Oh but what else could this narrative be about other than the proverbial 'horizontal mambo'? Well, that's why I asked if these 'learned' scholars ever read the Passio Petri Sancti.
If they did they would come face to face with a naked neanikos who happens to be St. Mark, the author of the Alexandrian gospel. For some reason I have never understood they have 'problems' with this passage from the report of Clement about an older, secret version of the Gospel According to Mark:
And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
If the Mar Saba document is acknowledged to be authentic this reference to Jesus being in the company of a naked youth at night is almost two hundred years earlier than our first reference to Mark 14:52 (and which is usually understood to have been Mark).
I have always been puzzled why scholars immediately identify the mysterious neaniskos of the Passio Petri Sancti as they youth from Mark 14:52. As Scott Brown aptly notes regarding the first addition to Secret Mark (LGM 1):
The part of the story that does have an initiatory character (LGM 1b) does not involve nudity or a kiss ... the linen sheet does not come off until Mark 14:52. [Mark's Other Gospel p. 153]
How it is then that when St. Mark appears to the Patriarch Peter I at his church in the Boucolia (undoubtedly the same 'church of Alexandria' mentioned in To Theodore where Mark deposited his gospel) he does so with an unmistakable connection to the image of the neaniskos in LGM 1 (i.e. naked with a linen tunic over his naked body).
When a Jew with a moderate amount of exposure to the tradition of his ancestors hears reference to these images associated with St. Mark the founder of the line of Patriarchs of Alexandria it becomes immediately obvious what Biblical ideas are being referenced here - viz. the ritual dress of the high priest. As we read in the description of the high priest in Leviticus 16:4:
He shall be vested with a linen tunic. He shall conceal his nakedness with linen undergarments. He shall be wrapped with a linen belt, and he shall impose a linen headdress on his head. For these are holy vestments. All of these he shall put on, after he has been washed.
Philo of Alexandria - a source who ultimately must have influenced Mark's composition of his gospel explains the significance of linen and the high priest as follows:
And this dress is a linen tunic and a girdle, the latter to cover those parts which must not be displayed in their nakedness near the altar of sacrifice. And the tunic is for the sake of promptness in performing the requisite ministrations; for they are but lightly clad, only in their tunics, when they bring their victims, and the libations, and the other requisite offerings for sacrifice, being apparelled so as to admit of unhesitating celerity. But the high priest is commanded to wear a similar dress when he goes into the holy of holies to offer incense, because linen is not made of any animal that dies, as woollen garments are.[Special Laws I:16.83,84]
I have always agreed with Scott Brown's interpretation of the passage - there is no nudity in LGM 1, nor is there any homosexual reference possible. If only these imbeciles learned to read they wouldn't mistake what the Carpocratians say for what is written in the Alexandrian Gospel of Mark referenced by Clement.
In my opinion the Passio Petri Sancti demonstrates what happens AFTER the neaniskos has fully completed his initiations (presumably after the Resurrection). He is St. Mark who is now prepared to sit as high priest over the Alexandrian community dressed in a linen tunic. The Patriarchs who follow from the line of St. Mark not only must have dressed in a similar attire but also are called 'high priest' of the tradition to this day.
Those who claim to Theodore has nothing to do with the authentic beliefs and practices of ancient Alexandria obviously never read Philo of Alexandria's description of Moses establishing the priests of Israel in the Second Book of the Life of Moses where he writes:
then Moses entered into the tabernacle, leading his brother by the hand (and it was the eighth and last day of the festival, for the seven previous days had been devoted to the initiation of the hierophants), he now initiated him [Vita Mos. 153]
Just as Clement references a 'truth behind seven veils' which is ritually connected with this original initiation, Philo similarly begins his discussion of Moses' initiation of the first representatives of the Israelite priesthood mentioning that they two were drawn to an object hidden behind veils:
the ark was in the innermost shrine, in the inaccessible holy of holies, behind curtains; being gilded in a most costly and magnificent manner within and without, the covering of which was like to that which is called in the sacred scriptures the mercy-seat. Its length and width are accurately described, but its depth is not mentioned, being chiefly compared to and resembling a geometrical superficies; so that it appears to be an emblem, if looked at physically, of the merciful power of God [Vita Moses II 95]
Philo also says that the Israelite priesthood gained 'instruction' from seeing the truth hidden behind seven veils:
And when he had been taught the patterns of the sacred tabernacle, and had in turn himself taught those who were gifted with acute comprehension, and well-qualified by nature for the comprehension and execution of those works, which it was indispensably necessary should be made; then, as was natural, when the temple had been built and finished, it was fitting also, that most suitable persons should be appointed as priests, and should be instructed in what manner it was proper for them to offer up their sacrifices, and perform their sacred ministrations ... he washed them all over with the most pure and vivifying water of the fountain; and then he gave them their sacred vestments, giving to his brother the robe which reached down to his feet, and the mantle which covered the shoulders, as a sort of breast-plate, being an embroidered robe, adorned with all kinds of figures, and a representation of the universe. And to all his nephews he gave linen tunics, and girdles, and trowsers; the girdles, in order that the wearers might be unimpeded and ready for all their sacred ministrations, were fastened up tight round the loose waists of the tunics; and the breeches, that nothing which ought to be hidden might be visible, especially when they were going up to the altar, or coming down from the high place, and doing everything with earnestness and celerity. For if their equipment had not been so accurately attended to for the sake of guarding against the uncertain future, and for the sake of providing for an energetic promptness in the sacred ministrations, the men would have appeared naked, not being able to preserve the becoming order necessary to holy men dedicated to the service of God. [Vit Mos II 141 - 145]
So as you can see there is A VERY GOOD REASON why the neaniskos in Secret Mark is specifically identified as wearing a linen cloth. He is carefully GUARDING AGAINST the possibility of being naked in front of the holy tabernacle of God (Jesus).
Once the neaniskos completes his initiation and rises from the tomb with Jesus in his soul it is not surprising that he is depicted as handing to him the same ritual 'linen cloth.' Jerome cites the passage as:
Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from among them that sleep)." And a little further on the Lord says, "Bring a table and bread." And immediately it is added, "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.'"
I know that people think 'Jesus' when they read that the gospel references 'the Lord' here but Irenaeus tells us over and over again that the heretics distinguished between the persons of 'Jesus' and 'Christ,' emphasizing that they were two different people (cf. Irenaeus AH iii.11.7 'Those again, who prefer the Gospel by Mark separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered' - my assumption is that Gospel of the Hebrews was essentially a Hebrew version of a shared narrative).
As I have noted many times before, the fact that Mark ends with an enthronement should be understood to have originally been taken by the Alexandrian tradition in connection with their Patriarchal 'high priesthood' (seated originally as I have demonstrated in an absurdly small Episcopal chair). Now let us look at the ritual significance of the image of the naked little Mark wrapped in a linen tunic in the Passio Petri Sancti.
That text begins with 'little Mark' testifying AGAINST Arius the famous Alexandrian heretic and the presbyter who presided over the Evangelist's most holy shrine. Mark comes to Peter I in a vision which the Patriarch describes in vivid detail:
The hidden treachery of Arius surpasses all iniquity and impiety, and not asserting this of my own self, have I sanctioned his excommunication. For in this night, while I was solemnly pouring forth my prayers to God, there stood by me a boy of about twelve years, the brightness of whose face I could not endure, for this whole cell in which we stand was radiant with a great light. He was clothed with a linen tunic divided into two parts, from the neck to the feet, and holding in his two hands the rents of the tunic, he applied them to his breast to cover his nudity. At this vision I was stupefied with astonishment. And when boldness of speech was given to me, I exclaimed: Lord, who has rent your tunic? Then said he, Arius has rent it, and by all means beware of receiving him into communion; behold, tomorrow they will come to entreat you for him. See, therefore, that you be not persuaded to acquiesce: nay, rather lay your commands upon Achillas and Alexander the priests, who after your translation will rule my Church, not by any means to receive him. You shall very quickly fulfil the lot of the martyr. Now there was no other cause of this vision. So now I have satisfied you, and I have declared unto you what I was ordered. But what you will do in consequence of this, must be your own care. Thus much concerning Arius.
If we follow the narrative in the Passio Petri Sancti this vision is followed by another when Peter finally makes it to the martyrium (shrine):
The archbishop went down and opened the tomb of the blessed apostle Mark and - in very truth - while he was sitting there and speaking, he saw the evangelist of Christ before him. (Devos 12; p 75)
There is no specific reference to the form which Mark took in Peter's vision (i.e. a child etc.) but a speech follows directed at the Evangelist:
You [St. Mark] witness of His passion, you did Christ choose, who is the Deliverer of us all, to be the first pontiff and pillar of this See; to you did He commit the task of proclaiming the faith throughout the whole of Egypt and its boundaries. You, I say, hast watchfully fulfilled that ministry of our human salvation which was entrusted to you; as the reward of this labour you have doubtless obtained the martyr's palm. Hence, not without justice, are you counted worthy to be saluted evangelist and bishop. Your successor was Anianus, and the rest in descending series down to the most blessed Theonas, who disciplined my infancy, and deigned to educate my heart. To whom I, a sinner and unworthy, have been beyond my deservings appointed as successor by an hereditary descent. And, what is best of all, lo! the largeness of the divine bounty has granted me to become a martyr of His precious cross and joyful resurrection, giving to my devotion the sweet and pleasant odour of His passion, that I should be made meet to pour out unto Him the offering of my blood. And because the time of making this offering is now instant, pray for me that, the divine power assisting me, I may be meet to reach the goal of this agony with a stout heart and ready faith. I commend also to your glorious patronage the flock of Christ's worshippers which was committed to my pastoral care; to you, I say, I with prayers commend it, who are approved as the author and guardian of all preceding and subsequent occupiers of this pontifical chair, and who, holding its first honours, art the successor not of man, but of the God-man, Christ Jesus. Saying these words, he went back to a little distance from the sacred tomb, and, raising his hands to heaven, prayed with a loud voice, saying: O you Only-begotten, Jesus Christ, Word of the Eternal Father, hear me invoking Your clemency.Speak peace, I beseech You, to the tempest that shakes Your Church, and with the effusion of my blood, who am Your servant, make an end to the persecution of Your people. Then a certain virgin dedicated to God, who had her cell adjoining to the tomb of the evangelist, as she was spending the night in prayer, heard a voice from heaven, saying: Peter was the first of the apostles, Peter is the last of the martyred bishops of Alexandria.
Having ended his prayer, he kissed the tomb of the blessed evangelist, and of the other pontiffs who were buried there, and went forth to the tribunes.
When are all these simple-minded scholars who say that LGM 1 'can only be' a homo-erotic reference going to wake up! It is clearly a reference to an initiatory experience which established the high priests of the Alexandrian tradition. I can't believe no one ever saw this before ...
