However I am convinced (and have blogged in previous posts) that there is good circumstantial evidence that the 'Marcosians' were the real historical followers of the Alexandrian Church of St Mark (albeit only 'branch offices' in Lyons, Asia Minor, Rome and elsewhere).
The Coptic Church acknowledges such a 'worldwide Church of St Mark' in the very beginning of Christianity.
As Irenaeus and his tradition has no counter claim on St Mark (other than to say he was a wholly subordinate figure not truly of 'apostolic stature) why not let the report in Against the Heresies Book 1 stand as a early preservation of native Alexandrian beliefs preserved by a hostile witness?
In that case we can turn around our original question and ask - could Clement and his Alexandrian Christian community have developed a baptismal rite called apolytrosis and NOT have it conform to the usage of apolytrosis and lutron based terms in the LXX given Clement's dependance on Philo and the native Alexandrian Jewish tradition?
I don't think so.
As such I suspect that the term had something to do with the Jubilee or better yet was envisioned as a messianic rite which replaced all the former practices of the Law with something introduced by God (Jesus) near the end of the gospel for the new covenant established by Jesus' royal messiah, the one who sat in the throne of God which of course makes its appearance at the very end of the gospel (after repeated allusion throughout the narrative).
Just a thought.
If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here
If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here
