Gospel of Basilides
- 3 min read
- 2 chapters
Explore on Lably
ToursExplore Lably’s 3D toursHistory
The first direct reference to a Gospel of Basilides is that found in Origen (c. 185 – c. 254), who reports:
The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have many. One of them is entitled According to the Egyptians. Another is According to the Twelve Apostles. Basilides too dared to write a Gospel According to Basilides.
Origen's notice is the source for references to the Gospel of Basilides in Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and the Venerable Bede. But none of these authors report any quotations from the supposed gospel, nor are they able to give an indication as to its content or character.
Much more is known about Basilides major work in twenty-four books; for which Clement of Alexandria records the title Exegetica (or 'Treatises') and provides quotations from book twenty-three, while other quotations are preserved in the works of Hegemonius. Eusebius of Caesarea reports Agrippa Castor (mid-2nd century) as describing the Exegetica as "twenty-four books on the Gospel", and this notice has been interpreted as characterising the full Exegetica as an extended commentary, whose base text might be inferred as being the lost Gospel of Basilides. From this assumption and the surviving quotations from the Exegetica, a range of theories have been developed as to the nature of the Gospel of Basilides: that it was a redaction of the Gospel of Luke; that it combined the Gospels of Luke and Matthew; that it was a diatessaron, or harmony of all four gospels; that it was an independent account of the life of Jesus; and even that it was an abstract treatise or homily on the religious significance of Jesus, with no specific relation to his teachings or the events of his earthly ministry, similar in this respect to the Gospel of Truth, another Gnostic work. Some scholars maintain that Origen's notice of a Gospel of Basilides was referring to the Exegetica itself; and that the two titles are therefore to be identified. Otherwise, the Gospel of Basilides could denote a 2nd or 3rd century Gnostic text (whether lost or surviving under another title) with no connection to Basilides himself, other than being preserved within the sect that bore his name. Wilhelm Schneemelcher states that "In short it must be said that all conjectures concerning the Gospel of Basilides remain uncertain."
Sign in to keep reading
One more chapter is free with a Lably account.
Account of the Crucifixion
Basilides is reported as having taught a docetic doctrine of Christ's passion. Although Irenaeus’s makes no mention of Basilides having written a gospel, he does record him as teaching that Christ in Jesus, as a wholly divine being, could not suffer bodily pain and did not die on the cross; but that the person crucified was, in fact, Simon of Cyrene.
He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by laughing at them. Irenaeus, Against Heresies
Epiphanius of Salamis reports the same episode as being taught by Basilides, although he may in this be relying solely on Irenaeus. Accounts of the living Christ being seen laughing alongside, or above, the crucifixion are also found in two second/third century Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi Library; the Apocalypse of Peter and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth; and in the latter text, Simon of Cyrene is also identified as being one of a succession of bodily substitutes for the spiritual Christ. Winrich Löhr infers that a common mid-2nd century gospel tradition (which he nevertheless doubts as originating with Basilides himself) must underlie both the Irenaeus notice and the two Nag Hammadi texts.