Agrippa Castor: Notice on his lost work against Basilides

AGRIPPA CASTOR NOTICE

(Galland., Biblioth., t. I, Proleg., p. LXXVIII.)

Agrippa Castor, under Hadrian, wrote a most competent refutation against Basilides: a work now lost, of which a few fragments survive in Eusebius.

At the time when Basilides, the first leader of the Gnostics, arose under Hadrian, Agrippa, surnamed Castor, flourished with the reputation of great learning and doctrine. He was the first of all to expose and refute the unspeakable, hidden mysteries and impious dogmas of that heresiarch, which had been set down in the twenty-four ^A books Basilides had written on the Gospel. Eusebius (1) has this to say about him, that illustrious writer of the Church: "There has come down to us a most competent refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, a writer very famous in that age, in which he unmasks the man’s conjurings and deceits." ^B Likewise, Jerome (2) says: "Agrippa, surnamed Castor, a man of great learning, argued most forcibly against the twenty-four volumes of the heretic Basilides which he had composed on the Gospel, revealing all his mysteries." Agrippa is also mentioned by Theodoret (3). Regarding his age, one should consult principally Pearson (4), Dodwell (5), and Massuet (6). Moreover, his brilliant work has long since perished, with the exception of those few fragments which Eusebius preserved for us, and which we have transcribed from him in their proper place.

Of the work of Agrippa Castor, in which Basilides was refuted, Eusebius writes as follows in *Hist.* lib. IV, cap. 7:

"And so, when he exposes his (Basilides’) secret ^B teachings, he says that he composed twenty-four books on the Gospel; and that he gave himself the names of prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph, and others—non-existent figures—and ^C that he imposed certain barbaric names upon his pupils to strike them with awe." ^D

(7) Regarding others: "Since many ecclesiastical men were at that time contending for the truth, and defending the apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine most incisively, some even left to posterity, through writings they had produced, remedies to act as precautions against these very same heresies that had been declared. From among these, there has come down to us the most competent refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, a writer of that age of the highest repute, in which the man’s conjuring and deceits are unmasked. And while he lays bare all his, etc." Routh.

(8) "That he composed four and twenty books on the Gospel," etc. Eusebius does not say on which Gospel Basilides wrote these books, whether the Gospel of Matthew or of Mark. And perhaps Basilides had composed these twenty-four books into his own gospel. For Basilides had written a gospel and had prefixed his own name to it: *To kata Basileiden euangelion* ["The Gospel According to Basilides"], as Origen testifies in his *Homily on Luke*, Ambrose in the proem to his *Luke*, and Jerome in his *Preface to Matthew*. But those books of Basilides were called *Exegetica*. Certainly, Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of his *Stromata* cites certain passages from the 23rd book of the *Exegetica* of Basilides. VALESIUS.

In his notes to Jerome's *De viris illustribus*, cap. 21, which deals with Agrippa Castor, the illustrious Fabricius says he suspects that these commentaries of Basilides are what Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome intend when they mention the false Gospel of Basilides. The same view had also seemed correct to Fabricius to write in volume 1 of his *Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti*, p. 343. But the words of Origen in his *Orations on Luke* seem to agree poorly with this opinion: (The words of Sacred Scripture previously cited) *en to kat' auton euangeliom* [“in the gospel according to him”], p. 981, vol. III of the Works of Origen, from the edition of Delarue, or the Benedictine. Indeed, if this were true regarding the common gospel of the heretics, why might this work not be that very gospel of Marcion, about which Tertullian and Epiphanius have said quite enough? Regarding the age of Basilides, I have brought forward something below in the Fragments of Hegesippus. ID.

(9) He calls himself the prophet Barcabbas and Barcoph. So reads the *Codex Regius*. But in the *Mazarin*, *Medicean*, and *Fuk* codices, it is written *Barcabban* with a grave accent on the last syllable.

Moreover, he [Agrippa Castor] states that [Basilides] imposed certain names upon himself to strike fear into the minds of those who are captivated by the wonder of such things. Furthermore, he mentions that he teaches that it is a matter of indifference to partake of foods sacrificed to idols, and that in times of persecution one may freely deny the faith. He also affirms that, after the manner of the Pythagoreans, he enjoins a silence of five years upon his followers. Having enumerated these and other such things concerning Basilides, the aforementioned writer most forcefully exposes the errors of this heresy, having brought them into the light. ^B Nor does Nicephorus do otherwise, except that he circumflexes the final syllable. In Rufinus, too, and in Jerome’s compendium of heresies (the *Judæorum*), it is called Barcabbas. For this is how the manuscript codices of Rufinus present it. Moreover, regarding these prophets, Barcabas and Barcoph, Isidore, the son of Basilides, had written books of *Expositions*, as Clement of Alexandria teaches in book VI of his *Stromateis*: "Isidore, the son and disciple of Basilides, in the first book of the *Expositions* of the prophet [Parchor]." Where [the name] *Barcoph* seems to be what should be read. Unless one prefers to think that *Parchor* was also one of those prophets invented by Basilides. Among the number of those prophets was also Cham, in whose name Basilides had composed a book of prophecy, as can be gathered from the words of Isidore cited there by Clement. VALESIUS. Grabe also, on page 38 of his *Spicilegium*, volume II, regarding the fictitious nature of these pseudo-prophets, considers that these [remarks] of Eusebius should be accepted not only as to their persons but also their books, being fully persuaded by that passage of Clement of Alexandria. Nor, meanwhile, should the conjecture of the illustrious Lardner be entirely spurned, who maintains that these books were some oriental codices which he [Basilides] had brought with him from the East to Alexandria. See the posthumous work of Lardner published in English, titled *History of Heretics*, book II, chapter 2, sect. 31. He attributes a certain prophet, Barcabban, to the Gnostics, and Epiphanius teaches the etymology of his name in *Haer.* 27, no. 2, p. 83, ed. Petavius. Finally, I will note that in many codices, both of Rufinus and Jerome, these names are shown written thus: *Barchabbas* and *Barcob*, but *Barchabam* and *Barchabos* [are found] in the Rufinus manuscript of St. Magdalen College, Oxford; the clause, however, [is] omitted in the Bodleian or Savilian codex of Eusebius. Christophorson inserted "angels" here, as if something were missing in the text of Eusebius. But Eusebius only speaks of the prophets whom Basilides had feigned for himself. And thus Jerome accepted this passage of Eusebius in his *Catalogue*, where he speaks of Agrippa Castor, as did Theodoret in book I of *Haereticarum Fabularum*, and Nicephorus in his fourth book. VALESIUS. ...but incorrectly, even though the same historical Nicephorus found [this] in his codex. ROUTH.

ARISTO PELLAEUS — NOTITIA

I. Aristo Pellaeus, author of the *Disputation of Jason and Papiscus*, incorrectly attributed to Luke the Evangelist. Origen, in his *Against Celsus*, praises the utility of the work, and at the same time explains its inscription, character, and doctrine. What St. Jerome criticized in it. Its author is defended, both by the Jerusalem Paraphrast and by the very ancient author of the *Preaching of Peter*, and he does not entirely disagree even with Jerome himself. II. The Greek text of the work, with few exceptions, has perished entirely; yet many fragments of the *Celsus Christianus* survive, from the preface of which many things are available to know the work itself more fully. Who Jason was, debating in it with Papiscus. At what time it was written. III. It is related that Aristo also committed to writing a history of oriental affairs, according to Moses of Chorene; and perhaps from Eusebius himself. IV. Concerning the same writer, some things incorrectly stated exist in the author of the *Chronicon Paschale*. His passage [is] fruitlessly attempted by Fabricius. Nor does Cave’s conjecture please [us] any more. Finally, what is to be thought of him according to Du Cange.

I. The first among the ancient ecclesiastical writers who mentions Aristo is Eusebius of Caesarea (1); and he calls him Pellaeus, deriving it from Pella, a town of Palestine situated across the Jordan, to which the Christians had transferred their seats shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, as the same Eusebius relates (2). Here, this man, being a Christian, as it seems, from among the Jews, is said to have committed to writing the *Disputation of Jason and Papiscus*, as St. Maximus testifies (3): which Disputation, however, if one listens to the same Maximus, he [Maximus] attributed to Luke. But, says Grabe (4), it is not easy to understand how it could have happened that Clement of Alexandria made Luke its author, when the events related in that Dialogue occurred some time after the death of Luke. Whence I suspect that either [the text] is corrupt in the text of Maximus to be quoted below (5), reading *hōn* for *hou*, or rather that the words of Clement were not correctly read or understood by Maximus; and since, when he cites the *Disputation of Jason and Papiscus*, he [Maximus] says...

^A says that it is perhaps a mention made by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, of course, these things are wrongly referred back to the Disputation itself. So much for him.

But long before Maximus, Celsus the Epicurean had read this same Disputation, whose unfair judgment concerning it is recounted by Origen in these words: ^A « I have known the Disputation of a certain Papiscus and Jason, not worthy of laughter, but rather of pity and disgust. For me, therefore, it is not set before me to refute these things; for they are clear to everyone somewhere. » And thus he continues: « I have known the contention of a certain Papiscus and Jason, worthy not of laughter, but rather of pity and hatred. Therefore, I have no mind to refute these things; since their absurdity is evident to all. » But Origen, who himself knew Aristo's Dialogue, refutes the slander of Celsus in such a way that it would not be useless to describe his answer here; for from it, we perceive both the inscription of the work and, in the first place, its character and doctrine. Thus, therefore, he says: ^B « Nevertheless, I would wish that anyone who has heard the grand words of Celsus, and who says that the written work entitled *The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ* is worthy not of laughter, but of disgust, would take the little book into his hands, and endure and bear to hear the contents of it; so that from it he might judge Celsus, finding nothing in the book worthy of disgust. And if anyone reads it impartially, he will find that the book does not even provoke laughter, in which is recorded a Christian disputing with a Jew from the Jewish Scriptures, and showing that the prophecies concerning Christ apply to Jesus; although he [the adversary] stands against the argument in no ignoble or indecent manner as the Jewish person. » That is: ^B « I, however, would hope that anyone, after the grand words of Celsus, who says that the little work inscribed *The Contention of Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ* is worthy not of laughter but of hatred, having taken the book into his hands, would bestow some effort to its reading, so that, instructed by the thing itself, he might condemn the vain-talk of Celsus, finding nothing in that book worthy of hatred. Nor, moreover, will he find anything ridiculous in it; in which, clearly, a Christian is introduced disputing with a Jew, and proving from the very Scriptures of the Jews that the oracles of the prophets concerning Christ pertain to Jesus; even though the adversary contradicts him strenuously and sufficiently in the Jewish manner. »

Now, as for what Tillemont ^C gathers from Origen, that the author of the same little book urged this saying, as most useful for the formation of morals: « That the source and beginning of all wisdom is to refer all actions to it, so that they may please God, and not to think of anything that might displease Him; for not only words and deeds, but also thoughts must be judged »: that point was indeed less correctly gathered by the most learned man; for this sentiment is to be attributed not to Aristo, but to Origen himself; who pronounces that saying as the common principle of all the writers of the Church; as the illustrious Maranus rightly notes.

After Origen, moreover, St. Jerome also mentions the same Disputation once or twice, which he also calls an Altercation; and we have cited two passages of his concerning it below. And in one of them indeed ^B he asserts that it is false what was written in it, that at the beginning of Genesis, it is held in the Hebrew: *In the Son God created heaven and earth*. But Bartoloccius undertook the defense of Aristo: ^C « For the Hebrew, he says, is understood the Hierosolymitan idiom, which was called Hebrew in a broad sense, and was written in Hebrew letters. In this idiom, indeed, the remains of which still survive today in the Hierosolymitan Targum, it is found: *In Wisdom God created*, etc. Through the Son of the eternal Father, and in the Son who is the Wisdom of God the Father, all things were created; whence in this place and according to this sense, *In Wisdom* has the same value as *In the Son*. » So far he. Nor is it a wonder if Aristo of Pella borrowed that passage from the Hierosolymitan Targum, not a little congruent with his stated purpose and design; who clearly inscribed his disputation *Concerning Christ* primarily, and who introduced not only the Christian Jason disputing from the Jewish Scriptures, but also the Hebrew Papiscus, not ignobly nor indecedently towards the Jewish person, vigorously and sufficiently in the Jewish manner contradicting, as Origen was just asserting.

I am not, indeed, ignorant that those things which are discussed by many learned men, most especially by Morinus, concerning the age of that author of the Hierosolymitan paraphrase, hinder this opinion of Bartoloccius, as they determine that he was more recent, belonging to the sixth century; so that, consequently, Aristo could not have used such a paraphrase in his century. But Walton meets this objection, demonstrating that there existed a double Hierosolymitan Paraphrase. Concerning which matter, Wolfius also adds some items. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria, to omit other Fathers, likewise drew—or so it seems—the same interpretation of this place in Genesis used by Aristo, from the very ancient pseudepigraphon, the *Preaching of Peter* ^D; which indeed it is surprising to note that Grabe missed. Nor does Jerome himself essentially dissent, who loc. cit. has these words: « It can therefore be accepted of Christ more according to the sense than according to the translation of the word; who is approved as the creator of heaven and earth, as much on the very front of Genesis, which is the head of all books, as also in the beginning of the Gospel of John. »

^A II. But the Greek text of this Disputation perished long ago, and at the same time perished its very ancient Latin version, which had been produced by a certain Celsus, a Christian old man. Yet there remains his epistle, quite elegant and learned, in which he dedicated his translation to Bishop Vigilius, ascribed among the works of St. Cyprian (17); from which we learn some things pertaining to the lost text itself, which are as follows (18): « That excellent and memorable and glorious disputation of Jason the Hebrew Christian and Papiscus the Alexandrian Jew occurs; softened by a brief warning and a mild rebuke to the obstinate hardness of the Jewish heart; and the doctrine of Jason regarding the infusion of the Holy Spirit victorious in the heart of Papiscus, by which Papiscus was admitted to the understanding of the truth, and, the Lord himself having mercy, was formed to the fear of the Lord, and believed in Jesus Christ the Son of God, and, asking to receive the seal, requested Jason. ^B The scripture of their debate proves this, which is marked by the work of the Greek language regarding them colliding among themselves, with Papiscus opposing the truth, and Jason asserting and vindicating the dispensation and fullness of Christ. » So far there.

It pleased Grabe (20) to conjecture that Jason the Hebrew Christian and Papiscus the Alexandrian Jew, disputing with each other, were fictional persons, as is accustomed to be done in dialogues. To others, however, it seemed otherwise. Sixtus of Siena first (21), then Pamelius (22), followed by Bartolocci (l. c.), opined that this Jason was the same as the Jason of Thessalonica, of whom Luke makes mention in Acts XVII, 5, ^C and Paul, Rom. XVI, 21, yet with no testimony from ancient writers brought forward; so that, consequently, such a conjecture is not approved by Spencer (23), Tillemont (24), and others. I would rather have thought him to have been a bishop or at least a presbyter, with Maranus (25); for we have just heard the interpreter Celsus telling us that Papiscus, having been admitted to the understanding of the truth, requested Jason to receive the seal. Nor does the same learned man doubt that he lived in the second century. And indeed rightly: for this Disputation is found to have been known to Celsus the Epicurean; and so we believe it to have been committed to writing around the middle of the same century, or, according to our calculations, around the year of Christ 136. Concerning the interpreter Celsus, however, and his preface to his Latin translation of the Ariston ^D opusculum, we shall speak elsewhere more opportunely.

III. Nor does Aristo of Pella seem to have written only the Altercation of Jason and Papiscus, but also a history of Oriental matters. Since Moses of Chorene, recently published in Armenian and Latin by the Williams and George Whistons in London, reports many things in his Armenian History (26) described from our author; some of which are said to be akin to those which Eusebius (27) relates as coming from Aristo himself; yet the rest do not occur so easily among other writers: such as those things which are narrated concerning the death of Artaxis III, king of the Parthians, reigning under Hadrian; and other things besides, clearly worthy of being examined more carefully. For indeed this Armenian author is not to be altogether despised, who is found to have flourished in the fifth century. He was indeed moderately learned, as the learned London editors (28) think of him; but that is certainly to be acknowledged as candid in him, that he almost always indicates the sources from which he drew his narrations: and no one would deny that this gives his History much authority, that he inserted letters and other monuments into his work, as if taken from public records, so that while one may sometimes miss his judgment, you rarely regret his fidelity.

But to return to Aristo, we think that Fragment 1 ought to be attributed by better right to his Oriental History, which, having followed Grabe too hastily, we presented from Eusebius as if it had been taken from the Altercation of Jason and Papiscus, where discussion is had of the siege of the city of Betthera and the destruction of Jerusalem. And that this is indeed persuaded by the context of Eusebius, who, besides a deep silence concerning the Aristoniana Disputation, uses this additional manner of speaking: Ἀρίστων Πελγαῖος ἱστορεῖ. It is known that the words of Eusebius are accepted in the same sense, whether by his learned interpreter Valesius or the famous Abbot de Longuerue (29); whom Scaliger seems to have preceded (30). But in the first place, Moses of Chorene himself is thought to openly profess this; who, with one and the same tenor, describes from Aristo himself both the Eusebian matters and those handed down in writing concerning the death of Artaxis, king of the Parthians; and it is more correctly said that he drew all those things from his History than from the cited Disputation: for although Jason and Papiscus, as Grabe contends (31), could have spoken in that dialogue about the siege of Betthera and the slaughter of the Jews, the truth is not similar...