Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 28, 2025
There is a somewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides are confusing. It is not altogether clear how far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far his own.
The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a considerable importance when we come to treat of the external evidence for the fourth Gospel. All the other Gospels in which the star of the Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St.
It is really I believe a not very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they accepted the same documents as themselves. The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? Are they quotations from our Gospels?
This fact will enable us to appreciate better Basilides' famous remark about the one or two only who could understand his system. His frame of mind was a little like that of a university examiner after setting a paper. We need not think that these people were altogether destitute of humour.
Both of these passages are instances of the exegesis by which the Basilidian doctrines were defended. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself does seem to be specially singled out. He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the quotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian doctrine of the origin of things.
Who ever had heard tell of Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Secundus, Marcosius, Colorbasius, Heracleo, Lucianus, and Severus, before the Apostles were sent abroad? But why stand we reckoning up these? Epiphanius rehearseth up fourscore sundry heresies; and Augustine many more, which sprang up even together with the Gospel? What then?
The statement that he 'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not 'recognise any such works as of authority, is much in excess of the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did use our Gospels.
We are only concerned with one of them here, the so-called Untitled Apocalypse, which is markedly distinct from the others in character and style. Schmidt dates it well in the second century A.D., and with this estimate I am inclined to agree. If it is by one writer, I think it may be dated from 160 or 170 A.D.-200 A.D., and belongs to the period of Basilides and Valentinus.
Of one of these, Libelatism, Astorga was the centre; the other, Priscilianism, originally Galician, found many adherents in the fortress-town, more so than elsewhere, excepting only Tuy, Orense, and Palencia. Libelatism. Its great defender was Basilides, Bishop of Astorga. Strictly speaking, this faith was no heresy, but a sham or fraud which spread out beyond the Pyrenees to France.
The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly altered.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking