8.19.3 where Hippolytus reports the views of some Montanists who `agreed with the heresy of the Noetians', and thinks he finds the same alluded to again at places in Ref.
CN 2.1-8 discusses the proof offered by the Noetians for their doctrine.
11: 17, 2: 8 (in the letter to Smyrna), and 22: 13 in the Greek Bible, where they are used of Christ.(102) If CN has accurately preserved what the Noetians said, then this blending of a formula used of Christ with a statement made in reference to God may reflect the transposition the Noetians made of statements made of Christ to God as they read the Bible.
This dossier served as the basis for two important arguments for the Noetians, which appear to have been constructed along the lines of what was designated the first undemonstrated argument in Stoic logic.(104) The first argument established the identity of Christ with God the Father.
The monarchian thesis, in which the Noetians included Christ, is derived from their reading of Scripture, but the patripassianist thesis is supported solely by logic based on the monarchian thesis.
Epiphanius does not include John 10: 30 among the texts used by the Noetians.
Dr Brent still embraces the view that CN is an fragment of a lost [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in which Hippolytus dealt with thirty-one other heresies besides that of the
Noetians. He obviously approves of my literary analysis of the carefully structured whole which is CN, but then remarks that none of my analysis `is inconsistent with CN having been originally one section of a longer work' (p.