Talk:Gospel of Basilides

Scope of the article

May I put in my three-pennyworth?

The article as currently is alas short of current scholarship; relying far too much on the Catholic Encyclopedia, Britannica and the like.

Nothing is known for certain of the Gospel of Basilides, whether it existed or not. The standard summary of current scholarly opinion is in Schneemelcher "New Testament Apocrypha" trans Wilson; revised eidtion 1991. Fortunately the section on the Gospel of Basilides (pp 397 - 398) are accessible in Google preview; http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/New_Testament_Apocrypha.html?id=TDW0PeFSvGEC . Might I suggest that the article takes Schneemelcher account as its primary source? Essentially, no quotations from a Gospel of Basilides survive; but we do have three quotations from Basilides 24 volume Exegetica or commentary, and some (though not all) commentators suggest that the two works should be identified.

An extended discusson of Basilides Gospel is found Kelhoffer "Conceptions of Gospel" pp 77-97; and again much is fortunately accessible as Google preview. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pN5gqU5A9noC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=basilides+commentary+gospel&source=bl&ots=EZ_3AHaieq&sig=-rDpdEJcA5LsWCySMl32rYmH3Aw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ceRIVN-ELIa07gath4DgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=basilides%20commentary%20gospel&f=false The matter included in the article about Simon being crucified instead of Jesus comes from Irenaeus who attributes it to Basilides though not to any 'Gospel'; but it would appear that current sholarship (Lohr) regards Irenaeus claims to knowledge of Basilides with suspicion, as Ireneaus's account does not accord with the perspective found in writers who quote directly from the Exegetica. The standard study is Lohr 'Basilides Und Seine Schule' 1996.

In my view the crucifixion story should be mentioned in the article; but with the qualification that it may well not come from Basilides - or may be his quotation from some other Gnostic writing. The theme the living Jesus laughing at the crucifixion, wherein a semblance, or substitution of him was killed in his place, is a standard trope of Gnostic writings; for instance in The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Hence the Islamic account of Jesus escaping crucifixion is indeed prefigured in Gnostic writings. But it would be wrong to conclude a corresponce between Gnostic and Islamic beliefs. Both Islam and Gnosticis dissmiss the orthodox Christian view of Christ's atoning suffering and death on the cross; but whereas the Gnostic belief is founded on the absolute divinity of Christ (who consequently cannot die or suffer), the Islamic belief is founded on the absolute humanity of Christ (whose sufferings consequently cannot atone for all).

hope this helps TomHennell (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted back to fuller article as the above is in agreement by another more knowledgeable Wikipedian that the points mentioned previously were of relevance. Please help in sorting out the citations as I seem to have messed it up!Mhakcm (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All right. Now the article speaks of a gospel of which "no trace exists," but contains an in-depth-analysis of "one of the features," of it, which "has similarities to the Islamic belief." The last part contradicts Tom's statement above. And more: I do not think this article has improved in clarity this way.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have been delayed - it being half term. Basilides supposed authorship of an account of the crucifixion wher Simon dies place of Jesus, widely noted in standard refernce works (e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church;) and I cannot see that it can be wholly omitted from the article, even though there is considerable debate whether it actually stood in a text that carried the title of 'Gospel of Basilides'

The Gospel of Basilides is the title given to a reputed text within the New Testament apocrypha. This gospel was supposedly written by Basilides, who was a leading theologian of Gnostic tendencies, who taught in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides teachings were condemned as heretical by Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130 – c,200), and by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 - c.236), although they had been evaluated more positively by Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c.215). None of Irenaeus, Hippolytus or Clement however, report a gospel in the name of Basilides. The first direct reference to a Gospel of Basilides is therefore 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 again, none of these authors report any quotations from the supposed gospel. Much more is known about Basilides major work, the ‘’Exegetica’’ in twenty-four books; of which Clement of Alexandria provides an extended quotation from book twenty-three’, while other quotations are preserved in the works of Hegemonius. Eusebius of Caesarea reports Agrippa Castor as describing the Exegetica as ‘’twenty-four books on the Gospel”, and this notice has been interpreted as characterising the full Exegetica as a commentary text, whose base text would therefore be the 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 lost 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 of 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 only to the Exegetica itself; and that the two works are therefore to be identified. Otherwise, the Gospel of Basilides could denote a third century Gnostic text (whether lost or surviving under another title) with no connection to Basilides himself. Schneemercher states that ‘’In short it must be said that all conjectures concerning the Gospel of Basilides remain uncertain.’’

References

Account of the Crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene in the place of Jesus

Although Irenaeus’s account of Basilides makes no mention of his having written a gospel, he does record Basilides as teaching that Christ in Jesus, as a wholly divine being, could not 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.’’’ 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 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 having been substituted for Jesus. Later Islamic tradition, interpreting the Qur’an at Suras 3 and 4, would maintain that another was substituted for Jesus, son of Mary, on the cross; although without identifying the person substituted, and also without the detail of Christ laughing at the successful divine stratagem.

This is my proposed version, happy for others to adapt it as you see fit. I will then add citations etc. TomHennell (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with the first part: that looks great. The crucifixion-part does look great too. However, I do believe that the "Account of the Crucifixion" would fit better in the Basilides-article, in which no reference to the cross or crucifixion is made yet. And there, it would be a welcome addition. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure you're right. It is always problematic as to how much rein to give to academic speculation, in respect of a text absolutley none of which survives. But in this case for example, I note that George Sale devoted a long footnote in his Koran translation to discussing possible parallels with Basilides. So the issue can scarcely be left out altogether. My own view (not that this is at all notable for Wikipedia purposes) is that we can confidently identify two distinct texts that circulated from the late 2nd centry onwards under the name of Basilides; the Exegetica which I would gloss more as 'dicourses' than 'commentaries'; and a laughing passion Jesus text. The Exegetica we know from direct quotations and descriptions; the 'laughing passion' text we can infer from Irenaeaus and as the common source for the crucifixion accounts in known Nag Hammadi texts. With Lohr, I am very doubtful whether Basilides himself was the original author of the 'laughing passion', but by 200 CE it was clearly associated with his name. I think its a fair assumption that, when Origen referred to a 'Gospel of Basilides' he was denoting one or another of these texts; but it is no longer possible to determine exactly which, and nor in this article do we really need to. TomHennell (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, I think. TomHennell (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Tom, you made it hard for me! :) On one side, I still think that the crucifixion-part should be in the article of the person Basilides. But on the other hand, the version you made is too good to edit any further. My compliments on that. If any action still has to be taken, then it will not be done by me. Best regards, and keep up the good work, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not myself object to putting the cruxifixion part in the Basilides article; so long as it goes somewhere. However, I think that the current arrangement concurrs better with the conclusions of Lohr; which in my understanding (my German not being that good) is that the Exegetica is by Basilides (and Isadore his son) and is a commentary on the gospels of Matthew and Luke; while the 'Gospel of Basilides' (as known by Origen) is a distinct mid-second century work, not by Basilides or Isadore, but which circulated amongst the Basilideans from the latter second century onwards. So three articles - Basilides, Gospel of Basilides and Basilideans - all highly speculative in content. My own view is that, envisaging a newcomer to all these matters, a text narrating the crucifixion of Jesus is quite properly categorised as a 'Gospel'. TomHennell (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)