PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew, Stephen,

Great stuff. Thanks.

The commentary should be read in light of the recent article on Basilides by James A. Kelhoffer. He checked carefully every surviving quote of Basilides and came to the conclusion that some commonly held ideas regarding Basilides are without solid foundation, including the idea that he did commentaries on New Testaments books.

Basilides's Gospel and Exegetica (Treatises). By: Kelhoffer, James A.. Vigiliae Christianae, 2005, Vol. 59 Issue 2, p115-134

(pg. 129) (129)(131) (132)

Now we may look at the two quotes of Basilides and Paul

Basilides
Romans 7:9
Origen says that Basilides "has related the Apostle's statement to irrelevant blasphemous tales". Origen is not saying that Basilides directly quoted Paul, but that he "related Paul's statement" to blasphemous material.

Now it is certainly possible that Basilides rewrote a passage from Paul. However, given the conclusion in Kelhoffer's article that Basilides did not write biblical commentary, but his own commentary on his own theology, we may take it that another explanation is more probable. It is Origen that is assuming that the statements are related based on on the similarities of the first sentence:

Basilides: I was once alive apart from the law' at some time or other
Romans: For I was alive without the law once

Now we have at least four explanations for the similarity in the single line:

1. Basilides copied from Romans.
2. The writer of Romans copied from Basilides.
3. They both copied from a third, easlier source.
4. The expression "I was once alive without the law" was a common expression for mystical Greco-Jewish writers, as it is just a way of saying, "before I was converted to my present religion."

It is most probable to me that the fourth explanation is the most likely. When talking to anyone who has been converted to a religion, it is usually just a matter of minutes before the convert starts to talk about the time before she/he converted.

While the idea conveyed is extremely common, the fact that both authors seem to use the identical expression would seem to indicate that the two writers were writing around the same time. For example the expression "Groovy" became a popular expression for the idea of something being very pleasant around 1965. The popularity of the expression only lasted for a few years. Therefore, if we read two interviews of people who use the expression "groovy," we can suggest that both interviews took place in the mid-late 1960's.

In this case, the use of the same expression suggests that the two writers Basilides and the writer of Romans were both writing around the same time, circa 140.

As far as the question of where we start with the letters of Paul. It is necessary to note the various layers of the text. One can easily discern at least 3 or 4 different layers, Philonic Jewish, neo-gnostic, and anti-gnostic. I think the Philonic Jewish layer (or layers) are 1st century, the neo-gnostic are around 140, and the anti-gnostic are somewhat later, 150-200. More on the layers can be found in my book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

No, praxeus didn't draw this date out of a hat, but the result is the same. There is no way he can know from his own personal guesswork.

Vinnie, when you say circa it uses the date supplied as a central point and extend in both directions. When you say "circa 125 CE" you may think you are covering yourself, but what you have presented seems misleading.

Touted around the net, you'll find this article, A. Schmidt, "Zwei Ammerkungen zu P. Ryl. III 457," APF 35 (1989) 11-12, which provides an examination of the fragment and proffers a date of 170 CE +/- 25 years via palaeographic analysis.


spin

Steven Avery

Spin has a special skill of contradicting himself
(or making a blatant errror) within one sentence,
or two as here.

His point about circa is reasonable, however, and what I
was thinking as well. The bottom date should not be used
for circa and the 75 AD reference did not help since that
was (apparently) an authorship date, not a papyrus date.

Suggestion: simply bump it up a bit.
The article is excellent.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Roger Pearse

Colin Roberts original 1936 publication, backed by the leading paleographers of his day, gave the fragment a date of 100-150, most likely around 125, and probably earlier rather than later. Attempts (mostly by theologians) to attack this seem to have generally failed. But I recall Stephen Carlson contributing to a thread that there is a genuine reason to date this somewhat later today, based on newer data -- sadly I no longer have the details to hand.

I think so, particularly since it is done selectively, and indeed we see attempts to date apocrypha *early* (!).

All this smells of people with agendas to peddle, not objectivity to uphold, and is one reason why the humanities enjoys the contempt of the sciences. Some of the humanities do indeed deserve that contempt; and some of those professionals in some of the humanities.

But I don't think that paleography deserves such attack (no doubt there are politicised -- i.e. biased -- paleographers, but it seems generally to be fairly sound). But I feel wary of religious studies graduates pretending to be paleographers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Good resource.
However, you seem to making a flying leap, from what Kelhoffer says,
that Basildes did not write :

"an extensive gospel (or biblical) commentary"

To the idea that he wrote no Bible commentary at all, anywhere.
None of your quotes support that as a Kelhoffer position,
making your 4-fold conjecture system tight, except that
it omits the most probably explanation. A comment on
Paul's statement (in Romans 7) as Origen indicates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosophy Jay However, given the conclusion in Kelhoffer's article that Basilides did not write biblical commentary,

Kelhoffer did not say that in the quotes that you give,
simply that he did not write a specific :
"extensive gospel (or biblical) commentary".
Lots of folks write commentary on Bible verses
without writing such a volume.

So far I have not been accused of being "Article-Challenged" ,
and your omission of same is important above, involving a huge
expansion of what Kelhoffer actually says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse Colin Roberts original 1936 publication, backed by the leading paleographers of his day, gave the fragment a date of 100-150, most likely around 125....

Thank you for that backdrop. My 'circa' critique above should be sidelined until the additional data is gathered.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

I haven't had my hands on the article, but a review of it from the time gives this cut:

Cut the crap, Roger. Your digs are getting a little too often to be vacuous smokescreens. You can do better than that.


spin

andrewcriddle

I think we should note that P52 is so small a fragment that it does not contain every letter of the Greek alphabet.

This does result in greater than normal tentativeness in paleographical analysis.

IMVHO P52 probably dates from well before 150 CE, but I do not think that dates shortly after the middle of the 2nd century can be ruled out.

Andrew Criddle

jgibson000

How what "Philosopher" Jay does in any way mitigates the fact that you are "article (and book) challenged" is beyond me.

But I think you are quite correct in your assessment of what "Philosopher" Jay has done with what Kelhoffer says.

In any case, I've forwarded "Philosopher" Jay's message to Jim Kelhoffer, who I'm please to say is a long standing friend of mine, to see what he thinks of the inductive leaps that "Philosopher" Jay has made on the basis of he (JK) has written.

I'll forward (if I have his permission to do so) anything Jim has to say on the matter.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Please forgive me for asking this, but are you ever capable of posting anything here that doesn't end up being a plug for your book?

And speaking of your book, perhaps you'd like to share with us the reviews of it that have appeared in the professional journals. You did make sure that it was sent to the professional journals for review, didn't you?

JG

Ben C Smith

Here is the fuller quote of Origen, Commentary on Romans:

[Basilides] says: Indeed the apostle has said: I was once alive apart from the law at some time or other. That is, before I came into this body I lived in the kind of body that is not subject to the law, to wit, the body of a domestic animal or a bird.

Unfortunately, I do not have the original, only this translation (Google Books has the relevant volume of Migne, but the relevant pages seem to be missing); but, if the translation is anywhere near accurate, Origen would seem to have Basilides quoting Paul as the apostle.

Ben.