108 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy
related version of the same text that has come down to modern readers bearing the
same name.^10 However, the evidence base is simply too narrow to determine with any
degree of certainty whether Irenaeus had read this text for himself, or if he only had a
description of its contents mediated to him by others.
The Gospel of Truth
Perhaps the principal group of opponents to whom Irenaeus responds is the Valentin-
ians. As was mentioned briefly in the introduction, the reference to the fourfold gospel
is mentioned directly in contradistinction to the tendency of certain parties to use addi-
tional texts, such as the named Gospel of Truth. Repeatedly, Irenaeus refers to the school
or the followers of Valentinus, and he attributes the Gospel of Truth to disciples who
follow the teachings of Valentinus. In this context he states, “But those who are from
Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own
compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they
have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing
‘the Gospel of Truth,’ though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so
that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy” (Hae r. III.11.9). Here
Irenaeus divulges little knowledge of the actual contents of this document. Instead, he
labels it as being full of blasphemy, and states that it was composed by “those who are
from Valentinus,” rather than it having been written by Valentinus himself.^11 While no
extant text from antiquity is explicitly titled the “Gospel of Truth” in either a prescript
or subscript, the third tractate of codex 1 from Nag Hammadi opens with the words
“The gospel of truth is joy for those who have received from the Father of truth the
grace of knowing him” (NHC I,3: 16.31). Although not directly a title, this is suggestive
of a work that may have been known by such a name. Consequently, this Nag Ham-
madi tractate has been identified as the work to which Irenaeus refers. From this per-
spective, Thomassen argues, “the probability that there existed two independent works,
one entitled ‘The Gospel of Truth’ and the other accidentally beginning with the same
words, and both of them ‘gnostic,’ must be regarded as very slim indeed.”^12
It must, however, be acknowledged that the text from Nag Hammadi does not self-
identify itself as a Valentinian work. Nonetheless, as Attridge and MacRae note, “certain
key themes and perspectives characteristic of Valentinian theology, such as the principle
that knowledge of the Father destroys ignorance (18.10-11; 24.30-32), are emphasized.”^13
The cosmological and theological perspectives discussed in this text are, nevertheless,
not as complex as some of the schemas and thought structures found in other Valen-
tinian texts. This may plausibly lead to the supposition that this tractate was either an
early work in that stream of tradition, or that it was self-consciously designed as an
introduction to Valentinian ideas, or perhaps both possibilities are correct.^14 If indeed
this were designed as a work introducing Valentinian understandings of Christianity,
then presumably the text may then have been easily accessible to Irenaeus and other
Christian readers in the second half of the second century. Yet as was stated in relation
to the discussion concerning the Gospel of Judas, there may exist significant differences
between the text form discovered at Nag Hammadi and that known to Irenaeus. This
is not only because the Nag Hammadi text is available as a Lycopolitan “subakhmîmic”