The docetism was a reaction to old Jewish DENIERS of the historicity of Jesus

[Giuseppe]

It is not a coincidence the fact that Irenaeus talks of a Cyrenaic «being compelled». But note that when he talks of this forced obligation, he doesn't reporting particularly what Basilides said, he is not quoting Basilides.

Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

This evidence is very suggestive: it say us that Irenaeus was not mentioning a heretic text of Basilides. He had the text of Mark in mind, when he wrote these words about Simon «being compelled» to bear the cross. The text under the eyes of Irenaeus was Mark, but the interpretation given by Irenaeus was according to Basilides. The object of contention was not some lost heretical writings, it was Mark.

This means most probably that the tradition declaimed by Basilides was Mark (meant as author of the gospel, of which the true name for Basilides was Glaukias), and accordingly the two sons of the Cyrenaic. That was the reason why Irenaeus comments Mark. That gospel was the text of Basilides.

[Giuseppe]

But have you considered the broader "book-end" pattern in the Gospel of Mark. As per common literary style of the day Mark repeats or inverts opening motifs at the end of his book. Example, in the early chapters certain names are identified by their parents, while in the latter chapters we find the reverse, certain names are identified by their offspring. If Alexander and Rufus have a particular function, could we not expect other sons mentioned as identifiers in those closing chapters also to have a comparable function? It's just an exploratory question, nothing more.

Very Thanks Neil for that interesting observation. I would quote, about these other "names identified by their sons in the latter chapters", precisely the following comment of Prosper Alfaric:

For the same reason, the herself mother of Christ is not mentioned at all among the women who witness the her son's death. She and her family have already treated him like crazy (3:21). It was the sin against the Spirit, the one that is not forgiven at all (3:29). Thus she was publicly denied by him (3:33). She is nothing for him anymore. Two women with the same name substitute her: "Mary Magdalene" and "Mary the mother of James and Jose". Their presence only serves to emphasize her absence.It is certainly not by chance that a third woman, "Salome", is added to the two Maries. These three last-minute witnesses replace Peter, James and John, who, having witnessed the transfiguration, then the agony of Gethsemane, fled by fear at the moment of danger. Mark emphasizes the parallel noting that the second woman was the mother of "James the less", because this name makes one think of the other James, one who, wanting to be the greatest, asked a Christ to sit at his right hand in his kingdom (10: 35 -37; see 9: 33-34).

(Pour comprendre la vie de Jésus, p. 192-193, my translation)


Hence these people identified by the names of their sons are witnesses. Therefore these people are designated to be witnesses. But curiously, in the final of our Mark, these presumed witnesses don't give testimony to Jesus. They failed clamorously. Was this the usual way by the Judaizing editor Mark to get two results:

• to co-opt the Basilides's tradition that had Alexander, Rufus, these pious women and their sons, as genuine witnesses of the death of Simon

• to reduce their importance by making them escape in a grotesque manner.

Something as: you are right, oh Basilides, to claim these people, Alexander and Rufus in primis, as witnesses, but alas, they failed in their role. Therefore our witnesses (Peter and the 12 idiots) winned at the end.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is not a coincidence the fact that Irenaeus talks of a Cyrenaic «being compelled». But note that when he talks of this forced obligation, he doesn't reporting particularly what Basilides said, he is not quoting Basilides.

Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

Finally: something I can (mostly/somewhat) agree with you on again. Irenaeus is (probably) not accurately describing Basilides' own opinions here; in fact, he is (probably) confused:

Birger A. Pearson, "Basilides the Gnostic," in A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics, edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, chapter 1, pages 22-23: What follows in Irenaeus’ account is very strange, for Jesus is credited with being a “shape-changer,” exchanging shapes with Simon of Cyrene, who turns out to be the one crucified. I doubt very much that this is what Basilides taught. I suspect that Irenaeus, or his source, has misinterpreted what Basilides taught. Perhaps a clue to how this misinterpretation could have come about can be found in the following passage from the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII,2): "For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. For their minds did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they render judgment against themselves. As for me, on the one hand they saw me; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance. And all their powers I brought into subjection. For when I came down no one saw me. For I kept changing my forms above, transforming from appearance to appearance. And on account of this, when I was at their gates I kept taking their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I did not fear nor was I ashamed, for I was undefiled."

Early interpreters of this passage read it in light of what Irenaeus reports about Basilides, and regarded it as a piece of Basilidian tradition. But the text does not teach the doctrine attributed by Irenaeus to Basilides. What it does say is that the sufferings endured at the crucifixion were not suffered by the real Jesus, but only by the physical body which he inhabited, the creation of the archons, whose crucifixion brought about the archons’ own destruction. Those whose faith is centered upon a crucified savior (i.e. “orthodox” Christians) espouse “the doctrine of a dead man” (Treat. Seth 60.22). The real Jesus, laughing at the archons’ folly, ascended safely into heaven.

Something similar to that was probably Basilides’ view. For him, the divine Nous-Christ descended into the human Jesus and displaced his human soul — Basilides probably thought this occurred at Jesus’ baptism — and, following Jesus’ crucifixion, ascended to the Father who had sent him. That Jesus did in fact suffer is affirmed in a quotation of Basilides preserved by Clement (Strom. 4.83.1), a passage to which we shall return.

[Giuseppe]

Finally: something I can (mostly/somewhat) agree with you on again. Irenaeus is (probably) not accurately describing Basilides' own opinions here; in fact, he is (probably) confused:

Excuse me, Ben, but I don't see just how I am saying the same thing as the your quote. The my point is not that Ireneus was confused about what was precisely the Basilidean belief. At contrary, he had well in mind under the his eyes the text of Mark, since he talked explicitly about a Simon "being compelled" and that is a Gospel datum. Period. Hence whatever was precisely the belief of Basilides, it depended principally on the passage of the Cyrenaic as we have (more or less faithfully) it in our Mark.

Naturally I can see the same belief of Basilides behind the Gospel of Judas (where Judas is the name of the Best Disciple who realizes the saying on the Bearer of the Cross, and not Simon).

But equally I can see Basilides's influence on Acts of John, since there a not-crucified Jesus appears to the disciple John when the other false Jesus is still on the cross, hence it is not stricto sensu docetism, but real separationism between the guy on the cross and the real not-crucified Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

I may merge the my basic opinion (proto-Mark as the gospel of Basilides) with the view of Birger A. Pearson about :

Jesus is credited with being a “shape-changer,” exchanging shapes with...

I would continue:

...this or that Best Disciple.

Hence any apostle could claim, just as Paul, «I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me» (Galatians 2:20).

Prof Price, if I remember well, has an entire chapter in the his Amazing Colossal Apostle, where he talks of this view of the ''polimorphic'' Christ as very old.

[Ben C. Smith]

Excuse me, Ben, but I don't see just how I am saying the same thing as the your quote.

Okay, well, I tried.

[Giuseppe]

Excuse me, Ben, but I don't see just how I am saying the same thing as the your quote.

Okay, well, I tried.

are you saying that the fact that Irenaeus was commenting on Mark about the Basilides's belief concerning Simon implies someway the Pearson's idea about a confusion on the real Basilides's view?

[Giuseppe]

I have read again Pearson's article. He is very wrong in the his interpretation of the Tract. Of Seth:

As for me, on the one hand they saw me; they punished me. Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over...

Pearson's theorem is based on the fact that in this passage the crucified is the mere body of Jesus as distinct from the his Spirit. Hence the second "another" put by me in red, according to Pearson, doesn't refer to the first "another" (put by me in black) who is Simon, but to Jesus himself!
Well, this view is totally entirely wrong. It is too much evident that in both the cases, "another" refers always and only to the only named guy: Simon.

Hence what that passage says us is not different at all from what Mark's passage says when read according to Basilides's view about the Cyrenaic. The man on the cross was Simon EXACTLY AS in the Gospel of Judas the man on the cross was Judas. In both the cases: the Best Disciple.

[Giuseppe]

Then Pearson says that Clement, Strom. 4.83.1, reports a Basilides's belief about a Jesus really suffering without a Simon suffering in the his place. Can someone quote that text? I don't find it.

[Giuseppe]

Another clue of the fact that in that passage the suffering and crucified is Simon, pace Pearson:

Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar

My wrong idea in the past was that the demiurge (sic) suffered in the place of Jesus, being him the "father" of the killers. No, he is Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus. Hence there is not divergence at all between this passage and the Mark's passage about the Cyrenaic (read as by Basilides).