Christopher Graham: (Mis)Naming God in Second-Century Christian Polemics: Irenaeus and the Tetragrammaton

Gilles Quispel demonstrated the significance of the
Tetragrammaton within texts
associated with early Christianity, especially the texts found in the Nag
Hammadi corpus. Building upon Quispel’s work, scholars continue to explore the
manner in which the writings of Nag Hammadi served as the vehicle by which the
Tetragrammaton retained significance within early Christianity. Many of these
same scholars insist that the writings of Nag Hammadi served as the vehicle that maintained a continuity
with Jewish theology and alignment with the Jewish Scriptures in their concern
for divine naming. When these writings were deemed aberrations
of the true Christian message, however, the use of the Tetragrammaton as a
means to maintain divine ineffability was also lost from Christianity.Studies that develop this narrative about the demise of the Tetragrammaton in Christianity typically use the work of Irenaeus of Lyons as corroborating evidence that he was aware of his opponents' use of the Tetragrammaton. None, however, explore the role of the Tetragrammaton in Irenaeus’s larger polemical strategy. Irenaeus did not reject the Tetragrammaton because of its use and association with his opponents, as some scholars suggest. Instead, he argued
against its misappropriation by his opponents and employed it at least three
times in his own articulation of the Christian message. This paper will explore Irenaeus’s use of the Tetragrammaton in order to elucidate the issues surrounding divine naming that made the Tetragrammaton a contested and volatile subject within the discourse of second-century Christianity.