Foster—Irenaeus and the Non-Canonical Gospels 117of Thomas. Irenaeus states that he knew this text was used by the Marcosians as a
dominical justification for their own use of gematria to interpret scripture. There is,
however, no evidence to lend support to the idea that Irenaeus knew the actual text of
the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In fact, the more likely hypothesis is that he knew this
pericope independently of and possibly prior to the composition of that narrative of
the childhood years of Jesus.
Claims that Irenaeus knew the Gospel of the Ebionites were seen to have little basis
in the statements made in the Adversus haereses itself, and, moreover, there is no sup-
port for that theory to be derived from the remaining fragments cited by other early
Christian writers. Irenaeus describes the fact that the Ebionites used the Gospel of
Matthew alone, although he disputes their interpretation of the theology of the birth of
Jesus. Rather, Irenaeus’s statements of the group’s use of the Gospel of Matthew make
sense as they stand, and there is no need for recourse to the theory that he had mis-
taken Matthew for the Gospel of the Ebionites.^35
Although not titled as being a gospel, the Apocryphon of John (not unlike the Gospel
of Tr uth) sets out the soteriological and cosmological beliefs of the group that adhered
to its teachings. The weight of shared details between this text and the description
of the belief system that centered on representing the Godhead as a triad of Father,
Barbelo, and Autogenes, along with the variation emanations leaves no doubt that the
same cosmological system is being described. The most plausible hypothesis for the
occurrence of these shared elements is that Irenaeus was dependent on some literary
form of the Apocryphon of John.
In answer to the question concerning the extent of Irenaeus’s knowledge of the liter-
ary “gospel-like” traditions of his opponents, it may be concluded that he was relatively
well informed. He may have known of texts that are no longer extant and consequently
for which modern scholars can no longer detect the degree of Irenaeus’s dependence,
since he does not name these sources. In terms of clearly detectable literary depen-
dence on “gospel” texts, the recently discovered Gospel of Judas alone may be identified.
Moreover, Irenaeus undoubtedly knows of the Apocryphon of John (or a text closely
related to the revelatory discourse contained in that text), but it is probably stretching
the definition and genre of “gospel” to include this text in the category of “gospels.”
While the thought world of the Gospel of Truth is not entirely dissimilar to the Apocry-
phon of John, however, in distinction from the Apocryphon, Irenaeus himself knows it
under a title using the word “gospel.” It is uncertain whether he knew this text by repu-
tation, or whether he had read its actual contents. Finally, other texts such as the Gospel
of the Ebionites and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas are unlikely to have been known to
Irenaeus. Thus, while Irenaeus may have known of far more noncanonical gospel texts
than we can identify, he betrays little knowledge of this possibility. If his aim was to cast
such works known as gospels outside his cherished fourfold gospel canon into oblivion,
then he must be commended since for the most part he has succeeded!