Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
- Posts: 12008
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
- Location: Italy
The following points may support the theory:
- "Basilides" shares the same root of "Basileus": king;
- Basilides denied that the man on the cross was really Jesus;
- Basilides was an anti-demiurgist, so his Jesus was less of all the "king of the Jews";
- Mark is, among all the gospels, the gospel more used by anti-demiurgist separationists, and Basilides was one;
- Marcion's Evangelion didn't have the titulus crucis. Mark introduced it first.
The implication is that Basilides insisted very much on the fact that the Jews crucified their
king Simon, while Jesus escaped the cross in extremis
. The effect was that the heresiarch becomes famous as "the guy who insisted on the victim being the mere king of the Jews, not Jesus"
and the irony on this propaganda was the label "Basilides", i.e. "royal".