Toto

The YOUTUBE tag does the work for you. It's just a matter of reading the documentation.

stephan huller

I was following up this lead given to me about the flammable qualities of phosphorus when I saw this diagram in a book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MKz...0water&f=false

Once I saw it, I realized at once this is it - this is fire baptism. For I happen to be blessed with a good memory. Let's start with the Anaxilaus passage from the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism:

The important thing to realize is that the treatise draws on the same source as Irenaeus's report against the Marcosians (= the 'followers of Mark'). The common reference to Anaxilaus is critical and leaves no room for doubt these are two related reports. Anaxilaus is remembered for putting phosphorous in heated water for effect. Here is the original reference from Pliny:

While I think the report in Pliny mentions 'sulfur' (I will have to check) I am now absolutely certain that the description matches the phosphorus experiment listed above. Given the fact that Irenaeus also completely garbles the details and relates it to purplish colored water, my guess is that the sulfur reference isn't accurate.

It is important to note that one of the tricks of Anaxilaus - one involving cuttlefish - can be connected with the Marcionites, thereby underscoring my long standing contention that Gregory Nazianzus was right in identifying the two sects as one and the same. Yet for the moment it is important to note that the description of baptism in the Justin and the Ebionite tradition also seems to be related. This is a major discovery but there is still so much work to do ...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

Interesting stuff on a hot topic.

I can see how this phosphorus trick could have been done in small gnostic sects at the beginning of Christianity, but when thousands started coming to Christianity in the Third century, it would have become impractical and extremely dangerous. If too many people found out about the trick and started comparing notes, the natural science nature of the trick would have been obvious.

Water baptisms were cheaper and more practical. That's why they won out in the end.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

avi

Thanks again, for these interesting comments. Yes, as you noted, the properties of sulfur and phosphorus are quite dissimilar when placed, respectively, in an aqueous environment....

Since the text of Irenaeus is "garbled", one wonders about its utility here. Why have you introduced it? How does a passage from a corrupt source assist us in understanding the subtleties of the many different baptism rituals?

I hope that your excavations of text, to borrow a phrase from Ben Smith, will explain how the third century Jews living in Dura Europos, washed, bathed, and employed water in purification ceremonies, (akin to baptism, without fire), and whether or not, that process ever involved a basin of dimensions corresponding to those found in the so called "house church", situated adjacent to the synagogue in that forsaken town.

You mention the Ebionists, and the followers of Mark, both presumably living in Turkey or Syria, one supposes in the second or third century....I could not quite grasp the relationship with Anaxilaus from Larissa in Greece, living in the first century BCE. Obviously, "baptism" must have a broader context, than simply a Christian ceremony, if we understand that "baptism" forms the subject of Dr. Anaxilaus' treatise. (?) So, is baptism, with or without fire, something unique to Christianity? If not, is it unique to Judaism and its offshoots? If "baptism" had been practiced by the Jews, two thousand years ago, then, could not the basin found in Dura Europos, have been used by the Jews, as readily as by Christians?

avi

stephan huller

That is the bottom line I think. Quite astute.

stephan huller

The Pentateuch is garbled. As I have noted here the original text clearly had God appearing with a legion of angels and fire streaming from his right hand as an apocalyptic foreshadowing of the End Times. How could this most important detail been 'accidentally' corrupted from the surviving texts (the text that survives as the LXX is not the original material known to Philo)? In any event, if we start eliminating traditions because they have succumbed to corruption we end up with nothing.

I know nothing about this so I have nothing to say about it.

The important thing for us to see is that there really was some kind of fire baptism in third century Christianity. The fact that Irenaeus's Marcosians are also said to practice a similar baptism called 'redemption' I think solves the mystery of the liturgical context for this practice. I am certain that it has to do with the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Sea and the Fire associated with God 'mixing' in together. I just don't know where to draw the line with speculation. The writings of Marqe make clear that fire and water mixed together that day - i.e. during the 'goings out' of the Sabbath.

My last difficulty is that the Jews and Samaritans have always rejected Christian baptism and its link with the redemption in Egypt owing to the fact that the Israelites never touched the water. As such it makes no sense to link bathing people with people whose bodies never got wet. It would also seem to limit the magic power of the water infused with fire.

My hunch is that the Christians in Alexandria took an interest in the Egyptians who drowned in the water. That's why it is a death baptism. The dead Egyptians 'live' in those who undergo the Pauline baptismal rite. It would also explain why the eighth day is associated with Christian baptism (rather than the motza'e shabbat when the Israelites crossed). In other words, if the Israelites went through as the seventh day 'went out' into the eighth then the eighth day became associated with bringing back to life of the drowned Egyptians. Such a message would clearly have appealed to native Copts but I don't know where to go with it. It seems rather speculative.

Yet my instincts tell me it is the right answer especially in light of two factors (a) Philo's testimony about a heretical group with these beliefs and (b) some of the Marcionite beliefs reflected in Irenaeus's Against Heresies (which Hill attributes to Polycarp). Philo and Polycarp are very powerful witnesses - exactly the kinds of people who would have known what the beliefs of this sect really were.

stephan huller

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=03e_1201105234