Much attention has of late been directed to this phenomenon. It has been discussed in particular from opposite points of view by Zahn (Kan. i
pp. 220-262) and Harnack (NT um d. J. 200, pp. 58-70, and Chronol. i. pp. 670, 671) ; see also Light- foot (Clem. Rom. ii. p. 894) and Sanday (Inspiration,
p. 14f.). The chief documents are Iren. III. xi. 12 (which refers only to the rejection of the Gospel) ; Epiph. Her. li. ; and Philaster, lx. The value of the last two is that in all probability they derive their information from a lost work of Hippolytus. It is not, however, altogether easy to distinguish the conjectures of Epiphanius, and his disquisitions on points that interested him, from the matter which he took from his authority, while Philaster’s notice is very brief.
The motive for these opinions was primarily dogmatic, not critical, though those who held them sought to strengthen their case by pointing out differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, and by strictures upon the imagery of the Apocalypse (see Epiph. /.c.). It was ‘in order to frustrate the gifts of the Spirit,’ Irenzens tells us, that ‘some do not admit that form of the Gospel which is according to John, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete.’ One kind of extravagance begets another. Because the Montanists appealed to Jn 14-16 in urging their wild views and preposterous claims, these others were for denying the authority of that Gospel itself. Again, the Montanists and many other Christians in the 2nd cent. were millenarians, and supported their materialistic notions by a literal interpreta- tion of the Apocalypse. Consequently, those who were repelled by millenarianism were tempted to call the authenticity of that work in question. The theory of the Alogi, that Cerinthus was the author of the Johannine writings, must have been suggested first in the case of the Apocalypse, and extended to the Gospel; for while, according to the best information which we possess, Cerinthus was a millenarian, his Christology had nothing in common with that of the Fourth Gospel. Thus
NEW TESTAMENT CANON 537
the rejection of the one work was, in part at least, associated with that of the other; in part, however, the attack on the Apocalypse was more widely spread, and had more lasting effects (cf. Eus. HE iii. 28 and vii. 25).
The name Alogi seems to have been Epiph- anius’ invention. He gave it both as a jest and to betoken their refusal to accept the Gospel which contained the doctrine of the Logos. Whether they in reality objected to this doctrine, or this was simply Epiphanius’ inference, is not clear. But if they did, they might here again find a common ground of opposition both to the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.
It should be observed that the Alogi, by their association of the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse in a common condemnation, and the attribution of them both to Cerinthus, are witnesses to the tradition, that both were by the same author, and that, in assigning them to a heretic who was contemporary with St. John, they are also witnesses to their antiquity.
Harnack lays special stress on the fact that the Alogi were not visibly separated from the Church, and apparently did not intend to depart from the Christian faith. Δοκοῦσι καὶ αὐτοί, says Epiphanius, τὰ ἴσα ἡμῖν πιστεύειν (l.c. ὃ 4). Yet the agreement of which he speaks seems to be only relative. He is comparing their position with that of more pro- nounced heretics, such as the Gnostics. Further, it is to be remembered that the machinery did not exist in the 2nd cent., which there came to be in the Church of after-times, for passing judg- ment on erroneous opinions. And, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the number of those who rejected the most important work at least, the Gospel, was considerable, and it is certain that they produced no lasting impression.
At the same time, the instance of the Alogi illus- trates a stage in the reception of the NT Scriptures. It shows that beliefs which this party opposed had not yet obtained that firm hold upon the minds of all which only clear definition and a prescription of many generations can give. But that these beliefs were neither of recent growth nor limited to a narrow area, we plainly see from the works of the age we have now reached which have come down to us,
Among the earliest is the treatise of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, which is in the form of a vindication of the Christian faith, addressed to a philosophic heathen friend. He dwells upon the inspiration of the apostles. With the Holy Scrip- tures, i.e. the OT, still best known by this title, he couples ‘all the inspired men’ {πνευματοφόροιν, expressly mentioning John. He quotes Jn 11. as from ‘the apostle’ (ad Autol. ii. 22, and ef. ib. ix. 10). Im iii, 12 he speaks of ‘the Gospels’ in the plural, and asserts that the con- tents of the Prophets and the Gospels are in harmony with the law, ‘because all the inspired men spoke by one Spirit of God.’ Again (ib. 18), after citing a passage of OT he refers to ‘ the still more urgent injunction of the Evangelic Voice.’ and quotes Mt 5%-®; and he compares the Gospel with Isaiah, quoting Mt 5 (ib. 14).