Matthew as we have noted over a number of different posts here only has Jesus mentioning his disciples drinking from the cup that he is about to drink. Yet if the whole narrative was developed from Mark why did Matthew not include the business about 'being baptized from the baptism that I am baptized with?'
Already I have found one author who thinks that the narratives were developed in separate ways under the influence of Irenaeus' war against the Marcosians. Yet the author in my mind doesn't get it quite right.
First of all Irenaeus never identifies Matthew as his source. The two citations he gives are:
"And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it."
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?" [Irenaeus AH i.21]
The strange thing clearly is that Irenaeus seems to cite from a version of Matthew which happens to have the addition that is not found in any other early MS of Matthew save the Codex Ephraemi (fifth century). Of course one might argue that this is from the heretical gospel of the Marcosians and might represent a version of Mark which happens to introduce 'the mother of the sons of Zebedee' asking the question.
Yet the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism has the same to quotes directed against the same Marcosian heresy where a slightly different textual reading is attributed explicitly to 'Mark'
But "I have another baptism to be baptized with." [Luke 12:50] Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: "Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" [Mark 10:38] 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. 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 [Anonym. Treat. 14]
My feeling of course is that the heretic 'Mark' to whom the 'Marcosians' are devoted is Mark the Evangelist. I base this assumption on the fact that Clement of Alexandria's beliefs are so closely aligned with the Marcosians, Irenaeus often cites them word for word as belonging to the heretical group.
To this end the only conclusion that we can arrive at is that Irenaeus is citing a version of Mark which happens to introduce Salome asking Jesus to grant her a request (as we read only in Matthew) but that Irenaeus cites only the 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' because it was he who developed the canonical gospel of Mark against 'those of Mark' in order to destroy the argument that there was a 'second baptism' in LGM 1.
In other words, as I have shown before Secret Mark was the heretical gospel of the Marcosian community.
Of course all of this cannot be proved to any degree of certainty. But we have to ask ourselves again which preserves the original reading of the request of the sons of Zebedee - canonical Matthew or canonical Mark? As I believe that the Diatessaron is an important witness for the original shape of the gospel and - as we have already shown - Ephrem certainly did not know the addition of the future baptism.
So at the very least it is at least possible that someone - possibly even Irenaeus himself - manipulated Mark in the late second century in order to destroy the original Alexandrian gospel of Mark's witness of a baptism before Mark x.38.
All of these questions make the complete absence of any witnesses to another Markan narrative connected with LGM 1 - Mark 14:51 - 52. While most scholars who have written on the subject of Morton Smith's discovery have taken for granted the antiquity of the narrative. Yet how do they explain that no source before the late fourth century mentions Mark 14:51 - 52?
My guess is that the passage was designed to put the final nail in the coffin to the idea that a 'second baptism' narrative was present somewhere in Mark. The idea to put it just before the arrest narrative is found in Irenaeus' assault against 'those of Mark' when he writes that:
Others still there are who continue to redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers [AH i.21.5]
Clearly Irenaeus is not referencing Mark 14:51 - 52 as he goes on to immediately say in what follows that "and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge." This is certainly not reflective of the naked neaniskos narrative in Mark chapter 14, however you can begin to see from the first part of Irenaeus' citation how Mark 14:51 - 52 would have been formed to distract from LGM 1.
In any event let's get back to the witness to Mark 14:51 - 52. There are none before the end of the fourth century. Then there is the fact that Ephrem does not cite this as being present in his Diatessaron - the same Diatessaron which certainly didn't reference "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?"
Ephrem's Diatessaron simply reproduces John chapter 18 pretty much verbatim other than the fact that Jesus makes the arresting party fall to the ground twice.
Now isn't it odd that when Mark 14:51 - 52 is finally introduced to the Diatessaron tradition at a later date it is integrated in different ways by different textual traditions. The Codex Fuldensis for instance adds the material very late in John 18:
Then the disciples, all leaving him, fled. The band and the tribune and the servants of the Jews took Jesus and bound him and they led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiphas, who was the high priest of that year. Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
And a certain young man followed him, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. And they laid hold on him. But he, casting off the linen cloth, fled from them naked.
And Simon Peter followed Jesus afar off and so did another disciple even to the court of the high priest. And that disciple was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter. [Codex Fuld. 298 - 299]
While the placement of Mark 14:51 - 52 so late in the narrative seems strange, the manner in which the Arabic Diatessaron forces the narrative into John 18:12 makes its artificiality even more apparent:
And the footsoldiers and the officers and the soldiers of the Jews seized Jesus, and came. And a certain young man followed him, and he was wrapped in a towel, naked: and they seized him; so he Arabic, left the towel, and fled naked. Then they took Jesus, and bound him, and brought him to Annas first; because he was the father in law of Caiaphas, who was chief priest that year. [Diat. XLVIII.40 - 49]
Now I can't convince the reader in the limited space that is available to me here but this injection of a single line from Mark or any synoptic narrative into a continuous Johannine narrative is very, very rare in the Diatessaron. In fact I think it is the only time that it ever occurs like this in the whole tradition.
It should be noted how similar these two 'gospel harmony' texts are in every other respect. Something like 90 - 95% of the material is identical with sections of text from the four canonical gospels appearing in the identical place relative to each other. Why then is Mark 14:51 - 52 introduces in two different places by these two different texts? The answer has to be that they integrated by two different editors in two different places subsequent to the two traditions 'parted ways.'
John 18:12 reads:
Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas.
Notice that the Arabic Diatessaron actually rewrites John 18:12a again to re-introduce John 18:12b after the interruption of the (late) introduction of Mark 14:51 - 52:
And the footsoldiers and the officers and the soldiers of the Jews seized Jesus, and came ... Then they took Jesus, and bound him, and brought him to Annas first.
This sort of thing never, ever, ever happens in the Diatessaron. I believe it was developed at a much later period - after the fourth century period when Mark 14:51 - 52 was added to the Gospel of Mark - that Ephrem's Diatessaron also saw these lines injected into the text.
So far its just speculation. I want to remind my readers that these posts are mere 'observations' or 'speculations.' I will continue to work on this hypothesis. The next post will demonstrate how the logic of Ephrem's Commentary necessarily prove that the sons of Zebedee could not have run away from participating in Christ's Passion. Origen in fact says much the same thing ...
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
