In any event let's say again that Morton Smith was a towering figure in Biblical research. I can't believe that someone would throw a reputation he worked so hard to establish by forging a letter like To Theodore.
I mean - as I noted to my friend - I don't see how forging To Theodore serves any of the alleged 'agendas' that Carlson and Jeffreys have cooked up.
In any event I want to show something that I noticed (and saw reflected in F F Bruce's paper even if it wasn't actually there). I'd like to continue with the study of Irenaeus AH I.21 and its citation of Mark x.38 in particular:
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?"
The thing that struck my eye is the line which precedes the citation of Mark x.38:
they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee
Of course few scholars have managed to figure out what is meant by this 'redemption' rite. It is generally agreed that it has something to do with 'gnosticism' or a parallel heretical version of baptism or anointing which preceded martyrdom.
At the beginning of Book Two Irenaeus sums up what appeared in Book One by saying:
We revealed their 'redemption,' the way they initiate their adepts, their ritual formulas, and their mysteries.
Since many of these ritual formulas are demonstrated by Irenaeus to have been preserved in Aramaic I can't help but think the original redemption is purqana. As Uri Rubin notes "Syriac / Aramaic purqan stands for redemption through separation" which is a prominent feature in rabbinic texts. Kurt Rudolph notes that in Mandaeanism "'Salvation' or 'redemption' (purqana) by means of knowledge (gnosis) and cultic action is brought about in the ascension of the soul (masiqta) to its native realm of light." (Mandaeanism p. 15) Purqana is prominently featured in Ephraim's account of Marcionitism.
Yet the passage in question (Mark x.38) stands so close to a known use of purqan in the Peshitta. It seems impossible for me to believe that those of Mark did not know this. In what immediately follows Jesus says:
"to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom [purqana] for many."
The 'followers of Mark' were clearly citing this section of the gospel of Mark as proof for their doctrine of purqana. Yet it is difficult to see how all of this fits together.
If Jesus is the Son of Man then we would necessarily have to believe that his death would serve as a kind of 'release' for many. Yet I am absolutely convinced that Jesus understood that someone else was the Son of Man (so Bultmann and many others agree). We also know from Irenaeus in a later book that those of Mark separated Jesus and Christ and say the former suffered while the latter stood impassably.
When you put all the evidence together - even without the secret Gospel of Mark - there is some idea that one of these 'sons of Zebedee' was to be 'prepared' for a role of "giving up his life as salvation (purqana) for many."
I know this sounds strange at first. We have been all trained to think that Jesus was the Son of Man and so the giving up of his life on the Cross is what is meant. Yet if we want to understand the ideas of the followers of Mark we have to pay close attention to what Irenaeus tells us THEY BELIEVED (rather than projecting our beliefs on them).
In Book One Irenaeus gives us a very telling statement that:
because of 'redemption' they have become incomprehensible and invisible to the Judge. If anyone should arrest them, they stand before him, protected by 'redemption'
A description of a mystical prayer follows and Irenaeus notes:
When she hears these words, the Mother [Spirit] covers them at once with the Homeric cap of Hades so that becoming invisible (Iliad 5.845) they may escape the judge.
The point of course is that purqana is not for the martyr obviously but rather a means by which the martyrs 'magically' protect others.
If you read my Real Messiah you will know that I think that the original gospel understood Jesus was deliberately 'running a screen play' as it were to save another. This 'liberation' or 'release' of another is the actual meaning of purqana. The root is used in Jewish Aramaic in the sense of 'release' from a burden. So purqana would would be properly used if you saw an animal unable to carry a heavy load and you came along and took off that weight from its back.
Notice also 1 Col 1.14/Eph 1.7 - 'In him (i.e. Jesus) we have redemption (purqana) by his blood.' Again the one being 'freed' is not Jesus or the martyr but another individual watching the procession.
Yet it is clear from Irenaeus that 'redemption' was the name of a ritual act - akin to or linked to baptism - which the 'followers of Mark' prepared before a martyr hoped to 'redeem' other believers. Irenaeus writes that:
Others lead them to the water and baptize them while saying:
Into the name of the unknown Father of all, into Truth the Mother of all, into the one who came down into Jesus, for union, redemption, and the communion of Powers.
The other Hebrew (Aramaic) prayers cited by Irenaeus stress a 'liberation' from an Angelic nature and the like.
Yet let's go back to the passage I cited the passage in Irenaeus in the previous post. The way to make sense of the material is to turn to the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism where a fuller explanation of this 'heretical baptism' of those of Marcus is developed.
It is clear that the same context I noted was present in Irenaeus Against the Heresies is here - namely members of 'Mark' (or 'the heresies') who are 'caught' within the walls of the Church. The first line of the text says it all:
I observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation.
The question at the heart of the anonymous writer's text is whether it is enough to lay hands on these heretics or must a whole re-baptism be initiated. The anonymous author goes to make a clear statement about what the beliefs of these 'heretics' are noting:
it appears and is plain that he is a heretic who believes on another God, or receives another Christ than Him whom the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament manifestly declare, which announce without any obscurity the Father omnipotent, Creator of all things, and His Son. For it shall happen to them as to one who expects salvation from another God. Then, finally, contrary to their notion, they are condemned to eternal punishment by Christ, the Son of God the Father omnipotent, the Creator whom they have blasphemed, when God shall begin to judge the hidden things of men according to the Gospel by Christ Jesus, because they did not believe in Him, although they were washed in His name.
Again it is worth noting this perfectly describes both the 'Marcosians' and the 'Marcionites.'
Then the anonymous author refers to the same interpretation as Irenaeus in Against the Heresies in what immediately follows:
And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, “But I have another baptism to be baptized with.” [Luke xii. 50]. Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: “Are ye able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?” [Mark x. 38]. Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. 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.
If anyone of you have read the original passage in Irenaeus as many times as I have you would recognize at once that the anonymous author is clearly examining the same 'those of Mark' as in Irenaeus AH I.21. There can be no doubt. I even think the original author here is Irenaeus but that's another argument.
The point is that a number of scholars have already put forward the argument that this 'second baptism' which is being refuted in these passage is the very text cited by Clement in to Theodore in secret Mark. I will bring forward these scholars later but let's not also forget that the Marcionites are frequently identified as having a 'baptism on behalf of the dead' which is never explained but is repeatedly inferred to be 'something in addition' to the standard Catholic baptism ritual.
The anonymous author continues in what immediately follows saying:
And it was fitting that both these kinds [of baptism] 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
So it is the anonymous author who argues for the idea that only martyrdom can be considered to be a 'second baptism' in Christianity. Yet he is clearly refuting an interpretation which has been promoted among the heretics of Marcus that 'another baptism' - i.e. a baptism involving water, oil or some symbolism - identified as 'redemption' (according to Irenaeus) was linked to Mark x.38.
This is a very powerful argument for the authenticity of to Theodore as the letter argues that a baptism did in fact follow Mark x.38:
"And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. 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.
I want to stress again what appears in Irenaeus' account of Mark x.38 namely:
they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee
Some might argue that 'sons of Zebedee' is plural and only one boy appears in the additional material of secret Mark. Yet we have to remember that Irenaeus is providing us with the information. If his purpose was to stamp out a heresy associated with John-Mark it would seem counter-productive to say something like 'they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to John (or Mark).'
At the very least we can begin to see how 'John' was developed in the circle of Polycarp as a figure of a higher status than the other apostles. The same idea appears in Origen interestingly enough (Commentary on Matthew). The consistent Coptic identfication of St. Mark as 'also being called John' could explain how many of these same ideas associated in our tradition with 'John' (i.e. being a witness to the Passion, having a mother named Mary etc) become transferred in the Alexandrian tradition to someone named 'Mark' - even 'little Mark.'
If we return to the anonymous authors discussion of this 'other baptism' of those of Mark it is unmistakable to see how he is reacting against a 'water immersion' of some kind. The heretics must have claimed that in Mark x.38 Jesus was announcing that he was going to immerse one of the two brothers in water. So the anonymous author says no he meant 'martyrdom' and blood is a kind of liquid - so he cites the letter of 1 John:
that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;” [1 John v. 6] —that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men’s own blood is wont to confer the Spirit
However if we look closely at the heretical interpretation of Mark x.38 it is clear that blood was not meant here but indeed the very thing that is manifest in the secret Mark material - i.e. the idea that Jesus actually baptized one of his disciples.
This is a very important distinction for it is one of the strangest features of Catholic Christianity - namely that Jesus himself is not connected with its central rituals - i.e. water immersion. As a Jew who learned about Christianity only later in life, this puzzled me to no end. Why did my Catholic friends have to get baptized if Jesus didn't sanction the practice?
Now when I look at it I can see an argument that the original gospel of Mark did indeed have Jesus baptize ONE DISCIPLE - i.e. Mark (who was also called John) - and this was the basis for his special status among the Alexandrians.
The fact that the Catholics couldn't add the idea that Jesus baptized all the other apostles shows how strong this attachment with Mark was. What Irenaeus must have done instead was to deny the idea that Jesus baptized anyone and equate the assertion of this traditional Markan idea with heresy.
This is exactly what appears in Tertullian's On Baptism where he encounters a certain female minister of a heretical group that denies water baptism. In the course of his attack against her he brings up a very similar argument to what I suggest about Mark - namely that he alone of all the apostles was baptized by Jesus - only now this argument is developed for 'Paul.' He writes:
Hence arise certain persons' over-precise or even audacious discussions as to how, in view of that standing rule, the apostles can have obtained salvation, when we observe that none of them except Paul were baptized in our Lord: in fact, since Paul is the only one from among them who has put on the baptism of Christ, either we have the case pre-judged (they say) concerning those others' peril who are without Christ's baptism, so that the standing rule may be safe: or else, if salvation is appointed even for these unbaptized, the general rule is repealed. God is my witness that I have heard such
The point of course is that I have already demonstrated that 'Marcion' was the original historical figure who became 'rebaptized' as someone named 'Paul' in Catholic circles to make it possible to argue against the Marcionite interpretation of the Marcionite canon.
If Mark is acknowledged to have written both the gospel and the apostolic letters the Catholic tradition could not have muscled in with an alternative interpretation of those texts. So it was that 'Paul' was developed. 'Marcion' now becomes only an 'interpreter' - albeit the earliest interpreter of a supposedly 'Catholic apostle' whose true teachings get 'rescued' by Polycarp and Irenaeus.
The point nevertheless is that even though the name 'Paul' is invoked by the Catholic Tertullian it is impossible not to see that the Marcionites are the ones attacking the Catholic apostles for not undergoing the 'baptism of the Lord' described in secret Mark. How else can this passage be explained?
Just in case the reader doesn't buy that 'those of Mark' are being identified by the anonymous author of the treatise I should close this rather long post with something which immediately follows the last citation. The author writes that:
since the first part of this argument seems to be unfolded, we ought to touch on its subsequent part, on account of the heretics; because it is very necessary not to pass over that discussion which once falls into our hands, 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 [emphasis mine] ho derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors ... [a]nd 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. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.
Not only is there a reference to a kind of baptism which does not involve water in Irenaeus' account of the Marcosians, Tertullian's On Baptism and this anonymous treatise, the reference to Anaxilaus is also cited in Irenaeus' text on 'those of Mark' as we read in the very beginning of the account:
But 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.
For God's sake people, this current batch of scholars is deceiving you. There is more than enough reason to believe that the letter to Theodore is real. Morton Smith could not have known all of these things. There is a whole nexus swirling here of a hidden tradition associated with Mark - a black hole right at the heart of our surviving Church - which neither Morton Smith nor anyone else could have seen.
The letter is real, the letter is real and we have only begun to examine its significance.
All we have done here is argue that the baptism of John-Mark HAD TO HAVE appeared in what followed in the gospel of 'those of Mark.' Irenaeus, this anonymous author and Tertullian all know of a tradition where one of the disciples - one deliberately subordinated by the later Catholic authorities received a baptism initiated by Jesus himself and passed on directly to his Church. There is more to come. Mark x.38 makes specific mention of a throne. The one who undergoes the baptism is deserving of this honor. Irenaeus' gospel of Mark ends with an enthronement. The Marcionite are identified as believing 'Marcion' - i.e. little Mark - ended up enthroned to the left of Jesus.
As Chekhov notes no one introduces something in an earlier part of the narrative that does not get manifest later on. As Stephan Huller is wont to say - do the math people, do the math. You're guides have been lying to you, you're guides have been lying to you. Mark sat enthroned at the end of the gospel. We don't even need the manuscripts to prove it ...
