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). After fleeing a revolt against the Persian king Sāhrub, his parents came to Edessa. Their original home would have been Arbela in Adiabene (cf. Theodore bar Kónaj, ibid., p. 517). Bardesanes—or rather his family—would thus have lived within the traditions of Parthian culture, a fact confirmed by Sextus Julius Africanus, who in the *Kestoi*, ch. 29, describes the life of Bardesanes at the court of Abgar IX of Edessa, where he excelled in the art of archery, a skill characteristic of Parthian nobility. However, the move to Edessa necessarily brought him into closer contact with the Roman Empire and Western culture. Bardesanes sought to unite in himself the cultural traditions of the West and those of the East.
Porphyry knew of a book by Bardesanes on India, but it seems his knowledge of that country was not direct but based on literary traditions, the ultimate source of which was Megasthenes, as is proven by the agreement between Porphyry, *De abst.*, IV, 18 and Flavius Josephus, *Bellum Iud.*, VII, 352-356 (v. MORELLY, in *Rheinisches Museum für Philologie* [1926], p. 111 ff). Even the fragment of Bardesanes (in Stobaeus, *Eclog.*, I, p. 66 ff.) on the water of the Styx, with its description of an Indian custom, has a notable correspondence in a passage from the novelist Achilles Tatius, VIII, 12, as was demonstrated by Boll in *Philologus*, 66 (1907), p. 11 ff. This seems to lead to the conclusion that Bardesanes was not an original thinker but an Easterner who, like Sextus Julius Africanus, sought to appropriate the most diverse subjects of human curiosity. From this perspective, his role in the composition of a dialogue on fate cannot be as personal as has been thought.
Much has been debated over 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 (in Eusebius) and Latin fragments (in the *Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions*) represent Bardesanes’ original work. The lack of scholarly consensus on this point may perhaps be explained by the fact that the original source of this work is confused with the recension or reworking done by Bardesanes. 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, especially St. Ephrem, Bardesanes was not a Greek philosopher but an Eastern Gnostic, even when he is reproached for using the word *Hyle* (matter) in the story of creation. His doctrine of seven “essences” (aeons), his astrology (zodiac), and his anthropology—according to which the body would be the work of the Darkness and the soul the work of the “Seven”—are mentioned. It is clear that his Christ did not have a true body, and that Bardesanes denied the resurrection of the body. Some phrases of his, nearly incomprehensible to us, are cited. He seems to have spoken of a “Father of Life” (under the form of the sun) and a “Mother” (under the form of the moon) who would have generated the “Son of Life.” His doctrine on the Spirit and on Sophia is not clear to us from the few hints given. Something is heard of two daughters of *rúha qiddá* (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 together with God. Theodore bar Kónrj (v. MOSE BAR KÉFÁ; IWANNÍS DI DÁRÁ) cites verses from a cosmogonic hymn (v. H. Schacher, in *Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte*, 51 [1932], p. 46 ff), which is not entirely comprehensible in detail, but it is clear that it deals with a mingling in creation, the result of an attempt by the darkness to mix with the five essences. The attempt failed due to the word of God (Christ), who restored the five essences to their original places (four essences according to the four cardinal points), according to the mystery of the cross. This world, created through mingling, is purified through conception and birth to perfection. The light, which is above while the darkness is below, is a living being and also dwells in the heart of the believer. The relationship between this cosmogony and Bardesanes’ eschatology is unclear. It is known that he adhered to the astrological doctrine of six millennia. Interesting is the optimistic tendency of this doctrine. Marriage serves the purification of the world. Those among whom Mani’s father was to go, because they rejected marriage, could not therefore have been followers of Bardesanes, as has been claimed (J. 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. However, their speculation may have influenced the text of these Acts. The influence of Bardesanes on Mani, who knew and cited him, has not yet been 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 Bardesanes and his son Harmonius were a grave danger. According to Schäeder, Bardesanes was not yet influenced by Greek metrics (loc. cit., p. 57), unlike his son. Thus, Ephrem’s hymns were in rivalry with those of Harmonius.
**