Even though Irenaeus' original report was proved wrong by Hippolytus the author of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism develops directly from Irenaeus' original testimony making it entirely possible in my mind that Irenaeus was the original author. Irenaeus wrote in Against the Heresy that:
And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it." [Luke 12.50] Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?" Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, 'the redemption which is in Christ Jesus' and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.
Again we can't fall into the trap of the blind scholars who preceded us. Irenaeus' report is a reflection of an original context which is lost to us. Since Tertullian makes it clear that 'those of Mark' (the Marcionites) did not have Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist one can clearly be suspicious that Irenaeus is really adding the 'redemption baptism' by Jesus to the familiar water immersion by John the Baptism in our canonical gospels. The jury is still out as to whether the Marcosians ever had two baptism narratives in their gospel.
For the moment however let's acknowledge that from the Catholic perspective the John the Baptist' immersion at the beginning of the canonical gospels is taken for granted. Any baptism found in a subsequent portion of the gospel would necessarily be viewed as something 'in addition' to the first - and as such a 'second' baptism.
Indeed Irenaeus says as much at the beginning of Book One Chapter Twenty One where he writes:
that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith.
The author of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism seems to have this in mind when he rejects arguments for this 'extra baptism' connected with Mark chapter ten:
For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation.
I am particularly struck by this remark by the anonymous author in that it seems to reflect the Diatessaron text known to Ephrem.
Let's recap what the anonymous author is saying. The heretics clearly made the case that when Jesus said 'I have another baptism to be baptized with' it was only natural that a second water immersion narrative would appear after the one with John the Baptist in the canonical narrative.
The way Catholic writers traditionally interpret the words of Luke 12:50 as if 'water immersion' was here an allegorical reference to crucifixion. Of course this is absurd but desperate people will resort to desperate means to explain away evidence which contradict their inherited assumptions.
What we must imagine the 'followers of Mark' to be putting forward (following the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism's counter argument) is that something like LGM 1 must have existed in their gospel narrative. In other words a baptism AFTER Jesus says these words. This will become amply clear when we get to Ephrem's testimony from the original Diatessaron. The seeming difficulty suggested in Jesus' words 'I have a baptism to be baptized with' - in so far as Jesus is suggesting that he will undergo water immersion rather than another individual is easily resolved in that section where we bring forward Ephrem's Commentary.
For the moment I would like the reader to consider that as this reference occurs in a section where John Mark has asked to sit on the right or left of the divine throne the possibility that John Mark might be the figure represented in LGM 1 has to be seriously considered. Already Meyer has toyed with the idea. Now let's go forward in the gospel narrative and see what might be another possible reflection of this 'second baptism' in the gospel.
It is noteworthy that if John Mark's baptism occurred in chapter ten of Mark we see a reference to a 'baptism of John' in the chapter that follows. So we read:
the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?" Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism — was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' ... So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."
Of course the standard way of explaining this passage is that Jesus is referring to his original baptism by John the Baptist but there are a number of problems with this argument which were already known to Celsus of Rome.
For one - according to the Catholic narrative - lot's of people, even all the Jewish people, had underwent the baptism by John. If John the Baptist's baptism was the one being referenced here there would be no need for silence as indeed Celsus notes John the Baptist was a Jew.
So it is that Irenaeus reports that those of Mark cited this argument to support their belief that Jesus was worked on behalf of a God unknown to the Jews:
Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?" but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father. [Irenaeus AH i.20]
Indeed when you really look at it the whole business at the beginning of our canonical gospels about Jesus being baptized and having a dove (Aram. yona) descend and go into his person seems to be an inversion of the Marcosian argument that Jesus was a divine spirit which entered into 'little' John Mark.
Yona could be taken as a diminutive of the name 'John' or as the name of a dove.
Thus, the question of the heavenly authority of the 'baptism of John' seems to have another context in mind than the water immersion of a 'John the Baptist' who baptized all the Jews in Palestine. Again, as Celsus rightly notes the Jews would not have went to someone who came in the name of another God beside their own.
Indeed if we go one step further it is impossible to avoid noticing that the writings of the Apostle assume that the someone was 'baptized into Christ.' We will leave the whole issue of the 'baptism of the dead' which was an important part of the Marcionite ritual and which clearly requires something like LGM 1 to provide a scriptural context (clearly the Marcionites who did not have a 'baptism by John the Baptist' in their gospel needed to have a context for baptism in general; 'redemption' being a key word in Marcionite rituals generally).
The thing which has never made sense to me as someone from outside of the Christian tradition is how the wholy 'baptism into Christ' idea got off the ground without LGM 1. Already Tertullian reports on those who claim to have received the baptism of Jesus. Yet without this context all we have is a 'John the Baptist baptism' which Jesus received in the manner of all other Jews. We are supposed to believe that Jesus' baptism was different because God interceded and sent down a yona into his person. Yet for as doves are not sent down from heaven to coincide with all subsequent Christian baptisms what we have really inherited is a 'John the Baptism baptism' - it isn't a 'baptism into Christ' because Jesus never baptized.
What I am uncovering here seems to have been anticipated in Tertullian's treatise on Baptism where he notes that:
there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.
Tertullian even goes on to say that he will "reply to them who affirm 'that the apostles were unbaptized'" and again seeks "proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John’s baptism."
Of course once LGM 1 is reincorporated into the gospel of Mark we have exactly what seems to be suggested by Jesus later references in chapter ten - i.e. a preparation ritual so that John Mark can be baptized 'into Christ' and sit on the throne with him.
In any event we can leave behind these speculative discussions and go back to the original material in the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism we see the author make the case that there is no baptism like LGM 1 in the gospel (i.e. one 'in addition to' the water immersion by John the Baptist). There is just the John the Baptist baptism and the crucifixion which is now (forcibly) interpreted allegorically as a 'kind of baptism':
And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, From his belly flowed rivers of living water; John 7:38 which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord's passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier's spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe in Him: But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. [John 7:39] And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind, although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.
This argument is so utterly absurd it speaks to the desperation of those putting it forward. The original Aramaic word for baptism means 'dipping' not 'sprinkling.' No Aramaic speaker like Jesus would ever have confused the 'sprinkling' or gushing of blood out of someone's side with the physical act of being dipped or dunked in a pool of water. Indeed the same Aramaic word has the sense of 'dyeing' - i.e. taking a fabric and dipping it into a basin filled with dye so as to give it make it red, blue or green.
This function of transforming a whole cloth from one colour to another cannot be accomplished by 'sprinkling' or 'gushing' blood out of one's side.
So once we dispense with this explanation of Jesus declaration in Luke 12:50 about him preparing a baptism long after the introduction of the gospel we are left with a difficulty which can only be solved by assuming that LGM 1 must have been a part of the original gospel of Mark but subsequently removed (by Irenaeus?) as a result of the difficulties that it presented for the argument of Petrine (and Roman) primacy.
If John Mark was alone of all the apostles chosen by Jesus to receive 'redemption' or the 'baptism of perfection,' a rite which prepared him to ultimately sit on the divine throne the whole idea that Mark's gospel was really written on the authority of Peter or that the throne of Peter was the real seat of authority in the Church seem as hollow as a donut.
The manner in which we rescue the original understanding is by turning to the Diatessaron or 'single, long gospel' tradition which Irenaeus clearly testifies was shared by these 'followers of Mark.' We writes at the beginning of Book One Chapter Twenty these 'followers of Mark':
adduce an indescribable number of hidden and defective scriptures which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of the simple and those who do not know the true words.
The way that these closing words of the sentence are translated by most scholars - 'those who do not know the authentic writings' - has caused many to think that these are wholly original scriptures. Yet clearly the Greek text of Irenaeus makes clear that what we are talking about in reality is a collection of scriptures - even a New Testament canon - which like Secret Mark was 'hidden' by the followers of Mark so as to 'hide' their defective nature.
I can't help but see parallels between these hidden and defective texts of the followers of Mark and the Secret Gospel of Clement's Alexandrian community of St. Mark. Already I have noted some of the parallels here. Yet notice that there is a wholly added story (like LGM 1) of the baby learning alpha and beta as well as:
(1) a 'reworking' of Luke ii. 49
(2) a general reference to Matt 10:5 - 6
(3) a variation on Mark x. 17 which concludes with “Why callest thou Me good: there is One who is good, the Father among the heavens” a variation which Epiphanius [adv. Haer. LXIX 19] attributes to the Arians (and thus the Alexandrian tradition). It also appears in part in Justin's pro-Diatessaron, Marcion [Epiphanius adv. Haer XLII], Origen but most importantly again Clement of Alexandria gives the closest variant in Paed. 1.8.72.
(4) Matt. xxi. 23 (dealt with earlier)
(5) another apocryphal saying “I have often desired to hear one of these words, and I had no one who could utter it,”
(6) a variant of Luke xix. 42
(7) Matt. xi. 28
(8) and an emphasis on a variant of Matt. xi. 25–27 which again shows up throughout the writings of Clement. Irenaeus' pronounced emphasis that 'those of Mark' lay particular stress on this passage make the connection with Clement absolutely certain:
But they adduce the following passage as the highest testimony, and, as it were, the very crown of their system:--"I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Even so, my Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knoweth the Father but the Son, or the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." In these words they affirm that He clearly showed that the Father of truth, conjured into existence by them, was known to no one before His advent. And they desire to construe the passage as if teaching that the Maker and Framer [of the world] was always known by all, while the Lord spoke these words concerning the Father unknown to all, whom they now proclaim.
This scriptural reference is by far the most frequent in the writings of Clement and almost every time he cites the text he reflects some aspect of Irenaeus ascription of 'heresy' to the 'Marcosians' viz. Exhort 1.1, Paed. 1.5 viz. 'Of late, then, God was known by the coming of Christ,' 1.6 (twice), 1.8, 1.9 cf. 'And He first announced the good righteousness that is from heaven, when He said ...,' 1.28 cf. 'It is He [Christ] who reveals the Father of the universe to whom He wills, and as far as human nature can comprehend,' Strom. 5.13, 7.10, 7.18, Dives 7.
Now I am not going to go through all the references that Irenaeus gives for the 'Marcosians' but it seems to me to be highly suspicious that Clement should know many of the textual variations and - as we have seen - be associated with the heretical doctrines that developed out these scriptures.
I am only saying that if we look at the variety of canonical sources that the Marcosians draw from - the only text which absent is the Gospel of John - it stands to reason that we are witnessing a pre-Tatian 'gospel harmony' like that associated with Justin.
If Irenaeus thought that they maintained a fourfold gospel which was altered with a great number of 'additions' he would have said something like this in the introduction. Indeed it would have been remarkable that while Irenaeus has to go to great lengths to argue that four should be the right number of gospels in Book Three that a heretical community was already associated with doing what he suggested and could find no existing practice for within the Church (Irenaeus never cites an authority before him who used a four-fold gospel).
The parallel harmonization in Justin and Clement of Alexandria have been noted by Bellinzoni and a number of other writers. I believe that it is not too much of a stress then to suggest that given all the evidence we have amassed given (1) the connection between Clement and the 'Marcosians,' (2) Clement and Justin and (3) the 'hidden' and 'defective' gospel harmony of the three synoptics and Justin's 'gospel harmony' it is not too much to suggest the possibility that Secret Mark might bear some relation to this text given that it is characterized by harmonization and is described by Clement in terms of something that was 'hidden' in the Church of Alexandria:
[Mark] did not divulge the things not to be uttered ... [he] lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils ... he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded.
I should also remind readers what I wrote about the structure of LGM 2 again seems to reflect the structure of the Diatessaron.
To this end I want to go to Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron in order to demonstrate how LGM 1 could have been incorporated into a Marcosian 'super gospel.'
The first thing that should strike anyone about Ephrem's Commentary is that he - like the Marcosians - connects the concept of 'redemption' with Mark chapter 10. He writes that:
When two [of the apostles] came in order to choose places for themselves, as though first among their companions, our Lord said to them, Are you able to drink the chalice that I am about to drink? [He said this] to show that [such places] must indeed be bought at a price. 'Like me' [idem] Wherefore God has also elevated and exalted him. [Phil 2:9] There is no one who has humbled himself more, according to his nature, than our Lord, for he was of divine origin. After they learned that [such a place] could only be bought through deeds, he said, 'Now that you have learned that it is through deeds that this [throne] can be acquired there are perhaps those who have run, or who will run, swifter than you. However, in the Father's design, the one who excels all others in his running performance is [already] designated, and his [throne] is prepared for him."
In other words, there is a simple formula in Ephrem that continues throughout his commentary - the sons of Zebedee are being prepared to sit on the divine throne at the end of the gospel. This my friends, is what the Marcosians meant by 'redemption' as we see in what immediately follows:
Because they had come so as to take possession of an election not accompanied by deeds, our Lord thrust it aside from him, and showed that he did not have the power to spare one from distress; just as [when he also said], As for that hour, no one knows it [Matt 24.36], so that no one would question him concerning it. It is not yours to know the time or the seasons. [Acts 1:7] He came therefore and explained it to them all, while they were agitated. Whosoever wishes to be your master, let him become your servant. [Matt 20:26-27] This is how all are to have authority. Thus did our Lord place the request of the sons of Zebedee as a crown in [their] midst, so that whoever was victorious in his combat might be crowned with it. [p.164]
As I have already mentioned a number of times this week none of the Diatessaron in Ephrem's Commentary make any reference to Jesus in Mark x.38 saying anything about a FUTURE 'baptism by which I will be baptized.' Instead as I have just discovered there is a clear structure in the Diatessaron which had:
(1) a variant of Luke 12.50 well before LGM 1 which I believe originally pointed to the material mentioned in To Theodore's Secret Mark reference
(2) the parallel material to Mark x.38 WITHOUT any reference to a future baptism AFTER LGM 1
So instead of:
And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? and with the baptism that I am to be baptized with, will ye be baptized? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized ye shall be baptized: but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.
Ephrem's Diatessaron just read:
And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.
As well I have discovered that Ephrem's Commentary not only supports the Marcosian ideas regarding 'redemption' in this passage but their (and the greater Alexandrian communities idea that Jesus wanted 'the chalice' to be passed on to the Church through his prepared representative (John Mark).
Before we go there let's take a look at Ephrem's citation of these ideas in his Commentary.
our Lord said to them "Are you able to drink of the chalice that I am about to drink?" to show that [such places] are to be bought at a price. "Like me." [p. 239]
A little later he does reference a series of sayings which explain Jesus' saying about 'letting the chalice pass from me' he DOES connect Mark x.38 with baptism but it is with Luke 12.50 as he goes back through the gospel demonstrating all the sayings which prove that Jesus wanted others to partake of the chalice:
If he had not wanted to drink it, he certainly did not refuse to drink. If he had not wished to drink it, but rather had wanted to reject it, he would not have compared his body to the temple in this saying, Destroy this temple and on the third day I will rebuild it, [nor would he have said] to the sons of Zebedee, Can you drink the chalice which I am going to drink? [Nor would he have said], There is a baptism for me [with which] I must be baptized, and, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so will the Son of Man be in the bosom of the earth ...
Again I am not saying that Ephrem's Diatessaron had LGM 1. That would be absurd. However I am making the case that the STRUCTURE of Ephrem's Diatessaron MUST HAVE BEEN related to the Marcosian 'super gospel.'
Just think about it. The Marcosians couldn't have had a baptism ritual linked to the 'redemption' they saw reflected in the material around Mark x.38 AND HAVE Jesus say that conditionally reference a FUTURE BAPTISM relative to that point in the narrative.
This simply wouldn't make sense.
So what I am saying now is that Ephrem's Diatessaron only had Jesus tell his disciples that they would have to prove themselves by 'taking his chalice' without any mention of an accompanying future baptism.
The same MUST HAVE BEEN true of the Marcosian gospel despite Irenaeus' citation from his canonical gospel of Matthew to disprove their tradition.
If the reader is with me so far Ephrem also provides the clearest explanation about what was going in this part of the narrative (you can think in terms of LGM 1 when comparing the various traditions to one another). Ephrem writes of the line 'My soul is sorrowful' [Matt 26:38]:
[This was] to show that he had clothed himself with a weak flesh, and was united to a soul capable of suffering. He spoke the truth so that none could disfigure it, and he hid nothing so as not to be untruthful. He taught the faithful not to pride themselves in their village, for that would have been a denial of truth. [p. 292]
The point of course is that Ephrem's ideas clearly work within the context of a gospel narrative that featured LGM 1. Jesus was preparing one disciple to receive his 'Christ soul.' He warned them in Mark x.38 that they had to suffer his Passion in order to receive his redemption. In what follows Ephrem takes an interest in 'if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me' and develops it again in terms of 'redemption' saying:
He [Jesus] knew what he was saying to his Father, and was well aware that this chalice would pass from him. But he had come to drink it for everyone, in order to acquit, through the chalice, the debt of everyone, [a debt] which the prophets and martyrs could not pay with their death. [ibid]
In other words, we see once again the idea develop from the parallel material to Mark x.38 that the passing of the chalice from Jesus to one of the sons of Zebedee represents the 'redemption.'
Notice that a little later in the same section the idea of him 'clothing a little one' resurfaces in Ephrem's writing;
He said [If it be possible let this chalice pass from me] because of the lowliness with which he had clothed himself not in pretense but in reality. Since he had really become unimportant and had clothed himself in lowliness it would have been impossible for his lowliness not to have experienced fear and not to have been perturbed.
What I am suggesting of course is that LGM 1 is the original lynch pin to understanding this mystical concept which floats throughout the writings of Ephrem and other Syriac speaking Christian writers - viz. 'putting on' a new man and 'putting off' the old man etc.
I think that the Middle Eastern Christian tradition understood that Jesus and his disciples 'exchanged souls' at one point in the narrative. This is reflected in Irenaeus statement that "those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark." Anyone who has ever studied this passage recognizes at once that Irenaeus is alluding to ideas which clearly repeat throughout the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
The point however that all these stupid sounding ideas - viz. Jesus on the Cross, Christ watching - suddenly make sense if LGM 1 is about an exchange of souls between Jesus and his beloved disciple.
To this end, we follow Ephrem's radical - and indeed quite Marcionite sounding - argument in what follows in the Commentary:
Since it was through the Son that these debts were being acquitted and the conversion of the Gentiles effected, he did not wish to appropriate for himself the grace [reserved] for the world. Similarly, everything was created by him, but passing over this [in silence] he spoke of another [Creator] through the mouth of Moses. He said, God saw all that he had made and behold it was very good. He said this so that all creatures would be indebted to his Father. Likewise in this hour of their being recreated, he brought them back through death, saying, May your will be done, so that all those who would be converted by the death of the Only-Begotten would be indebted to the Father. Or alternatively in this hour of his corporeal death, he gave to the body that which belonged to it, saying that all the sufferings of [his] body would show to the heretics and schismatics that his body was [real]. Did not this body of his appear to them, just as it was visible to everyone else? Just as he was hungry and thirsty, tired and had need of sleep, so too, he was afraid. Or [he said that] so that it would be difficult for people in the world to say that it was without suffering and toll that our debts were remitted by him [p. 295]
The point that we should never lose sight of is that this the very same lesson that Jesus gave to the sons of Zebedee. He said that they had to be willing to 'accept his chalice' and endure the Passion in order to receive the 'redemption' of the throne of God. Now we hear the idea develop that the Passion is a re-creation (undoubtedly from the Semitic root yetzer) where Jesus takes on the flesh NOW - i.e. in the lead up to the Passion.
Is it possible that LGM 1 is the context for that exchange of souls? In other words, that the 'littleness' with which Ephrem continually refers is that of the little disciple John Mark said to be a little child by the Orthodox tradition in its hymns. Here are the hymns of Ephrem which express this idea quite vividly:
The Son of the Maker is like unto His Father as Maker! He made Himself a pure body, he clothed Himself with it, and came forth and clothed our weakness with glory, which in His mercy He brought from the Father. From Melkizedek the high priest a hyssop came to thee, a throne and crown from the house of David, a race and family from Abraham. Be though unto me a Port for Thy own sake, O great Sea. Lo! the Psalms of David Thy Father, and the words also of the Prophets, came forth unto me, as it were ships. David thy Father, in the hundred and tenth Psalm, twined together two numbers as it were crowns to Thee, and came, O Conquerer! With these shalt Thou be crowned and unto the throne shalt Thou ascend and sit. A great crown in the number that is twined in the hundred wherein is crowned thy Godhead. A little crown is that of the number ten which crowned the head of Thy Humanity, O Victorious One! [Ephrem, Hymn Seven]
and again:
In the vision of the sapphire [throne] He gathered Himself up and sat upon it. He unfolded and filled the heavens, though everything was in His fist. Himself He shewed in space and shewed Himself everywhere. We fancied that He was in space but everything was filled with Him. He who was small that He might be on a level with us, was great that he might enrich us. He was small and great again that He might make us great. Had he been small and not great, He had been small and would have made us small. Because he was fancied to be weak, therefore He was small and great.
Let us marvel how that by being small He made our smallness great! Yet if He had not been great also He would have made our mind small since it would have thought him weak and would have been made less in that it thought so [i.e. that Christ was just 'little']. He is a Being of Whose greatness we are not capable, nor even of His littleness. He was great; we got ourselves bewildered; and He was little; and we got ourselves into guilt. In all things he laboured with us. He willed to teach us two things, that it was He and yet it was not He. He made Himself a countenance in His love that His servants might look upon Him. Again that we might not harm ourselves by thinking 'this is His form' from form to form did He change in order to teach us that He had no form, and though He departed not from the shape of man, yet in His changes of it He did not depart from it. [Ephrem, Hymn Thirty One]
Then there is also the Syriac tradition that John Mark saved a piece of the original Eucharist meal to pass on to humanity. Then there is the tradition associated with 'those of Mark' that their founder preserved the chalice that was passed on from Jesus:
pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he [Mark] contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that Charis who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.
It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy. He devotes himself especially to women, and those such as are well-bred, and elegantly attired, and of great wealth, whom he frequently seeks to draw after him, by addressing them in such seductive words as these: "I am eager to make thee a partaker of my Charis, since the Father of all doth continually behold thy angel before His face. Now the place of thy angel is among us: it behoves us to become one. Receive first from me and by me [the gift of] Charis. Adorn thyself as a bride who is expecting her bridegroom, that thou mayest be what I am, and I what thou art. Establish the germ of light in thy nuptial chamber. Receive from me a spouse, and become receptive of him, while thou art received by him. Behold Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy." On the woman replying," I have never at any time prophesied, nor do I know how to prophesy;" then engaging, for the second time, in certain invocations, so as to astound his deluded victim, he says to her," Open thy mouth, speak whatsoever occurs to thee, and thou shalt prophesy." She then, vainly puffed up and elated by these words, and greatly excited in soul by the expectation that it is herself who is to prophesy, her heart beating violently [from emotion], reaches the requisite pitch of audacity, and idly as well as impudently utters some nonsense as it happens. to occur to her, such as might be expected from one heated by an empty spirit. (Referring to this, one superior to me has observed, that the soul is both audacious and impudent when heated with empty air.) Henceforth she reckons herself a prophetess, and expresses her thanks to Marcus for having imparted to her of his own Charis. She then makes the effort to reward him, not only by the gift of her possessions (in which way he has collected a very large fortune), but also by yielding up to him her person, desiring in every way to be united to him, that she may become altogether one with him.
But already some of the most faithful women, possessed of the fear of God, and not being deceived (whom, nevertheless, he did his best to seduce like the rest by bidding them prophesy), abhorring and execrating him, have withdrawn from such a vile company of revellers. This they have done, as being well aware that the gift of prophecy is not conferred on men by Marcus, the magician, but that only those to whom God sends His grace from above possess the divinely-bestowed power of prophesying; and then they speak where and when God pleases, and not when Marcus orders them to do so. For that which commands is greater and of higher authority than that which is commanded, inasmuch as the former rules, while the latter is in a state of subjection. If, then, Marcus, or any one else, does command,--as these are accustomed continually at their feasts to play at drawing lots, and [in accordance with the lot] to command one another to prophesy, giving forth as oracles what is in harmony with their own desires,--it will follow that he who commands is greater and of higher authority than the prophetic spirit, though he is but a man, which is impossible. But such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church.
This is a lot to consider I am sure but I think that LGM 1 certainly fits in here as the original context for these ideas. I also think Irenaeus removed the concept from the gospel owing to the political implications of that concept on the struggle between Rome and Alexandria for Episcopal primacy.
Anyway have to go to bed ...
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
