that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)

"Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
would have thought of." [16:1]

In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'