Basilides

[neilgodfrey]

2 tables that may be of some interest/assistance:



Source: Logan, Alastair. 2004. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy. London; New York: T&T Clark.

And another,



Source: Williams, Michael A. 1996. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J. ; Chichester: Princeton University Press.

[neilgodfrey]

There is a general problem that the accounts of the teaching of Basilides in Irenaeus and Hippolytus cannot be reconciled and that it is disputed whether Clement of Alexandria agrees more with Irenaeus or Hippolytus.

Andrew Criddle

Indeed -- to expand on that a little:

From Volker Henning Drecoll, Martin Hengel and the Origins of Gnosticism: p 151 in Corrigan, Kevin, and Tuomas Rasimus, eds. 2013. Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honour of John D. Turner. Leiden ; Boston: Brill.

In chapters 23–28 of Adversus haereses book 1, Irenaeus develops his famous chronology of Gnosticism. His report about Simon Magus has been the subject of several analyses.51 Hengel himself was quite skeptical about this point. From his point of view, “das ganze Konglomerat ist ein spätes und … von der christlichen Gnosis geprägtes Kunstprodukt.”52 The report about Basilides in ch. 24 also seems untrustworthy since we know from the fragments of Basilides (especially those preserved by Clement of Alexandria) that Basilides himself did not advance such a Gnostic system.53 Furthermore, Hippolytus gives us an absolutely different picture of the Gnostic system of Basilides.54 Even the reports about Carpocrates and Cerinthus have been debated in modern research.55 Thus the information that Irenaeus offers does not seem to be very trustworthy.56

And from Mark Edwards, Christians Against Matter: pages 571-2 also in Corrigan and Rasimus:

If we can trust Hippolytus (ca. 220), the first Christian to teach expressly that all creation proceeds from nothing wrote a generation earlier than any of the apologists, though he found a more limited following in the Church:

When, he says, there was nothing, no matter, no existence, no non-existence, no simple, no compound, no intelligible, no perceptible, no human, no angel, no God … the non-existent God—whom Aristotle calls the thought of thought, but these the non-existent—without intelligence or perception, without will or design, impassibly and without desire, elected to make a world … Thus then, the non-existent God made a non-existent world from those things that were not.

(Basilides apud Hippolytus, Ref. 7.21.1 and 4, ed. Marcovich)

Quotations from Basilides in Hippolytus come with a caveat, since Irenaeus (ca. 180) gives quite a different account of him, and there is reason to fear that a parody of the prologue to the Fourth Gospel has been foisted upon him by an ingenious controversialist.

[davidmartin]

Marvin Meyer writes, "What makes the crucifixion laughable [in Second Discourse of Great Seth 81,15-24] is the ignorance of the powers who think they can execute the real, living Jesus. The mention made of Simon in the text is reminiscent of the role of Simon the Cyrene in the New Testament (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), where it is said that he carries the cross for Jesus; --or it may call to mind the observations of Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.24.4) and Epiphanius (Panarion 24.3), who claim that, according to the Gnostic teacher Basilides, Simon of Cyrene was crucified in place of Jesus.
Yet in the Second Discourse of Great Seth Simon is never actually crucified, and Jesus says that it is 'their man' that the world rulers put to death - the physical body that the heavenly Savior borrowed. Further, the comment by Jesus in the Second Discourse, 'Though they punished me, I did not die in actuality (hen outajro) but only in appearance (hem petouoneh)' (55,16-19), may recall classic formulations of docetic views of the crucifixion, and even the position of the Qur'an, which states (in Sura 4) that the opponents of 'Isa - Jesus - did not kill him for sure, but 'he was made to resemble another for them' or 'they thought they did'."
(The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, p. 475)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/greatseth.html

I think Meyer has misled himself here in saying Simon was not crucified. It's just as likely to mean that 'their man' refers to 'the archons version of Christ' as a concept. So regardless of who was crucified, by attributing to him the traits of their messiah it's as if they put to death their own messiah. Its like saying you who are proclaiming him are the ones who killed him - the Gnostics associated the Pharisees and Roman authorities with archons - the same type of folk who were leaders in the orthodox Christian church to them were archons too. So the writer is drawing no distinction at all between rulers in Judaism, Christianity, Rome or anywhere else.
The Gnostic is saying the man crucified was not really 'your man', but who you made him out to be when really he is the imperishable Christ who can't die even if he takes on a bodily form that is killed.
A further point is the Gnostics readily believed more than one person could take on that form, so even if Jesus is speaking, Simon can just as easily be the one crucified without Jesus ever having a physical body at all
A further point beyond this is not assuming the Gnostic writer had any love for Simon. He's already said earlier in the text he was 'an earthly man' who he 'cast out' and possessed. What if this Simon was not some random stranger but a genuine religious leader? But one they disagreed with
, Simon Magus. The writer then has to grapple with admitting Simon was a Christ bearer, while also undermining him as far as they can. This text does this. Simon Magus also appears to be attacked in the similar Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter which could be from the same Gnostic group
Of course this would make Simon M, really the one known as Jesus in Christianity... but i'm struggling to see this making much difference as we know practically nothing of Simon and the view of him portrayed in early Christianity is obviously confused. If Simon was Jesus then we just know another name for him.