5.5.1 Basilides of Alexandria
Basilides of Alexandria is the earliest, easily datable author who knew and used
Luke.
50 Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’
Chronicon reports that Basilides lingered (
commoratur) in Alexandria until 132 CE.
51 Since the heresiologists agree that he was a predecessor of Valentinus (e.g. Irenaeus
A.H. 24.1; Epiphanius 1.31.21), Basilides’ tenure must have begun some decades earlier.
52 Basilides is, in any case, Marcion’s predecessor. It is significant evidence for the present inquiry, therefore, that Basilides’ corpus reflects knowledge of
Luke in its non-Marcionite form.
Hegemonius’
Acts of Archelaus (67) quotes from Basilides’ Exegetica in order to demonstrate that his heretical opponent Manes was influenced by earlier heretics. Eusebius describes Basilides’
Exegetica as “about the gospel” (
E.H. 4.7.6).53 Accordingly, Hegemonius’ quotation of the thirteenth volume invokes the Parable of Dives and Lazarus (
Luke 16:19-31). Basilides, thus, appeals to the parable of Lazarus and Dives in order to explain the origin of some malignant “nature.”55 This Lukan parable is not found in
Matthew, Mark, or John.
The parable is, however, found in Marcion’s gospel. Hegemonius citation of the
Exegetica, therefore, shows only that Basilides knew some form of the third gospel. Two other testimonia will demonstrate that Basilides’ knew this gospel in its non-Marcionite 'shape.'
Clement of Alexandria and the Hippolytan Refutator furnish evidence that Basilides knew non-Marcionite
Luke decades before the advent of Marcion. Clement reports that the followers of Basilides celebrate Jesus’ baptism. They disagree amongst themselves, according to Clement, about the exact day on which Jesus was baptized. Important for our purposes, however, Clement reports that the Basilideans all agreed about the year of Jesus’ baptism.
Clement,
Stromata 1.21.146
- And those from Basilides also celebrate the day of his [i.e. Jesus’] baptism, passing the night before <in> readings. They say it was on the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar on the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi – or alternatively some say on the eleventh of this month.
This precise manner of dating Jesus’ baptism is unique to Luke (3:1). While the same phrase is, indeed, found in Marcion’s gospel, it introduces Jesus’ entrance into the Capernaum synagogue rather than Jesus’ baptism. The Basilidean consensus that Jesus was baptized on the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, therefore, betrays Basilidean dependence on a uniquely Lukan construction over and against Marcion’s gospel. Competing factions of Basilidean Christians in Egypt, according to Clement, held Luke in common in the mid-second century. In light of clear evidence from Hegemonius that Basilides’
Exegetica treated material from the third gospel (above), this Basilidean consensus probably reflects Basilides treatment of non-Marcionite Luke decades before Marcion flourished.
Finally, the pseudo-Hippolytan
Refutation of All Heresies provides the most valuable testimony to Basilides’ use of Luke. The writings of Basilides and the Basilideans are quoted extensively in the
Refutation (5.8-16)
- This, [Basilides] says, is what was stated: “‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you’ – that which came from the Sonship through the boundary of the Spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, unto Mary. ‘And the power of the Most High will overshadow you’ – the ‘power’ of discernment (which came) from the height above (through) the Demiurge, unto creation, which is of the Son” (Refutation of All Heresies 7.26.9).
The Refutator provides Basilides’ commentary on the Lukan nativity. Both the lemma and Basilides’ interpretation depend on the phrasing of
Luke 1:35. That is, Basilides’ “power” (δὺναμις) descending from “the height above” (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀκρωρείας ἄνωθεν) is a transparent rendering of
Luke’s “power of the most high” (δύναμις ὑψίστου). This is a uniquely Lukan passage not found in Marcion’s gospel.
x
Taken together, the
Acts of Archelaus, Clement of Alexandria, and the pseudo-Hippolytan
Refutation of All Heresies provide compelling evidence that Basilides knew and used
Luke in its non-Marcionite form. These testimonia include two direct citations of Basilides’ exegesis and a discussion of Basilidean liturgy. The third gospel as it is preserved in the entire manuscript tradition —in contrast to Marcion’s gospel— is multiply attested for Basilides in Alexandria decades before Marcion.
50 Andrew Gregory and Winrich Löhr reach the same conclusion. My argument here closely follows Gregory. Andrew Gregory,
The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 77–80; von Winrich Alfried Löhr,
Basilides und seine Schule: eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 325–26.
51 The Armenian gives 133, instead. Löhr,
Basilides und seine Schule, 35.
50 This information does not fit well with Clement’s claim that Marcion was an old man during the lifetime of Basilides and Valentinus (Clement Stromata 7.17). Clement then dates Simon and Peter latest of all. Clearly, Clement is confused.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/server/a ... 61/content
x Could Luke have used Basilides rather than
vice-versa?
Andrew Gregory,
The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century, Mohr Siebeck, 2003; 77–80:
(underlining and highlights added here)
4.5 The Gospel of Basilides108
Basilides was a Christian philosopher who appears to have been active in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century.
Origen claims that Basilides dared to write a Gospel and to give it his own name,
109 and Ambrose reproduces this tradition.
110 Eusebius, citing a lost work of Agrippa Castor, which he describes as a most powerful refutation of Basilides, states that Basilides compiled 24 books on the gospel.
111 The latter may be a commentary on the former, but
the nature and contents of Basilides' Gospel is unclear.
112 Some of the extant fragments of Basilides appear to be from unknown works rather than from a commentary; other fragments appear to be from commentaries on letters later considered canonical, which may mean either that Basilides wrote commentaries on texts in addition to "the gospel", or that his twenty four books on the gospel ranged widely and that this may reflect a wide understanding of the term "gospel" by Basilides.
Basilides'
Gospel may 'presuppose'
Luke or at least L-tradition, but
it is very difficult to give any comprehensive account of this work,
or to be sure of which traditions from the school of Basilides may go back to Basilides himself. Three passages are of particular importance in assessing the possible evidence for Basilides' use of
Luke: fragments in the
Acts of Archelaus and Clement of Alexandria, and one testimony in Hippolytus to Basilides' apparent use of
Luke.
108 for introduction and bibliography, se Peuch-Blatz; Löhr 1996
109 Homilies on Luke 1
110 Exposition on Luke 1.2
111 Eccl. hist. 4.7.7
112 For
cautionary comments on what may be inferred from our limited knowledge of the content and nature of Basilides Gospel, see Peuch-Blatz 1991: 397-9; Campenhausen 1967: 139 ...
4.5.1 Hegemonius, Acts of Archelaus 67.1
The
Acts of Archelaus is an account of a disputation between one Archelaus and the heresiarch Manes. The text is extant in a latin translation which has been attributed to Hegemonius, who was probably active in the fourth century. There are also Greek fragments quoted by Epiphanius.
Hegemonius' latin translation claims that, in book 13 of his commentary, Basilides
113 expounds the parable of the rich man and the poor man, an apparent reference to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that appears in single-tradition in
Luke: "per parabolam divitis et pauperis naturam sine radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullaverit indicat".
114
There is no reason to dispute this statement, nor the likelihood that the reference is to the parable found in
Luke 16, but it is important not to draw too much from it. The parable falls in single-tradition in the central section of
Luke, and
it is possible that Basilides may have known this parable or a similar one independently of its place in Luke. If Orbe is correct that the parable is used to explain a dualistic understanding of reality
115 — the rich man is representing light, and the poor man darkness — then
its exegesis and application by Basilides seems far removed from its context in Luke. It is difficult to understand the apparent explanation of the parable. As Löhr remarks,
it is difficult to see the connection between Luke 16:19—31 and Basilides' interest in the problem of the origin of evil.
116 Yet these difficulties in themselves neither strengthen nor weaken the possibility that Basilides may have drawn the parable either from
Luke or from tradition shared with
Luke; they serve only to emphasise that
Basilides' possible use of Luke, if such it is, is very different from the use to which it has been put by others.
Puech conjectures that the expression "natura sine radice" "might perhaps be inspired by Lk. 8: 13", although he allows that a similar expression is found in triple-tradition.
117 Thus
this expression adds little to the evidence for Basilides' use of Luke. No Lukan redaction may be identified securely in this statement that Basilides used a parable known today in gospel tradition only in
Luke, so this evidence alone is insufficient to demonstrate Basilides' use of
Luke.
113 Layton (1987: 417n.1) argues that the Basilides referred to in this text is
not Basilides the Christian philosopher
but rather Basilides the Preacher, whose account of Persian dualist theology Hegemonius quotes.
114 Acts of Archelaus 67.5
117 1991: p.398
4.5.2 'Hippolytus', Refutation 7.26.9
[The
Refutation's] account of Basilides' system stands in some tension to the account found in Irenaeus, refers to Basilides' citation of a saying identical to
Luke 1:35 as the grounds for his belief that the light which had passed down from the Ogdoad to Hebdomad came to rest on the son of the Hebdomad, Jesus Son of Mary. Jesus caught this light and was enlightened by it, and 'Hippolytus' presents this aspect of Basilides' cosmology as an exposition of the words of Gabriel to Mary. "The Holy Spirit which shall come upon you" refers to that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary; "and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow you" refers to the power of the anointing/Christ from the height of the Demiurge on high to the creation which is of the Son.
Prima facie, there is a strong case that here Basilides cites the words of Gabriel recorded in
Luke 1:35 and therefore
Luke. Nevertheless,
the case is not proven. Basilides' use of the content of an angelic revelation quite apart from any reference to its context is perfectly consistent with his cosmology and hermeneutics, but
there remains the case that these words may have been known to him other than through Luke. It is possible that this saying may have circulated independently, possibly in a source on which
Luke also drew. Certainly there are parallels between its content and traditional christological material in Romans 1:3-4.
Therefore, although the simplest and most natural reading of this evidence is that 'Hippolytus' testifies to Basilides' use of
Luke, nevertheless other explanations are possible.
4.5.3 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.146.1—3
Clement introduces a brief reference to the custom of the followers of Basilides who observe the day of Jesus baptism as a festival, having spent the previous night in reading. They say that the baptism took place on the 15th day of the month Tubi in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. This reference to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar as the date of Jesus' baptism and the beginning of his public ministry is also found in
Luke 3:1, and it is for this reason that
the followers of Basilides appear to be using Luke.
Two problems present themselves before this may be considered evidence of Basilides' 'own' reception of
Luke. First,
it is not clear that this chronological information presupposes the use of Luke. Such information may stem from independent tradition concerning Jesus, although a case can be made that such historical colouring is a redactional interest of
Luke. Clement certainly associated this information with
Luke, for prior to his statement that the followers of Basilides date the baptism of Jesus to the 15th day he has referred explicitly to
Luke as the source for this information, and he has drawn also on
Luke for other information. Nevertheless,
Clement does not explicitly claim that the followers of Basilides drew this information from Luke, although the context suggests that this inference might be made. Second, Clement is explicit that it is the followers of Basilides who give the date of Jesus baptism as the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi in the fifteenth year; this information may have come to them from Basilides
Gospel, or
it may have entered their school tradition at a later point.
Consequently,
only a cautious conclusion may be drawn as to whether Basilides is 'a witness to the reception of' Luke. Löhr notes that the evidence of the Acts of Archelaus together with that of Clement means that "Die Hypothese einer auf dem Lukasevangelium basierenden Evangelienrezension besitzt ... eine gewisse Plausibilitat",
118 and the evidence of Hippolytus may help to strengthen this hypothesis. If the hypothesis is accepted, it need not mean either that Basilides' use of
Luke was exclusive,
a as apparently was Marcion's,
b or that he knew it under that name. However, it would mean that
Luke was known in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century, the same period at which
Luke — or a text very like
Luke — appears to have been used by Marcion and Justin in Rome.
118 Löhr 1996: 329.
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition ... =en&gbpv=1
a What does it matter whether "Basilides' use of
Luke was exclusive" nor not??
b Huh? In what way would Marcion's "use of Luke" have been exclusive (if Marcion had 'used' Luke)?
eta
Mills' n.10 (p.237):
... Basilides and Tatian had ten and eleven letter collections, respectively. On the existence of this ten letter collection before Marcion, see Ulrich Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, Arbeiten
zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Bd. 25 (Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter, 1995), 284–308.