Basilides

Gnosticism
This article is part of a series on Gnosticism
History of Gnosticism
Early Gnosticism Syrian-Egyptic Gnosticism Gnosticism in modern times
Proto-Gnostics
Philo Simon Magus Cerinthus Valentinus Basilides
Gnostic texts
Gnostic Gospels Nag Hammadi library Codex Tchacos Askew Codex Bruce Codex Gnosticism and the New Testament
Related articles
Gnosis Neoplatonism and Gnosticism Mandaeism Manichaeism Bosnian Church Esoteric Christianity Theosophy
Gnosticism Portal  v • d • e

"Basilides" redirects here. For the 17th century Ethiopian Emperor, see Fasilides of Ethiopia. For the martyr, see Basilides and Potamiana.

Basilides (Βασιλείδης) was an early Christian religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt^[1] during the reign of Hadrian (117-138).^{[* 1]} He may have been previously a disciple of Menander at Antioch, together with Saturnilus.^[2]

Basilides was a pupil of an alleged interpreter of St. Peter named Glaucias.^[3] The Acta Archelai state that for a time he taught among the Persians. He is believed to have written over two dozen books of commentary on the Christian Gospel (now all lost)^[4] entitled Exegetica, making him one of the earliest Gospel commentators. Only fragments of his works are preserved that supplement the knowledge furnished by his opponents. His theology was identified as a "dualistic" heresy by later detractors and is commonly associated by modern scholarship with early Christian Gnosticism.

The followers of Basilides, the Basilidians, formed a movement that persisted for at least two centuries after him—Epiphanius, at the end of the fourth century, recognized a persistent Basilidian Gnosis in Egypt. It is probable, however, that the school melded into the main stream of Gnosticism by the latter half of the second century.^[5]

Writings

Nearly all the writings of Basilides have perished, but the names of three of his works and some fragments have come down to us.

• The Gospel of Basilides. Origen^[6] states that "Basilides had even the audacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides." St. Jerome and St. Ambrose^[7] adopt this state of Origen; and St. Jerome, in the Prologue of his Commentary on St. Matthew, again speaks of an "Evangelium Basilidis". Yet no trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere; and it is possible either that Origen misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or that they were sometimes known under the other name.^[8]

• A Gospel Commentary in twenty-four books (βιβλία). These are no doubt the Exegetica; fragments of this have come down to us (in Stromata, IV, 12-81, sqq.; Acta Arch., lv; probably also in Origen, Commentary on Romans V, i). Basilides (or the Basilidians), we are told,^[9] defined the Gospel as "the knowledge of supermundane things" (ἠ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις), and the idea of the progress of "the Gospel" through the different orders of beings plays a leading part in the Basilidian doctrine.^[10] But there is not the slightest reason to think that the "Gospel" here spoken of was a substitute for the Gospel in a historical sense, any more than in St. Paul's writings. Indeed several passages,^[11] with their allusions to Romans 5:14, Romans 8:19-23; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 12:4; Ephesians 1:21, Ephesians 3:3-10, prove that the writer was throughout thinking of St. Paul's "mystery of the Gospel." Hippolytus states distinctly that the Basilidian account of "all things concerning the Saviour" subsequent to "the birth of Jesus" agreed with that given in "the Gospels."

• Hymns. Origen in a note on Job, xxi, 1 sqq., speaks of "Odes" of Basilides.
• Other fragments are known through the work of Clement of Alexandria:
  • The Octet of Subsistent Entities (Fragment A)
  • The Uniqueness of the World (Fragment B)
  • Election Naturally Entails Faith and Virtue (Fragment C)
  • The State of Virtue (Fragment D)
  • The Elect Transcend the World (Fragment E)
  • Reincarnation (Fragment F)
  • Human Suffering and the Goodness of Providence (Fragment G)
  • Forgivable Sins (Fragment H)

Sources

Historians know of Basilides and his teachings only through the writings of his detractors, and it is impossible to determine how reliable these hostile accounts are. The oldest refutation of the teachings of Basilides, by Agrippa Castor, is lost, and we are dependent upon the later accounts of:

• Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I, xxiv, written about 170.
• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, xxi, II, vi, viii, xx, IV, xi, xii, xxv, V, I, etc., written between 208-210, and the so-called Excerpta ex Theodoto perhaps from the same hand.
• Hippolytus of Rome, Philosophumena, VII, written about 225.
• Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies, a little treatise usually attached to Tertullian's De Praescriptionibus, but really by another hand, perhaps by Victorinus of Pettau, written about 240 and based upon a non-extant "Compendium" of Hippolytus.
• Artistic remains of Gnosticism such as Abrasax gems, and literary remains like the Pistis Sophia, the latter part of which probably dates back to the end of the second century and, though not strictly Basilidian, yet illustrates early Alexandrian Gnosticism.

Later sources are:

• Epiphanius of Salamis, Adv. Haer., xxiv.
• Theodoret, Haer. Fab. Comp., I, iv.

Unfortunately, the descriptions of the Basilidian system given by our chief informants, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, are so strongly divergent that they seem to many quite irreconcilable. Hippolytus describes a monistic system, in which Hellenic, or rather Stoic, conceptions stand in the foreground, while Irenaeus and Epiphanius depict a dualist Basilides who stands in closer relationship to Zoroaster than to Aristotle.

Doctrine

Creation according to Irenaeus

Seen from the viewpoint of Irenaeus, Basilides taught the origin of creation in a series of emanations:^[12]

• The Unborn Father:
  • Nous (Mind):
    • Logos (Reason):
      • Phronesis (Prudence):
        • Sophia (Wisdom) and Dynamis (Strength):
          • Virtues
          • Principalities
          • Archangels

By these emanations the highest heaven was made, by their descendants the second heaven, and by the descendants again of these the third, and so on till they reached the number 365. The highest ruler bears the mystical name Abrasax (ΑΒΡΑΣΑΞ, Abraxas in the Latin text), as origin of the 365 heavens, which answers originally to the astronomical conception of the heavens with their 365 daily aspects.^[13]

The name Abrasax contains the numerical value 365, and it can be noted that the name of the Persian god Mithras was also known in antiquity to contain this numerical value.^[14] However, it is uncertain what the actual role and function of Abrasax was in the Basilidian system.

The Archons, who hold the last or visible heaven, formed all things that are in the world out of Eternal Matter; but matter is the principle of all evil. These Archons divided amongst themselves the Earth, and the nations upon it (cf. Territorial Spirits). The highest of these Archons is the one who is thought to be the God of the Old Testament. And as he wished to make the other nations subject to that which was especially his own, the other Archonic principalities withstood him to the utmost. Whence arose all the strife and conflict in the world.

Salvation

It is at this point that the idea of salvation is introduced into the system. The Unborn and Nameless Father, seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the Archonic agencies who had built the world.^[15]

According to the account given by Irenaeus, Christ is said to have appeared only as a phantasm, but to men he seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus assumed Simon's and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to His Father. Through the Gnosis (Knowledge) of Christ the souls of men are saved, but their bodies perish. (To undergo martyrdom in order to confess the Crucified is useless, for it is to die for Simon of Cyrene, not for Christ.) This story is also presented in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, although it is unclear whether Simon or another actually died on the cross.^[16]

Creation according to Hippolytus

Hippolytus sets forth the doctrine of Basilides as follows:

There was a time when nothing existed, neither matter nor form, nor accident; neither the simple nor the compound, neither the unknowable nor the invisible, neither man or angel nor god nor any of these things, which are called by names or perceived by the mind or the senses. The Not-Being God whom Aristotle calls Thought of thought, without consciousness, without perception, without purpose, without aim, without passion, without desire, had the will to create the world. I say "had the will" only by way of speaking, because in reality he had neither will, nor ideas nor perceptions; and by the word 'world' I do not mean this actual world, which is the outcome of extension and division, but rather the Seed of the world. The seed of the world contained in itself, as a mustard seed, all things which are eventually evolved, as the roots, the branches, the leaves arise out of the seedcorn of the plant.

Strange to say this World-seed or All-seed (Panspermia) is still described as Not-Being. It is a phrase of Basilides: "God is Not-Being, even He, who made the world out of what was not; Not-Being made Not-Being."

In seeming contradiction of the system given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus tells us that Basilides distinctly rejected both emanation and the eternity of matter. "What need is there", he said, "of emanation or why accept Hyle (Matter); as if God had created the world as the spider spins its thread or as mortal man fashions metal or wood. God spoke and it was; this Moses expresses thus: 'Let there be light and there was light'." To Basilides, God was Absolute Negation. He cannot find words enough to bring out the utter non-existence of God; God is not even "unspeakable", He simply is Not. Hence the popular designation of Oukontiani for people who always spoke of Oukon, Not-Being. The difficulty lies in placing the actual transition from Not-Being into Being. This was probably supposed to consist in the Sperma or Seed, which in one respect was Not-Being, and in the other, the All-seed of the manifold world.

Threefold Sonship

The Panspermia contained in itself a threefold Sonship, Hyiotes:

• One composed of refined elements, Leptomeres
• A second of grosser elements, Pachymeres
• A third needing purification, Apokatharseos deomenon

These three Sonships ultimately reach the Not-Being God, but each reaches him in a different way. The first Sonship rose at once and flew with the swiftness of thought to the Not-Being God. The second, remaining as yet in the Panspermia, wished to imitate the first Sonship and rise upwards; but, being too gross and heavy, it failed. Whereupon the second Sonship takes to itself wings, which are the Holy Ghost, and with this aid almost reaches the Not-Being God. But when it has come near, the Holy Ghost, of different substance from the Second Sonship, can go no further, but conducts the Second Sonship near to the First Sonship and leaves. Yet he does not return empty but, as a vessel full of ointment, he retains the sweet odour of Sonship; and he becomes the "Limitary Spirit" (Methorion Pneuma), between the Supermundane and the Mundane where the third Sonship is still contained in the Panspermia.

Great Archon

Now there arose out of the Panspermia the Great Archon; he sped upwards until he reached the firmament, and thinking there was nothing above and beyond, and not knowing of the Third Sonship, still contained in the Panspermia, he fancied himself Lord and Master of all things. He created to himself a Son out of the heap of Panspermia; this was the Christ and being himself amazed at the beauty of his Son, who was greater than his Father, he made him sit at his right hand; and with him he created the ethereal heavens, which reach unto the Moon. The sphere where the Great Archon rules, i.e. the higher heavens, the lower boundary of which is the plane where the moon revolves, is called the Ogdoad. The same process is repeated and we have a second Archon and his Son and the sphere where they rule is the Hebdomad, beneath the Ogdoad.

Redemption

Lastly, the third Sonship must be raised to the Not-Being God. This took place though the Gospel.

• From Adam to Moses the Archon of the Ogdoad had reigned.^[17]
• In Moses and the Prophets the Archon of the Hebdomad had reigned, or God of the Jews.
• In the third period, the Gospel must reign.

This Gospel was first made known from the First Sonship through the Holy Ghost to the Son of the Archon of the Ogdoad; the Son told his Father, who was astounded and trembled and acknowledged his pride in thinking himself the Supreme Deity. The Son of the Archon of the Ogdoad tells the Son of the Archon of the Hebdomad, and he again tells his father. Thus both spheres, including the 365 heavens and their chief Archon, Abrasax, know the truth. This knowledge is now conveyed through the Hebdomad to Jesus, the Son of Mary, who through his life and death redeemed the third Sonship, that is:

• What is material must return to the Chaos.
• What is psychic to the Hebdomad.
• What is spiritual to the Not-Being God.

When the third Sonship is thus redeemed, the Supreme God pours out a blissful Ignorance over all that is and that shall so remain forever. This is called "The Restoration of all things".^[18]

Ethics

Election

Clement's contributions to our knowledge of Basilides refer chiefly to the ethical side of his doctrine. Here "Faith" evidently played a considerable part. In itself it was defined by "them of Basilides" (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) as "an assent of the soul to any of the things which do not excite sensation, because they are not present";^[19] the phrase being little more than a vague rendering of Hebrews 11:1, in philosophical language. From another unfortunately corrupt passage^[20] it would appear that Basilides accumulated forms of dignity in celebration of faith. But the eulogies were in vain, Clement intimates, because they abstained from setting forth faith as the "rational assent of a soul possessing free will." They left faith a matter of "nature," not of responsible choice. So again, while contrasting the honour shown by the Basilidians to faith with its disparagement in comparison with "knowledge" by the Valentinians, he accuses them (οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β.) of regarding it as "natural," and referring it to "the election" while they apparently considered it to "discover doctrines without demonstration by an intellective apprehension."^{[* 2]} He adds that according to them (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) there is at once a faith and an election of special character (οἰκείαν) in each "stage" (διάστημα), the mundane faith of every nature follows in accordance with its supermundane election, and for each (? being or stage) the [Divine] gift of his (or its) faith corresponds with his (or its) hope.^[21] What "hope" was intended is not explained: probably it is the range of legitimate hope, the limits of faculty accessible to the beings inhabiting this or that "stage." It is hardly likely that Clement would have censured unreservedly what appears here as the leading principle of Basilides, the Divine resignment of a limited sphere of action to each order of being, and the Divine bestowal of proportionally limited powers of apprehending God upon the several orders, though it is true that Clement himself specially cherished the thought of an upward progress from one height of being to another, as part of the Divine salvation.^[22] Doubtless Basilides pushed election so far as to sever a portion of mankind from the rest, as alone entitled by Divine decree to receive the higher enlightenment. In this sense it must have been that he called "the election a stranger to the world, as being by nature supermundane"; while Clement maintained that no man can by nature be a stranger to the world.^[23] It is hardly necessary to point out how closely the limitation of spheres agrees with the doctrine on which the Great Ignorance is founded, and the supermundane election with that of the Third Sonship.

Providence

The same adhesion to the conception of natural fixity led Basilides (ὁ Β.) to confine the remission of sins to those which are committed involuntarily and in ignorance; as though, says Clement,^[24] it were a man and not God that bestowed the gift. A like fatalistic view of Providence is implied in the language held by Basilides^[25] in reference to the sufferings of Christian martyrs. In this instance we have the benefit of verbal extracts, though unfortunately their sense is in parts obscure. So far as they go, they do not bear out the allegations of Agrippa Castor^[26] that Basilides taught that the partaking of food offered to idols, and the heedless (ἀπαραφυλάκτως) abjuration of the faith in time of persecution was a thing indifferent; and of Origen,^[27] that he depreciated the martyrs, and treated lightly the sacrificing to heathen deities. The impression seems to have arisen partly from a misunderstanding of the purpose of his argument, partly from the actual doctrine and practices of later Basilidians; but it may also have had some justification in incidental words which have not been preserved. Basilides is evidently contesting the assumption, probably urged in controversy against his conception of the justice of Providence, that the sufferers in "what are called tribulations" (ἐν ταῖς λεγομέναις θλίψεσιν) are to be regarded as innocent, simply because they suffer for their Christianity. He suggests that some are in fact undergoing punishment for previous unknown sins, while "by the goodness of Him Who brings events to pass" (τοῦ περιάγοντος) they are allowed the comfort of suffering as Christians, "not subject to the rebuke as the adulterer or the murderer" (apparently with reference to 1 Peter 3:17, 1 Peter 4:15-19); and if there be any who suffers without previous sin, it will not be "by the design of an [adverse] power" (κατ᾿ ἐπιβουλὴν δυνάμεως), but as suffers the babe who appears to have committed no sin. The next quotation attempts at some length an exposition of this comparison with the babe. The obvious distinction is drawn between sin committed in act (ἐνεργῶς) and the capacity for sin (τὸ ἁμαρτητικόν); the infant is said to receive a benefit when it is subjected to suffering, "gaining" many hardships (πολλὰ κέρδαινον δύσκολα). So it is, he says, with the suffering of a perfect man, for his not having sinned must not be set down to himself; though he has done no evil, he must have willed evil; "for I will say anything rather than call Providence (τὸ προνοῦν) evil." He did not shrink, Clement says, and the language seems too conclusive, from applying his principle even to the Lord. "If, leaving all these arguments, you go on to press me with certain persons, saying, for instance, 'Such an one sinned therefore, for such an one suffered,' if you will allow me I will say, 'He did not sin, but he is like the suffering babe'; but if you force the argument with greater violence, I will say that any man whom you may choose to name is a man, and that God is righteous; for 'no one,' as it has been said, 'is clear of defilement'" (ῥύπου).

What more Basilides taught about Providence as exemplified in martyrdoms is not easily brought together from Clement's rather confused account. He said that one part of what is called the will of God (i.e. evidently His own mind towards lower beings, not what He would have their mind to be) is to love (or rather perhaps be satisfied with, ἠγαπηκέναι) all things because all things preserve a relation to the universe (λόγου ἀποσώζουσι πρὸς τὸ πᾶν ἅπαντα), and another to despise nothing, and a third to hate no single thing.^[28] In the same spirit pain and fear were described as natural accidents of things (ἐπισυμβαίνει τοῖς πράγμασιν), as rust of iron.^[29] In another sentence^[30] Providence seems to be spoken of as set in motion by the Archon; by which perhaps was meant^[31] that the Archon was the unconscious agent who carried into execution (within his own "stage") the long dormant original counsels of the not-being God. The view of the harmony of the universe just referred to finds expression, with a reminiscence of a famous sentence of Plato,^[32] in a saying^[33] that Moses "set up one temple of God and an only-begotten world."^{[* 3]}

Metempsychosis

He likewise brought in the notion of sin in a past stage of existence suffering its penalty here, "the elect soul" suffering "honourably (ἐπιτίμως) through martyrdom, and the soul of another kind being cleansed by an appropriate punishment." To this doctrine of metempsychosis (τὰς ἐνσωματώσεις) "the Basilidians" (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) are likewise said to have referred the language of the Lord about requital to the third and fourth generations;^[34] Origen states that Basilides himself interpreted Romans 7:9 in this sense,

The Apostle said, 'I lived without a law once,' that is, before I came into this body, I lived in such a form of body as was not under a law, that of a beast namely, or a bird.^[35]

And elsewhere^[36] Origen complains that he deprived men of a salutary fear by teaching that transmigrations are the only punishments after death.

Passions

We have a curious piece of psychological theory in the account of the passions attributed to the Basilidians (οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Β.). They are accustomed, Clement says,^[37] to call the passions Appendages (προσαρτήματα), stating that these are certain spirits which have a substantial existence (κατ οὐσίαν ὐπάρχειν), having been appended^{[* 4]} to the rational soul in a certain primitive turmoil and confusion, and that again other bastard and alien natures of spirits grow upon these (προσεπιφύεσθαι ταύταις), as of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a goat, whose characteristics (ιδιώματα), becoming perceptible in the region of the soul (θανταζόμενα περὶ τὴν ψυχήν), assimilate the desires of the son to the animals; for they imitate the actions of those whose characteristics they wear, and not only acquire intimacy (προσοικειοῦνται) with the impulses and impressions of the irrational animals, but even imitate (ζηλοῦσι) the movements and beauties of plants, because they likewise wear the characteristics of plants appended to them; and [the passions] have also characteristics of habit [derived from stones], as the hardness of adamant.^[38] In the absence of the context it is impossible to determine the precise meaning and origin of this singular theory. It was probably connected with the doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to find support in Plato's Timaeus,^[39] and was cherished by some neo-Pythagoreans later in the 2nd cent.;^[40] while the plurality of souls is derided by Clement as making the body a Trojan horse, with apparent reference^[41] to a similar criticism of Plato in the Theaetetus.^[42] And again Plutarch^[43] ridicules the Stoics (i.e. apparently Chrysippus) for a "strange and outlandish" notion that all virtues and vices, arts and memories, impressions and passions and impulses and assents (he adds further down even "acts," ἐνεργείας, such as "walking, dancing, supposing, addressing, reviling") are not merely "bodies" (of course in the familiar Stoic sense) but living creatures or animals (ζῳα), crowded apparently round the central point within the heart where "the ruling principle" (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν) is located: by this "swarm," he says, of hostile animals they turn each one of us into "a paddock or a stable, or a Trojan horse." Such a theory might seem to Basilides an easy deduction from his fatalistic doctrine of Providence, and of the consequent immutability of all natures.

Practices

Marriage

The only specimen which we have of the practical ethics of Basilides is of a favourable kind, though grossly misunderstood and misapplied by Epiphanius.^[44] Reciting the views of different heretics on Marriage, Clement^[45] mentions first its approval by the Valentinians, and then gives specimens of the teaching of Basilides (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) and his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the immorality of the later Basilidians, before proceeding to the sects which favoured licence, and to those which treated marriage as unholy. He first reports the exposition of Matthew 19:11 (or a similar evangelic passage), in which there is nothing specially to note except the interpretation of the last class of eunuchs as those who remain in celibacy to avoid the distracting cares of providing a livelihood. He goes on to the paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 7:9, interposing in the midst an illustrative sentence from Isidore, and transcribes the language used about the class above mentioned.

But suppose a young man either poor or (?) depressed [κατηφής seems at least less unlikely than κατωφερής], and in accordance with the word [in the Gospel] unwilling to marry, let him not separate from his brother; let him say 'I have entered into the holy place [τὰ ἅγια, probably the communion of the church], nothing can befall me'; but if he have a suspicion [? self-distrust, ὑπονοίαν ἔχῃ], let him say, 'Brother, lay thy hand on me, that I may sin not,' and he shall receive help both to mind and to senses (νοητὴν καὶ αἰσθητήν); let him only have the will to carry out completely what is good, and he shall succeed. But sometimes we say with the lips, 'We will not sin,' while our thoughts are turned towards sinning: such an one abstains by reason of fear from doing what he wills, lest the punishment be reckoned to his account. But the estate of mankind has only certain things at once necessary and natural, clothing being necessary and natural, but τὸ τῶν ἀφροδισίων natural, yet not necessary.^[46]

Epiphany

Although we have no evidence that Basilides, like some others, regarded Jesus's Baptism as the time when a Divine being first was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it seems clear that he attached some unusual significance to the event. "They of Basilides (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.)," says Clement,^[47] "celebrate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary night-service of [Scripture] readings (προδιανυκτερεύοντες ἀναγνώσεσι); and they say that the 'fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar' (Luke 3:1) is (or means) the fifteenth day of the [Egyptian] month Tybi, while some [make the day] the eleventh of the same month." Again it is briefly stated in the Excerpta^[48] that the dove of the Baptism is said by the Basilidians (οἱ ἀπὸ Β.) to be the Minister (ὁ διάκονος). And the same association is implied in what Clement urges elsewhere:^[49]

If ignorance belongs to the class of good things, why is it brought to an end by amazement [i.e. the amazement of the Archon], and [so] the Minister that they speak of [αὐτοῖς] is superfluous, and the Proclamation, and the Baptism: if ignorance had not previously existed, the Minister would not have descended, nor would amazement have seized the Archon, as they themselves say.

This language, taken in conjunction with passages already cited from Hippolytus,^[50] implies that Basilides regarded the Baptism as the occasion when Jesus received "the Gospel" by a Divine illumination. The supposed descent of "Christ" for union with "Jesus," though constantly assumed by Hilgenfeld, is as destitute of ancient attestation as it is inconsistent with the tenor of Basilidian doctrine recorded by Clement, to say nothing of Hippolytus. It has been argued from Clement's language by Gieseler,^[51] that the Basilidians were the first to celebrate Jesus's Baptism. The early history of the Epiphany is too obscure to allow a definite conclusion on this point; but the statement about the Basilidian services of the preceding night receives some illustration from a passage of Epiphanius, lately published from the Venice MS.^[52] in which we hear of the night before the Epiphany as spent in singing and flute-playing in a heathen temple at Alexandria: so that probably the Basilidian rite was a modification of an old local custom.

Silence

According to Agrippa Castor^[53] Basilides "in Pythagorean fashion" prescribed a silence of five years to his disciples.

Prophets

The same author, we hear, stated that Basilides "named as prophets to himself Barcabbas and Barcoph, providing himself likewise with certain other [? prophets] who had no existence, and that he bestowed upon them barbarous appellations to strike amazement into those who have an awe of such things." The alleged prophecies apparently belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature popular with various Gnostics.

Traditions of Matthias

From Hippolytus we hear nothing about these prophecies, which will meet us again presently with reference to Basilides's son Isidore, but he tells us^[54] that, according to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias spoke to them mystical doctrines (λόγους ἀποκρύφους) which he heard in private teaching from the Saviour: and in like manner Clement^[55] speaks of the sect of Basilides as boasting that they took to themselves the glory of Matthias. Origen also^[56] and after him Eusebius refer to a "Gospel" of or according to Matthias.^[57] The true name was apparently the Traditions of Matthias: three interesting and by no means heretical extracts are given by Clement.^[58] In the last extract the responsibility laid on "the elect" for the sin of a neighbour recalls a passage already cited from Basilides.

Acta Archelai

Near the end of the anonymous Acts of the Disputation between Archelaus and Mani (Acta Archelai), written towards the close of the 3rd cent. or a little later, Archelaus disputes the originality of Mani's teaching, on the ground that it took rise a long time before with "a certain barbarian."^[59]

There was also a preacher among the Persians, a certain Basilides of great [or 'greater,' antiuqior] antiquity, not long after the times of our Apostles, who being himself also a crafty man, and perceiving that at that time everything was preoccupied, decided to maintain that dualism which was likewise in favour with Scythianus [named shortly before^[60] as a contemporary of the Apostles, who had introduced dualism from a Pythagorean source]. Finally, as he had no assertion to make of his own, he adopted the sayings of others [the last words are corrupt, but this must be nearly the sense]. And all his books contain things difficult and rugged.

The writer then cites the beginning of the thirteenth book of his treatises (tractatuum), in which it was said that "the saving word" (the Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich man and the poor man pointed out the source from which nature (or a nature) without a root and without a place germinated and extended itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later and adds that after some 500 lines Basilides invites his reader to abandon idle and curious elaborateness (varietate), and to investigate rather the studies and opinions of barbarians on good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides states, said that there are two beginnings of all things, light and darkness; and he subjoins some particulars of doctrine of a Persian cast. Only one set of views, however, is mentioned, and the Acts end abruptly here in the two known MSS. of the Latin version in which alone this part of them is extant.

Dualism

It is generally assumed that we have here unimpeachable evidence for the strict dualism of Basilides. It seems certain that the writer of the Acts held his Basilides responsible for the barbarian opinions quoted, which are clearly dualistic, and he had the whole book before him. Yet his language on this point is loose, as if he were not sure of his ground; and the quotation which he gives by no means bears him out: while it is quite conceivable that he may have had some acquaintance with dualistic Basilidians of a later day, such as certainly existed, and have thus given a wrong interpretation to genuine words of their master.^[61] It assuredly requires considerable straining to draw the brief interpretation given of the parable to a Manichean position, and there is nothing to show that the author of it himself adopted the first set of "barbarian" opinions which he reported. Indeed the description of evil (for evil doubtless is intended) as a supervenient nature, without root and without place, reads almost as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides's comparison of pain and fear to the rust of iron as natural accidents (ἐπισυμβαίνει). The identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the Alexandrian has been denied by Gieseler with some show of reason. It is at least strange that our Basilides should be described simply as a "preacher among the Persians," a character in which he is otherwise unknown; and all the more since he has been previously mentioned with Marcion and Valentinus as a heretic of familiar name.^[62] On the other hand, it has been justly urged that the two passages are addressed to different persons. The correspondence is likewise remarkable between the "treatises" in at least thirteen books, with an interpretation of a parable among their contents, and the "twenty-four books on the Gospel" mentioned by Agrippa Castor, called Exegetica by Clement. Thus the evidence for the identity of the two writers may on the whole be treated as preponderating. But the ambiguity of interpretation remains; and it would be impossible to rank Basilides confidently among dualists, even if the passage in the Acts stood alone: much more to use it as a standard by which to force a dualistic interpretation upon other clearer statements of his doctrine.

Isidorus

Hippolytus^[63] couples with Basilides "his true child and disciple" Isidore. He is there referring to the use which they made of the Traditions of Matthias; but in the next sentence he treats them as jointly responsible for the doctrines which he recites. Our only other authority respecting Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who calls him in like manner "at once son and disciple" of Basilides.^[64]

Expositions of the Prophet Parchor

In this place he gives three extracts from the first and second books of Isidore's Expositions (Ἐξηγητικά) of the Prophet Parchor. They are all parts of a plea, like so many put forward after the example of Josephus against Apion, that the higher thoughts of heathen philosophers and mythologers were derived from a Jewish source. The last reference given is to Pherecydes, who had probably a peculiar interest for Isidore as the earliest promulgator of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to tradition.^[65] His allegation that Pherecydes followed "the prophecy of Ham" has been perversely urged as a sign that he set up the prophets of a hated race against the prophets of Israel. The truth is rather that the identification of Zoroaster with Ham or Ham's son, whatever may have been its origin, rendered it easy to claim for the apocryphal Zoroastrian books a quasi-biblical sanctity as proceeding from a son of Noah, and that Isidore gladly accepted the theory as evidence for his argument. "The prophets" from whom "some of the philosophers" appropriated a wisdom not their own can be no other than the Jewish prophets.

On an Adherent Soul

Again Clement quotes his book On an Adherent Soul (Περὶ προσφυοῦς ψυχῆς) in correction of his preceding quotation from Basilides on the passions as "appendages".^[66] If the eight lines transcribed are a fair sample of the treatise, Isidore would certainly appear to have argued here against his father's teaching. He insists on the unity μονομερής of the soul, and maintains that bad men will find "no common excuse" in the violence of the "appendages" for pleading that their evil acts were involuntary: our duty is, he says, "by overcoming the inferior creation within us (τῆς ἐλάττονος ἐν ἡμῖν κτίσεως) through the reasoning faculty (τῷ λογιστικῷ), to show ourselves to have the mastery."

Ethics

A third passage from Isidore's Ethics^[67] is intercalated into his father's argument on 1 Corinthians 7:9, to the same purport but in a coarser strain. Its apparent difficulty arises partly from a corrupt reading (ἀντέχου μαχίμης γυναικος, where γαμετῆς must doubtless be substituted for μαχίμης, ἀντέχου meaning not "resist," which would be ἀντέχε, as in the preceding line, but "have recourse to"); partly from the assumption that the following words ὅταν δὲ κ.τ.λ. are likewise by Isidore, whereas the sense shows them to be a continuation of the exposition of Basilides himself.

Legacy

Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and Basilides superadded an eclecticism of his own. Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and the Christian faith and Scriptures all exercised a powerful and immediate influence over his mind. It is evident at a glance that his system is far removed from any known form of Syrian or original Gnosticism. Like that of Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a Greek spirit, but much more completely. Historical records fail us almost entirely as to the personal relations of the great heresiarchs; yet internal evidence furnishes some indications which it can hardly be rash to trust. Ancient writers usually name Basilides before Valentinus; but there is little doubt that they were at least approximately contemporaries, and it is not unlikely that Valentinus was best known personally from his sojourn at Rome, which was probably^[68] the last of the recorded stages of his life. There is at all events no serious chronological difficulty in supposing that the Valentinian system was the starting-point from which Basilides proceeded to construct by contrast his own theory, and this is the view which a comparison of doctrines suggests. In no point, unless it be the retention of the widely spread term archon, is Basilides nearer than Valentinus to the older Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic forms or ideas which he discards or even repudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such are descent from above,^[69] putting forth or pullulation,^{[* 5]} syzygies of male and female powers, and the deposition of faith to a lower level than knowledge. Further, the unique name given by Basilides to the Holy Spirit, "the Limitary (μεθόριον) Spirit," together with the place assigned to it, can hardly be anything else than a transformation of the strange Valentinian "Limit" (ὅρος), which in like manner divides the Pleroma from the lower world; though, in conformity with the unifying purpose of Basilides, the Limitary Spirit is conceived as connecting as well as parting the two worlds.^[70]

The same softening of oppositions which retain much of their force even with Valentinus shows itself in other instances, as of matter and spirit, creation and redemption, the Jewish age and the Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly elements in the Person of Jesus. The strongest impulse in this direction probably came from Christian ideas and the power of a true though disguised Christian faith. But Greek speculative Stoicism tended likewise to break down the inherited dualism, while at the same time its own inherent limitations brought faith into captivity. An antecedent matter was expressly repudiated, the words of Genesis 1:3 eagerly appropriated, and a Divine counsel represented as foreordaining all future growths and processes; yet the chaotic nullity out of which the developed universe was to spring was attributed with equal boldness to its Maker: Creator and creation were not confused, but they melted away in the distance together. Nature was accepted not only as prescribing the conditions of the lower life, but as practically the supreme and permanent arbiter of destiny. Thus though faith regained its rights, it remained an energy of the understanding, confined to those who had the requisite inborn capacity; while the dealings of God with man were shut up within the lines of mechanical justice.

Popularity

Basilides had to all appearance no eminent disciple except his own son. Although Basilides is mentioned by all the Church Fathers as one of the chiefs of Gnosticism, the system of Valentinus seems to have been much more popular and wider spread, as was also Marcionism. Hence, though anti-Gnostic literature is abundant, we know of only one patristic work, which had for its express purpose the refutation of Basilides, and this work is no longer extant. Eusebius^[71] says: "There has come down to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, one of the most renowned writers of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man." With the exception of a few phrases given by Eusebius we know nothing of this Agrippa and his work.

Influence

Twentieth-century psychoanalyst Carl Jung wrote his Seven Sermons to the Dead and attributed them to Basilides. The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges was interested in Irenaeus' account of Basilides' Gnostic doctrine and wrote an essay on the subject: "A Vindication of the False Basilides" (1932). Basilides is also mentioned in Borges's short story "Three Versions of Judas" (1944), which opens with the striking passage "In Asia Minor or in Alexandria, in the second century of our faith, when Basilides published that the Cosmos was a reckless or evil improvisation by deficient angels..."

See also

• Basilides or, to be more precise, "the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides," is also mentioned in Borges' story "The Library of Babel".
• Christian mystics

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Seven Sermons to the Dead

• Commentary on "The Basilidian Gnosis" by G.R.S. Mead, in Fragments of Faith Forgotten
• "Basilides" by T. Apiryon
• Seven Sermons to the Dead
• Fragments of Basilides
• Fragments of his son Isidore
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Basilides

Notes

References

Bibliography

•  "Basilides". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Basilides_(1). 
•  "Basilides". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911. 
• This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.
• This article uses text from A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies by Henry Wace.
• Buonaiuti, Lo Gnosticismo (Rome, 1907)
• Duchesne, Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise (3d ed., Paris, 1907), I, xi, s.v. La Gnose et le Marcionisme
• Bareille in Dict. de theol. Cath., s. vv. Abrasax, Basilide
• Leclercq, Dict. d'arch. Chret., s.v. Abrasax
• Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg, 1902), I
• King, The Gnostics and Their Remains (2d ed., London, 1887)
• Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (London and Benares, 1900)
• Hort in Dict. Christ. Biog., I, 268-281
• Mansel, Gnostic Heresies
• De Groot, Basilides als erster Zeuge fur das N. T. (Leipzig, 1868)
• Urlhorn, Das Basilidianische System (Gottingen, 1855).