimony for the rule of the churches in his own time, but clearly, both cases are not identical. The first one refers to discussions on non-essential matters—de modica aliqua quaestione, says Ireneaus in our passage—, that is, matters that, according to the bishop of Lyons, do not affect the Rule of faith. In this regard, Irenaeus considers the judgment of an apostolic church as normative, either in agreement or in disagreement with other apostolic churches.12 Conversely, the second one seems to focus on the core of faith itself and addresses the issue we are interested in.

• 13  Just as an example, the edition of Sources chrétiennes writes Scripturas—and translates ‘Écritures (...)
• 14  AH III,1,1 offers a similar use of the term: Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cogn (...)

9Irenaeus poses a hypothetical question, namely, ‘what if the apostles had not even left us writings’ (Quid autem si nec apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis). It is disputed if here scripturas means writings or Scriptures.13 The philological argument is not decisive, since the term can acquire both meanings, and so does the underlying Greek word γραφάς. To clarify the point, we need to take the context into account, according to which the term assumes, in my opinion, both meanings, but immediately points to written texts or documents, because the logic of the passage lies in the written nature of the testimonies, although their sacred value is presupposed. Therefore, the term scripturas refers in our passage to writings with a sacred value, that is, written documents that are, for Irenaeus, Scripture.14

• 15  The question does not concern the present or the future, but the past, as shown by the change in t (...)
• 16  I review, precise and deepen the discussion developed before in Canon y autoridad, p. 800-812; see (...)

10As we have just said, the question regarding these apostolic writings is hypothetical. This is supported not only from a philological point of view15 but also by taking Irenaeus’ writings into account. In fact, for the bishop of Lyons, the apostles actually handed down to the churches writings, which, according to him, are not only Scriptures but enjoy a canonical, exclusive status, and therefore play an essential and indispensable role in Christian life. But what is the point of such a question, then? I consider that a suitable explanation should contemplate two levels.16

• 17  Cf. for example AH I,3 and I,8 for the use of the four ecclesiastical gospels among the disciples (...)
• 18  Cf. for example regarding the Marcosians AH I,20,1 and the discussion in A. Sáez, ‘Apócrifos y esc (...)
• 19  With regard to this, A. Orbe, ‘Ideas sobre la tradición en la lucha antignóstica’, Augustinianum 1 (...)

111) The battle on the apostolic writings and, above all, on the four gospels, constitutes the backdrop to Irenaeus’ argumentation here. The Valentinians did actually use these writings to build their theological system, distorting, in Irenaeus’ opinion, the apostolic testimony.17 It is true that Irenaeus also denounces the fact that the Valentinians made use of other writings or traditions which were only of their own, that is, not shared with the ecclesiastical churches.18 But regardless of the authority that these writings could have enjoyed among the Valentinians compared to that of the four gospels,19 and regardless of Irenaeus’ concerns over the confusion that those texts could cause to believers, the interest of the bishop of Lyons here is to eliminate any alleged common ground with his adversaries. In this sense, Irenaeus’ question aims to underline that, although the ecclesiastical Church materially shared the four gospels with the Valentinians, the apostolic testimony could not be reduced to them. Moreover, Irenaeus declares that the ordo traditionis handed down by the apostles to their successors is essential and indispensable in this respect, since it is a public tradition not shared at all with the Valentinians but, quite on the contrary, utterly opposed to and incompatible with theirs. Consequently, despite apparently being shared, the apostolic gospels only receive and keep their value within this ordo traditionis. In this frame, Irenaeus poses, with rhetorical skills, the hypothetical question about the possibility for the churches not to have received any written gospels from the apostles.

• 20  ‘We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gosp (...)
• 21  Cf. C. Guignard, ‘Le Quadruple Évangile chez Irénée’, in: A. Bastit – J. Verheyden (ed.), Irénée d (...)

13a. Firstly, in his presentation of the apostolic mission in AH III,1,1,20 Irenaeus clearly distinguishes two stages. The first one describes the oral transmission21 of the apostolic preaching, whereas the second and later one refers to its putting into writing. Therefore, from the perspective of the bishop of Lyons, there was a moment in the apostolic mission when the apostolic writings played no role. In fact, they did not even exist. Although it could be objected that in this first step, the apostles already had Israel’s Scriptures—and therefore a prophetic written testimony to Revelation—at their disposal, there was, at least in the first stage of the apostolic mission, no written testimony to its fulfilment. In any case, we will see that Irenaeus’ logic in AH III,4,1-2 is valid not only for the apostolic writings, but also for the prophetic Scriptures, so that we may possibly assess this first argument more accurately when considering the other two.

• 22  Cui ordinationi adsentiunt multae gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et (...)
• 23  Hanc fidem qui sine litteris crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt, quantum autem (...)

14b. Secondly, Irenaeus reports in AH III,4,222 the results of the mission among multae gentes barbarorum in his own lifetime, referring probably to peoples who had no written translation of the Scriptures, but also no written language. They have believed in Christ by assenting to the tradition’s ordinatio, so that they have ‘salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink’, and ‘carefully’ preserve veterem traditionem. Irenaeus emphasises the perfection of their taking part in salvation: ‘Those who, without writings, have believed this faith, are barbarians as far as language regards; but as regards doctrine, manner and tenor of life, they are, on account of faith, most wise, and please God, conducting themselves in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom.’23

• 24  For a brief presentation of this fact in the context of the Christian mission in Armenia and other (...)

15Now, taking this fact into account, one question has to be raised: if Irenaeus actually considers the apostolic writings as a normative element for the churches of his time, how can he assess so positively the condition of the Christian barbarian communities? From my point of view, Irenaeus’ positive assessment of the life of these barbarian communities is an exception to the rule, which is explained by two facts. The first, from the perspective of non-literary cultures in Antiquity, is that, although we know that there were ancient peoples that created their written language for the Gospel’s sake—for example, the Armenians24—, the creation of such a language may not have been possible in some instances or at least may be considered as not being an immediate process, which, moreover, could have been proposed, but not imposed. The second is that, under these circumstances, Irenaeus legitimates the situation in the barbarian communities from a theological point of view precisely because, in his opinion, the written apostolic testimony, under ideal conditions, may not have been necessary to sustain the faith of the believers; something that Irenaeus, conversely, could not apply to tradition. These ideal conditions are not the case anymore, but, given the circumstances of the multae gentes barbarorum, Irenaeus assumes a probably temporary solution that reflects in a particular manner the ideal situation. We have to turn to the third argument to understand this last point better.

• 26  Virtus Decalogi indicates its content and the force or strength of the Logos and the Spirit that c (...)
• 27  As Orbe, Teología de san Ireneo, vol. 4, p. 213, points out, not everyone was righteous among Isra (...)
• 28  These two steps must be adequately distinguished. In fact, the first one, that is, the writing dow (...)
• 29  It may seem that Irenaeus necessarily links Covenant to written documents, just as Harnack does (c (...)
• 30  Cf. AH IV,15,1: Itaque lex et disciplina erat illis et prophetia futurorum. Irenaeus focuses on th (...)

18To illustrate this, Irenaeus poses in AH IV,16,3 a comparison between the situation of the Israelites after their life in Egypt and the lives of their forefathers, the patriarchs. He points out that, due to their obedience to God’s economy, ‘the righteous fathers had the virtue of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls’ (virtutem Decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus et animabus suis),26 that is, they loved God, followed the Logos, and abstained from all evil against their neighbours,27 so they needed neither the written Decalogue nor a Covenant to instruct and amend them, nor written prophecies of the future life of Jesus. All this changed after the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt: they had lost there the love of God and the justice towards their neighbours, so He had to make these both manifest to the Israelites, delivering them from Egypt, establishing a Covenant with them and giving them first the written Decalogue as an admonition, and then additional written legislation in order to guide them progressively back to Him.28 This means that for Irenaeus the writing down of the legislation took place, originally, in a context of notorious disobedience and disregard for God on Israel’s part. To overcome human disobedience, God wanted to meet mankind by adapted means, including writing down His commandments.29 Obviously, it must be emphasised that, once Scripture had to be written, it also assumed, besides the corrective factor, the positive aspects of God’s communication to mankind.30

• 31  This similarity is confirmed by the expression virtus traditionis (AH I,10,2: cf. Ireneo de Lyon, (...)

19Coming back to AH III,4,1-2, we may note the resemblances with AH IV,16,3: this last passage states that the patriarchs had God’s Law written in their hearts, so they did not need a Law written in stones; in turn, AH III,4,1-2 points out that the Christian barbarian believers had salvation written in their hearts by assenting to the ordo traditionis,31 so they could be exempted of using, in particular, the written gospels, but also, according to the context, the whole ensemble of Scriptures. This fact shows that, although Irenaeus’ passages are focused on some documents in particular—the Law in AH IV,16,3 and the written gospels in AH III,4,1—, his argument is plausibly valid for the written witnesses to Revelation—that is, for the Scriptures—in their entirety. This parallelism is reinforced by the fact that both passages testify to a connection between three elements: the obedience of the patriarchs or Christian believers, God’s justice or salvation written in their hearts, and the dispensable character of divine written documents.

• 32  This is clear in AH IV,16,3, but not so manifest in AH III,4,1-2. Nevertheless, we have to note th (...)
• 33  Cf. A. Orbe, Antropología de san Ireneo (Biblioteca de autores cristianos 286), Madrid, Editorial (...)
• 34  This also explains the relevance for Irenaeus of the concept ‘Tradition’. Although in a controvers (...)

20In negative terms, this connection turns into a link between disobedience and putting into writing,32 which suggests that Irenaeus considers that the history of salvation could have developed without any written testimonies, just as he contemplates the possibility of the development of this history had Adam’s sin not occurred.33 The other way round, the need for written texts is linked to the hardness of the heart ultimately caused by sin. This does not prevent him from conferring a central role to the redemption achieved through Jesus’ death on the cross, but it allows him to situate Jesus' passion in the fundamental framework of the salvific economy, that is, the glorification of Adam in the flesh of the Logos incarnate. In the thought of the bishop of Lyons, the transgression of Adam conditioned the circumstances of history and of the incarnation but did not change the object and ultimate destiny of this history. Similarly, the apostolic writings must be set into the broader framework of the transmission of truth or Tradition, where they acquire all their relevance.34 Tradition, to be salvific under the consequences of sin, needs to be also conveyed through written and normative documents. But, at the same time, it can be understood why Irenaeus could point to the theoretical possibility of God manifesting himself with no written documents.

• 35  Regardless of what in modern times is called personal sin. In this sense, it is understandable tha (...)

21This perspective also sheds light on Irenaeus’ passage concerning the barbarian communities, because the perfect obedience attributed by the bishop of Lyons to their members was for him probably another decisive—and in this case subjective—factor to assess their situation positively. It also contributes to explaining the transitory absence of apostolic writings in the first stage of the apostolic mission, because Irenaeus considers as a fact the obedience of the apostles to God’s will and design after Christ’s resurrection. Both cases show the role the Scriptures play within the divine economy, revealing that these would not have been necessary had disobedience not appeared in the history of humanity, nor will they be required once disobedience disappears. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures were for Irenaeus, in a history subjected to the consequences of sin, an unquestionable element of the Christian communities of his time. They came de facto, among other means, per Dei voluntatem—as Irenaeus explicitly declares regarding the apostolic written gospels in AH III,1,1—, to the aid of mankind,35 so that, feeding on Scriptures, the faithful may be led in a suitable way to the perfect friendship with the Logos and the vision of the Father.

• 36  At the same time, this contributes to explaining that Irenaeus assumes that the apostles made use (...)
• 37  Modern anthropology has also tried to prove this using its own approach and methods. After the apo (...)

22For this reason, the similarities observed between the three cases we have considered—patriarchs’ times, apostolic times, barbarian communities—, invite us to conclude that Irenaeus may have regarded the existence without Scriptures of these barbarian churches as a transitory situation that could not last forever, as happened in the first step of the apostolic preaching36 and in times of the righteous patriarchs.37

• 38  Cf. Sáez, Canon y autoridad, p. 591-593.
• 39  See for an analysis E. Norelli, ‘Le statut des textes chrétiens de l’oralité à l’écriture et leur (...)

24Justin seems to sustain on two occasions that the prophecies had to be put into writing.38 In his Dialogue with Trypho 99,3, he affirms in an anti-Marcionite passage39 that the Logos asked where Adam and Abel were, not because he was unaware of it, but to make Adam and Cain aware of their respective sins; and to make Christians able to reach the knowledge of everything after the episode had been put into writing. The apologist shows that prophetic events are relevant for the age of the Church but makes their knowledge conditional on their written character. The same follows from Dial. 131,4, a passage where Justin indicates that God revealed in advance Christ’s mysteries in the battle of Israel against Amalek and ordered to put everything into writing so that the Jewish people could recognise the Messiah.

• 41  Cf. M. Dibelius – H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, Fortress Press, (...)
• 42  Cf. L. T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, New Haven, Doubleday, 2001, p. 167-168 (...)

28In the previous verses (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-7), the author denounces a certain unsound teaching—opposed to the sound one according to the glorious Gospel of God (cf. 1 Tim 1:11)—that has hurt and still can harm the community which the letter was addressed to. Since the author’s adversaries claim to be ‘teachers of the Law’ (νομοδιδάσκαλοι: 1 Tim 1:7), it follows that their doctrine was derived from a false understanding and interpretation of its commandments (1:7), possibly related to their appealing to myths and ascetic observance (cf. 1:3; 4:3).41 In this context, the author of 1 Timothy summarily recalls (cf. 1:8: οἴδαμεν) two hermeneutical principles about the Law. First, the Law is good—cf. Rom 7:12.16. Therefore, he does not criticize the Law but reaffirms its intrinsic value, something he shares with his opponents. But he seems to condemn their use of the Law because he urges them to use it ‘lawfully’, that is, appropriately, according to its true meaning.42 He does not entirely develop what this implies, but adds a second axiom that partially explains the first one: the Law is not addressed to the righteous, but to the lawless and sinners. Since in this context the righteous is the believer who, having received the Gospel and the sound teaching, seeks the ‘love that comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith’ (1 Tim 1:5) as his life goal, it is manifest that ‘Law’ refers here to a written set of commandments considered in their corrective dimension, not in their positive one. For this reason, they are of no use to those who follow God’s Gospel and love their neighbours sincerely, but to those who experience difficulties in following God’s design. Probably those who are spreading false teaching have focused too much on a dimension of the Law that the Gospel has overcome, and the author tries to prevent such a use of God’s prescriptions among his addressees.

• 43 Cf. Sáez, ‘La tradition d’Irénée et l’évangile de Paul’, p. 381-383.
• 44  In this respect, we must add Rom 4:23-25—a passage not mentioned in the article quoted in n. 43: ‘(...)

29From our viewpoint, we distinguish between the testimony of 1 Timothy and that of Paul’s Letters—according to current research—, but we have to take into account that Irenaeus himself did not make such a distinction, so 1 Tim 1:9 was certainly considered by the bishop of Lyons as a good summary of Paul’s understanding of at least an aspect of the Law. Regarding this topic in Paul’s Letters, I have already noted on another occasion43 that the Apostle affirms in two different passages—1 Cor 10:1-11 and Rom 15:4-6—that the written testimony of Scripture—for him, obviously, the Scriptures of Israel—intends to admonish and instruct the Christian community in a context where the faithful risk getting no consolation and losing hope.44 Paul’s statements certainly address a concrete community and fit within a specific context. Besides, he does not make any further considerations in this regard. However, the existence of a general connection between the Scriptures and the weak condition of the believers who are at risk of not keeping faith, hope and charity would fit into the apostle’s mindset.

• 45  For this reason, the Law was not directly given to Moses, but through angels. Cf. H. D. Betz, Gala (...)

31It is needless to insist on the difficulty of this topic, that is, the Law in Paul’s Letters, partially because νόμος can have different meanings throughout the Pauline corpus. The context of the quoted passage is well known. Paul struggles in Galatians with his opponents regarding the compulsory and salvific character of circumcision and other precepts of the Mosaic Law. In chapters 3 and 4, he firmly grounds his argumentative strategy on a contrast between the Promise addressed to Abraham and the Law given to Moses, where the former is placed on a level above the latter.45 The appropriate answer to the Promise is the faith of the believer; to the Law, its fulfilment, and therefore what regards circumcision and any similar precepts is emphasised.

• 46  ‘Paul’s chronology, according to which the Torah was given 430 years after the promise to Abraham, (...)
• 47  Paul emphasises Abraham’s faith, but he presupposes that it is not contrary to the obedience to Go (...)
• 48 Cf. Gal 3:18; Rom 3:21.

32In our passage, Paul states that long before the Sinai Covenant,46 there was another Covenant in force, the one previously ratified by God when he made his Promise to Abraham regarding his seed, Christ.47 Therefore, a direct line connects Abraham to Christ, not coming through the Mosaic Law.48

• 49  Circumcision existed previously, but as a transitory sign of the heritage Abraham was called to re (...)
• 50  It may be objected that Paul uses this same personification of ἡ γραφή in Gal 3:6-9 to say that th (...)

34But here it is essential to specify in what sense the Law was truly an addition to God’s design according to Paul. In my opinion, his statement does not refer immediately to the entire contents of the Mosaic Law. In fact, Rom 2:12-16 clearly affirms that everyone—including the Gentiles—has the Law written in his heart, and, obviously, the Law here doesn’t mean the Mosaic Law, but more precisely the Law of God in accordance with creation. Furthermore, it must be noted that, when Paul states that the Law of Moses is temporarily valid, he does not refer to its entire contents either, because Rom 13:8-10 actually attests to the validity of the Decalogue for the believers in Christ, in the frame of charity, described as the fulfilment of the Law. All this implies that the Law of Moses, being an addition to the Law written in the heart of every human creature, refers, on the one hand, to those precepts not included in the Decalogue;49 on the other hand, to the written character itself of the entire Mosaic Law, Decalogue included. These are precisely the features of the Mosaic Law to be related to the Israelites’ transgressions. And it must be noted that, probably for this reason, Paul affirms in Gal 3:22—ἡ γραφή taken as a personification—that ‘the Scripture shut up all things under sin’ (συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν).50

• 51  In his letter to the Philadelphians, we find a well-known passage where Ignatius of Antioch report (...)

36As a conclusion, after considering the testimonies in this section, we can rest assured that Irenaeus found in 1 Tim 1:9 a precedent for some features of his understanding of the Law. I would further add that also Justin—in the same theological tradition of Irenaeus—and, above all, the conception of the Law reflected in Galatians and Romans in the frame of God’s design may well have been in the foundations of the singular and profound theological elaborations of the bishop of Lyons.51