Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 08-20-2012, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another important point to reconfirm that castration was the second circumcision.

'As for those seditious men, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!' Gal 5:12

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think this is checkmate. Optatus writes in the fourth century and preserves a complete - and unadulterated - understanding of the Egyptian/north African Church (the traditions are connected). Clearly there is a second circumcision and a second baptism which is connected by way of the Book of Joshua (= And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan." cf. Secret Mark and Book of Joshua LXX). The Marciani not only had a second baptism along with their north African cousins but also a second circumcision. The Marcionites similarly. It all goes back to secret Mark's wording and geography (Jesus and his disciple are physically on the other side of the Jordan like Joshua). There is no mention of water immersion because - I imagine - the reference to 'him' (= the disciple) crossing the Jordan became the baptism. This is why Irenaeus says in his account of the Marciani that some did not practice the redemption rite with water.

In any even I am sure I am not going to convince you that this all goes back to secret Mark (even though, when you think about it, both Origen and Irenaeus make mention of the Jewish terminology for return to the promised land = redemption/galut). At the very least the tradition of the Donatists helps fill in the corrupt details in Rufinus's edition of Origen:

Quote:

For you have recalled, in analogy with baptism, that the flood occurred once, and there was one circumcision for the Jewish people.2 And when you had treated these matters at the beginning of your treatise, you became, however, unmindful of them in the course of your treatise, by introducing two waters; and, since you were going to speak argumentatively about the true water and the false, you adopted an unwise method in constructing the opening of your oration. By attacking the unity of holy baptism, you confirm it; with regard to Jewish circumcision you wanted to boast, as a sort of founding principle, that the baptism of Christians had been foreshadowed in the circumcision of the Hebrews. You have defended the Catholic Church while you impugn it. For in the course of your treatise you have declared that you are making one baptism empty so that you may seem to make the other full. When you say that, apart from heretics' baptism, there is one sort and another sort, then even though you have tried to show that they are of different species, you could not deny that there are two. When you try to take away one of these, you you have been striving to turn the second visibly into a kind of first.

Now circumcision was sent forth as a type" before the arrival of baptism, and your treatise argues that among Christians there are two waters; therefore show that there were two circumcisions among the Jews also, one better, the other worse. If you look for this you will not be able to find it. The race of Abraham, to which the Jews belong, glories in being marked by this seal. Therefore the truth that follows should be such as the image sent before it. And furthermore God, as he wanted to show that a single thing ought to come later when truth succeeded, did not choose that anything be taken from the ear or from the finger, but that part of the body was chosen where the abstraction of the foreskin on one occasion produced a sign of health, which cannot happen again.5 For when done once it preserves health; if it happens again it may bring ruin. So too the baptism of Christians, jointly performed by the Trinity, confers grace; if it is repeated it causes life to be cast away. [Optatus, Against the Donatians 5th Book]

Optatus must have been really thick headed not to see that the Donatists were using Joshua as the basis for their claims of a second circumcision. Clearly Joshua represents a second baptism too because Exodus 15 is always read in conjunction with Easter Sunday. The absence of reference to 'Jesus' crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land, the land of milk and honey, when milk and honey was given to the catechumen, should have been the obvious clue.

I can't agree with your reading of Optatus.

IIUC Optatus is using a reductio ad absurdum.

The Donatists speak of two baptisms.
If it is valid to speak of two baptisms then it must be valid to speak of two circumcisions.
There is no basis in the Bible for two circumcisions.
Therefore there is no basis in the Bible for two baptisms.

I don't think Optatus believed that the Donatists did refer to two circumcisions, he is saying that in order to be consistent they should accept this position which Optatus considers obviously false.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 08-20-2012, 01:16 PM

But how can Optatus claim their is no basis for the second circumcision when Justin, Origen et al all recognize Joshua chapter 5 as the basis for this second rite which did exist in Christianity (otherwise their testimonies don't make any sense). It would be one thing if Optatus recognized the established interpretation, but how come he can't recognize what is said by the greatest Patristic sources? It would seem to me to be more likely that he is imperfectly reporting on a continuation of an ancient tradition among the primitive Berbers.

The second baptism was called the 'redemption' and like the original galut involved a 'second' circumcision.

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But how can Optatus claim their is no basis for the second circumcision when Justin, Origen et al all recognize Joshua chapter 5 as the basis for this second rite which did exist in Christianity (otherwise their testimonies don't make any sense). It would be one thing if Optatus recognized the established interpretation, but how come he can't recognize what is said by the greatest Patristic sources? It would seem to me to be more likely that he is imperfectly reporting on a continuation of an ancient tradition among the primitive Berbers.

The second baptism was called the 'redemption' and like the original galut involved a 'second' circumcision.

It is an interesting question. Part of the answer may be that Joshua 5 is not a second circumcision in the sense that the same people are circumciced twice. It is clear that the people being circumcised are a new generation who have not previously been circumcised.

In order for it to be genuinely relevant to the Donatist situation the same people would have had to be circumcised twice.

Andrew Criddle

sotto voce · 08-20-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But how can Optatus claim their is no basis for the second circumcision when Justin, Origen et al all recognize Joshua chapter 5 as the basis for this second rite which did exist in Christianity (otherwise their testimonies don't make any sense).

Joshua had circumcised only those never circumcised, because the practice had lapsed in the desert. The only 'second circumcision' is that of the 'heart'. Or sorrowful repentance and humbling.

stephan huller · 08-20-2012, 02:24 PM

i get into the same arguments with the atheists at this forum. it doesn't ultimately matter what joshua sys. we are dealing with an interpretation passed on by tradition. joshua was used by early christianity to justify ritual castrations

sotto voce · 08-20-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

i get into the same arguments with the atheists at this forum. it doesn't ultimately matter what joshua sys. we are dealing with an interpretation passed on by tradition. joshua was used by early christianity to justify ritual castrations

In a fantasy dreamworld, where polar opposites are made equivalents, perhaps.

stephan huller · 08-20-2012, 03:47 PM

they are mine, they originally belonged to your tradition

sotto voce · 08-20-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

they are mine, they originally belonged to your tradition

They originally belonged where they are now. Along with Darth Vader. Though with even less correspondence with reality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-20-2012, 01:16 PM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But how can Optatus claim their is no basis for the second circumcision when Justin, Origen et al all recognize Joshua chapter 5 as the basis for this second rite which did exist in Christianity (otherwise their testimonies don't make any sense). It would be one thing if Optatus recognized the established interpretation, but how come he can't recognize what is said by the greatest Patristic sources? It would seem to me to be more likely that he is imperfectly reporting on a continuation of an ancient tradition among the primitive Berbers. The second baptism was called the 'redemption' and like the original galut involved a 'second' circumcision.

08-20-2012, 02:24 PM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i get into the same arguments with the atheists at this forum. it doesn't ultimately matter what joshua sys. we are dealing with an interpretation passed on by tradition. joshua was used by early christianity to justify ritual castrations

08-20-2012, 03:47 PM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	they are mine, they originally belonged to your tradition

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.