Irenaeus

Foster—Irenaeus and the Non-Canonical Gospels 113

conclusions to be drawn. As a preliminary remark, it is useful to bear in mind (and
to test) Pearson’s observation in relation to this text that “[t]he first part, containing
the revelation discourse, may have originally been a separate unit. It is precisely this
material that is parallel to Irenaeus’s paraphrase of a text used by the Gnostics (Against
Heresies 1.29).”^25
Irenaeus opens his account of this Gnostic myth by recounting the existence of “a
certain Aeon who never grows old, and exists in a virgin spirit: him they style Barbelos”
(Hae r. I.29.1). In the Apocryphon of John, after the narrative framework that introduces
John the son of Zebedee and the circumstances that led to the revelatory discourse,
John enquires concerning the meaning of the savior’s words, when he declared “this
aeon to which you will go is of the type of the imperishable aeon” (Ap. John, NHC II,1;
1.27-28).^26 It is not till later in the Apocryphon of John that one reads that the name
of this aeon is Barbelo, from whom comes forth a virginal spirit who is the visible
manifestation and glory of Barbelo (Ap. John 4.27—5.11). Next Irenaeus introduces
the figure of the father and describes his wish for self-revelation. “They declare that
somewhere or other there exists a certain father who cannot be named, and that he
was desirous to reveal himself to this Barbelos” (Hae r. I.29.1). In the Apocrphon, the
existence of the Monad is revealed to John, above which is nothing else. This Monad
exists “as God and Father of everything,” and in a classic example of apophatic theol-
ogy this figure is described as “illimitable,” “unsearchable,” “immeasurable,” “invisible,”
“ineffable,” and “unnameable since there is no one prior to him to give him a name”
(Ap. John 3.7-18).^27 Next Irenaeus describes a series of emanations, many of which are
paralleled in the text of the Apocryphon, in one way or another. Thus, according to
Irenaeus, “incorruption is called forth from the father” whereas in the Apocryphon, in
only slightly different terms, the father “exists as incorruption” (Ap. John 2.30).
Next there follows a complex description provided by Irenaeus of his understand-
ing of the myth of the generation of Christ. This will be seen to be largely in agreement
with the major elements in the Apocryphon.

Barbelos, glorying in these, and contemplating their greatness, and in con-

ception [thus formed], rejoicing in this greatness, generated light similar to

it. They declare that this was the beginning both of light and of the generation

of all things; and that the Father, beholding this light, anointed it with his own

benignity, that it might be rendered perfect. Moreover, they maintain that

this was Christ, who again, according to them, requested that Nous should

be given him as an assistant; and Nous came forth accordingly. Besides these,

the Father sent forth Logos. The conjunctions of Ennoea and Logos, and of

Aphtharsia and Christ, will thus be formed; while Zoe Aionios was united to

Thelema, and Nous to Prognosis. These, then, magnified the great light and

Barbelos. (Hae r. I.29.1)

In the Apocryphon, Barbelo also plays a key role in the bringing forth of a spark of
light, which is “an only-begotten child.” In the highly confusing description that follows,
it appears Barbelo is the one who anoints it with goodness until it becomes perfect. A