He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the quotation occurs.  Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian doctrine of the origin of things.  He says, ’Now since it was not allowable to say that something non-existent had come into being as a projection from a non-existent Deity—­for Basilides avoids and shuns the existences of things brought into being by projection [Endnote 299:1]—­for what need is there of projection, or why should matter be presupposed in order that God should make a world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making things takes brass or wood or any other portion of matter?  But He spake—­so he says—­and it was done, and this is, as these men say, that which is said by Moses:  “Let there be light, and there was light.”  Whence, he says, came the light?  Out of nothing; for we are not told—­he says—­whence it came, but only that it was at the voice of Him that spake.  Now He that spake—­he says—­was not, and that which was made, was not.  Out of that which was not—­he says—­ was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, “Let there be light;” and this—­he says—­is that which is spoken in the Gospels; “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’” We must not indeed overlook the fact that the plural occurs once in the middle of this passage as introducing the words of Moses; ‘as these men say.’  And yet, though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the probability that Basilides himself is being quoted.  It seems a fair inference that at the beginning of the passage Hippolytus had the work of Basilides actually before him; and the single digression in [Greek:  legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to show that it was laid aside.  This is confirmed when we look back two chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the Basilidian system is introduced.  ‘Let us see,’ Hippolytus says, ’how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek:  homou kai]) Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the Saviour himself.’  Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if to say, ’It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to the head and founder of the school.’  When in the very next sentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek:  phaesi], the natural construction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of Basilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole school.  A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his point.  Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include Basilides.

We conclude then that there is a probability—­not an overwhelming, but quite a substantial, probability—­that Basilides himself used the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the life of Christ.  But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early period indeed:  and it should be remembered that this is the only uncertainty to which it is subject.  That the quotation is really from St. John cannot be doubted.