I am trash-talking Irenaeus book Against Heresy.
When discussing ancient groups such as Gnostics its important to give them credit and not accept a 1-dimensional paper doll version of them, such as what we get from Irenaeus. We have Irenaeus account of Gnosticism, but he does not understand what the Gnostics teach or does not let on what he knows. He describes the symbols without any of their substance. The 'Demiurge' is one of many potential lessons drawn from the text of Genesis, and what it shows is that the Gnostics are not limited by literalism. Iraneaus description is unhelpful. He says its a creature with the head of a lion. Gnostics look at the book of Genesis and co-opt its imagery, and they judge that Chaos preceeds Logos in Greek theory and make a connection between the Deep in Genesis that is formless and void with the Chaos of Egypt and Greece. In Genesis the light and the dark are mixed until the act of creation. Its similar to the Chaos story of the Greeks, but it has a different moral. The Gnostics give Chaos the name Demiurge. They are a school of thought separate from that of Iranaeus.
Irenaeus claim to fame is that he is a disciple of Polycarp who is a disciple of John. Who cares about his teaching lineage? Irenaeus does, because he wants people to think of him as an authority. Irenaeus simply does not mention any of the meaning of Gnostic symbolism, because he is opposing the Gnostics. He is mocking them. He opposes them, and to this day we do not know why for sure (though it seems obvious). Most likely its a sign of a selfish struggle for power. Basically its a bunch of bragging and no account balogney marketing language. Of course he would not have liked the Gnostics if they did not respect his haughty lineage, so he slyly discredited them by repeating their teachings without giving an explanation of what they were talking about.
That's how it seems.
When discussing ancient groups such as Gnostics its important to give them credit and not accept a 1-dimensional paper doll version of them, such as what we get from Irenaeus. We have Irenaeus account of Gnosticism, but he does not understand what the Gnostics teach or does not let on what he knows. He describes the symbols without any of their substance. The 'Demiurge' is one of many potential lessons drawn from the text of Genesis, and what it shows is that the Gnostics are not limited by literalism. Iraneaus description is unhelpful. He says its a creature with the head of a lion. Gnostics look at the book of Genesis and co-opt its imagery, and they judge that Chaos preceeds Logos in Greek theory and make a connection between the Deep in Genesis that is formless and void with the Chaos of Egypt and Greece. In Genesis the light and the dark are mixed until the act of creation. Its similar to the Chaos story of the Greeks, but it has a different moral. The Gnostics give Chaos the name Demiurge. They are a school of thought separate from that of Iranaeus.
Irenaeus claim to fame is that he is a disciple of Polycarp who is a disciple of John. Who cares about his teaching lineage? Irenaeus does, because he wants people to think of him as an authority. Irenaeus simply does not mention any of the meaning of Gnostic symbolism, because he is opposing the Gnostics. He is mocking them. He opposes them, and to this day we do not know why for sure (though it seems obvious). Most likely its a sign of a selfish struggle for power. Basically its a bunch of bragging and no account balogney marketing language. Of course he would not have liked the Gnostics if they did not respect his haughty lineage, so he slyly discredited them by repeating their teachings without giving an explanation of what they were talking about.
That's how it seems.
