BARDESANES. - Gnostic, born, according to the Chronicle of Edessa, in 154 and died, according to the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, in 222 (cf. F. Nau, Patrologia Syriaca, II, 1, Paris 1907, pp. 510, 523). Fleeing following a revolt against the Persian king Sâhrub, his parents allegedly came to Edessa. Their previous dwelling place would have been Arbela in Adiabene (cf. Theodore bar Kônaj, ibid., p. 517). B., or rather his family, would thus have lived within the traditions of Parthian culture, and this is confirmed by Sextus Julius Africanus, who in the Kestoi, chap. 29, described the life of B. at the court of Abgar IX of Edessa, where he excelled in the art of archery, characteristic of the Parthian nobility. But the move to Edessa necessarily led to a closer approach to the Roman Empire and Western culture. B. sought to unite within himself the cultural traditions of the West and those of the East.
Porphyry knows of a book by B. on India, but it appears that his knowledge of this country was not direct, but based on literary traditions, the ultimate source of which was Megasthenes, as is proven by the coincidence of Porphyry, De abst., IV, 18 with Flavius Josephus, Bellum Iud., VII, 352-356 (v. MORELLY, in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie [1926], p. 111 ff). But also B.'s fragment (in Stobaeus, Eclog., I, p. 66 ff.) concerning the water of the Styx, with the description of an Indian custom, has a remarkable correspondence in a text by the novelist Achilles Tatius, VIII, 12, as was demonstrated by Boll in Philologus, 66 (1907), p. 11 ff. This, it seems, leads to the conclusion that B. was not an original spirit, but an Oriental who, similar to Sextus Julius Africanus, sought to appropriate the most diverse subjects of human curiosity. From this point of view, even B.'s part in the composition of a dialogue on fate cannot be as personal as has been thought. Much discussion has taken place as to whether the Syriac text of a dialogue entitled The Laws of the Countries (of which the best edition is that of F. Nau in Patrol. Syr., II, p. 492 ff.), or the Greek fragments (in Eusebius) and Latin ones (in Ps.-Clem., Recognitiones) represent the original work of B. Scholars' lack of consensus on this point is perhaps explained by the fact that the original source of this work merges with the recension or reworking made by B. The development of thought in the dialogue moreover reveals the tradition of Greek philosophy (cf. D. Amand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l'antiquité grecque, Louvain-Paris 1945, p. 228 ff.).
For the Church Fathers in Syria, primarily for St. Ephrem, B. is not a Greek philosopher, but an Eastern Gnostic, even when he is reproached for using the word "Hyle" (matter) in the history of creation. Mention is made of his doctrine of seven "essences" (aeons), his astrology (zodiac), and his anthropology, according to which the body is the work of Darkness, whereas the soul is the work of the "Seven". It is clear that his Christ did not have a true body and that B. denied the resurrection of bodies. Certain phrases of B. are cited that are almost incomprehensible to us. It appears that he spoke of a "Father of life" (in the form of the sun) and a "Mother" (in the form of the moon) who supposedly generated the "Son of life". His doctrine concerning the Spirit and Sophia does not become clear to us from the few hints. One catches wind of something about two daughters of rūḥā qūdīā (Holy Spirit), but the ultimate meaning of this speculation is not understood. On the other hand, it is said that the Spirit (and not the Son) created the world with God. Theodore bar Kōnēj (v. also MOSĒ BAR KĒPĀ; IWANNĪS DI DĀRĀ) cites verses from a cosmogonic hymn (v. H. Schaeder, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 51 [1932], p. 46 ff), which in its details is not easily understandable, but it can be seen that it is a question of a admixture in creation, the effect of an attempt by darkness to mingle with the five essences. The attempt failed through the word of God (Christ), who rearranged the five essences back to their primitive places (four essences according to the four cardinal points), according to the mystery of the cross. This world, created from the admixture, is purified following conception and birth until perfection. The light that is found above, while the darkness is below, is a living being and also resides in the heart of the believer. The relationship between this cosmogony and B.'s eschatology is not clear. It is known that B. adhered to the astrological doctrine of six millennia. Interesting is the optimistic tendency of this doctrine. Marriage serves for the purification of the world. Those among whom Mani's father was supposed to go, because they rejected marriage, could therefore not have been adherents of B. as has been asserted (I. Pedersen, in Oriental Studies presented to E. Browne, Cambridge 1922, p. 385), and for the same reason St. Ephrem's assertion that the Bardesanites were the authors of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles is inadmissible, but it may be that their speculation had an influence on the text of these Acts. B.'s influence on Mani, who knew and cited B., is not yet clarified (hypothesis of F. C. Burkitt in Journal of Theol. Studies, 35 [1934], p. 358). The Bardesanites were still known to Arab polemicists. For the Syriac Church, the hymns of B. and his son Harmonios were a grave danger. According to Schaeder, B. was not yet influenced by Greek metrics (loc. cit., p. 57), unlike his son. Ephrem's hymns were therefore in rivalry with those of Harmonios.