Why Irenaeus HAD TO MAKE the Original Interpretation of the "Redemption" of Mark 10:45 Heretical

I really mean it. Today's generation of scholars can't or don't like to THINK about the implications of texts and traditions.

They are mere plumbers in age which needs architects.

The last post shows something that Morton Smith did not know, did not reference when he argued for the authenticity of his discovery.

Yet it is critical to understand its CONTEXT.

The figure being baptised in secret Mark is John Mark. The logic is inescapable.
The original gospel writer was saying that this "least of all" disciples was being prepared for the throne - the very throne which both Irenaeus and the Marcionites acknowledge appeared at the end of the gospel and which served as the ultimate argument for Alexandrian episcopal primacy.

That is why the redemption - purqana - doctrine of "those of Mark" was forbidden by Irenaeus and his Roman allies. That is why the autographed copy of the Alexandrian Church was driven underground.

The gospel couldn't be allowed to be about Jesus redeeming or saving John Mark who went on to sit in the original episcopal throne which happened to reside in Alexandria rather than Rome.

Irenaeus wasn't stupid. He could ignore the implications of this "secret truth" what have on his efforts to make Rome the seat of authority (and physically closer to the watchful eyes of the Empire.

Yes Irenaeus wasn't ignorant of these implications but the modern generation of scholars certainly are.

That's what happens when you put plumbers in charge of a job which requires an architect ...