Assuming that anyone buys my arguments about the Alexandrian tradition identifying the first addition to the Longer Gospel of Mark (Secret Mark) as a castration baptism ritual or 'true circumcision' or - as the Apostle calls it - 'not a circumcision done by the hands of men but done by Christ' [Col 2.11] then I can tell the reader what the likely date of the original ritual. February 23rd (the equivalent Egyptian month - Mechyr - is the sixth of twelve thirty day months so that might be significant for the Markan understanding too)
You see the Alexandrians fixed the Resurrection on March 25th. Assuming that we equate the Resurrection with 'the redemption' - as Ephrem does - it would follow that this 'redemption of the (firstborn) Son' would occur thirty days after the 'cutting.'
Someone else might be able to track down if there is any significance to this date. The existing Coptic Synxarium places the feast day of Polycarp on the date!
And while we're at it, let's look at that quote from Colossians chapter 2 to gain some certainty as to why the Marcionites had to have had a narrative LIKE LGM 1 in their gospel:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made your flesh alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. [Col 2.11-15]
Is it just me or did the Apostle perfectly sum up how LGM 1 must have been integrated into the narrative - viz. as a set up for the Passion narrative? And what do the imbeciles out there think 'putting off the sinful flesh means' if not 'cutting off the penis and/or testicles of men' and the sexual organs of women?
Does anyone doubt that this is how Origen interpreted the passage as well as his Alexandrian co-religionists?
Indeed it would hardly be a surprise for a Marcionite who, after all, believed that the same Apostle wrote the gospel and the Apostolic letters.
This article might interest you to see a continuation of the original understanding in Orthodox circles.
Whatever the case, good night again ...
