jufresa1981 BASILIDES, A PATH TO PLOTINUS .pdf

8/19/2019 jufresa1981 BASILIDES, A PATH TO PLOTINUS .pdf

1/15

BASILIDES,A PATH TO PLOTINUS

BY

MONTSERRAT JUFRESA

Basilides isthe oldest Gnostic thinker known to us from reliablesources.According to Clement, Basilides livedin Alexandria during the reign ofHadrian, that is, in the first half of the secondcentury after Christ.

It is well known that the account of Basilides'doctrine, as it has beentransmitted to us by Hippolytus' Refutatio Omnium Haeresium or Elen-chos,2has been asubject of discussion and perplexity amongthe scholarssince the manuscript containingthis lost work of the ancient bishop ofRome appeared in a monastery on Mount Athos in the lastcentury.

The long exposition of Basilides' thought which Hippolytus offered did

not agree either with thedata found in the other Church Fathers(Cle-ment, Irenaeus, Epiphanius) or with afragment of Basilides inHegemo-nius' Acta Archelai. These facts led the name ofPseudo-Basilides beinggiven to the author preserved by Hippolytus,and this was indeed DeFaye's opinion at the beginning of this century.33

The position of the critics changed later and they tried to reconcile theapparently opposite sources in a unifiedsystem,4ascribing the discrep-ancies to the presumably incompleteinformation usedby the ChurchFathers.

Hippolytus' account is agreat cosmogonic myth,structured in a syn-cretistic way, as is usual in the Gnostic literature. Our purpose is to focuson one aspect: the Supreme Divinity. The God that Basilides conceivedshares animportant number of features with the Plotinian One. Althoughthis fact hasbeen noted by some scholars,5it still deserves more accurateand specific attention, because the relationship between Plotinus and theGnostic world remains anopen question in the history of the spiritualevolution in theearly centuries after Christ.


2/15

2

Then, Basilides has describedGod as:1.not evenineffable.2. lacking anyattribute which could beexpressed bya name.3. completely aside from everything we can reach through our senses or

our mind.4. without being.5. without any thought or consciousness.6. without will.7. deprived of any passion and emotion.8. nevertheless, creator of the world.

Saying God is not evenineffable is avery curious expression. The fre-quent speculation of that time, considered by some scholars as common-place, refers to God as ineffable. The idea thatthe names are relatedto theobjects which they represent bynature and notby convention, an ideashared in the time by Platonists, Stoics and Pythagoreans, leads easily tothe conclusion that, assuming the majesty of the Supreme Being, none ofthe names can define thisBeing accurately, and only the human necessityto understand forcesmen to give him a name. So, this idea appears inPhilo,7 in Albinus,8 in the Hermetic texts,9 in the Asclepiusl° (wherewefind the statement: God has noname, or better said, he has all thenames),and insome Gnostic tractates.ll But the bestexpression is in Plotinus :12"Thus, the One is in truthbeyond all statement: any affirmation is of athing, but "all-transcending, restingabove even themost august divineMind" this is the only true description, since it does not make it athing

among things,nor name it whereno name couldidentify it; we can buttry to indicate, in our feebleway, something concerning it."133Basilides shares the conviction thatthere is nopossibility for the human


3/15

3

language to express God in appropiated terms, but he has wanted togoeven further saying that God is "not even ineffable".Why? As Wolfsonl4and Whittaker15

pointed out,we have to

supposethat Basilides with this

assertion is trying to oppose someone who beforehim has said: God is in-effable. But, who could this "someone" be? According to Wolfson, Basi-lides should referspecifically to Philo, because heis the first knownto usto have applied the word "ineffable" to God. Whittakersupposes that Basi-lides is acting against an undetermined Middle-Platonicenvironment.But, we may ask, why might Basilides oppose the Platonists, if he sharesin so many ways their most important conceptions?I think that we canfind a better explanation if weconsider this "noteven ineffableGod" as aspecific Gnostic16characteristic ofBasilides,who tries with thisexpressionto differentiate his Supreme Beingfrom the God of the Bible.

As a matter of fact theexpression "Ineffable Name" cameforth fromthe Jewish people after the second destruction of Jerusalem'sTemple, inwhich wasconserved, written,the sacred Name ofGod, pronounced oncea year by the Great Priest in a solemn and magnificent ceremony Thedestruction of the Temple carried the loss ofthe correct manner ofpronouncing God's Name, and the Jews have since referred to him as the

"Ineffable", alluding to the material impossibility of pronouncing God'sName as a reflection of hisinfinite excellence aboveall created beings.This interpretation seems confirmed by the fact that Basilides furtherdesignates as "Ineffable" the GreatArchon ofthe Ogdoas, whom we canin some aspects identify with the biblical God.

Now we shall consider the concept "not-being God". From Dodd'sclassic article in 192819and Whittaker's more recent in19692° we knowthat, during the first century before Christ and thetwo centuries after,some of the Platonist andNeopythagorean philosophersspeculated as towhether the FirstPrinciple should be deemed asbeyond the being. Itseems theNeopythagorean were first to propose this interpretation, 21 inorder tostrengthen at the same time theunity of the First Monad and theotherness of the IndefiniteDyad. This interpretation would have beenappropriated bythe Platonic school, closely tied with theNeopythagoreanat the epoch of the first empire.22 But the culmination of this idea is,obviously, the Plotinian One, described as"superior than anything weknow as Being, fuller and greater". 23Plotinus' statement was reinforced

by Porphyry24 definingthe One as"not-Being beyond being".We must interpret Basilides' definition of the"not-being God",25 in the

light of this Platonic-Pythagorean tradition, considering that in his case


4/15

4

"to be" does not signify existence, but finitebeing. The God conceived as"not being" means that he isabove thelimited nature of theexisting beings,an assertion which

impliesthat he is

intrinsicallyinfinite and

radicallydifferent fromeverything involved in the world ofbeing. The definitionmeans, therefore, to confirm thisBeing's unity and absolute freedom.Nevertheless, in the case of Basilides, we should ask whether a secondpurpose could be interposed, a definite intention to contrast the"beingGod" of the Bible. 26

In regard of the denial of God's intellectualactivity, Basilides usestheterm avorlic?5. We can also find it insome Middle Platonic and Neo-pythagorean writers,2' but the most widespread tendency also found inthe Hermetic and in the Gnostic texts is to consider God as a Mind.28Plotinus, who conceives the One as being supranoetic, explainsin theseterms the motives leading to deny the existence ofan intelligent FirstPrinciple: "The Intellectual Principle is established inmultiplicity, itsintellection, self-sprung though it be, is in the nature ofsomething addedto it (some accidental dualism) and makes it multiple: the utterly simplexand therefore first of all beings, must, then, transcend the IntellectualPrinciple, and obviously, if this had intellection, it would no longer

transcend the IntellectualPrinciple but be it, and at once be amultiple".29Plotinus is alsoobliged to deny that the Supreme Principle has anyknowledge of himself, because it wouldimply a contradiction to itsabso-lute simplicity. Plotinus says: "The knowing principleitself cannot remainsimplex, especially in the act of self-knowing, all silent though its self-perception be, it is dual to itself. Ofcourse, The One has no need of minuteself-handling, since it has nothing to learn by an intellective act, it is infull possession of its being before Intellect exists". 30

Coming back to Basilides, after the denial ofknowledge in God, hecontinues with the denialof consciousness, by which we arecompelled toconsider those conditions to beclosely related. Although the distinctionbetween thought and consciousness of thethought goesback to Chrysip-pus, the denial of a consciousnessin the First Principle does not appearuntil Plotinus. The statement of thatquestion in the Enneadeswill helpus to understand clearly what Basilidespossibly intended tosay. Plotinuswrote: "The One is without self-perception, without self-consciousnessand ignorant of himself,"3and "A reader willoften be quite unconscious

when heis most intent: in afeat of courage there can be no sense eitherof the brave action or of the fact that all that is done conforms to the rulesof courage. So that it wouldeven seem that consciousness tends to blunt


5/15

5

the activities upon which it is exercised, and that in the degree in whichthese pass unobserved they are purer and have moreeffect, more vitality,

and that, consequently, the Proficient arrived at this state has the truerfullness of life, life not spilled out in sensation but gathered closelywithinitself".32

In a similar way, therefore, we must suppose that the existence ofconsciousness in the God of Basilides wouldgo against his absolute unityand indivisibility.

In order to express the next characteristic ofGod, that is, the lacking ofwill, Basilides uses three different words, å1tpompÉ'tCoç,

which surely means that he considers thispoint highly impor-tant. Only "to use an expression", that is, for the sake of better under-standing, Basilides condescends to use the verbal formi13É).,,1l0"s,"hewanted", referring to God in the act of the creation.

This time, indeed, only Plotinus can help us with aparallel statementand a longer explanation.33 The Enneade VI, 8,22,7ss. is devoted tothedifficult problem of the One'swill, with frequent allusions to the difficultiesof language that this carries. Plotinussays34that in truth the One is abovewill, but for the sake of conveying conviction, at some cost of verbal

accuracy, we are to allowactivities in the Supreme and make themdependupon will. Nevertheless we do not have tounderstand this will as apowerof election, because outside him nothing exists capable of compelling orattracting him. We must understand, as Plotinus says elsewhere: "TheOne can neither have yielded assent nor uttered decree nor stirredin anyway towards an existenceof a secondary ...we have to conceive what risesfrom the One ascircumradiation... andmay be compared to the brilliantlight encircling the sun and ceaselessly generatedfrom that unchangingsubstance". 35

In a corresponding manner I think that we have to understand theapparent contradiction which Basilides incurs saying that God, beingwithout will, "wanted" to create the world. Basilides refuses in anexplicitway to assimilate the actof creating byGod with the consciousand delib-erate work of the craftsman, he does not evenaccept a parallel betweenGod and hiscreation and the innerproduction of the webby the spider. 36These examples imply intentionality that would introduce an element ofduality in God. God, in acting like the craftsman or thespider, would be

"moved" towardssomething.In order to elude thisdifficulty Basilides, like Plotinus, seems to have

wanted toexplain the creation as a process of natural production, derived


6/15

6

from the special and unique being of God. 37As we shall seefurther,Basilides borrowed from the Stoics the terms of thisprocess of natural

production.It is not necessary to emphasize that the conception of a Divinity whocreates without willingness constitutes one of the mostinteresting aspectsin the thought of Basilides. This is not areligious idea belonging to hisChristian background nor to the texts of Middle Platonic philosophyknown to usthat deal with the problems of the human presence in theworld.38 Very different, indeed, is the Asclepius, which says that God isfilled withhis will. 39

Basilides insists furthermore that the "notbeing God" does not havepassions or emotions. This statement seemsunnecessary, because it fol-lows as aconsequence of God's lack ofknowledge and will.Thus, we mayask why Basilides thought it was necessary to insist on thisaspect. It ispossible that again we have here hisspecial interest, as a Gnostic thinker,to. differentiate his God from the ChristianGod who creates admajoremgloriam suam, and from the JewishGod, capable of filling himself withanger or pleasure dependingon how wellhumanity behaves. On the otherhand, the subject of the å1ta3êÍa of God evokes Epicurean echoes. But,

what might have led Basilides to reatin those characteristics of theEpicu-rean gods, if gods in Epicureanism are material and multiple, so muchdifferent from the God describedby Basilides? Perhaps because, accordingto Lucretius, uolgi de dis opiniones esse prauas et impias4° or, quotingEpicurus himself, "impious is the man sho shares with the masses theopinions about gods".41 The elitism containedin these statements, whichin the Letter to Menoeceus is connected with the lackof feelings of gods inrelation to humans, agrees perfectly with the belief that theGnosticthinkers have with

regardto their own

superiority.42We shall see, now, in short, in what manner theprocesses of creationdeveloped according to Basilides. The cosmicseed, he says, containedwithin it aTriple Filiation. TheFirst, the lightest, as soon as the seed wasestablished, raised up to the "not Being", charmed by his extraordinarybeauty and grace. The Second Filiationwanted to imitatethe First, but,because by itself it was heavier than theFirst, needed to be helped in itsrise by the Holy Ghost, which Basilides namesalso the Pneuma and theIntermediate Pneuma. The ThirdFiliation, which needed to bepurified,stood in the great mass of the cosmicseed, in order togive and to receivebenefits. Laterand succesively, from the cosmic seedcame forth theGreatArchon who presides over the Ogdoas, that is, the universe above the


7/15

7

moon, the Second Archon who presides over the Hebdomas, that is, theuniverse beneaththe moon, and, at last, the earthly creatures.43

The firstthing that catches our attention in thismyth is the image of thecosmic seed. This word has along tradition in the history of Greekphilosophy before Basilides' time.Anaxagoras called hisultimate particles"seeds" (Jx£pyaTa)44 and so all things must have grown from the initialcondition in which allthe seeds weretogether. The Epicureans also calledthe atoms "seeds" or"generative bodies", and Epicurus said a cosmoscomes to be when seedsof the right kind come together.45Aristotle refersto the atomic elements ofLeucippus and Democritus collectively as a1tavcrm:p?ía.46

The Pythagoreans,on the otherhand, seem to have

thoughtthe cosmos grew from the unit as a seed.This unit-seed began to inhalethe infinite voidsurrounding it, and, by imposing a limit on it, producedthe cosmos.47The early Stoics called the fire of theconflagration, which isthe same as the fire from which the cosmosoriginates, the seed, sperma, ofthe future cosmos.48A later Neopythagorean Nichomachus of Gerasa,who waspossibly a contemporary of Basilides, equated God tothe Monadand said that he was seminally all things in Nature.49 In the Christiantradition theimage of the seed appears in the parable of the "mustard

seed". In Basilides, all those traditions seem tocoexist. Sometimes herefers to aunique seed, which hecompares to an egg, an image belongingto the Pythagorean background,5°sometimes heuses the terms Jwp6gsland 7ravanppVia, words which seem better to recall the atomisttradition,and we findalso a big comparison between thedevelopment of the crea-tion and thegrowth of the plant from the mustard seed.Nevertheless itappears clearlythat Basilides conceived this first moment of thecreationhaving in mind theopposition God - materia that we find inthe Pytha-

gorean conception of the Monad limiting the Indefinite Dyad,52 andalso the twoStoic apxai, the activeprinciple, to xoio6v, equatedwith God,and the passive principle,T6 ndcyxov, equatedwith matter.53

The Stoic element is, indeed, the most important in Basilides' cosmo-gony. The idea that "fire is a seedpossessing the logoi of all things and thecauses of events, past, present and future",54 besides the conception ofGod asafire, 55allowed Basilides todeny any purposein God and, at thesame time, to state that all thethings were established by God in thecosmic seed, setting aside any inferior creator

The next important thing in Basilides account is theTriple Filiation. 57Doubtless, those Filiations must represent the different levelsin thespiritual world which in the Platonic speculation of the time cover the


8/15

8

distance between thespiritual and the material world, that is, the DivineMind and the World Soul. The Filiations aresaid to be consubstantial

with the non-being God, but the fact thatthey came forth from the seed,and not directly from God, seems to indicate thatthey belong unmis-takably to the reign of being, although within itthey occupy the highestplaces. Thus Basilidesby these means preserves and fortifies the absolutetranscendence of the FirstPrinciple.

The term Filiation initself could have beensuggested by the Christian-Gnostic background of Basilides, although in Numenius, the Neopytha-gorean philosopher contemporary of him, we find a similarterminology:he named his threegods Grand-Father, Son,and Grand-Son.58 Butthefact that the word"Filiation" is of femininegender in greek, f) uíótllç,reminds to usthat in some Gnosticmyths the second principle after theSupreme God is a femininefigures

The account of Basilides containsenough elements to carry out theidentification, mentioned before, of the First Filiation as a DivineMind,and the SecondFiliation as a UniversalSoul. The evidence that, I think,allows to us toidentify the First Filiation with the DivineMind is thehomeric expression: ws ci Trrepov lit vonua (as a wing or a thought,Od. 7,36) with which Basilides compares the raising of the First Filiationup to the "not-being God". The referenceto the wing must beinterpretedas an allusion toEros, the Love, who in the Phaedrus leads to thecontem-plation of the Supreme Beauty. 60

The evidencewhich leads toa recognition of the Second Filiation as aSoul in the myth of Basilides is its close connection with Pneuma. TheStoics identified the heat or thepneuma of the body with the soul, 61but Ithink that in this case Basilides borrowed some Aristotelianconcepts

belongingto a

biological context,and

adaptedthem to the world of

transcendent beings. In explaining how soul is transmitted from father tochild through the seed, Aristotle states: "Inevery case there is present inthe semen that whichmakes seeds in general fertile, namely the substancecalled 'the hot'. This is not fire orsome such power, but the pneuma, asubstance analogous to the elements of the stars".62 On other occasionsAristotle also suggests that these physical substances are "tools" of thesoul and that the pneuma is the soul's instrument which causes move-ment. 63

I think that this description fits very well with the function of thePneuma in Basilides' narration. If the Pneuma is "thehot", we understandthat it can be very helpful in a process of rising, if it is "analogous to the


9/15

9

matter of thestars", it is justificable to fixit, as Basilides doeslater, as thelast sky of the cosmos. Finally, if the pneuma is the "tool" of thesoul, the

Second Filiation, which is helped by the Pneuma, has to be Soul.64The Third Filiation, which needed to be purified and stood in the seedin order "to give and receive benefits" remindsus of the Plotinian conceptof Nature, 65the lowest part of the World Soul, mixed with matter andgiving to it the benefit of life andmovement, while the superior part, inour text represented by the Second Filiation, contemplates the DivineMind. But further statements inHippolytus' account make it clear 66thatthe Third Filiation represents a more genuine Gnostic concept: the Sonsof God, that is, the pneumatics. The pneumatics, the elected men, are thispart of the Divine Soulcaptured by matter and not able todisengagefrom it. They are waiting for the coming of the Redeemer who willliberate them and permit them to recover their dwelling place in theSuperior World.

We have seen, thus, that, in order tot strengthen the "otherness" ofGod, the generative process of the material world, but also of thespiritualbeings, has been conceived by Basilides in terms of an automaticmate-rialism, clearly related with Stoic cosmogonies.67The rising of the Filia-

tions and their differentweight recalls theprocesses of evaporation andcondensation by which the Stoics68explained the consecutive births anddestructions of the cosmos. Basilides has retained fromthis model theprocess of birth, but not the destruction of the cosmos. For him, followingat that point the Platonists, the cosmos is eternal.

There is still one moreaspect in the conception of Basilides' God that Ithink isworth comment. The passionate description of the transcendenceof this God "unknowableby any natural way we can afford",69 doubtlessreflects an innerand

personal experienceof

Basilides, and, thus,his

strongmystic accent has beenrightly pointed out by G. QuispelReferring to Plotinus, the importance of the mystical component of his

philosophy has been widely recognizedand discussed. We thus needonlyask if there isany specialcharacteristic in common between themysticismof our authors. Although so much has been written aboutPlotinus, Ithink that one of the best recentapproaches to him is due to J. M.Rist,and I agree with his assessments.According to Rist, Plotinus' mysticismcan be clearly seen to be of a theistic type, in Zaehner's sense of the

word,'1 it is to say, the kind ofmysticism where the isolated soulattainsto union and is "oned"with a transcendent God, though a fortiori it isnot itself identical with that God. In Rist'sopinion the Plotinian meta-


10/15

10

phors to explain the ascent of thesoul, the metaphors of sight, touch, andlove, express that the soulis surrendered toGod, that itis enraptured, it is

filled with God, but that it isnot, however,annihilated inGod. The soul isnot identical withGod, although its likeness with God hasbeen pushedas far as possible. The general position of Plotinus is thatthere is an"otherness" whichseparates the products of the Onefrom the One itself,and this position is not changed even at the lastperiod of the mysticalunion.

The evidences thatwe have about Basilides do not allow us to recon-struct theway in which he conceived thedifferent stages of the ascent ofthe soul, although we know that he wasprone to asceticism and that heconsidered suffering as a way of purification. Nevertheless in accord tohiscosmogony in which all the things had issued from theseed and not di-rectly from God we must suppose the mysticism of Basilides to be of atheistic type. Basilides says that the Third Filiation, when atlast purified,rises up to a place close to the"not-being God". Thatprobably means thatthe elected manwho findsinsights of God through a spiritual intuition, 72never hashis soul, although it lies in closest proximity to God, fused withGod or dissolved into hisnon-being. The "otherness" ofGod, even at

the culminant moment of themystical encounter, has been preserved byBasilides.

In conclusion thus I think weare allowed to accept that the character-istics of God in Basilides areclearly dependingon a Middle Platonic andNeopythagorean speculation, although originalfeatures can be detectedin some aspects. On the other hand, his cosmogonic conceptions findinspiration in a Stoic doctrine.

Furthermore the conception of God in Basilides isvery similar tothePlotinian One, in

spiteof the different level of

complexityin the two

authors. We cannot state ifPlotinus depends on Basilides, but becausePlotinus wasliving in Alexandria only several decades after Basilidesdid,we can suppose that they were in some way connected to a similarphilosophic milieu. We can say, at least, that Basilides represents onemore link in the long chain which leads fromPlato - through Eudorus,Moderatus, Numenius andsurely more philosophers unknown to us - tothe resplendent One of Plotinus.

'


11/15

11

1 Clem. Al. Strom.7, 17;alsoEpiph.Contra haereses24, 6, 72C.

2 Hippolytus, RefutatioOmniumHaeresium7, 20-27,ed. P.Wendland(Leipzig1916).Thework is also knownas Philosophumena.3 E.DeFaye, Gnostiqueset Gnosticisme(Paris 1913).4 P. J. G. A.Hendrix,DealexandrijnscheHaeresiarchBasilides(Amsterdam1926).Hendrixsupposedthat the Church Fathers were more interested in the moraldoctrinesof Basilides and thatHippolytusreflectedthemetaphysical speculations.A. Siouville,the French translatorofHippolytus' Refutation(Paris1928)still believedthat the sourceofHippolytus'account wasa textfrom the Basilidianschool,written at the end of the IIcenturyA.D.5 W. R.Inge,ThePhilosophyof Plotinus(London-NewYork31929)107.6 Therewas atime,hesays,whennothing was,nor was eventhenothinganything

existing,but simply...... nothingat allwas... becausewhat is sotermed isnot abso-lutely ineffable;we call it"ineffable",and it is "not evenineffable",because the"notevenineffable" is not calledineffable,but issuperiorto anyname thancan be named.

... Since,there wasnothing therefore,notmatter,not being,nornot-being,nor any-thing simple,nor anything composed,nor anything non-composed,nor non-per-ceptible,nor man, nor angel,nor God, nor anythingat all ofthe thingsthat canbenamed,perceivedor thought... then thenot-beingGod,whom Aristotle calls "knowl-edgeof knowledge"... withoutthinking,withoutperception,withoutintention,with-out resolve,withoutemotion,withoutdesire,wanted to create the world.I, saysBasilides,say"wanted" but to makemyselfclear because he was withoutwilling,with-out thought,withoutconsciousness... andby world,I do notmean the worldwhichlater aroseby expansionand division in itspresentorder, but the seedof the world.Hipp. Haer. 7, 20-21.(I quoted,with somemodifications,from R. Haardt Gnosis.Character andTestimony(Leiden 1971)44-45,translatedintoEnglish byJ. F.Hendry).7 PhiloQuisrerumdivinarumheres sit 170.8 Alb. Intr.10, 4.9 God is CH5,1,9,10.10 Asclepius20.11 "He is ineffable because no one couldcomprehendhim tospeakabouthim",TheApocryphonof John2, 1,15-20(translated byF. Wisse inTheNagHammadiLibrary[NewYork 1977] 100)."How shall wegivethee a name? We do not have it. Forthouart the existence of themall",TheThreestelesof Seth 7, 5,125(transl.byJ. M. Robinsonin loc.cit.363).

12 Plot.5, 3, 13,1.(I used the edition of P.Henryet H. R.Schwyzer,PlotiniOpera1[Paris-Bruxelles1951 ];2 [id. 1959];3 [id.1973]).13 The translations ofPlotinus'text arequotedfrom S.MacKenna,TheEnneads(London 1969).14 H. A.Wolfson,Negativeattributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic Basili-des,HarvardTheologicalReview50(1957)145-156.15 J.Whittaker,Basilides on theIneffabilityofGod,HarvardTheologicalReview62(1969) 367-371.16 The anti-judaicstatements constitute one ofthemost distinctive featuresof theGnosticthought.It has evenbeen consideredbysome scholarsas anessentialdatuminorder to enlightenthe originsof Gnosticism. Cf.R. M.Grant, Gnosticismand EarlyChristianity(NewYork 21966).17 Cf. J.Klauser,Jesusof Nazareth(NewYork 1959)47. The ToldothJesu,a popu-lar Jewish tale about Jesus'life,accuseshimof having learned, through deception,theIneffable Name of God.


12/15

12

18 Hipp.Haer.7,24.19 E. R.Dodds,The Parmenidesof Plato and theOriginof theNeoplatonicOne,ClassicalQuaterly22(1928)129-142.

20 J. Whittaker,EIIEKEINANOY KAIOYΣIAΣ, VigiliaeChristianae 23(1969)91-104.21 Themostimportantevidence is thefragmentwhichrefersto Moderatus andhas

been conserved inSimpliciusInPhys. 230,34 ffDiels. Moderatus issupposedto havebeenlivingin the second half of the firstcenturyA.D.22 Cf.J. M.Dillon,The MiddlePlatonists(Ithaca,New York1977)341.23 Plot.5, 3, 14,16-19.24 Porphyry,Sent.26: The expressionreferred to the FirstPrincipleis also found in MariusVictorinus,Ad Candidum4. Cf. thechapterdevotedtothe Plotinian One in J. M.Rist,Plotinus . The roadtoreality (Cambridge 1967).25 Onthe Gnostic side someof theCoptictractates in theNag HammadiLibrary

providethe same definition of God. TheAllogenes11, 3, 61-62,states: "Helives with-out Mind,or Life,or Existence,incomprehensibly","He is betterthan the Totalities inhisprivationandunknowability,that is, thenon-being Existence","since he islimitlessandpowerless,andnon-existent,he was notgiving being,rather hecontainsall of thesein himself,beingat rest".(TranslatedbyJ. D. Turner and O. S. Wintermutein TheNagHammadiLibrary,loc. cit.445).Somepeculiaritiesof theCoptictext of this tractatesuggestthat theoriginal compositionwas inGreek,that it was inexistencein the thirdcenturyand was translated intoCopticnear Alexandria about 300A.D. Because thedate attributed to it seemsto beposteriorto Basilides andPlotinus,we will leaveasidein thispaperthe specificrelationship, interestingand worthinvestigating,betweenourauthorsand theNagHammadi Codices.26 Probably against LXX,Exodus3 : 14 :'Eγω εiµi6 ων asit has beensuggestedbyJ.Whittaker,loc. cit. 100.27 AmongtheNeopythagorean dealingwitha supranoeticFirstPrinciple Whittaker,loc. cit.95, quotesPseudo Brotinuswho, althoughhe commonlyis considered a con-temporary of Numenius,has been datedbyH. Thesleff tothe III-IIcenturyB.C.28 TheApocryphonof John 12, 1,4nameshim"Knowledge giving knowledge",andtheAllogenes11, 3,63says:"He isprimaryrevelation andknowledgeofhimself,asit ishe alonewho knowshimself ". There is some vacillationin this tractate whichprevious-lystated thad God lived without Mind.29 Plot.5, 3, 11, 25-30,30 Plot.5, 3, 10, 44-48.31 Plot.5, 3, 13,6-8.

32 Plot.1, 4, 10, 24-33.33 TheAllogenes11, 3,65says, too,that God exists in himself withoutdesire.34 Plot.6,8, 13.35 Plot.5, 1, 6, 25-30.36 Hipp.Haer.7,22.37 Basilidesexplicitly rejectsthe use of theconcept"emanation" fordescribingthisprocess.38 Albinus,Intr. 25andlamblichus,De anima(ap.Stob.1, 377,11 ff. edWachs.) -apassagereferred to the Calvenus Taurus' school - mentiona specificdirected to manifestgods' divinity throughtheir works.39 Asclepius20 : semperuoluntatispraegnanssuaeparit semper quicquiduoluerit

procreare.40 Lucr.1, 80-101; 5,1183-1240.41 D.L.10, 123.42 The Church Fathers clearlyobservedthat the transcendentand indifferent


13/15

13

GnosticGod bears anunquestionable similaritywiththeEpicureangods. Tertullian inAd. Marc.1, 25says:sialiquemdeEpicurischola deumaffectauitChristinominetitulari,ut quodbeatumet incorruptibilesit, nequesibinequealiimolestiaspraestet,hanc enim

sententiamruminansMarcionremouit abillo seueritates et iudiciariasuires,and in Ad.Marc.5, 4: caeterum Deus illeotiosus,necoperationis,necpraedicationis ullius,and inloc.cit.5,19:atquin derideri potestDeusMarcionis, quinec irascinouit,nec ulcisci.43 Hipp.Haer.7, 22.44 DK 59 B 4.

45 D.L. 10,89 :Lucr. 1, 58-60.46 DK 59A45, 67A 15, 28.47 DK 58 B 26, 30.48 SVF2.596,618.49 Ap.lambl. Theol.Ar.p. 31ff,ed. De Falco. Cf. J. M.Dillon,loc. cit. 355.50 DK1B13.51

The ideaofa Primeval Mound whichcontained withinit all of that was to comeis also found in theEgyptian cosmogonies.ThehighGodAton,the supremeGod ofHeliopolis,is said to haverisenup as a HighHill.Cf. R. T. RundleClark,MythandSymbolin AncientEgypt,paperbacked.(London 1978)37.52 D.L.8, 24-33;Sext.Emp.Adv.Phys. 2, 248-284.53 SVF 1.85, 98, 495;2. 301,310,312.For further information see D. H.Hahm,Theorigins of Stoic Cosmology(OhioStateUniversityPress1977)58 ss.54 Zeno,SVF 1.98; 1. 102= 2. 580. Theexpression that theStoics referred to God describes thatfunction of Godwhich isanalogousto thefunc-tion of the seed in thereproductive process.55 The identificationbetween fireand God can beclearlyseen in the wellknownpassageof DioChrysostom,SVF2. 622,which describesthe Stoiccosmogonyin termsof anallegorized myth.56 The twoArchons inBasilides are creativepowers,but they are not negativefiguresas in other Gnosticsystems.The heavenlycreaturesare FirstArchon's worksand theearthlycreatures are Second Archon'sworks,but these Archonsonlyexecutethingsthat alreadywere inthe universal seed. Basilidesinsists that the Archonsareinferior totheThird Filiation whichstaysin the universal seedandsaysfurtherthat allbeingswerenaturallybornbyaddition from thegreatamount of the universal seed.57 Themeaningof thisTripleFiliation hasbeenobscure formost of the scholarsdealingwith Basilides. E. DeFaye, loc. cit., consideredthis conceptas somethingcurious butinexplicable,"memedans le contextedel'époque".At thebeginningof thiscentury,whenthe orientalizedoriginsof Gnosticism werewidelyaccepted,J.Kennedy,BuddhistGnosticism,the Systemof Basilides,Journalof the RoyalAsiaticSociety(London 1902) 377-415,intended toidentifythe Filiations withthe three buddhistgunas,the intellectualprinciple,the emotionalprincipleand the darkprinciple.LaterG. Quispel,The Gnostic man: the doctrine ofBasilides,in Gnostic Studies(Istanbul1974) 103-133, searchingfor amoreplausible explanationtried toconnecttheconceptof theTripleFiliationwithsometexts ofa similarperiod,mainlyArnobius2, 25,andAsclepius32. Thepassagein Arnobius treats of a God FirstPrincipleof allthings,fol-lowedbytwo mentesgeminaeand ananima docta inmortalisperfectadiuina.Quispelbe-lievedthe First and the SecondFiliationto correspondto the mentesgeminaeas repre-sentingthe archetypaland the instrumentalideas,and the Third Filiation to be theanimadiuina,that is, theGnostic PrimevalMan. Thepassagein the Asclepius,a verydifficultone,refers to four intellectsinGod,in a mannerthat I thinkdoesnot allow ittobecomparedwithBasilides'myth,in which isclearlysaid that the First andnon-beingGod is not a Mind.In addition J. M.Dillon,Theconceptof twoIntellects,Phronesis 18(1973) 176-185,pointedout thatalthoughthis second Mind ofGod whichcares forthe


14/15

14

instrumental ideas andperformsin relation to the world ademiurgicfunctionappearsin someMiddle andNeoplatonic texts;the mostwidespread tendencyis to attribute thisfunction to the World Soul. Calcidius' statement in In Tim.177, (p. 206,3 ed.Waszink)

that the secunda mens istheanima munditripertitashows, therefore,that theconceptofa secondMind which containstheintelligiblearchetypesof individuals and theconceptof the World Soul werefinally equated.Neverthelessinmy opinionBasilides solved theproblemof theindividualforms throughhis Stoic model: the universal seed containedobviouslythe of everythingand althoughhe conserved in hissystemthefigureof the WorldSoul,its function isscarcelyrelevant.58 Proclus,In Tim.1, 303, 27ss.59 ThusBarbelo,the malevirginwhoappearsas a Trinityin most oftheGnostictractates of theNagHammadiLibrary.She is the FirstThoughtof theFather,and re-ferred to her we can read in The ThreeStelesof Seth 7, 5,121: "thouhastempoweredthe eternalsin being,thou hastempowered divinityin living...thou hast empoweredthis

(one)in

knowing,thou hast

empoweredanother one in

creating..."(TranslatedbyJ. M.Robinson in TheNagHammadiLibrary,loc.cit.363).Therole ofthis trimorphicBarbelo,as it has beenpointedout byA.Wire inNHL,loc.cit.443,isto makeconcretethe notbeingOne in three differentgradations,Mind,Life and Existence which arecomparableto the PlotinianNous,WorldSoul,and Nature,and I think,also to theFiliationsof Basilides.

60 We should remember that Basilidesfollowingthe Platonicpointof view attributesextremebeautyto his God. Basilides uses the word (Hipp. Refut. 7, 22).Plotinussaysthe One is (Plot. 1, 6, 6, 25.Cf.J. M.Rist,loc.cit. 53ss.)We alsofind this assertion of theSupreme Beautyin God in theAllogenes11,3,64.61 SVF 1.134-41, 521;2.773-87, 796,879,885.62 Gen.An.2.3.736B33-737A1.

63 Mot. An. 10.703A4 - B2; Gen.An.26. 744A1.64 Hippolytus certainly recognizedthe Second Filiation as a World Soul and thefact that in Plato's Phaedrus the soul is endowed withwingscaused that heinterpretedthe Pneuma as awing, althoughthis interpretationdoesnot appearin the words at-tributed to Basilides(Cf.Hipp. Refut..7,22).65 Plot.4, 4, 13,1. Natureis the activefacultyof the WorldSoul,it is thatwhich,addedto Matter, givesit itssubstantiality.Nature is the lowest of thespiritualexistence.Allthe commentators of Plotinusagreethat there are twopartsof Soul: oneengagedinthe eternalcontemplationof itspriors,the other has come down and created the worldof materialobjectsandparticulars.Cf. J. M.Rist,loc.cit.85.66 Hipp.Refut.7,25.

67 Stoicconceptshave been useful for Basilides in order to avoid the dualismgod-matter. Nevertheless some confusion arises when Basilides tries to fit them in the Pla-tonic frame of hisDivinity.68 Chrysippusand Zenoacceptedthe idea that the inmediate cause of movement isweightor lightness,SVF 2. 434. Cf. D.Hahm,loc. cit. 57-90.69 The belief that Godisunknowablethroughour senses or ourmind is fundamen-tal in Gnosticism. Theknowledgeof this hidden God constitutes thespecificobjectofthe Gnosticfaith,because thisknowledge, gnosis,is in itself theinstrument ofpersonalsalvation. This aim can be reached eitherthrougha sacred and secretlore revealedbyaTeacher orthroughinnerrevelation,theenlightement,the mysticascent. This secondway,more difficult,tended in some sects to bereplaced bysomedefinite rites and

practicesdirected topromoteandto assert thereceptionoftheSpiritinto the inner self.But thefragmentof Hippolytuswhich tell us that Basilides claimed to havelearned hisdoctrine fromMatthias,does not makeany mention of thesetheurgical practicesinBasilides.


15/15

15

70 G.Quispel,loc. cit. 128.71 R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism,Sacred andProfane(Oxford1957), quoted byJ. M.Rist,loc. cit. 213 ss.72

Clem Alex. Strom.2, 3,10.Barcelona-7. Departament de Grec, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Viade les Corts Catalanas, 585.

Documents

jufresa1981 BASILIDES, A PATH TO PLOTINUS .pdf