Giuseppe is ready to accept that Basilides knew Luke as an obvious fact, but I am going to post the case for it here anyway. (The unfinished post has been sitting around in my docs file for the better part of a year).
The late Martin Hengel argued that the early second century writer Basilides of Alexandria knew the Gospel of Luke (2000, pp. 57-58) The argument was based on the study of Basilides by Hengel’s student Winrich A. Löhr (1996), who compiled 18 testimonia about Basilides and 19 fragments from his writings preserved in other writers. In his book arguing for a version of the theory of the priority of Marcion’s Gospel to Luke (i.e., the so-called Semler hypothesis), Joseph B. Tyson examined two possible cases that might show Basilides’ knowledge of Luke and concluded, against Hengel and Löhr, that the evidence from those two cases is unclear and they do no establish that Basilides knew Luke (2006, pp. 80-82).
Neil Godfrey recapitulated Tyson’s arguments regarding the two cases for Basilides’ knowledge of Luke on the Vridar blog back in 2008:
https://vridar.org/2008/05/30/the-date- ... l-of-luke/
In this post, I re-examine the evidence from the two cases discussed by Tyson, as well as an additional case, and argue that Basilides probably did know the Gospel of Luke.
The Two Cases Reviewed by J. B. Tyson
1) The first case is a text from Clement of Alexandria:
And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his [Jesus'] baptism as a festival, spending the night, before in readings. And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month. And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.146, ANF 2:333, quoted from Tyson, p. 81; cf. Stromata 1.21 NewAdvent online).
Tyson argues that the fact that the followers of Basilides say that the baptism of Jesus occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (which is recorded in the Gospel of Luke) does not mean that Basilides himself knew that. It may be that Basilides’ followers learned the year of Jesus’ baptism after Basilides lifetime, or at least after his writings were published.
The date of the 15th year of Tiberius could, of course, come from Marcion’s Evangelion, but not the fact that Jesus was baptized then.
2) The second case is a passage from a somewhat obscure fourth century text, Hegemonius’ Acta Archelai (or Acts of Archelaus), which survives only in Latin translation.
As we write the thirteenth book of the treatise, the saving word provides for us a necessary and substantial example: Through the parable of the rich and the poor we are shown from where nature could spring up and without origin, appearing in phenomena [Hegemonius Acta Archelai, as quoted in Tyson, p. 82).
This would at least appear to refer to the Parable of Dives and Lazarus from Luke 16.19-31, which begins:
Luke 16.19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,
Tyson disputes that interpretation of Hegemonius’ text, preferring instead the 1871 translation of S.D.F Salmond in the ante-Nicene Fathers series:
Then he illustrates how it, the antagonism between good and evil, is produced under the figures of a rich principle and a poor principle, of which the latter is by nature without root and without place, and only supervenes upon things. (ANF 6, 550).
Tyson comments:
The reconstruction of the Hcgcmonius text is critical here. The two main Latin manuscripts have parvulam, but Löhr elects to follow an early translation by M. Routh, who suggested that the text
should read parobolam. S.D.F. Salmond, however, translates the phrase as, "the figures of a rich principle and a poor principle.” and he notes that ‘Routh confesses his inability to understand what can be meant by the term parvulum and suggests parabolam.’ From Routh’s inability to understand the Latin term, Löhr moves to the contention that Basilides was possibly acquainted with the parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16. I suggest that this case has not been shown convincingly. (Tyson, 81).
should read parobolam. S.D.F. Salmond, however, translates the phrase as, "the figures of a rich principle and a poor principle.” and he notes that ‘Routh confesses his inability to understand what can be meant by the term parvulum and suggests parabolam.’ From Routh’s inability to understand the Latin term, Löhr moves to the contention that Basilides was possibly acquainted with the parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16. I suggest that this case has not been shown convincingly. (Tyson, 81).
It is worth quoting Salmond’s footnote from his 1871 translation in full here, because Tyson seems to have misunderstood him.
The text is, “per parvulam divitis et pauperis naturam sine radice et sine loco rebus supervenientem unde pullulaverit indicat.” The reading seems defective. But the general intention of this very obscure and fragmentary sentence appears to be as given above. So Neander understands it as conveying a figurative description of the two principles of light and darkness, expressed in the Zoroastrian doctrine immediately cited,—the rich being the good principle, and the poor the evil. He also supposes the phrase “without root and without place” to indicate the “absoluteness of the principle, that springs up all at once, and mixes itself up with the development of existence.”—See Church History, ii. 51 (Bohn). Routh confesses his inability to understand what can be meant by the term parvulam, and suggests parabolam. (Salmond, ANF 6, 550).
Tyson appears to draw the incorrect inference that Salmond is criticizing Routh’s emendation, when in fact he agrees with it. Note that after Salmon quotes the Latin, he comments: ‘The reading seems defective’, and then in his translation he uses the word ‘figure’, which is not a translation of parvulam (‘small’, and feminine in gender) and which would not make sense in the context. Salmond is noting that the Latin reading in the manuscripts seems to be an error and he is either accepting the emendation proposed by Routh or emending the text in a way that essentially agrees with Routh (i.e., the word ‘figure’ could be used to translate parabolem, but not parvulam). The critical edition of Hegemonius Acta Archelai in the GCS series by Charles Henry Beeson (1906), which is what accepts Routh’s emendation. Tyson appears to have confused an emendation of a text by a textual critic working in the original language with an alternative translation of a text into a different language by a translator.
Nonetheless, while Salmond appears to have agreed with Routh’s emendation, he does translate the relevant words as ‘the figures of a rich principle and a poor principle’ rather than as ‘the parable of the rich man and the poor man’. Neither the word ‘principle’ nor the word ‘man’ directly translates anything in the Latin, but the latter rendering seems preferable. It would seem strange to use the abstract concepts of a rich-principle and a poor-principle as a figure or parable in order to talk about other abstract concepts. It seems more reasonable to understand the text to mean that the Word of Salvation used the parable of the rich man and the poor man to talk about more abstract concepts.
I think Mark Vermes’s 2001 English translation of the Acta Archelai probably has the sense right:
There was also among the Persians a preacher called Basilides who lived even earlier, not long after the time of our apostles.27 He was an astute man and had observed that at that time all other areas had
been fully studied, so he decided to assert that same dualism that had been present with Scythianus. In short since he had nothing of his own to propound, he challenged his adversaries with the sayings of others. All his books contain some difficult and very abstruse passages. The thirteenth book of his treatises is still extant, and it begins as follows:‘As we are writing the thirteenth book of our treatises the word of salvation will provide for us the necessary and fruitful content. By means of the parable of the rich man and the poor man it demonstrates the source of the nature that comes upon things without a root or a place.’ (Acta Archelai 67.4–5)
been fully studied, so he decided to assert that same dualism that had been present with Scythianus. In short since he had nothing of his own to propound, he challenged his adversaries with the sayings of others. All his books contain some difficult and very abstruse passages. The thirteenth book of his treatises is still extant, and it begins as follows:‘As we are writing the thirteenth book of our treatises the word of salvation will provide for us the necessary and fruitful content. By means of the parable of the rich man and the poor man it demonstrates the source of the nature that comes upon things without a root or a place.’ (Acta Archelai 67.4–5)
It seems most likely that the Acta Archelai is quoting the beginning of the thirteenth book of Basilides, which referred to Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man, or Dives and Lazarus from Luke 16.
The passage could also come from Marcion’s Evangelion, for which it is attested by Tertullian Against Heresies 4.34.
An Additional Case
3) There is a third text in which Basilides appears to be commenting on the text of Luke, which is found in (Pseudo) Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, given here with David Litwa’s translation:
ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθῆναι τὸ κάλυμ<μ>α καὶ ὀφθῆναι ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια,
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.
Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High” being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary. [Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.3, ed. and trans. David Litwa,p. 431]
γεγέν<ν>ηται ὁ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· «πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ»—πνεῦμα ἔστιν ἡ Σοφία—, «καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι»—ὕψιστος ἔστιν ὁ δημιουργός·—«διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ
ἅγιον κληθήσεται». 4. γεγέν<ν>ηται γὰρ οὐκ ἀπὸ ὑψίστου μόνου, ὥσπερ οἱ
κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ κτισθέντες ἀπὸ μόνου ἐκτίσθησαν τοῦ ὑψίστου—τουτέστι
[τῆς Σοφίας καὶ] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς, «ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος», [ὁ] ἀπὸ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου—τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ—, ἵνα τὴν μὲν
πλάσιν καὶ κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ
τῆς Ὀγδοάδος, γεν<ν>ηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας.
Now when it became necessary for the veil to be removed, and these mysteries to be seen, Jesus was born from Mary the virgin, according to what is said: “Holy Spirit will come upon you”—the Spirit being Wisdom—“and power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the “Most High” being the Artificer. “Consequently what is born from you will be called holy.”181 4. Jesus was born not from the Most High alone, like people created according to the model of Adam were created from the Most High or Artificer. Rather, Jesus, “the new human being,” was born from the Holy Spirit—that is, from Wisdom and the Artificer.182 Accordingly, the Artificer fit together the mold and structure of his body, while the Holy Spirit supplied his substance. Thus arose a heavenly Word from the Ogdoad,
born through Mary. [Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 6.35.3, ed. and trans. David Litwa,p. 431]
As Litwa notes in his footnotes, this text would appear to be an interpretation of Luke 1.35. There are three quotations of Luke, ‘Holy Spirit will come upon you’, ‘and power of the Most High will overshadow you’ and ‘consequently you will be called holy’, interspersed with Basilides’ comments.
There is no parallel attested for Marcion’s Evangelion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clement of Alexandria Stromateis Books 1-2 (1991) translated by John Ferguson
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, ANF 6, trans. S.D.F. Salmond (Note: my page and footnote numbers are to the online edition and differ from Tyson’s, as he probably used a print edition).
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (GCS, 1906) Charles Henry Beeson, ed.
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai (Manichean Studies 4; Brepols, 2001) English translation by Mark Vermes, based on Beeson’s text.
Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium (1986) Miroslav Marcovich, ed.
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies (2016) M. David Litwa, ed. and trans.
Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (2000)
Löhr, Winrich Alfried, Basilides und seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (1996)
Tyson, Joseph B, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006)
I am indebted to Ian Mills for much of the information in this post. Any errors are my own.
Best,
Ken
