110 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacysignificant terms.^18 It is unsurprising that Irenaeus places the story of the Alpha-Beta
logion after the description of the Marcosians’ use of gematria, and in fact attributes this
story to the same group, since to his mind it is illustrative of how such a hermeneutical
approach perverts the true characterization of Jesus as found in the fourfold gospel.
Thus, in conjunction with attacking the hermeneutical methods of the Marcosians,
Irenaeus also accuses them of circulating spurious writings “which they themselves
have forged to bewilder the minds of foolish men” (Hae r. I.20.1). He then cites the
example of the Alpha-Beta logion: “Among other things, they bring forward that false
and wicked story which relates that our Lord, when He was a boy learning His let-
ters, on the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, ‘Pronounce Alpha,’ replied as He was
instructed, ‘Alpha.’ But when, again, the teacher bade Him say, ‘Beta,’ the Lord replied,
‘You first tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell you what Beta is.’ This they expound
as meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed under its type Alpha”
(Hae r. I.20.1). A close parallel to this story also occurs twice in the Infancy Gospel of
Thomas (6.3 and 14.2), although Irenaeus’s form of the story is closer to the version
found in Inf. Thom. 14.2.^19 The version in Inf. Thom. 14.2 is the shorter of the two forms
found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It has fewer novelistic details, but focuses more
on the mysterious power of letters than the version preserved in Inf. Thom. 6.3. The
shorter form has Jesus respond in the following manner to the attempt of the teacher to
instruct him in letters, “‘If you are indeed a schoolmaster and you know perfectly well
the letters, then tell me the meaning of the alpha and I will tell you of the beta.’ And the
schoolmaster became irritated and struck him on the head. And the boy Jesus cursed
him and instantly he fainted and fell upon his face” (Inf. Thom. 14.2).
A number of possibilities exist that could explain the process through which Ire-
naeus had come to know this story. First, it is possible that Irenaeus read a continu-
ous text that was close to one of the four major recensions of the Infancy Gospel of
Thomas,^20 but attributed this text to, or knew of its use by the Marcosians because of
its interest in the magical properties of letters. Secondly, it is possible that this text was
also contained in another no longer extant text used by the Marcosians. Thirdly, the
text could have circulated independently of any larger narrative, either in written form
or orally, and Irenaeus either learnt of the text in connection with the Marcosians, or
made that connection himself. The fact that the story is used twice in the Infancy Gos-
pel of Thomas in what appear to be both a primitive and an expanded yet slightly soft-
ened form, may suggest that this story had a prehistory before its incorporation into
the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. On this basis, the hypothesis that is slightly favored over
the other alternatives is that Irenaeus came across this story as a free floating tradition,
either in written or oral form, but independent of a larger narrative context. He either
knew that the Marcosians used this text to justify their magical interpretation of letters,
or Irenaeus saw this link himself and attributed the text to this group.
The Jewish-Christian Gospels
As a group, the so-called Jewish-Christian Gospels pose a number of problems that are
not shared by other texts discussed here. First, there is no text, or at least no continu-
ous text, or even fragments from a once continuous text. Instead, all that survives are