Demonstrating that 'Simon Magus' was a (Deliberate) Orthodox Misrepresentation of the Original Alexandrian Practice of Baptizing Their Catechumen on the Eighth Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread

About fifty people read this blog each day. I don't know how I would describe what I do here. It really isn't like other blogs. I don't think that I will ever be one of those blogs that attracts a hundred or two hundred readers a day.

I don't know if there are two hundred people who care about the truth - this kind of 'religious truth' - in the whole world at one time.

I really believe we are making progress towards a goal that was unthinkable when I started this blog. Yes, I wrote a book called the Real Messiah, but that book represents a different kind of investigation into truth. When I secured a contract with Watkins Publishing along with a small advance, I decided that I would write something that I wanted to tell the world if I knew that I was going to die tomorrow.

Seriously. These were things that I SUSPECTED were true without having gone through all the necessary proofs to PROVE that this was the truth.

My blog represents something very different. I think of it as being a daily investigation to pull together material from different sources that I think testify to that lost original form of Christianity BEFORE the reforms of Irenaeus (c. 180 - 195 CE).

I can't help but think that Morton Smith's discovery of the Mar Saba document represents the most important event in the history of New Testament scholarship. The fact that many contemporary American and British scholars do not want to acknowledge that discovery can be explained a number of different ways.

I think above all else they feel uncomfortable with the acknowledgement that so many of them are exposed as being on the completely wrong track when it comes to Christian origins. It ultimately exposes them for being frauds when they claim to have an 'expertise' about these things. I have always likened the struggles these professors have with the material to a eunuch attempting to mount a woman.

They just don't have what it takes. They just don't have the balls to get the job done.

As such, these emasculated academics feel threatened by To Theodore. In the end they give into the temptation to silence the text and accuse it of being a forgery.

I have promised that I will not argue any longer on behalf of the authenticity of the text. I think I understand the text better than anyone else. I also happen to think that I know the Church Fathers better than anyone else. At the very least, I understand the late second century CONTEXT of early Christianity better than other scholars.

The best explanation for that is that I didn't start by assuming a whole of bunch of things about earliest Christianity which were inherited from our ancestors.

Of course, the most notable way that I depart from others in the field is that I believe that Christianity got its start in Alexandria. I also think that St Mark was a real person and his voyage to Alexandria was a real event.

The fact that other scholars choose to emphasize 'other truths' is not a problem for me. My research has demonstrated to me that the Roman See effectively declared war on the Alexandrian tradition during the reign of Commodus. I also happen to think that this effort only intensified over the rest of the third and fourth centuries. Commodus and his successors wanted the very same thing that Constantine eventually secured - that is having the head of the Church at arms length (and some would say in his pocket).

Of course many of my critics see a familiar formula at work here. They think that anyone who would emphasize the 'fraudulent' origins of the Roman Church must indeed 'have it in' for Christianity as a whole.

What they have never understood of course is that for me at least getting the Roman tradition out of the way allows me to concentrate on my real passion - rescuing the Alexandrian tradition from oblivion. Because I was not baptized into a particular religion I don't see the Alexandrian faith as merely 'Christian.'

I see it as much in terms of being an extension of Jewish and Samaritan messianic and mystical traditions as much or even more than I would a part of the familiar 'Christian Church.'

Part of the reason for this is that when I look at Clement's description of the Alexandrian Gospel of Mark and its depiction of an eight day initiation leading up to baptism, I can't help think of the Samaritan tradition's understanding of the ancient Israelites 'crossing the sea' on the eighth day.

The fact that both traditions were engineered by a guy named Mark who must have spent a great deal of time in Alexandria in the late first century hasn't escaped my notice either.

Yet these things aren't the point of my post today. I want to take the time to clear the last obstacle that stands in our way of integrating the influence of Samaritanism on early Alexandrian Christianity - Simon Magus, the Catholic boogeyman invented to 'scare' members of the flock away from 'heretics' who invoked the Hebrew word 'shemone' - eight - in association with baptism.

As a Jew I am startled by the manner in which scholars fall for the orthodox ploy that they are faithful to the principles of Moses. They most certainly are not. Moses didn't proscribe a faith but a practice. If you don't follow the practice you aren't being faithful to Moses or his God. It really is that simple.

What Irenaeus proposed instead was the IDIOTIC idea that you could jettison the practice but demand that no one go beyond the hebdomad of the Jewish god. I don't want any arguments from the pseudo-experts - this is exactly what Irenaeus proposes, it's there in black and white in the Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.

As I noted in that previous post Irenaeus argument has a perplexing effect on the traditional Christian veneration of the ogdoad - the eightness - of Christ. The number eight always had a deep significance in Judaism and Samaritanism. As Clement of Alexandria notes it represents the concept of the Jubilee (i.e. one better than the seven).

The messiah was always conceived in terms of the number eight - or if you prefer the shemone. What Irenaeus and his followers attempted to do however is to attack the specific expression of traditional Alexandrian devotion to that number or concept as heretical..

As I have noted many times at this blog, the ogdoad was always associated with baptism in Alexandria. The fragmentary Testimony of Truth makes that explicit "the Ogdoad, which is the eighth, and that we might receive that place of salvation." But they know not what salvation is, but they enter into misfortune, and into a [...] in death, in the waters. This is the baptism of death which they observe ..." The idea goes back to the earliest sources (1 Peter 3:20-21; Justin Dialogue 138). Yet among Alexandrians this understanding was always associated with a power who resided in the heaven above the seventh realm as we read in Theodotus:

Whom the mother regenerates is led into death and into the world, but whom Christ regenerates is transfered into life, into the Ogdoad. They die to the world but live to God, in order that death may be destroyed by death and corruption by resurrection [Ex. Theodoto 80:1 -2]

The reader might be wondering why Irenaeus couldn't just 'live and let live.' Why not let the Alexandrians venerate the eight and the Romans the seven?

The answer to this question - and all questions associated with Irenaeus - go back to his association with the Imperial court of Commodus. If the Jewish god was traditionally identified as 'the ruler of the world' and the 'ruler of the world' was embodied by the number seven, the traditional Alexandrian devotion to the ogdoad's inevitable connection to an argument of 'freedom from the law,' 'freedom from the ruler of the world' had obvious political implications.

The fact that Alexandrians were always revolting from Imperial authority didn't help either.

For the moment at least I want to introduce the idea that Irenaeus DELIBERATELY DEMONIZED the traditional Hebrew concept of 'shemone' the eight under the guise of Simon Magus. I am quite certain that I am correct about this one. There are four concepts which come together in one boogeyman - the word "Simon,' an association with Samaritanism, water immersion and 'magic.'

If we can allow ourselves to look at these concepts broken into the component parts we can try to reassemble them with an eye to what was the original concept that was prompting this caricature.

In order to do this we have to go back to our study last month of the uncanny parallels that exist between a very prominent Mark whose writings are still preserved among the surviving culture of the Samaritans and a heretical Mark, demonized by Irenaeus and subsequent Church Fathers associated with Alexandria.

As the Dositheans were a prominent Samaritan sect in Alexandria one could imagine a scenario where the Egpytian city was the place where traditional Samaritan baptismal practices associated with the number eight DEVELOPED into Christianity.

As I noted in that study Mark the Samaritan (i.e. Marqe) found the number 8 at the beginning of the Song of the Sea [Exod. 15:1] in the Hebrew text (in the numerical value of word az 'then') and 888 in the LXX (in the value of the phrase 'then sang').

The fact that Marqe was using the LXX (or a similar specifically Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch) argues for a connection with Alexandria. The argument seems to anticipate core Christian ideas without being specifically Christian. In other words, Mark believed that the 'ogdoad' not only assisted the ancient Israelites crossing the sea but also was active in the waters when the Alexandrian Samaritans (Dositheans) 'prayed in the water' as the seventh day 'went out' into the eighth day.

I can't help but see a parallel between Samaritan Mark's interest in the phrase 'then sang' in the LXX (which again has a numerical value of 888) and what Irenaeus reports about Mark the Alexandrian heretic and a similar ogdoad first identified as the power Iesous in the Gospel of Mark:

But Jesus, he affirms, has the following unspeakable origin. From the mother of all things, that is, the first Tetrad, there came forth the second Tetrad, after the manner of a daughter; and thus an Ogdoad was formed, from which, again, a Decad proceeded: thus was produced a Decad and an Ogdoad. The Decad, then, being joined with the Ogdoad, and multiplying it ten times, gave rise to the number eighty; and, again, multiplying eighty ten times, produced the number eight hundred. Thus, then, the whole number of the letters proceeding from the Ogdoad [multiplied] into the Decad, is eight hundred and eighty-eight. This is the name of Jesus; for this name, if you reckon up the numerical value of the letters, amounts to eight hundred and eighty-eight. Thus, then, you have a clear statement of their opinion as to the origin of the supercelestial Jesus. Wherefore, also, the alphabet of the Greeks contains eight Monads, eight Decads, and eight Hecatads , which present the number eight hundred and eighty-eight, that is, Jesus, who is formed of all numbers; and on this account He is called Alpha and Omega, indicating His origin from all. And, again, they put the matter thus: If the first Tetrad be added up according to the progression of number, the number ten appears. For one, and two, and three, and four, when added together, form ten; and this, as they will have it, is Jesus. Moreover, Chreistus, he says, being a word of eight letters, indicates the first Ogdoad, and this, when multiplied by ten, gives birth to Jesus (888). And Christ the Son, he says, is also spoken of, that is, the Duodecad. For the name Son, (υἰός) contains four letters, and Christ (Chreistus) eight, which, being combined, point out the greatness of the Duodecad. But, he alleges, before the Episemon of this name appeared, that is Jesus the Son, mankind were involved in great ignorance and error. But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth. For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. And therefore that man (Anthropos) was chosen according to His will, having been formed after the image of the power above. [Irenaeus AH i.15.2]

Of course some would argue that the specific word 'baptism' is not mentioned here, but the resemblance otherwise with the teaching of Theodotus makes the reference to being 'acquainted' with the Father in Irenaeus the elusive water immersion reference. The 'image of the power above' is the eight once again. There are seven heavens in this world, the realm of the Jewish God. Christ came from the ogdoad to deliver the ogdoad to release humanity from this world of six.

Now if this were the ONLY parallel between Mark the Samaritan and Mark the Alexandrian heretic I would have to acknowledge that I might be taking things too far. But we can find another important parallel when we go back to the beginning of Irenaeus' description of Mark the heretic. Irenaeus makes mention of Mark's alleged interest in magical practices at the very start of his report writing that:

there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the magi, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working miracles by these means. [Irenaeus AH xiii.1]

The 'master' who Marcus succeeded is usually identified as 'Simon Magus.' The idea that his disciples 'join themselves' to Mark is a baptismal reference as we shall see. The 'highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions' is the ogdoad. Yet all of these things will take a back seat in this discussion to the connection that Irenaeus makes between Mark and Anaxilaus of Larissa.

Anaxilaus was a physician and Pythagorean philosopher. According to Eusebius, he was banished from Rome in B.C. 28 by Augustus on the charge of practicing magic. Anaxilaus wrote about the "magical" properties of minerals, herbs, and other substances and derived drugs, and is cited by Pliny in this regard. Some believe his exceptional knowledge of natural science allowed him to produce tricks that were mistaken for magic.

Pliny identifies four 'tricks' associated with Anaxilaus and this report of Irenaeus does not make clear which one the Church Father has in mind. Nevertheless we can figure that our from the closely related report of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism which clearly connects the 'magic' with the baptismal waters and traces the practice back to 'Simon Magus':

lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; you have neither part nor lot in this work; for your heart is not right with God. [Acts 8:20-21] And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be— of Anaxilaus— whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. [Anonymous Treatise 16]

It is easy to demonstrate that this treatise comes from the same original report as that which Irenaeus draws from - i.e. regarding the heretic Marcus. Yet the context is lost on scholars who immediately want to connect the report to the Ebionite tradition that when Jesus came to the Jordan that fire was on the waters.

This was not the original source but a parallel development from the original source which is the Samaritan idea - developed in the writings of Mark - that when the Israelites were crossing the sea fire was present in the water.

This is why Irenaeus connects the heretical baptism of Mark with Anaxilaus because as Pliny reports:

Anaxilaus used to employ this substance [sulfur] by way of pastime : putting sulphur in a cup of wine, with some hot coals beneath, he would hand it round to the guests, the light given by it, while burning, throwing a ghastly paleness like that of death upon the face of each. [Pliny Natural Science 35]

The common thread is the idea of a fascination with the concept of 'fire' being present in a liquid. Irenaeus' source was likening the Alexandrian interest in associating 'fire being in the water' during baptism. As noted this is developed in a number of Alexandrian texts.

For example in the Pistis Sophia after Jesus explains the fire is present in the waters of baptism to his disciples, Mary gives the proper interpretation for a number of baptism references in the gospel:

Then Mary started forward and said: "Yea, my Lord, in truth I enquire closely into all the words which thou sayest. Concerning the word then of the forgiveness of sins thou hast spoken unto us in similitude aforetime, saying: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth,' and again: 'What will I that it burn?' And again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished? Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three.' This, my Lord, is the word which thou hast spoken clearly.

"The word indeed which thou hast spoken: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I that it burn?'--that is, my Lord: Thou hast brought the mysteries of the baptisms into the world, and thy pleasure is that they should consume all the sins of the soul and purify them. And thereafter again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished?'--that is: Thou wilt not remain in the world until the baptisms are accomplished and purify the perfect souls.

"And moreover the word which thou hast spoken unto us aforetime: 'Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three,'--that is: Thou hast brought the mystery of the baptisms into the world, and it hath effected a division in the bodies of the world, because it hath separated the counterfeiting spirit and the body and the destiny into one portion; the soul and the power on the other hand it hath separated into another portion;--that is: Three will be against two, and two against three."

And when Mary had said this, the Saviour said: "Well said, thou spiritual and light-pure Mary. This is the solution of the word." [Pistis Sophia Book III, Chapter 116]

If the reader goes back to the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (where the orthodox authorities ATTACK the Alexandrian understanding several of these passages are specifically referenced.

Now my specific purpose in writing this blog post was to connect the 'magical baptism' of the Alexandrian tradition of Mark with the concept of the ogdoad. This in order to say that 'Simon Magus' is a deliberate garbling of the idea that heretical water immersion was 'empowered' by a magical association with the number eight which in Hebrew was 'shemone.'

I have already demonstrates that ALL Alexandrian writers associate their baptism rites with the Ogdoad. The way that we expose that 'Simon Magus' was just a made up identity ASSOCIATED WITH MARK is by demonstrating that the Alexandrian concept of baptism developed from Samaritan understanding associated with the crossing of the sea.

We showed that the Samaritan liturgy established by Mark identifies the 'going out' of the seventh day of Unleavened Bread into the eighth day (shemini atzeret) was the time the ancient miracle occurred. Marqe also repeatedly infers that 'fire' was in the water of the sea as we read in the hymn of the eighth miracle in the sea in the eighth chapter of Book Two:

Greatness was seen in that place; water and fire were combined. This was a tremendous wonder, far exceeding anything, that water and fire should appear there. The dominion of water was brought low and that of the fire overcome. The mighty act of Adam's creation was there made known, for water and fire brought great power and wisdom into him. From the beginning he was borne by spirit, and from it wisdom dwelt in his mind.

Thanks be to this King whose glory magnifies the Speaker

Blessed the hour in which He created Adam, when Adam filled the whole world with praises to the Lord of the world.
Blessed the hour in which water and fire were combined in the Red Sea.
Blessed the hour in which water and fire combined for the destruction of unbelievers.

The world radiated in the presence of the True One, who appeared for the sake of His beloved. Good is the True One and good are His beloved. Blessed was the world when He appeared! Let us be sincere before Him and give thanks for His greatness, perchance we may be worthy of this.[Mimar Marqe Book 2 Chapter 8]

I will pass over the fact that Simon Magus appears in the eighth chapter of Acts. More important is that Marqe has an understanding of fire as an expression of the power of the divinity which seems to be very similar to what is written of Simon Magus in the Church Fathers. As we read:

THE FIRE of the Glory which appeared to Moses in the bush in order to deliver the tribes, and the FIRE of the hail which flashed continually there - mercy for the Hebrews and vengeance for the Egyptians. The FIRE which appeared among the waves of the Red Sea and consumed the enemies of God and of Israel. [Mimar Marqe Book 2 Chapter 3]

Compare what is written in Marqe with what is attributed to 'Simon Magus' in Hippolytus when he says that:

Now Simon, both foolishly and knavishly paraphrasing the law of Moses, makes his statements (in the manner following): For when Moses asserts that "God is a burning and consuming fire," taking what is said by Moses not in its correct sense, he affirms that fire is the originating principle of the universe. (But Simon) does not consider what the statement is which is made, namely, that it is not that God is a fire, but a burning and consuming fire, (thereby) not only putting a violent sense upon the actual law of Moses, but even plagiarizing from Heraclitus the Obscure. And Simon denominates the originating principle of the universe an indefinite power, expressing himself thus: "This is the treatise of a revelation of (the) voice and name (recognisable) by means of intellectual apprehension of the Great Indefinite Power. Wherefore it will be sealed, (and) kept secret, (and) hid, (and) will repose in the habitation, at the foundation of which lies the root of all things." And he asserts that this man who is born of blood is (the aforesaid) habitation, and that in him resides an indefinite power, which he affirms to be the root of the universe.[Hippolytus Refut. Her. vi.4]

It is not difficult to see I hope that 'Simon Magus' developed from the traditional Samaritan interest in identifying fire as being present in the water when the ancient Israelites crossed the sea on the eighth day.

Fire is the presence of God.

This isn't some recently developed 'heresy' associated with a guy named 'Simon.' The Samaritans have always pointed to 'fire' being present whenever God manifests himself. I am not just talking about the burning bush but even the writing of the Torah was done through fire.

As such, we should begin to see that it is the Samaritan influence over Christianity - and in particular the influence of Marqe - AT A VERY EARLY PERIOD which said that the waters of baptism had fire in them. Irenaeus wanted to limit Mark's influence over Christianity so he demonized the shemone. The traditional Christian understanding that there was fire in the water on the eighth day became the basis for the invented boogeyman 'Simon Magus.'

I don't know how people 'get around' this understanding. How could parts of the Samaritan understanding of the crossing of the sea - either combined or developed separately - be spread out over a vast number of sects and heresies?

This is what I have never understood about the traditional understanding of the heresies. How could all of their ideas be so similar to one another? This can't just be a bunch of individuals who happened to get 'crazy ideas' in their heads. The heresies developed from an earlier tradition than the Roman Church which was linked to the traditional Samaritan veneration of crossing of the sea as a passing over through 'water with fire in it' on the eighth day.

For those who want to defend the primacy of the Roman tradition the difficulty now is to explain why elements of the tradition developed from Samaritan sources is still found in our 'reformed' religion? Why do we sing material from Exodus chapters 14 and 15 at Easter for instance? Why does our Apostle link baptism with the crossing of the Sea [1 Cor 10:2]?

The real answer of course is that Christianity started in Alexandria. The text we call 'to the Corinthians' was originally identified as 'to the Alexandrians' and placed first in the canon after the gospel. Indeed its purpose was to provide the original context that the gospel was about creation being re-formed according to the ogdoad principle.

Of course, if we really stand back and look at this lost Alexandrian tradition it is impossible not to see that it was originally developed by a man named Mark. 'Paul' was not the birth name of the Apostle. It was something - either a name or a title - which he adopted after his baptism into the faith established by Jesus.

While the Catholic tradition tells us that he was called 'shaul' before this name change, it has to be remembered that these claims were rejected by the tradition of Mark. One can even see in it a garbled reference to the Apostle being baptized after emerging from a 'grave' or the underworld (i.e. Aram. shaul).

Who was the real 'Paul'? Who was the historical 'Apostle' - i.e. the new Moses - of Christianity? I have argued time and time again that the only name that makes sense is Mark. Mark was assumed the title 'Paulos' because he represented the new creation or the 'perfect work' (Deut 32:4 Heb. tamym po'olo) that would be established by God's glory at the end of time.

I think all of Irenaeus' efforts can be seen as an attempt to distract people from this original historical understanding.