Foster—Irenaeus and the Non-Canonical Gospels 111a few brief citations preserved in the writings of early Christian writers who tend to be
hostile both to these gospel texts and to those groups whom they associate with these
writings. Secondly, the fragments are cited by different authors preserving these frag-
ments using different forms of reference to the titles of the works from which they are
excerpted. It is, therefore, an issue to decide which fragments belong to the same text
and also to determine how many texts should be identified under the umbrella term
Jewish-Christian Gospels.^21
Irenaeus makes reference to the group known as the Ebionites, with whom the text
given the name by modern scholars the Gospel of the Ebionites is associated (although
the actual title it carried in antiquity is unknown). Irenaeus makes four statements
about the Ebionites in his writings. First, he reports their exclusive use of the Gospel of
Matthew, and rejection of Paul (Hae r. I.26.2). Secondly, this sole usage of Matthew is
reiterated in book III (Hae r. III.11.7) and this is stated as being the cause of the group’s
“false suppositions with regard to the Lord.” Thirdly, he accuses them of perverting
the scriptures by rendering Matt. 1:23 (cf. Isa. 7:14) as “behold a young woman will
conceive a son,” rather than translating παρθένος as “virgin” (Hae r. III.21.1). Fourthly,
his last comment in relation to the Ebionites is a more expansive description of their
failure to hold to a full incarnational theology, relating to interpretations of details in
the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives which are seen as being erroreous.
Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union
of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and
who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and
the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was gen-
erated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all,
who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of ]
generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new
generation we might inherit life. (Hae r. V.1.3)This is not explicitly stated here as being a denial of virgin birth but rather describes
a lack of acceptance of the notion of divine power being operative in the conception
of Jesus. By implication, of course, if divine agency is removed, the consequence is to
see the conception of Jesus occurring naturally. Taken together, these four statements
led Vielhauer and Strecker to conclude that, “when in other places he says that they
had eliminated the virgin birth (III 21.1; V 1.3), it is clear that the gospel used by them
cannot have been the canonical Mt, and that Irenaeus had not himself seen this book;
otherwise he would not have been able to identify it with Mt.”^22
However, the strong conclusion they draw may be an overstatement of the evidence.
The final two references to the Ebionites do not say that they “eliminate the virgin birth.”
In Hae r. III.21.1, the issue is one of interpretation and appears to be based upon the
more accurate renderings of the Greek text of Isaiah 7:14 which bring it into line with
Hebrew Vo r l a g e. Irenaeus mentions the recensions of the LXX prepared by both Theo-
dotion and Aquila: “Some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scrip-
ture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion the