5. Evidence derived from Opponents of Church doctrine in the 2nd century.— (\) The Clement- ine Homilies. — These are the work of a Jewish Christian, and were published at Rome not earlier than A.D. 160-170. In one of the Homilies (dis- covered by Dressel in 1837) there is an undoubted (quotation (xix. 22) from Jn 9-- '. There are also in the Homilies other apparent references to the Gospel.
(2) The Gnostics. — There were two gieat schools of Gnostics — the Valentinians and the Basilidians. The date of the literary activity of Valentinus is uncertain, but we know that there existed a school of his followers before A.D. 150. Heracleon was a
.strong lUt also for the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, that he composed a Commentary on it which is quoted by Origen. Tertullian contrasts Valentinus and Mar- cion as to the way in which they use Scripture. He says that Marcion used the 'Knife,' while Valen- tinus ' accepted the whole instrument' (i.e. the four Gospels), but with an ability not less than Marcion's ' laid hands upon the truth.' We hear of a school of Basilides e. 133, and his own period of activity was A.D. 117-138. Hippolytus in his Refutatio quotes BasUides, and in the quotations there are undoubted extracts from the Gospel. The question discussed by modem criticism is whether these are quotations from BasUides or from the representative of a school (ef. Drummond, op. cit. 296-301). There is a strong preponderance of e\idciKe in favour of Basilides himself as the sourci-.
So far as the earlier Gnostic^ :iio coniiTiied — the Naasseni,Perat{e, Ophites. .111.1 Do.-.tir it is gener- ally admitted that the Gospel is emliei tli.an these controversies ; and Hippolytus tells us that they made abundant use of the Gospel.
(3) Marcion was a contemporary of Valentinus. — The principle of his work is to .secure a Gospel that shall represent the pure doctrine of Christ, un- mixed with Jewish prejudices, which he regarded as inherent in the minds of the primitive Apostles. We find him rejecting all others in favour of St. Luke, which was written under Pauline influence ; and he mutilated even that Gosnel to suit his pur- pose. We cannot expect to find in his writing any reference to. the Gospel of .John, but, from his action in rejecting the -vmtings of the early Apostles, we may draw the negative conclusion that if the Gospel was regarded as written by St. John it would be siillieieiil leiisiin for its rejection. He made use ol ill.' |.:i ...J.- ill (lalatians where St. Paul rebukes ■.\|... il.' ili.tii^elves' 'who walked not uprightly ;i....i.liii;i I.. Ilie truth of the gospel' (2'*). His silcnie as to the F'ourth (iosiiel is all the more striking Iwcause of its anti-.ludaic tendency, which would have predisposed him in its favour had it not been ■^^Titten by a primitive Apostle.
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
6. The Quartodeciman controversy. — In the
latter part of the 2nd cent, a controversy was rife between certain Asiatic Christians and tlie Churcli with regard to their Paschal observance on the 14th Nisan. They appealed to the example of the Apostle John in defence of their practice. In the Gospel the Paschal meal falls on the 13th, and it was contended by Bretschneider, followed by the Tubingen School, that therefore the Apostle could not be the author of the Gospel. A fuller investi- gation, however, into the rationale of the Quarto- deciman controversy goes far to remove the diffi- culty. In opposition to the Tubingen School, it was held that the 14th was kept not in commemoration of the Passover, but in commemoration of the deatli of Christ, which would be in accord with the Fourth Gospel. This still leaves the ditliculty unsolved, that in the Synoptics the death of Christ falls on the 15th. Accordingly, Bleek (followed by Schiirer) and Stanton maintain that the observance in ques- tion was neither of the institution of the Supper, nor of the death of Christ alone, but that the Chris- tian Jews gave to the Passover day a new meaning which made it a commemoration of the entire fact of redemption, including the Supper, the Death, and the Resurrection of Christ. This interpretation seems to be the correct one. At the same time, while it surmounts the difficulty caused by the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, there still remains the fact tliat the Quartodecimans of the latter half of the century appealed to the example of Christ as eating the Passover on the 14th. If such an appeal was made in the earlier part of the controversy, and at the same time the example of St. John was quoted in support, we should be face to face with a strong argument against the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel. There is no proof, however, that the argu- ment from the example of Christ was used before the time of ApoUinaris. Apollinaris distinctly assumes that the Synoptics and St. John must not be made to contradict one another ; and Polycrates as distinctly holds the Apostolic authorship, al- though he is a Quartodeciman (cf. Schmiedel, op. cit. ii. 2552-2553, who regards the Quarto- deciman argument as still valid against the Apos- tolic authorship. The question is fully discussed by Stanton, op. cit. i. pp. 173-197, with a result favourable to the traditional view).