MARJANEN_F2_1-31 6/10/08 7:44 PM Page 1 BASILIDES THE GNOSTIC Birger A. Pearson “Basilides the heresiarch was living in Alexandria; from him derive the Gnostics.” This is one of the items listed by Eusebius in his Chronicle for the sixteenth year of Emperor Hadrian’s reign (132 C.E.).1 This is the only mention in Eusebius’ Chronicle of any “Gnostics,”2 if, indeed, that terminology is his. If it is, Eusebius here credits Basilides with being the first “Gnostic,” founder, as it were, of what some of us still call “Gnosticism.”3 That Basilides was a “Gnostic” can hardly be doubted, but he certainly was not the first one. In what follows I shall assess the available sources for Basilides, discuss what I take to be his authentic teachings, and attempt to situate him and his teachings in the con- text of the history of ancient Gnosticism and in the early history of Alexandrian Christianity. I shall concentrate my discussion on Basilides himself, with only limited attention to what our sources tell us about teachings of his followers (the “Basilidians”). I cheerfully acknowl- edge here my indebtedness to recent work of scholars more knowl- edgeable in the subject than I, particularly Winfred Löhr’s magisterial 1 Basilides haeresiarches in Alexandria commoratur. A quo gnostici; for the text, see R. Helm, ed., Die Chronik des Hieronymus (vol. 7 of Eusebius Werke; ed. der Kommission für spä- tantike Religionsgeschichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2nd ed.; GCS 47; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956), 201. ( Jerome’s Latin Chronicle is based on that of Eusebius, whose Greek original is lost.) Cf. the Armenian version (A. Schoene, ed. and trans., Eusebi Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt [Dublin-Zürich: Weidman, 1967], 1:168): Basilides haeresiarcha his temporibus apparuit (“Basilides the heresiarch appeared at this time”). In the Armenian version this is listed for the 17th year of Hadrian’s reign, 133 C.E. 2 On Eusebius’ treatment of “Gnostic” heretics see my essay, “Eusebius and Gnosticism,” chapter 8 in Pearson, The Emergence of the Christian Religion (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997), 147–68. 3 As is by now well known Michael Williams is encouraging us to drop the term altogether; see Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). For my response to his work, see Pearson, “Gnosticism as a Religion,” in Was There a Gnostic Religion? (ed. Antti Marjanen; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). MARJANEN_F2_1-31 6/10/08 7:44 PM Page 2 2 birger a. pearson monograph, Basilides und seine Schule,4 where all of the evidence is col- lected and discussed, and Bentley Layton’s treatment of Basilides in his anthology, The Gnostic Scriptures.5 In choosing to concentrate solely on Basilides himself, I follow Layton’s lead. 1. The Sources 1.1. Heresiological Accounts The earliest account we have of Basilides’ mythological system is that of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 1.24.3–7.6 Irenaeus situates Basilides in a succession of heretics going back to Simon Magus and Menander. His account is usually thought to be based on Justin Martyr’s lost Syntagma Against All Heresies (cf. Apol. 1.26).7 Three other patristic accounts are dependent upon Irenaeus: Pseudo-Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses 1.5; Epiphanius, Panarion 24, and Filastrius, Diversarum haereseon liber 32. It has long been thought that Ps.-Tertullian is based on Hippolytus of Rome’s lost Syntagma Against All Heresies.8 While Ps.- Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Filastrius are obviously dependent upon Irenaeus, they have certain deviations from Irenaeus in common, indicating that they used another source beside Irenaeus, presum- ably Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma.9 A completely different account of Basilides’ system is that of Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 7.20–27.10 Hippolytus takes pains 4 W. A. Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (WUNT 83; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996). 5 B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), 417–44. See also Layton, “The Significance of Basilides in Ancient Christian Thought,” Representations 28 (1989): 135–51. 6 Latin text in Walther Völker, Quellen zur Geschichte der christlichen Gnosis (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1932), 44–46; ET in Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts (trans. R. McL. Wilson; 3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1:59–61, Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 420–25; German summary in Löhr, Basilides, 256–57. 7 See Löhr’s discussion, Basilides, 257–58, with references to older scholarship. 8 See e.g. Adolf Hilgenfeld’s discussion in Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (1884; repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 9–15. Hilgenfeld refers to this lost work as Hippolytus I, and Hippolytus’ Refutatio omnium haeresium as Hippolytus II. 9 So Löhr, Basilides, 273–84. 10 Greek text in Völker, Quellen, 46–56; ET in Foerster, Gnosis, 1:62–74; German summary in Löhr, Basilides, 284–92..