Vigiliae Christianae 66 (2012) 1-19 brill.nl/vc
Spirit-Christology in Irenaeus: A Closer Look
Marquette University, Department of Theology Milwaukee, WI 53201 USA email@example.com
Our understanding of Irenaeus’ Spirit-Christology has beneﬁted from several noteworthy studies published over the course of the past century. These investigations, however, failed to reach a consensus on whether Irenaeus’ Spirit-Christology jeopardizes his Trinitarian logic. The purpose of this article is to provide a long-overdue reexamination of Irenaeus’ utilization of Spirit-Christology. I argue Spirit-Christology does have a place in Irenaeus’ theology, but that it poses no threat to his Trinitarian logic. I contend that two passages, previously thought to identify the Holy Spirit with the person of Christ, refer to the reception of the Holy Spirit by the believer for his or her redemption. Moreover, I maintain two other passages do not use Spirit language to refer to the person of Christ, but his divinity.
Irenaeus of Lyons, Spirit-Christology, Holy Spirit, Christ, binitarian, trinitarian
Our understanding of Spirit-Christology 1 in Irenaeus has beneﬁted from a series of noteworthy and even groundbreaking studies published over the course of the last hundred years.2 Yet, other than notes by Adelin Rousseau in the editions of Irenaeus oﬀered by Sources Chrétiennes and brief comments by Antonio Orbe in his monumental Teología de San Ireneo, 3 neither of which were meant to be comprehensive statements, it has been more than thirty years since the presence of Spirit-Christology in Irenaeus has been considered. Even more importantly, past investigations have failed to reach a consensus on whether Irenaeus’ Spirit-Christology jeopardizes his Trinitarian logic.
我們對於愛任紐思想中的聖靈基督論得益於在前一個一百年中所發表的，具有突破性的一系列值得我們關注的研究包頭。然而，除了引人注目的，在Sources Chrétiennes編輯的愛任紐中Adelin Rousseau的註釋和Antonio Orbe在他的Teología de San Ireneo中的簡要評論外，在愛任紐思想中的聖靈基督論被注意到的三十多年中，沒有任何綜合性的評論。跟我重要的是，過去的研究都沒有做出愛任紐的聖靈基督論是否危及到他的三一論邏輯的結論。
This state of aﬀairs is due in large part to several signiﬁcant shortcomings of the previous studies: they utilize erroneous methodological presuppositions, neglect to consider central texts in Irenaeus, provide superﬁcial accounts of complex texts, and ignore signiﬁcant points made by other studies. While no one study is guilty of all of these faults, neither does any study escape from all unscathed. The presence of any one of these faults renders an argument less than persuasive; the presence of more than one in an ongoing line of study renders its conclusions suspect at best. As a result, the need to re-evaluate Irenaeus’ utilization of Spirit-Christology has existed for quite some time.
This need, however, has become more urgent in recent days since several studies have shown that a common feature of second-century theological accounts containing binitarian logic 4 is the existence of an angelomorphic 5 pneumatology or Christology in tandem with Spirit-Christology.6 The presence of an angelomorphic pneumatology and Christology in Irenaeus has been proclaimed by several scholars over the years,7 while others have found a Spirit-Christology that identiﬁes the Holy Spirit as the pre-existent Christ.8 As a result, it would appear that aspects of Irenaeus’ thought are also disposed toward a binitarian orientation.
然而，這個需要在近期變得越來越急迫，因為好幾個研究已經表明第二世紀的神學描述具有一種共同的特徵，就是包括一種二元的邏輯，就是存在某種的天使聖靈論或基督論（angelomorphic pneumatology or Christology），伴隨著聖靈基督論。多年來，許多學者宣傳在愛任紐思想中具有某種的天使聖靈論或基督論，同時有另一批學者發現視聖靈為先存之基督的聖靈基督論。這就造成，愛任紐的思想看起來更傾向於雙重的方向。
I do not agree with those who have found angelomorphism in Irenaeus, but this article will not detail that argument.[例如，Robinson, Loofs，與Simonetti都認為愛任紐在某些作品中將聖靈當作先存的基督。讀者可以在這篇研究中找到他們的論點。
The purpose of this present article is to provide a long-overdue reexamination of Irenaeus’ utilization of Spirit-Christology. I will argue that Spirit-Christology does have a place in Irenaeus’ theology, but that it poses no threat to his Trinitarian logic.
In order for Spirit-Christology to jeopardize the Trinitarian logic of his theology Irenaeus must identify the Holy Spirit as the pre-existent Christ. That is to say, in his Christology Irenaeus must identify the Holy Spirit with the Word/Son, or substitute the Holy Spirit for the Word/Son as that which is incarnated. It is not enough to show that Irenaeus describes the Word as Spirit or identiﬁes the divinity of Jesus as Spirit, because the ambiguity of the term ‘Spirit’ means that it is theologically accurate, though perhaps problematic in this particular context, to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Spirit. According to this usage, ‘Spirit’ refers to what God is, the immaterial divine ‘stuﬀ ’ that is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ‘God is Spirit’ according to Jn 4,24. A statement that refers to Jesus as composed of ﬂesh and Spirit, using this idea of Spirit, is orthodox and poses no hindrance to Trinitarian logic. It is the same as saying Jesus is human and divine.
As I mentioned above, however, in the past some have decided that in a few passages Irenaeus does identify the Holy Spirit with the Word as the pre-existent Christ. This determination accords with their classiﬁcation of his thought as binitarian, or at least as possessing a tension between binitarianism and Trinitarianism.10 I believe such readings of Irenaeus are incorrect. While Irenaeus refers to the divine component of Jesus Christ as Spirit, he does so in order to identify the common divine ‘stuﬀ ’ shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is to say, by labeling the divine component of Jesus as Spirit, he is simply stating that Jesus is divine. At no time does he identify the Holy Spirit as the pre-existent Christ, that which is incarnated, or as the Word/Son without reference to the incarnation.11
I will divide my discussion of Irenaeus’ Spirit-Christology into two parts. The ﬁrst will treat passages that have been erroneously labeled as Spirit Christological. 12 Here I will contend that two passages, which have been understood as referring to the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, have been misinterpreted, and in fact should not be regarded as Spirit-Christological at all. The second part of this treatment will consider passages that utilize Spirit language to refer to the divine element of Jesus. Here I will argue that two passages that are Spirit-Christological, insofar as they use Spirit language to refer to the divine component in Jesus, should not be understood as identifying the Spirit with the pre-existent Christ, as has happened in the past.
Two passages require our attention in this section: Against Heresies (AH ) 4.31.2 and Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (Prf ) 97.13 Both make nearly identical statements about the reception of the Holy Spirit by believers in Christ, and both have been misunderstood to refer to the incarnation of the Spirit.14
有兩個段落需要我們注意：反異端（AH)4.31.2和使徒宣道論證（Proof of the Apostolic Preaching）(Prf ) 97。
AH 4.31.2 reads,
Moreover, by their (Lot’s daughters’) words it is signiﬁed that there is no other person who is able to confer the begetting of children on the older and younger synagogues than our father. Now the father of the human race is the Word of God, as Moses made clear by saying, ‘Is not this one your father who has acquired you, and made you, and created you?’ [Dtn 32,6, LXX]. At what time, then, did he pour out upon the human race the life-giving seed, that is, the Spirit of the remission of sins, by whom we are viviﬁed? Was it not at that time when he was eating with human beings, and drinking wine upon the earth? For it is said, ‘The Son of man came eating and drinking’ [Mt 11,19]; and when having laid down, he fell asleep, and took repose. As he says himself in David, ‘I slept and took repose’ [Ps 3,6]. And because He used thus to act while He dwelt and lived among us, he said again, ‘And my sleep became sweet to me’ [Jer 31,26].Now, all (this) was signiﬁed by Lot, because the seed of the father of all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made, was commingled and united with ﬂesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their father living sons for the living God.15
此外，藉著她們（羅德的女兒們）的話，就代表除了我們的父以外，沒有別的人能夠商量如何從舊的和新的會眾中生出兒女來。如今，人類的父就是神的道，正如同摩西明白無誤所說的，「難道這位不是你的父親，他得到了你，塑造了你，又創造了你？」 [Dtn 32,6, LXX]那麼，在那個時候，祂是否在人類身上傾倒下賜生命的種子（the life-giving seed），就是赦免罪的聖靈，點活我們？難道祂在那個時候沒有與人類一同吃飯，並在地上一同飲酒？因為經上說，「人子來，也吃也喝」[Mt 11,19]；當他躺下的時候，他也睡覺並且安眠。如同他自己對在大衛裡面說的，「我睡覺，也安眠」[Ps 3,6]。正是因為祂選擇住在我們中間，並在我們中間生活並行定，祂又說，「我睡著覺得香甜」[Jer 31,26]。這（一切）就是羅得如今的意義，因為萬有之父的種子，神的靈，萬有藉此被造，被相互調和並與肉身聯合，就是，帶著自己的結構，藉著把兩個會眾相互調和並聯合成為一個，也就是，那兩個會眾是從他們的父，活神的活的兒子們所生出的。
With these words Irenaeus provides an allegorical interpretation of the story in Genesis 19 of the impregnation of Lot’s daughters. The phrase of particular interest is ‘the Spirit of God . . . was commingled and united with ﬂesh’, which, as we will see, both Loofs and Simonetti understand to be Spirit-Christological. A proper understanding of this passage, however, depends upon recognizing that the meaning of the ﬁnal sentence of 4.31.2 is determined by its context—an approach that neither Loofs nor Simonetti takes. In order to understand the selection above, then, we must begin in 4.31.1 where Irenaeus ﬁrst discusses the typological signiﬁcance of the ﬁgures in the story of Gen 19.
So then, since this man (Lot) did not know [what he did], and was not a slave to pleasure, the economy [of God] was brought about, by which the two daughters, that is, the two synagogues, from one and the same father gave birth to children, it was revealed, without the pleasure of the ﬂesh. For there was no other person able to give to them a seed of life and [a means] for the bearing of children.16
It is necessary to pay strict regard to the typological referent of each ﬁgure in the story in order to understand Irenaeus’ allegory. Of utmost importance is the recognition that all of 4.31.2 expands upon the allegorical reading of Gen 19 that Irenaeus begins in 4.31.1. This means that the typological referents he establishes in 4.31.1-2 never change during the course of this discussion.17 In 4.31.1, then, Irenaeus begins his interpretation of the story of Lot and his daughters. He writes that only Lot could impart to his two daughters the ‘seed of life’ by which they could give birth to children. In so saying, he establishes the paradigm for the production of children that will govern his interpretation in 4.31.2: the father imparted a ‘life-giving seed’ to his daughters that enabled them to produce children. In this process, the father, the seed, the daughters, and the children are distinct from each other.18 Moreover, Irenaeus provides the ﬁrst typological referent for some of the ﬁgures in the story: the daughters are the two synagogues.19
Having in place the paradigm for the production of children and the identiﬁcation of the two daughters as the two synagogues, Irenaeus unfolds the rest of the text’s meaning in 4.31.2. The ‘father of the human race’ who gave the ‘life-giving seed’ to the ‘older and younger synagogues’ is the Word of God. The ‘life-giving seed’ that the Word, as the father of the human race, ‘[poured] out upon the human race’ is the ‘Spirit of the remission of sins.’ The Spirit of the remission of sins was poured out on the human race at the time of the incarnation of the Word: when he ate, drank, and slept.20
We have now all the typological referents for the ﬁgures in the story of Gen 19 which when placed into the paradigm for the production of children, that Irenaeus established in 4.31.1, piece together his complete allegorical reading. At the time of his incarnation, the Word, as the father of the human race, poured out the Spirit of the remission of sins, the life-giving seed, upon the two synagogues which enabled them to produce children. By the production of children he is referring to the adoption as sons of God, as is indicated by his qualiﬁcation of the Spirit as the ‘Spirit of the remission of sin’. The reception of the Spirit produced a ‘spiritual’ birth, the modulation of temporal life to eternal life.21 Such is Irenaeus’ allegorical interpretation of the story of Lot and his daughters in Gen 19.
The Spirit-Christological readings of this passage depend upon interpretations of the last sentence of 4.31.2 that do not accord with the allegorical interpretation with which it is connected, in eﬀect separating it from its context. 22 Loofs contends that the ‘Spirit of the remission of sins’ cannot be the same as the ‘Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made’.23 This determination permits him to say the Spirit of God is that which was ‘commingled and united to ﬂesh’ in the Incarnation. Loofs supports his reading with two arguments that must be discarded because of their methodological errors. First, he appeals to a Spirit-Christological reading in Tertullian, de carne Christi 18, a text that is immaterial because of its later date. Second, he contends that this interpretation is self-evident if the sentence is allowed to stand on its own, that is, if we do not take into consideration what Irenaeus said earlier in 4.31.1-2. 24 This approach does not demonstrate his reading so much as it permits any reading of the text. Simonetti, on the other hand, claims that the term ‘Spirit of God,’ in and of itself, has a personal and speciﬁc sense, and is here identical to the Word.25 His assertion that the meaning of ‘Spirit of God’ is inherently personal and speciﬁc is, however, baseless. Irenaeus uses ‘Spirit of God’ to refer to both the divine nature and the Holy Spirit.26 As such, context must always be the factor that determines what he means by ‘Spirit of God.’ A contextual reading of this passage directs the reader to identify the ‘Spirit of God, by whom all things are made’ with the ‘Spirit of the remission of sins’ sent by the incarnate Word.
這段話的聖靈基督論解讀取決於如何詮釋4.31.2的最後一句話，就是不根據寓意解經的原則，結果是把它從其他的上下文分離出來。Loofs認為「赦罪的靈」不可能是「創造萬有之神的靈。」這個決定讓他能夠說，神的靈就是在道成肉身中「與肉身相互調和並聯合為一」。Loofs用兩個論點來支持他的解讀，這兩個論點因為方法上的錯誤必須被否定。首先，他訴諸於特土良在de carne Christi（On the flesh of Christ —— 論基督的肉身） 18中的聖靈基督論解讀，那段經文因為其較為後期的日期被認為不是特土良的作品。其次，他認為這個詮釋是不辯自明的，如果我們不考慮愛任紐在4.31.1-2已經說過的話，那麼那段話就是獨樹一格的。這個進路並沒辦法證明他的解讀是正確的。Simonetti在另一方面宣稱「神的靈」本身具有位格和特殊的意義，在此等同於道。他堅稱「神的靈」是一個繼承在位格的，並具有特殊的意義，這種說法是沒有根據的。愛任紐同時使用「神的靈」來指明神性和聖靈。因著這個緣故，上下文往往是用來決定他使用的「神的靈」的意義的因素。這段話的上下文將引導讀者將「創造萬有之神的靈」等同於因著成為肉身之道被差遣的「赦罪的靈」。
In fact, the concluding words of 4.31.2, the portion of this passage that is said to be Spirit-Christological, summarize the interpretation of Gen 19 that Irenaeus just provided. So much is clear from the opening phrase of that lengthy sentence: ‘Now, all (this) was signiﬁed by Lot’. Since they reiterate what has come before, any interpretation of these ﬁnal words that does not conform to the foregoing discussion must be excluded from consideration. From the start, then, we cannot read this passage as Spirit-Christological since the preceding allegory in 4.31.1-2 militates against this reading. Rather than identifying the Word and the Spirit, it diﬀerentiates the two: the father of the human race gave the seed that causes impregnation, the Word poured out the Spirit that produces life.
This a priori determination of the meaning of the last sentence is supported by an examination of the words themselves. The ‘seed of the Father of all’ refers to the Spirit of the remission of sins sent by the Word, the father of the whole human race. He inserts the interjection, ‘that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made’ in order to make sure his readers continue to identify the seed as the Spirit. As earlier in 4.31.1-2, here at the end of 4.31.2 the Spirit is that which was given by the Word to enable the production of children. The seed, the Spirit of God, ‘was commingled and united with ﬂesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their father living sons for the living God.’
It is not necessary to advance a Spirit-Christological interpretation in order to understand what Irenaeus means by the Spirit being ‘commingled and united with ﬂesh’ because he uses this language to refer to the reception of the Spirit sent by Christ to those who believe in him. So, for example, does he write in 5,6,1: ‘when this Spirit commingled (commixtus) with the soul is united (unitur) to the formation, because of the outpouring of the Spirit the human being is rendered spiritual and perfect, and this is he who was made after the image and likeness of God.’27 Therefore, we can say these words do not refer to the incarnation of the Spirit of God, but rather to the reception of the Spirit by both Jews and gentiles, a reception which results in their adoption as ‘living sons for the living God.’ As such, Irenaeus’ thought remains consistent throughout 4.31.1-2: the Word, as the father of the human race, poured out the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the remission of sins, so that both Jews and gentiles may be rendered living sons for the living God.
A striking similarity exists between this passage in 4.31.2 and the selection from Prf 97 that some regard as Spirit-Christological. Irenaeus begins Prf 97 with an aﬃrmation of thanksgiving to ‘God who, through his abundant, inscrutable and unfathomable wisdom, saved us and preached the salvation from heaven, which is the visible advent of our Lord, that is, His human existence.’ This introduction, which eulogizes the wisdom of God, leads to an extended quotation of Bar 3,29-4,1. In this passage God gives the ﬁgure of Wisdom to ‘Jacob, his servant, and to Israel, his beloved.’ We pick up Prf 97 from this point, from the giving of Wisdom to Jacob and Israel, the selection begins with Bar 3,37 and includes Irenaeus’ interpretation of the passage.
‘After which she appeared on earth and conversed with men. This is the book of the commandments of God, and of the law, which is forever. All who keep her [are] unto life; but they who forsake her, will die.’ ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ he calls the Son of God, who received from the Father dominion over our life, and after receiving [it], he ‘brought [her] down’ to us, to those who are far from her, when ‘he 28 appeared on earth and conversed with men’, mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God.
The interpretation of the last lines of this selection from Prf 97 as Spirit-Christological dates back to J. Armitage Robinson’s comments in the introduction to his translation of the Proof. Robinson interprets ‘mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God’ as a reference to the Incarnation, and compares it to AH 4：20,4 29 In 4：20,4 Irenaeus speaks of both the Incarnation and the redemption of humanity:
把從Prf97摘錄的這段話的最後一句的詮釋定位聖靈基督論的做法可以追溯自J. Armitage Robinson在他的Proof的翻譯的介言。Robinson把「將父神的靈與神手的工作相混合並調和」詮釋為道成肉身，並將其比較於AH 4.20.4。在4.20.4中，愛任紐說到道成肉身和人類的救贖：
Now this is his Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, . . . the prophets . . . proclaimed his advent according to the ﬂesh, by which the commingling and communion (commixtio et communio) of God and man was brought about. . . . Causing us to serve him in holiness and righteousness all our days, in order that man, having embraced (complexus)30 the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father.
如今，這就是祂的道，我們的主耶穌基督，祂在時間的終了在人中被造為一個人。。。先知。。。根據肉身宣揚祂的來臨，藉此促成神與人相互調和並交通(commixtio et communio)。。。是的我們能夠在我們的一生中，在聖潔和公義中服侍祂，好叫那些擁抱(complexus)神的靈的人，能夠進入父的榮耀中。
Robinson rightly observes about this passage, ‘the general thought here is that the restoration of man takes place after the pattern of the Incarnation. . . .’31 His full comment is less astute: ‘the general thought here is that the restoration of man takes place after the pattern of the Incarnation—the intermingling of human ﬂesh with the Spirit of God. If the Spirit of God in the Incarnation is thought of primarily as Christ himself, yet there is no sharp distinction drawn between Christ as Spirit and the Spirit that works in believers.’32
This Spirit-Christological reading of 4：20,4 and Prf 97 rests upon assumptions, not a demonstration. Robinson presumes that the ‘Spirit of God’ at the end of 4：20,4 is identical to the Word, but Irenaeus gives no indication that it should be read in this way. We are left to conclude that Robinson identiﬁes the Spirit and the Word just because Irenaeus envisions the union of God and man to occur in a similar way in both the Incarnation and the redemption of human beings. It is better, however, to conclude that Irenaeus envisions a similar process for both because both the incarnation of the Word and the reception of the Spirit by believers involve the bringing together of the same constituent ‘elements’: the union of the divine with the human.33
This interpretation accords with Irenaeus’ clear statements that the redemption of human beings involves the commixture and union of the soul and body of the believer with the Holy Spirit.34 When Irenaeus writes, ‘mixing and blending the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God’, he is referring to the reception by the believer of the Holy Spirit sent by Christ.35 In fact, a quick comparison of the debated portions of AH 4.31.2 and Prf 97 with AH 5,6,1, which I have already quoted above but will repeat here for the sake of convenience, will demonstrate that they contain the exact same sentiments.36
這個詮釋乃是根據愛任紐明確無誤的宣告，就是人類的救贖需要信徒的魂與身體和聖靈的相互混合和聯合。當愛任紐寫到，「將父神的靈與神手的工作相混合並調和，那個人就能夠根據神的形象和樣式」的時候，他只得是信徒接受從基督差遣而來的聖靈。事實上，簡單的背景AH 4.31.2論證的部分和Prf97並AH 5.6.1，就是我前面已經引用的部分，但是我為了方便的緣故會在此再次重複，就能夠證明它們包含了同樣的看法。
the seed of the Father of all, that is, the Spirit of God, by whom all things have been made, was commingled and united (commixtus et unitus est) with ﬂesh, that is, with his own formation, by which commingling and unity (commixtionem et unitatem) the two synagogues, that is, the two congregations, produce from their Father living sons for the living God.
萬有之父的種子，神的靈，萬有藉此被造，被相互調和並與肉身聯合(commixtus et unitus est)，就是，帶著自己的結構，藉著把兩個會眾相互調和並聯合成為一個(commixtionem et unitatem)，也就是，那兩個會眾是從他們的父，活神的活的兒子們所生出的。
after receiving [it], he (the Son of God) ‘brought [her] down’ to us, to those who are far from her, when ‘he appeared on earth and conversed with men’, mixing and blending (խառնեալ եւ զանգեալ) the Spirit of God the Father with the handiwork of God, that man might be according to the image and likeness of God.
在領受[它]之後，祂（神的兒子）「被帶給」我們，給了那些遠離她的人，當「祂顯明在地上並與人對話」的時候，父神的靈與神手的工作混合並調和(խառնեալ եւ զանգեալ) ，好叫人能夠根據神的形象和樣式。
when this Spirit commingled (commixtus) with the soul is united (unitur) to the formation, because of the outpouring of the Spirit the human being is rendered spiritual and perfect, and this is he who was made after the image and likeness of God. 37
Each of these passages discusses the giving of the Spirit to human beings, the reception of which Irenaeus understands to involve a blending and union of the Holy Spirit with the soul and ﬂesh of the believer. The similarity of Prf 97 to Irenaeus’ full discussion in AH 4.31.2 extends even farther. Both refer to the common human activities of Jesus on earth to establish the time at which he gave the Spirit: eating, drinking, and sleeping in 4.31.2, and holding conversations in Prf 97. Therefore, neither Prf 97 nor AH 4.31.2 should be considered to be a statement of Spirit-Christology. These passages can be well understood as references to the reception by the believer of the Holy Spirit sent by Christ for his or her redemption.
The second part of this discussion considers Irenaeus’ utilization of Spirit language to refer to the divine component of Jesus Christ, in other words, to say that Jesus is divine. This type of Spirit-Christology occurs in two places, AH 5,1,2 and Prf 71. In the past, however, some have identiﬁed the references to the Spirit in these texts with the pre-existent Christ. So, for instance, Simonetti states these passages do ‘not indicate the divine nature of Christ, but speciﬁcally his person.’38
這個討論的第二個部分是關於愛任紐使用聖靈的語言指明耶穌基督的神聖部分，換句話說，說到耶穌是神聖的。這種聖靈基督論出現了兩次，AH 5.1.2和Prf 71。然而，有些學者在過去吧這些本文中的靈等同於先存的基督。例如，Simonetti宣稱那些段落「並不是指明耶穌的性質，而是特別指明祂的位格。」
In 5,1,2 Irenaeus is writing against the ‘disciples of Valentinus’ who maintained that Jesus only appeared to be a man so that they could disparage the salvation of the ﬂesh.39 Against this docetic notion of the advent of the Word, he contends:
But vain are those who say he [just] seemed to appear. For these things did not appear, but happened in reality (ὑποστάσει) and truth. Indeed, if he who was not a man appeared to be a man, then neither did he remain what he was in truth, [that is,] Spirit of God, since the Spirit is invisible, nor was any truth in him, for he was not what he appeared to be. 40
Prior to this selection, Irenaeus begins the chapter in 5,1,1 with a strong aﬃrmation of the incarnation of the Word of God: ‘For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, became human . . . Again, we could not have learned in any other way except by seeing our teacher, and by perceiving his voice with our ears.’ A few sentences later he refers to the ‘Word, who is perfect in all things, since [he is] the mighty Word and true man, redeeming us by his blood in accordance with reason, he gave himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity.’ The Word’s advent, then, resulted in his being able to be seen, to be heard, and to shed blood. That is to say, he was truly human, he did not just appear to be so.
Since the above debated words follow in this train of thought, there can be no doubt that Irenaeus considers Jesus to be the incarnation of the Word, not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Thus, having established the true incarnation of the Word in 5,1,1, he begins 5,1,2 by arguing that the claims of his opponents are self-contradictory. If the Word only appeared to be a man, then what was seen must be Spirit, for the Word, as God, is Spirit: Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. Such a statement rests upon an understanding of the Spirit as that which was divine in Jesus: the incarnation of the Word was the union of Spirit and humanity.41 Yet, his opponents claim that the Word was seen despite not being truly human, which is a problem since ‘the Spirit is invisible.’42 If Jesus as Spirit alone can be seen, then Jesus was neither truly human, nor was the Word truly Spirit of God—if they say he was not human, then they are also saying he was not divine.43
因著上述被爭論的話都具有這個思維的方式，毫無疑問的，愛任紐認為耶穌乃是道成為肉身，而不是聖靈成為肉身。所以，在5.1.1中肯定了道真正成為肉身後，他在5.1.2開始駁斥他的對手為自相矛盾。如果道僅僅顯現像人一樣，那麼被看見的必然是聖靈，因為，作為神的道是聖靈：Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ。這樣的宣告需要基於將聖靈理解為在耶穌中神聖的那位：道的成為肉身是聖靈與人類的聯合。然而，他的對手們宣稱道即便不是一個真正的人，仍然被人類看見，因為「聖靈是不可見的（the Spirit is invisible）」，這裡就會產生問題了。若只有作為聖靈的耶穌被看見，那麼耶穌就不是真正的人，道也不是真正神的靈——如果他們說祂不是人，那麼他們也必須說祂不是神聖的。
It is diﬃcult to understand how one can determine, as does Simonetti, that Irenaeus’ reference to the Spirit of God in this text refers not to the ‘divine nature of Christ, but speciﬁcally his person.’ That is, unless the context of the statement has received no attention, as is the case with Simonetti, or if the surrounding discussion is both disregarded and altered, as in Loofs’ study.44
The Spirit language contained in Prf 71 has been a focal point of the Spirit-Christology discussion for over a century. At debate is whether Irenaeus’ use of Lam 4：20 45 entails the identiﬁcation of the ‘Spirit of God’ with the person of the Word incarnate or with his divinity.46 He writes, The Scripture (Lam 4：20) announces that, being Spirit of God, Christ was going to become a passible man, and also, as if astonished and amazed at his passion, that he was going to endure the passion in this way, under whose shadow [it was said] we would live. And it calls his body a ‘shadow’, for just as a shadow derives from a body, so the body of Christ derives from his Spirit. . . . Perhaps he also named the body of Christ a ‘shadow’ as having become a shade for the glory of the Spirit and covering it.
Prf 71中聖靈的語言一直是過去一個世紀聖靈基督論討論的重點。爭議點在於愛任紐使用Lam4：20把「神的靈」等同於帶著神性成為肉身的道之位格。他寫到，聖經（Lam 4:20)宣告，基督作為神的靈將會成為一個有感覺的人，並且，若祂受的苦令人驚訝並驚奇，祂就會用這個方式受苦，好叫我們能夠[如經上說的]在祂的影子下活著。經上稱祂的身體為「影子」，就像影子是從身體來的一樣，所以，基督的身體是從祂的靈來的。。。或許，他也稱基督的身體為一個「影子」，就像擁有聖靈之榮耀的陰影一樣，加以覆蓋。
Though it has not been commented upon in the past, the analogy that Irenaeus deploys to explain Lam 4：20 governs our interpretation of the relationship of the Spirit of God to Christ.47 Irenaeus says the Spirit is the source of the body of Christ in the same way that a body is the source of its shadow. Now, a body is the basis for the existence of its shadow because it is the object that is acted upon when light shines on it, not because it is the subject of the action that produces the shadow. According to this logic, a body is the basis for the existence of its shadow simply because of its prior existence to the shadow. In the same way, the existence of the body of Christ is contingent upon the prior existence of Christ as the Spirit of God. That is to say, the Incarnation of the Word, the production of his human body, is contingent on the pre-existence of the Word as divine Spirit, just as the Father and Holy Spirit exist as Spirit.
Thus, this passage does not result in the personal identiﬁcation of the Word and Spirit of God, nor does it result in the identiﬁcation of the Word as the agent of his own Incarnation, because Irenaeus is not at all speaking of the agency behind the Incarnation. Rather, Irenaeus’ identiﬁcation of Christ as the Spirit of God refers to the divine pre-existence of Christ that is necessary for his Incarnation. Behr’s translation agrees with the logic of the analogy much better than Robinson’s: ‘And it calls his body a “shadow,” for just as a shadow derives from a body, so the body of Christ derives from his Spirit.’48 Therefore, in Prf 71, as in AH 5,1,2, Irenaeus is speaking of the two components of Jesus, his divinity and humanity.49
故此，這段話並不會造成把道的位格等同神的靈的結果，也不會造成把道等同為祂自己成為肉身的中介，因為愛任紐根本沒有論到在道成肉身背後還有另一個中介。反而，愛任紐等同基督為神的靈，值得是基督神聖的先存，這對祂的成為肉身是需要的。Behr的翻譯也符合寓意的邏輯，要比Robinson的翻譯好的多：「經上稱祂的身體為一個“影子”，因為就像影子從身體而來的一樣，基督的身體也是從祂的靈來的。」因此，Prf 71就像AH 5,1,2一樣，愛任紐論到的是耶穌的兩個組成部分，祂的神性和人性。
In contrast to earlier studies, we have found that Spirit-Christology does not occur in AH 4.31.2 or Prf 97 because both passages refer to the reception of the Holy Spirit by the believer for his or her redemption. In addition, while we have found Spirit-Christology to exist in two passages, AH 5,1,2 and Prf 71, the Spirit language in these passages does not refer to the person of Christ but to his divinity. To be precise, Irenaeus never identiﬁes the Holy Spirit with the Word/Son, or substitutes the Holy Spirit for the Word/Son as that which was incarnated. In both of these passages he uses ‘Spirit of God’ to refer to the divine component of Jesus.
相較於早期的研究，我們發現AH 4.31.2 或Prf 97中並沒有聖靈基督論，因為兩段話值得都是信徒為了自己的救贖領受聖靈說的。此外，當我們在AH 5,1,2和Prf 71兩段話中發現聖靈基督論的時候，聖靈的語言並不是指基督的位格，而是祂的神性。更準確的說，愛任紐從未把聖靈等同於道/子過，或用聖靈來替代成為肉身的道/子。他在那兩段話中使用「神的靈」指的是耶穌神聖的組成部分。
Because the Word, as God, is Spirit, then in Jesus, the Word Incarnate, the Spirit was united to humanity—he was divine and human. This, and this alone, is the purport of his Spirit-Christology. Therefore, unlike other Christian writers of the second-century, Irenaeus’ Spirit-Christology does not render him susceptible to binitarian logic.
1- [ Spirit-Christology ‘refers to the use of “spirit” language to designate Christ—whether in reference to his divinity as opposed to his humanity, or as a personal title’ (B. Bucur, ‘The Son of God and the Angelomorphic Holy Spirit: A Rereading of the Shepherd ’s Christology,’ ZNW 98  120-42, here 121 n.7). I am not, here, using ‘Spirit-Christology’ to refer to the action of the Holy Spirit upon and with Jesus in the incarnation prevalent in contemporary discussions of Trinitarian doctrine.
聖靈基督論指的是「在基督身上使用‘聖靈’的語言——也可能是指祂的神性與祂的人性相對，或作為一個位格性的稱謂」 (B. Bucur, ‘The Son of God and the Angelomorphic Holy Spirit: A Rereading of the Shepherd ’s Christology,’ ZNW 98  120-42, here 121 n.7)。我在此不會在當代對三一論教義的討論範疇中，使用「屬靈基督論」當作聖靈在耶穌成為肉身的時候，在祂身上的作為，或與祂的同在。]
2- [ F.R.M. Hitchcock, ‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus and its Light on his Doctrine of the Trinity,’ Herm 14 (1907) 307-37, here 318-20; F.R.M. Hitchcock, ‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus,’ JTS 9 (1908) 284-89, here 287; J.A. Robinson, trans. & ed., St. Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (TCL; London: SPCK, 1920)64-65, 67; F. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien Adversus Marcionem und die Anderen theologischen Quellen bei Irenaeus (TU 46.2; ed. A. von Harnack & C. Schmidt; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich’s Buchhandlung, 1930) esp. 101-13 & 211-57; F.R.M. Hitchcock, ‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source (1QA) and the Ps-Justin De Resurrectione,’ ZNW 36 (1937) 35-60, here 35-38; H.J. Carpenter, ‘The Birth from Holy Spirit and the Virgin in the Old Roman Creed,’ JTS 40 (1939) 31-36, here 33 n.3; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longmans, 1960) 148; A. Rousseau, ed., Irénée de Lyon, Contre les Hérésies 5.1 (SC 152; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969) 202; M. Simonetti, ‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ Aug 12 (1972) 201-32, esp. 214, 220-21; H.-J. Jaschke, Der Heilige Geist im Bekenntnis der Kirche: Eine Studie zur Pneumatologie des Irenäus von Lyon im Ausgang vom altchristlichen Glaubensbekenntnis (MBT 40; Münster: Verlag Aschendorﬀ, 1976) 226-30; A. Orbe, Teología de San Ireneo, Commentario al Libro V del ‘Adversus Haereses’ (BZC, sma 25; Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1985) 1: 107.]
3- [ See the previous note for these bibliographic references.]
4- [ Bucur also oﬀers a good deﬁnition for ‘binitarian’: ‘the term . . . points to a bifurcation of the divinity (as opposed to “unitarian”), while preserving a monotheistic worldview (“binitarian monotheism”, as opposed to “dualism”)’ (‘Rereading Shepherd ’s Christology,’ 121 n.6). A binitarian orientation is not an uncommon feature of this period’s theology; C. Stead notes, ‘the origin and function [of the Holy Spirit] are much less clearly worked out [than that of the Logos], and sometimes He almost disappears behind the Logos, so that historians of doctrine can speak of a “binitarian” tendency in the second century’ (Philosophy in Christian Antiquity [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994] 156). Examples of binitarianism may be found in A. Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
Bucur為這種「二元性（binitarian）」提供了一個很好的定義：「這個詞。。。指向一種對於神性的分歧（相對於「一元性（unitarian）」），同時又保留了一種一神論的世界觀」（「二元的獨一神論（binitarian monotheism）」，與「二元主義」相對） (‘Rereading Shepherd ’s Christology,’ 121 n.6)。一種二元性的方向並不是這個時期神學的特徵；C. Stead注意到，「[聖靈]的起源和功能[相較於道]並沒有更明確的定義，有時候，祂甚至完全消失在道後面，以至於教義史學家能夠說在二世紀有一種「二元性」的張力。」 (Philosophy in Christian Antiquity [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994] 156)。二元主義的例子可以在A. Segal的中找到Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977)。]
5- [ For the meaning of ‘angelomorphic’, C. Fletcher-Louis provides a convenient deﬁnition: the term should be used ‘wherever there are signs that an individual or community possesses speciﬁcally angelic characteristics or status, though for whom identity cannot be reduced to that of an angel’ (Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology [WUNT 2.94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997] 14-15).
C. Fletcher-Louis為「透過天使顯現的（angelomorphic）」提供了一個非常實用的定義：該詞當被用於「只要某個個人或群體擁有任何透過天使顯現的特徵或地位之跡象的地方，雖然對於他們而言，那些特徵不能將他們變為天使」(Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology [WUNT 2.94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997] 14-15)。]
6- [ This connection has been identiﬁed in the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria. See the following articles by B. Bucur, ‘Rereading Shepherd’s Christology,’ 120-42; ‘The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,’ JRel 88 (2008) 190-208; ‘Revisiting Christian Oeyen: ‘The Other Clement’ on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit,’ VigChr 61 (2007) 381-413; as well as my essay, ‘Measuring Justin’s Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and Binitarian Orientation,’ VigChr 63 (2009) 107-37.
這個聯繫已經在黑馬牧人書（Shepherd of Hermas）、殉道者遊斯丁（Justin Martyr）和亞歷山大的革利免（Clement of Alexandria）中被找到。參考以下的論文：B. Bucur, ‘Rereading Shepherd’s Christology,’ 120-42; ‘The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity: Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher,’ JRel 88 (2008) 190-208; ‘Revisiting Christian Oeyen: ‘The Other Clement’ on Father, Son, and the Angelomorphic Spirit,’ VigChr 61 (2007) 381-413; as well as my essay, ‘Measuring Justin’s Approach to the Spirit: Trinitarian Conviction and Binitarian Orientation,’ VigChr 63 (2009) 107-37。]
7- [ The argument for the existence of angelomorphism in Irenaeus was formulated by D.E. Lanne who contended that Irenaeus identiﬁed the Word and Spirit as Cherubim and Seraphim in Proof 10 (‘Cherubim et Seraphim: Essai d’Interprétation du Chapitre X de la Démonstration de Saint Irénée,’ RSR 43  524-35). Lanne’s reading has been followed by J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (trans. & ed. J. Baker, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964) 138-40; G.G. Stroumsa, ‘Le Couple de l’Ange et de l’Esprit: Traditions Juives et Chrétiennes,’ RevBib 88 (1981) 42-61, here 47; and I.M. MacKenzie, Irenaeus’s Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching; A theological commentary and translation (Aldershot [Eng.]: Ashgate, 2002) 98-99.
D.E. Lanne已經整理出愛任紐思想中天使顯現論點的公式，他認為愛任紐在Proof 10中將道和聖靈等同於基路伯和撒拉弗(‘Cherubim et Seraphim: Essai d’Interprétation du Chapitre X de la Démonstration de Saint Irénée,’ RSR 43  524-35)。J. Daniélou接續了Lanne的讀法，The Theology of Jewish Christianity (trans. & ed. J. Baker, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964) 138-40; G.G. Stroumsa, ‘Le Couple de l’Ange et de l’Esprit: Traditions Juives et Chrétiennes,’ RevBib 88 (1981) 42-61, here 47; and I.M. MacKenzie, Irenaeus’s Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching; A theological commentary and translation (Aldershot [Eng.]: Ashgate, 2002) 98-99.]
8- [ For instance, Robinson, Loofs, and Simonetti contend that Irenaeus identiﬁes the Holy Spirit as the pre-existent Christ in certain passages. The reader will ﬁnd references to their arguments throughout this study.]
9- For this argument see my, ‘Re-Evaluating Angelomorphism in Irenaeus: The Case of Proof 10,’ JTS 61 (2010) 583-95.
關於這個論點，參考我的‘Re-Evaluating Angelomorphism in Irenaeus: The Case of Proof 10,’ JTS 61 (2010) 583-95。]
10- [ Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 346; Simonetti, ‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 231.]
11- [ In this determination H.-J. Jaschke, who argued against Loofs’ Spirit-Christological reading, has preceded me (Der Heilige Geist, 226-30). Yet, Jaschke addresses only a few of the germane texts, and does not provide a detailed analysis of those he does address. Long ago, Hitchcock did provide a brief examination of many of the texts to which Loofs appeals (‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 35-38), but he does not refer to some of the texts that have received more recent attention by Simonetti (‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214, 220-21). Simonetti, in fact, either overlooks or ignores Hitchcock, and is himself overlooked or ignored by Jaschke.
在這個定論中，H.-J. Jaschke在哦我之前就反對Loof的聖靈基督論的讀法 (Der Heilige Geist, 226-30)。然而，Jaschke之提到了少數相關的本文，並沒有提供那些他提到的經文的詳細分析。Hitchcock在許久前就提供了一個關於許多Loof訴諸之經文的簡要分析(‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 35-38)，但是仍沒有觸及某些最近引起Simonetti注意的經文(‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214, 220-21)。事實上，Simonetti既沒有誇大，也沒有忽視Hitchcock，是他自己誇大或忽視了Jaschke。]
12- [ I will not take the time to address the passages that Loofs alters, by subtraction or addition, in order to render them Spirit-Christological. For these passages, see Hitchcock, ‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 35-38.
我不會花時間論述Loof所提到的段落，他以加加減減的方式，為的是把它們當作聖靈基督論的。關於那些段落，參考Hitchcock, ‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 35-38。]
13- [ In addition to these passages, there has been a persistent tendency to view AH 5,1,3 as Spirit-Christological. Both Loofs (Theophilus von Antiochien, 240 n.1) and Simonetti (‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214, 220-21) base their convictions on the sentence, ‘the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having been united with the ancient substance of the formation of Adam rendered man living and perfect’. Loofs holds that ‘the Word of the Father’ is an interpolation, while Simonetti argues that ‘the Word of the Father’ and ‘the Spirit of God’ stand in parallel. Both opinions have the eﬀect of identifying the Holy Spirit with the pre-existent Christ. Hitchcock has already shown Loofs’ reading to be inaccurate, and his comments also apply to Simonetti’s interpretation, though Simonetti appears unaware of them (‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 36-37). I will add one observation to Hitchcock’s well-reasoned analysis. Hitchcock points out that the context of this statement is Irenaeus’ identiﬁcation of the Word and Spirit as the Hands of God to whom the Father is speaking in Gen 1,26. I would like to mention that Irenaeus had already interpreted Gen 1,26 as containing the Father’s discourse with his Hands, both the Word and the Spirit, in 4,pref,4 and 4：20,1—it is a well-established interpretation by 5,1,3. Cf. Orbe, who says 5,1,3 has two possible interpretations: (1) Verbum Patris refers to the person, Spiritus Dei to the divine nature; (2) Verbum Patris refers to the second person, Spiritus Dei to the third (Teología de San Ireneo, 1: 107). Orbe recommends the second reading.
除了那些段落以外，還有一種將AH5.1.3視為聖靈基督論的張力。Loofs (Theophilus von Antiochien, 240 n.1)和Simonetti (‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214, 220-21)根據「父的道和神的靈，與古代構成亞當的實質聯合，使得人成為活的並完美的」這句話作為他們的根據。Loof堅稱「父的道」這句話是後來添加的，同時，Simonetti辯稱「父的道」和「神的靈」是平行的。兩個意見都有效的把聖靈等同與先存的基督。Hitchcock已經表明Loof對愛任紐的閱讀是不准確的，他的評論也能夠被用於Simonetti對愛任紐的詮釋，雖然Simonetii看起來似乎沒有察覺到那些問題(‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 36-37)。我還要為Hitchcock理由充足的分析再加上一個觀察。Hitchcock指出這個宣告的本文乃是愛任紐把道和聖靈視為神的雙手，這是根據父在創世紀1：26的說話。我要在提到一點，就是愛任紐已經把創世紀1：26詮釋為父對其雙手的說話，就是道和聖靈，在4， pref 4 和4.20.1——這是對5.1.3正確並紮實的詮釋。參考Orbe，他說5.1.3有兩種可能的詮釋：（1）Verbum Patris指的是位格，而Spiritus Dei指的是神性；（2）Verbum Patris 指的是第二個位格，Spiritus Dei指的是第三個位格 (Teología de San Ireneo, 1: 107)。Orbe建議採取第二個詮釋。]
14- [ With regard to AH 4.31.2, see: Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 101-13; and Simonetti, ‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 213-14. With regard to Prf 97, see Robinson, Demonstration, 64-65, 67; Carpenter, ‘The Birth from Holy Spirit,’ 33 n.3; and Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 148, referring to Robinson.]
15- [ The last sentence reads: Totum autem signiﬁcabatur per Lot, quoniam semen Patris omnium, hoc est Spiritus Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, commixtus et unitus est carni, hoc est plasmati suo, per quam commixtionem et unitatem duae synagogae, id est duae congregationes, fructiﬁcant ex patre suo ﬁlios vivos vivo Deo.
Greek and Latin quotations of AH are taken from Irénée de Lyon, Contre les Hérésies in 10 volumes (SC; eds. A. Rousseau, et al.; Paris 1965-82). Armenian quotations of AH 4 & 5 are taken from Irenäus, Gegen die Häretiker. ῎Ελεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Buch 4 u. 5 in armenischer Version (Arm. by K. Ter-Mekerttschian; ed. E. TerMinassiantz; TU 35.2; eds. A. Harnack and C. Schmidt; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1910). Translations of AH are mine, unless otherwise noted. Armenian quotations of Prf are taken from Irenaeus, Εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος; The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, with Seven Fragments (PO 12.5; ed. & Eng. trans. K. Ter-Mekerttschian, S.G. Wilson, & Prince Maxe of Saxony; Fr. trans. J. Barthoulot; 1917, repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 1989). Unless otherwise noted, translations of Prf are from St Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching (trans. J. Behr; New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997).]
16- [ Σπέρμα ζωτικὸν καὶ τέκνων ἐπικαρπίαν δυνάμενος δοῦναι αὐταῖς / semen vitale et ﬁliorum fructum posset dare eis; the Armenian has պտղաւորmթիւն ( fructiﬁcationem) for fructum.]
17- [ P. Bacq takes this approach, De l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance selon S. Irénée: unité du livre IV de l’Adversus Haereses (Paris / Namur: Éditions Lethielleux / Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1978) 214-15.]
18- [ The paradigm is a straightforward reference to the physical insemination of a woman by a man in order to produce a child.
19- [ The two synagogues refer to the Jewish and Gentile people-groups. Cf. Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 105; Bacq, De l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance, 214-15.
這兩個會眾值得是猶太人和外邦人組成的群體。參考Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 105; Bacq, De l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance, 214-15。]
20- [ By saying, ‘when having laid down, he fell asleep, and took repose,’ Ireneaus probably means the Spirit was given by the Incarnate Word after his death, as he speaks of the sending of the Spirit elsewhere (e.g., AH 3,17,1-2). Both Loofs (Theophilus von Antiochien, 107) and Bacq (De l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance, 214-15) interpret these words as referring to Jesus’ death.
藉著說，「當他躺下，他睡覺，也安眠，」愛任紐的意思可能是在道死之後所賜下的聖靈，就如同他在別處論到差遣聖靈一樣 (例如： AH 3,17,1-2)。Loof(Theophilus von Antiochien, 107)和Bacq(De l’ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance, 214-15) 都把這些話解釋為耶穌的死。]
21- [ Irenaeus conceives of only one type of life, a biological or physical life that can be either temporal or eternal, he does not envision a physical life given to the body by means of the soul and distinguished by kind from a supernatural life given to the animated body by means of the Holy Spirit. The idea that a distinction can be drawn in Irenaeus’ thought between two types of life, the supernatural and the physical/biological, was a commonplace that still persists in some authors despite the existence of a growing body of scholarship showing the inaccuracy of such a characterization. See: G. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus (trans. R. MacKenzie; Eugene (Oregon): Wipf & Stock, 1959) esp. 14.54 n.36.108.120; J. Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée: lecture des Ecritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique. Une approche trinitaire (Paris: Cerf, 1994) 319-21; J. Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (OECS; eds. G. Clark & A. Louth; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 56 n.76 and 92-97.
愛任紐認為只有一種生命，就是一種生物或物質的生命能夠是暫時的或永遠的，他並沒有看見一種透過魂的方式賜給身體的物質生命，而這種生命與頭蓋骨聖靈的方式賜下驅動身體的屬靈生命不同。關於愛任紐的思想中能夠更區分兩種生命，屬靈的和物質/生物的，仍然是某些學者的共識，即便越來越多的血症表明那種特質是不正確的。參考：G. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus (trans. R. MacKenzie; Eugene (Oregon): Wipf & Stock, 1959) esp. 14.54 n.36.108.120; J. Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée: lecture des Ecritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique. Une approche trinitaire (Paris: Cerf, 1994) 319-21; J. Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (OECS; eds. G. Clark & A. Louth; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 56 n.76 and 92-97.]
22- .[ Loofs believes that the last sentence in 4.31.2 reﬂects the Spirit-Christological theology of the presbyter from whom Irenaeus is borrowing, while the earlier discussion of 4,31,1-2 reﬂects the Logos-Christology of Irenaeus himself (Theophilus von Antiochien, 103-13, esp. 109-10). Jaschke has argued against the logic that undergirds this move by Loofs (Der Heilige Geist, 227-28). Simonetti does not take into consideration this discord.
Loofs相信4.31.2的最後一句話反映出愛任紐所借用的，來自某位長老的聖靈基督論神學，在同時，較早對於4.31.1-2的討論反映愛任紐自己的道—基督論(Theophilus von Antiochien, 103-13, esp. 109-10)。Jaschke反對Loofs的邏輯並加強自己觀點的做法 (Der Heilige Geist, 227-28)。Simonetti並沒有考慮到這種不和諧。]
23- [ According to Irenaeus, however, the Holy Spirit plays a role in both redemption and creation. The Spirit’s role in redemption can be seen, for instance, in AH 3,9,3 & 3,10,3 where the Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ is the uniquely capable agent who mediates the presence of Christ to believers, thereby bringing to believers the requisite knowledge for redemption, the knowledge of the incarnate Word (see my, ‘The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,’ JTS 61  171-93). The Spirit’s role in creation can be seen in his identiﬁcation as one of the Hands of God who formed human beings (e.g., AH 4,pref,4; 4：20,1), and as the Wisdom of God, a title Irenaeus ascribes to the Holy Spirit in order to aﬃrm the harmonious eﬀect of the Spirit’s particular activity in creation (e.g., AH 2,30,9; 4：20,2.4; Prf 5).
然而，根據愛任紐，聖靈在救贖並創造中都具有非常重要的地位。例如，我們可以在AH3.9.3和3.10.3中看見聖靈在救贖中的角色，聖靈在該處中乃是基督的膏油乃是獨一無二的中保，能夠把基督的同在帶給信徒，故此，也把救贖必須的知識和道成肉身的知識帶給信徒 (參考我的‘The Holy Spirit as the Unction of Christ in Irenaeus,’ JTS 61  171-93)。聖靈在創造中的角色可以從他作為神的一只手 (例如, AH 4,pref,4; 4：20,1)，並作為神的智慧，這是愛任紐歸給聖靈的稱謂，為的是肯定聖靈在創造中特殊的活動所產生的和諧效果 (例如, AH 2,30,9; 4：20,2.4; Prf 5)。]
24- [ Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 109-10.]
25- [ Simonetti, ‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 213-14. Simonetti does not argue this point from Irenaeus, but rather asserts it.]
26- [ Irenaeus uses ‘Spirit of God’ to refer to the divine nature in AH 2,30,8: ‘And truly he is the Spirit of God, not in fact an animal Demiurge, otherwise he never would have brought about the spiritual (pl.). If, on the other hand, he is animal, let them tell us by whom the spiritual (pl.) are made.’ This identiﬁcation of God as a spiritual being in 2,30,8 enables him to aﬃrm (against the Gnostics) that one God created all things, both spiritual and material. He uses ‘Spirit of God’ to refer to the Holy Spirit in several diﬀerent contexts, including: (1) AH 3,9,3 and 3,17,1 where the Spirit is the Unction of Christ who anoints Jesus’ humanity and is subsequently sent by Jesus to believers; (2) AH 5,1,3 where the Spirit is one of the Hands of God; and (3) numerous places in AH 5 that highlight the role of the Spirit in redemption (e.g., 5,6,1).
愛任紐在A.H.2.30.8中使用「神的靈」指明神性：「確實，祂是神的靈，事實上並不是一個動物性的造物主（an animal Demiurge），否則祂就不可能產生屬靈的事物（複數）。如果，在另一方面，祂只是一個動物，讓他們告訴我們屬靈的事物是借著什麼被造的。」這種在2.30.8中將神等同於屬靈存有的做法，讓他能夠肯定（以對抗諾斯底主義者）只有一位創造萬有的神，祂即使屬靈的，也是物質的。他在不同的本文中使用「神的靈」以指明聖靈，包括：（1）A.H 3.9.3和A.H. 3.17.1靈在該處是基督的膏油，膏抹基督的人性，接著被耶穌差派來到信徒；（2） AH 5,1,3，聖靈在該處是神的一只手；和（3）AH 5中的好幾處，表明聖靈在救贖中的角色(例如, 5,6,1)。]
27- [ Also in 5,6,1: ‘the perfect human being is the commingling and union (commixtio et adunitio est) of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father, and the admixture (admixtae) of that ﬂesh which was formed after the image of God’; and again in 5,6,1, ‘But the commingling (commixtio) and union (unitio) of all of these (Spirit, soul, and ﬂesh) constitutes the perfect human being.’
並且在5.6.1：「完整的人類村是與領受父之靈的魂的相互調和（commingling）和聯合 (commixtio et adunitio est)並與根據神的形像所塑造的肉身混合(admixtae，英文為admixture) 」；在5.6.1中還有一段，「然而，把那些（靈、魂和肉身）相互調和(commixtio)和聯合為一 (unitio)構成了完整的人。」]
28- [ The Armenian could also be read as ‘she’.]
29- .[ Robinson, Demonstration, 64-65.]
30- [ Robinson suggests the original Greek was συμπλεκόμενος. Demonstration, 64 n.1.
Robinson認為原始的希臘文原文是συμπλεκόμενος. Demonstration, 64 n.1。]
31- [ Demonstration, 64.]
32- [ Ibid., 64-65. This reading was aﬃrmed about a decade later by Carpenter (‘The Birth from Holy Spirit,’ 33 n.3), and then again by Kelly, who follows Robinson (Early Christian Creeds, 148).
Ibid., 64-65。十多年後的Carpenter肯定了這種閱讀 (‘The Birth from Holy Spirit,’ 33 n.3), and then again by Kelly, who follows Robinson (Early Christian Creeds, 148)。]
33- [ This reading enables Irenaeus’ discussion in 4：20,4 to agree with that of 4：20,3, which contains his strongest statement about the eternal distinction of the Spirit, as Wisdom, from the Word, the Son. It makes little sense for Irenaeus to blur the identities of the Word and Spirit in 4：20,4, as Robinson’s reading entails, right after he established their eternal distinction in 4：20,2-3.
34- [ Scholars have long debated whether Irenaeus’ anthropology is trichotomous or dichotomous. All agree that he holds both the body and soul to be parts of the human being, the concern is to determine whether he also includes a human, created spirit, or even if the presence of the Holy Spirit is essential to the human being. I believe that Irenaeus appropriates a dichotomous understanding according to which all human beings consist of a bodyand soul, while ‘perfect’ or ‘spiritual’ human beings have also received the Holy Spirit. A dichotomous reading of Irenaeus dates back at least to E. Klebba’s passionate argument in Die Anthropologie des Hl. Irenaeus (KGS 2.3; Münster, 1894) esp. 164-66. Behr has recently suggested that temporal life is the result of a continual nourishing presence by the Holy Spirit in every human being (Asceticism and Anthropology, esp. 97-100). I, however, read Irenaeus as saying that temporal life comes to human beings by the instrumentality of the Spirit, not its presence.
學者們一直在爭論愛任紐的人論是三元的還是二元的。他們都承認愛任紐認為身體與魂都是人類的部分，爭議點在於決定他是否也把一個被造的靈包括在人裡面，或，甚至聖靈的通知也是人類存有的必須因素。我相信愛任紐是二元的，根據所有的人都是由身體和魂組成的，同時，「完全」和「屬靈」的人也領受了聖靈。愛任紐的二元論閱讀可以追溯至E. Klebba在Die Anthropologie des Hl. Irenaeus (KGS 2.3; Münster, 1894) 激昂的辯證，特別是164-66。Behr近期也建議暫時的生命是每個人了持續不斷藉著聖靈同在而滋養產生的結果(Asceticism and Anthropology, esp. 97-100)。然而，我認為愛任紐說的是，暫時的生命透過靈的指引，而不是祂的同在臨及人類。]
35- [ Rousseau writes, ‘man, considered not in an abstract fashion, but in a concrete and existential fashion, in the free opening of himself to God by which he ﬁnds his supreme completion, “is constituted” of body, of soul and of Holy Spirit’ (SC 406, 350). According to Irenaeus, the individual who possesses a soul and body is ‘animal,’ while the individual who possesses a soul, body, and Spirit is ‘spiritual and perfect’. In this way, the believer possesses the Holy Spirit in a manner that is analogous to, but not the same as, the possession of the body and soul. By deﬁning the ‘spiritual and perfect’ person as one who has received the addition of the Spirit, Irenaeus is combating the Gnostic suggestion that a spiritual person is one who sheds the ﬂesh and soul, becoming only Spirit (see AH 2,29,1). The simple reception of the Holy Spirit, however, does not fully explain what Irenaeus means by the term ‘perfect’. His idea of ‘perfection’ also includes (a) the process by which the believer increasingly conforms to the character of God at this present time by means of the presence of the Spirit and the concomitant reception of grace, and (b) the ﬁnal state of being at which the human being approximates the uncreated One by possessing eternal existence inasmuch as it is possible for a created being, and so, as eternal, is ‘like’ God.
Rousseau 寫到，「人，並不能被認為是一種抽象的軀殼，而是一個真實並存在的存有，當他發現他最終的完全是由身體，魂和聖靈“所組成”的時候，他就會完全向神敞開。 (SC 406, 350)根據愛任紐，擁有魂和身體的個人是‘牲畜’，而又能夠有魂，身體和（聖）靈的人是‘屬靈和完全的’。信徒藉由這個方法能夠在寓意的方式上擁有聖靈，但是不等同於他們擁有身體和魂的方式。藉由定義‘屬靈和完全的’人就是額外領受聖靈的人，愛任紐就能夠對抗諾斯底所認為的，屬靈人乃是一種披上肉身和魂，成為一個（聖）靈 (see AH 2,29,1)。然而，簡單的零售聖靈無法解釋愛任紐所謂的「完全」。他對於「完全」的觀念也包括（a）信徒在今日藉著聖靈的同在和委身於接受恩典，而更為麼摸成神之特性的過程，（b）人類存有在被造的狀態下，藉由盡可能擁有永恆的存有而達到最終盡可能接近非受造的那位的狀態，也就是「像」神。]
36- [ Rousseau also points out that the ‘theological anthropology’ we ﬁnd in Prf 97 is ‘ﬁrmly elaborated’ in AH 5 (SC 406, 350).
Rousseau 也指出我們在Prf 97中看見的「神學的人論」 乃是在AH 5中得到「詳細的說明」(SC 406, 350)。]
37- [ Also in 5,6,1: ‘the perfect human being is the commingling and union (commixtio et adunitio est) of the soul receiving the Spirit of the Father, and the admixture (admixtae) of that ﬂesh which was formed after the image of God’; and again in 5,6,1, ‘But the commingling (commixtio) and union (unitio) of all of these (Spirit, soul, and ﬂesh) constitutes the perfect human being.’
並且在5.6.1：「完全的人類乃是與領受父之靈的魂相互調和並聯合 (commixtio et adunitio est) 的人，並與根據神的形象所塑造之肉身混合」；在5.6.1還有一段話：「（靈，魂和肉身）所有這些部分的相互調和(commixtio)與聯合為一(unitio)構成了完整的人。」]
38- [ Simonetti, ‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214. See also, Robinson, Demonstration, 63-65; Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 240-41.]
39- [ AH 5,1,2: ‘For [ Jesus] would not have been one truly possessing ﬂesh and blood, by which he redeemed us, unless he had summed up in himself the ancient formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth this opinion, in order that they may exclude the ﬂesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned’ (ANF translation).
40- [ Readers should beware of the discordant ANF translation of this passage.
41- [ Cf. Orbe’s similar reading, Teología de San Ireneo, 1: 83-84.]
42- [ The reader should not construe the presence of the article in ἐπεὶ ἀόρατον τὸ Πνεῦμα, to denote the person of the Holy Spirit for two reasons. First, Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ is inarticulate, and τὸ Πνεῦμα refers to it. Second, Irenaeus has just distinguished the Holy Spirit from the incarnate Word in the ﬁnal sentences of 5,1,1, ‘the Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, giving his soul for our souls, and his ﬂesh for our ﬂesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand attaching man to God by his incarnation’ (ANF translation). It seems most likely that Irenaeus intends for the article to identify this Spirit with the previous Spirit: the invisible Spirit is the Spirit, the Spirit of God he has just mentioned.
讀者不需要去分析在 ἐπεὶ ἀόρατον τὸ Πνεῦμα這句話中的介詞，以找出聖靈的位格，原因有二。首先，Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ是個含糊不清的詞，而τὸ Πνεῦμα又指向它。第二，愛任紐剛剛才在5.1.1的最後一句話「主因此藉著祂自己的血救贖了我們，為了我們的魂付出了祂的魂，為了我們的肉身，付出了祂的肉身，並為了神與人的聯合與交通傾倒下父的靈，藉由聖靈把神注入到人裡面，在另一方面藉著祂的成為肉身，把人聯於神」（ANF翻譯）中，把聖靈從成為肉身的道區分出來。看起來最可能的是，愛任紐想要用介詞指明這個靈就是前面的那個靈：不可見的靈是聖靈，就是他剛剛提及的神的靈。]
43- [ Or, as Rousseau determines by grammatical analysis: ‘the expression Πνεῦμα Θεου has nothing to do with the third divine person: it is not a question of the Spirit who is a member of God (genitive possessive), but of the spiritual Reality that is God (genitive explicative)’ (SC 152, 202; author’s emphasis).
或者，就像Rousseau 透過文法分析所斷定的：「Πνεῦμα Θεου這段話與第三個神聖的位格根本沒有關係：作為神的一個成員（從屬所有格）不是問題，問題是作為神（所有格的詮釋）的屬靈實際。」 (SC 152, 202)]
44- [ Loofs, Theophilus von Antiochien, 241. Hitchcock has already taken Loofs to task for his poor methodology (‘Loofs’ Asiatic Source,’ 36).]
45- [ Lam 4：20 in Prf 71: ‘The Spirit of our face is [Christ the Lord]; and how was he taken into their nets, of whom we said, under His shadow we shall live among the nations.’
Lam 4：20 in Prf 71:「我們面前的靈是[主基督]；祂如何進入他們之中呢，論到他們，我們在祂的遮蓋下生活在列國之中。」]
46- [ The interpretation of ‘Spirit of God’ in this passage as referring to the Word dates back to Hitchcock’s statement that this passage contains an ‘apparent identiﬁcation of the Word and Spirit’ (‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus and its Light on his Doctrine of the Trinity,’ 318-20). The very next year he said that when Irenaeus wrote, ‘being Spirit of God, Christ was going to become a passible man,’ he identiﬁes the Spirit with the Word, just as Justin did in 1 Apol 33,6 (‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus,’ 287).
Robinson bases his argument for the personal identiﬁcation of Christ as Spirit in Prf 71 on his determination that Irenaeus uses Lam 4：20 to identify Christ as Spirit in AH 3,10,3.
在這段話中將「神的靈」指向道的詮釋可以追朔到Hitchcock的宣告，就是這段話包含了「一種明顯的道和靈間的相同性。」 (‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus and its Light on his Doctrine of the Trinity,’ 318-20)他在接下來的那年說，當愛任紐寫到「基督作為神的靈成為一個有情感的人」 ，他把靈當作道，就像遊斯丁（Justin）在1 Apol 33.6中所做的一樣(‘The Apostolic Preaching of Irenaeus,’ 287)。Robinson根據他把在Prf 71中的基督視為聖靈的論點，而認定愛任紐在AH3.10.3中使用了Lam4.20來把基督等同於聖靈。
With the identiﬁcation of Christ as Spirit in place from 3,10,3 he translates Քանզի որպէս հոկանի ի մարﬓոյ լինի, այսպէս եւ Քրիստոսի մարﬕնն ի հոգւոյն նորա եղեւ as, ‘For just as a shadow is made by a body, so also Christ’s body was made by his Spirit.’ He then reasons, ‘This is as much to say that the Word of God was the agent of his own Incarnation’ (Demonstration, 63). Thereby, arriving at the personal identiﬁcation of the Word of God as the Spirit of God. In my opinion, however, Irenaeus does not use Lam 4：20 to identify the Word as the Spirit in 3,10,3, but rather to aﬃrm the role of the Spirit, as the Unction of Christ, in making known the incarnate Word, Salvation, to believers (see my, ‘The Holy Spirit in Irenaeus,’ 183-85).
從3.10.3開始，他把基督等同於聖靈，他把Քանզի որպէս հոկանի ի մարﬓոյ լինի, այսպէս եւ Քրիստոսի մարﬕնն ի հոգւոյն նորա եղեւ翻譯為：「就像影子是藉著身體被造的，基督的身體也是藉由祂的靈所造的。」他藉著說到，「這就好像說神的到是祂自己成為肉身的中介一樣」 (Demonstration, 63)。在這個基礎上，他能夠在位格上把神的道等同於神的靈。但是，我認為愛任紐在3.10.3中並沒有使用Lam4.20來把道等同於靈，反而肯定了聖靈作為基督之膏油的角色，使得成為肉身的道，救贖為信徒所知（參考我的‘The Holy Spirit in Irenaeus,’ 183-85）。
A few years prior to Robinson, J. Barthoulot oﬀered the ﬁrst French translation of this passage, ‘Car, comme l’ombre vient du corps, ainsi le corps est venu de son Esprit.’ He then suggested that ‘sans doute’ Irenaeus had in mind the agency of the Holy Spirit in the impregnation of Mary as conveyed in Mt 1,18.20 and Lk 1,35 (Saint Irénée, Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique, [PO 12.5; trans. & ann. J. Barthoulot, ed. J. Tixeront; 1917 / repr. Brepols, 1989] 790 n.4). Because of the logic of Prf 71 the identiﬁcation of the Word and Holy Spirit follows from Barthoulot’s suggestion, though he himself does not go so far as to advance that opinion.
在Robinson幾年前，J. Barthoulot提供了第一份關於這段話的法文翻譯，「Car, comme l’ombre vient du corps, ainsi le corps est venu de son Esprit.」他接著建議，愛任紐腦海中的「sans doute」，指的是馬太1：18-20和路加1：35中聖靈在瑪利亞懷孕過程中中介的角色(Saint Irénée, Démonstration de la Prédication Apostolique, [PO 12.5; trans. & ann. J. Barthoulot, ed. J. Tixeront; 1917 / repr. Brepols, 1989] 790 n.4)。因為Prf 71的邏輯，Barthoulot把道和聖靈等同了，雖然他自己本身並沒有進一步發展那個觀點。
In contrast to earlier identiﬁcations of the Spirit of God with the person of the preexistent Christ, Rousseau supports his interpretation of Irenaeus’ use of Spirit language in that passage by comparing it to Prf 71. Both, then, refer to the ‘spiritual Reality that is God’, rather than the ‘Spirit who is a member of God’ (SC 152, 202). In the same way that he betrays no awareness of Hitchcock’s work on 5,1,3, Simonetti seems unaware of these comments by Rousseau when he identiﬁes the Spirit of God in Prf 71 with the person of the pre-existent Christ (‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214)—a curious state of aﬀairs.
相較於前面講神的靈等同於基督先存的位格，Rousseau以比較Prf 71的方式來支持他對愛任紐在那段話中使用聖靈語言的詮釋。兩者都認為「屬靈的實際是神」，而不是「聖靈是神的一個肢體」(SC 152, 202)。他用同樣的方法，無意識的出賣了Hitchcock對於5.1.3的研究工作，Simonetti看起來在把Prf 71中的神的靈等同為基督先存的位格的時候，並沒有察覺到Rousseau的那些評語(‘Note di cristologia pneumatica,’ 214)——這是一種很奇怪的情況。]
47- [ Robinson deliberately disregards the context of the passage. He writes: ‘Here again we are not concerned with the general argument [of Prf 71], but only with these two statements: Christ was Spirit of god, and Christ’s body was made by his Spirit’ (Demonstration, 63). Conclusions based upon such an ill-conceived method stand little chance of being correct.
Robinson可定否定了該段的上下文。他寫到：「再次，我們並不在乎[Prf 71]的一般性論述，只在意那兩句話：基督是神的靈和基督的身體乃是祂的靈所造」(Demonstration, 63)。這樣用完全無法讓人信服的方法做出的結論根本不可能是正確的。]
48- [ For Robinson’s translation see note 45.]
49- [ This reading gains substantial support from the fact that both J. Smith (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching [ACW 16; trans. & ann. J. Smith; New York: Newman Press, 1952] 202 n.303: ‘Identiﬁcations of Christ with the Holy Spirit are found in early writers . . . but they are eschewed by Irenaeus.’) and J. Behr (On the Apostolic Preaching, 115 n.188) join Rousseau in this interpretation.
這個讀法得到了相當多的支持，事實上J. Smith (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching [ACW 16; trans. & ann. J. Smith; New York: Newman Press, 1952] 202 n.303: ‘Identiﬁcations of Christ with the Holy Spirit are found in early writers . . . but they are eschewed by Irenaeus.’) 和J. Behr (On the Apostolic Preaching, 115 n.188)都採用了Rousseau的翻譯。]