NEW TESTAMENT CANON
physical power ; and if the writer from whom they are taken, partly in his own words, was not Basil-
| eides himself, he may probably have been Isidore,
Basileides’ eminent son and disciple, whom Hip- polytus names along with his father. Even in this case we should haye to do here with a writing com- posed not much later than, if so late as, the middle of the 2nd cent. It undoubtedly appeals to the Fourth Gospel as to an authority (Hippol. Har. vii. 22).
Valentinus, who was a younger contemporary of Basileides, need not now detain us. We know nothing of the employment he made of books of the NI’, except as it may be inferred from the practice of his school in the next generation.
On the other hand, of the treatment of the NT Scriptures by Marcion, who flourished c. A.D. 140, we know much from Tertullian’s Contra Marcionem. Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Gospel which he made for himself and his sect was a mutilated form of Lk. And it may be observed that in select- ing it, even though he found it necessary thus to adapt it to his own purpose, he did homage to the authority which it had acquired. An examina- tion of the peculiarities of the text used by Marcion seems also to show that the text of the Gospel had already in his generation a history (see Sanday, Gospels in Second Cent. p. 231 ff.).
From a man and his writings we turn to a move- ment. Montanism arose in Phrygia not long after the middle, and it spread remarkably during the remainder, of the 2nd cent. ; it found tendencies and needs favourable to it in various parts of the Church. In the present connexion it is important only from the fact that its insistence on the promise of the coming of the Spirit, designated as the Paraclete, is a sign of the influence of the Gospel according to John.
(2) Other writings of NT.—A few points only need be noticed. We learn from Tertullian’s treatise against Marcion that this heretic acknow- ledged 10 Epp. of St. Paul. It was natural, and yet important as a step in the formation of the Canon, that the Epp. of this great apostle should be regarded collectively, and we have in Marcion’s case the first clear sign of such a view of them. ‘There is, it may be added, no reason to think that Marcion in rejecting, as he did, the 3 Pastoral Epp. was actuated by any other motive than a dogmatic one.
In a passage of Justin we have a noteworthy instance of another kind —the earliest reference by name toa NT writing. The work so cited is the Apocalypse, its authorship by John the Apostle being mentioned (Dial. 1xxxi.).
For the rest, it will suffice under this head to notice parallelisms which are striking, and which prove the use of writings not otherwise abundantly attested. Those in Hermas with Ep. of James are specially remarkable (Hermas, Vis. It. ii. 7, 1V. ii. Os MM. I. 8. 4), Vi. 75 WI ΤΟΥΣ eA vi. 3; Sim. ΥἹ. 1. 1, VII. vi.4). Again, those with Acts in Justin seem clear (Apol. i. 40 ; Dial. xvi. and lii.). The statement, which we have already had occasion to refer to, may also here be recalled, that Papias ‘made use of testimonies from the former Ep. of Jn, and likewise from that of Peter’ (Eus. HE iii. 39).
iii, THIRD QUARTER OF SECOND CENTURY.— (1) Gospels. — Tatian.—Through a succession of remarkable literary discoveries in recent years con- troversy has practically been closed in respect to the general character of Tatian’s Diatessaron. Wemay not fully have recovered its original form, but it can no longer be seriously doubted that substantially it was a harmony of our Four Gospels (see Zahn, Forsch. Pt. 1, Kan. i. pp. 387-422, ii. 580-556 ; Lightit., Essays on Sup. Rel., 1889, pp. 272-288 ;
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian; and Hill, The Earliest Gospel Harmony).
In more than one respect Tatian is a valuable link between the middle and the last quarter of the century, supplying evidence in regard to the history of the Canon for a period, the remains of which are specially scanty. His Diatessaron, while it is an example of the working of that tendency to dwell on the common result of the testimony of different witnesses, which we have seen to be characteristic of the first two or three generations, is also the first distinct indication of the fact, which is so emphatically asserted a little later, that there were four records whose authority was unique.
(2) His Apology shows traces of acquaintance with various writings of the NT, but for the most part there is in it the absence of express citation which is commonly to be observed in works of the same class. In one place, however, some words from the prologue to Jn are introduced as ‘that which has been said’ (xiii.).
iv. THE LAST UARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY AND BEGINNING OF THE THIRD.— The point of transition to the last quarter of the 2nd cent. will be the most convenient opportunity for considering the impugners of St. John’s writ- ings, commonly called the Alogi. The evidence which has so far come before us, if it is in any respects unfavourable to the authenticity of any NT writings, is so by way of defect. Even such a writer as Marcion appears mainly as a witness for the Canon. We have now, however, to notice a body of persons who are specially characterized by their refusal to acknowledge one group of writings —those attributed to St. John.