+(1).jpg)
Let's go back to the beginning. Scholars are less like priests and more like the managers and minions who work in the office alongside you each day. Instead of being on some mad search for truth (like Morton Smith and academics of his generation) the new generation of scholars are more like paper pushers and 'career people' who have 'mastered the game' of writing papers, attending conferences, 'schmoozing' and flattering authorities, all in the name of 'getting ahead.' Truth means very little to these people - or at least if truth gets in the way of their objectives. To this end, one person like Stephen C Carlson - writing a book questioning whether Morton Smith the discoverer of the Letter to Theodore might have been Morton Smith the real author of the Letter to Theodore has all these 'career people' in a tizzy.
I used to work in an office and the path to success was above all else 'cover your ass.' You didn't want to get caught promoting an agenda that had no future. You didn't want to end up getting stuck with a 'loser product.' So the scholarly attitude to Letter to Theodore. If there was something to Carlson's charges, well then, that might 'dead end' your career being attached to a turkey and so, it's best avoiding bringing up talking or discussing 'speculative' or 'questionable' material like this.
To this end Scott Brown's genius was re-introducing to Secret Mark - the longer version of the Gospel of Mark referenced in to Theodore - as a text wholly compatible with our inherited notions about the Gospel of Mark, the fourfold canon and Christian theology.
Whereas Morton Smith saw LGM 1 (the first addition to Mark mentioned in To Theodore) as a description of a baptism ritual which immediately preceded Mark x.38 and an allusion to Jesus 'preparing' his disciples for the throne(s) of God, Brown simply said there is no proof that this was a second baptism.
Morton Smith pointed to a connection between Secret Mark and a lost Aramaic ancestor of the canonical gospels, Brown stayed on message and merely emphasized that Secret Mark was wholly 'Markan' in character.
In the end, Brown's approach will ultimately win Secret Mark acceptance in academic circles. Yet I am convinced that Smith - a kind of scholar which no longer can be produced in academia given the current cultural climate - divined the essence of Secret Mark far better than Brown. Brown's arguments just happen to be 'useful' in gaining acceptance for the text among today's current generation of conservative religious scholars.
In my analysis of Secret Mark and its relation to the Diatessaron tradition, I have demonstrated that:
(a) Clement and Origen shared a Diatessaron-like text which introduced a narrative just before LGM 1 and just after it which was very different from our surviving canonical gospels. Clement and Origen's gospel started by juxtaposing the 'rich fool' of Luke 12:13 - 31 with the rich youth of Mark chapter 10 and then had both end up in the underworld (Lazarus and Dives) followed by a resurrection narrative. As I have repeatedly shown, this structure was first divined by C W Phillips and reiterated by Petersen in his study of the Diatessaron. All that I added to this understanding was that Clement demonstrates his familiarity with this tradition in Stromata III and Quis Dives Salvetur where it is clearly intimated to be a variant Gospel of Mark where the section concluded ultimately with Jesus' instruction of a figure alternatively identified as 'Zacchaeus' or 'Matthew' in at least two different single, long gospel traditions.
(b) the Marcosians or Markites (as Hippolytus identifies them) were a community associated with 'Mark' who shared ideas and verbatim textual interpretations with Clement of Alexandria. They used a Diatessaron again associated with Mark and argued from it that Jesus performed a ritual called 'redemption' on the sons of Zebedee which involved baptism and something else which is never specified. This must have occurred immediately before Mark x.38 - 41 (in other words exactly where LGM 1 appears in Secret Mark and was viewed as a 'preparation' of sorts for at least one of his disciples ending up seated on the divine throne by the conclusion of the gospel.
(c) Irenaeus seems to have introduced the additional words '[can you] be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?' during the course of his attack against 'those of Mark' (i.e. the contemporary worldwide community of St. Mark rooted in the Alexandria See of St. Mark and his throne associated with Clement). I have argued that they employed a Diatessaron-like text associated with Mark which Irenaeus ultimately displaced with his four-fold canon and an absurdly short Gospel of Mark which necessitated that its employers utilize the other three gospels to gain all the stories of the original text. To this end, it was argued (by Irenaeus' editorial manipulations) that the words '[can ye] be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with? were 'added' on the authority of Mark and thus that there was a future baptism WHICH HAD NOT YET OCCURRED (i.e. that LGM 1 was never present in the Gospel of Mark) and was according to Irenaeus associated with martyrdom not the 'redemption' of John Mark in the Alexandrian episcopal throne. Origen already testifies that according to the official New Testament canon of the Catholic Church Matthew did not have this addition but Mark did.
(d) the figures of 'Jacob' (James) and 'John' were not originally 'brothers' but two different titles associated with the same historical figure (i.e. Mark) developed in two different single, long gospel traditions. One in Aramaic and employed in Palestine and principally (according to Epiphanius) in Batanae - viz. the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The other in Greek and employed in Egypt (and which has already been identified by Bruce as possibly being the Gospel According to the Egyptians) and was the Secret Mark text referenced in to Theodore and - obliquely - in Quis Dives Salvetur, the Gospel of Mark that concludes Jesus teaching of the rich man (Mark x.17 - 31) with the example of the figure identified as 'Zacchaeus' or 'Matthew' in the two traditions. The reason they were linked as 'brothers' is in the later reconstitution of Christianity is that two different 'sons of Salome' - one identified as 'James' in according to the Hebrews and the other as 'John' in according to the Egyptians - end up in two different Episcopal thrones - the former in Jerusalem, the latter in Alexandria - both places that Marcus Julius Agrippa the last king of Israel was enthroned in the year 38 CE. 'Zebedee' (zabdai) means 'gift' in Aramaic, so 'son of Zebedee' merely means 'son of the gift' of grace or God. There is never any proof in any gospel ever that 'Zebedee' was actually a human being.
(e) while Scott Brown develops an argument based on the idea that Jesus' allusion to a future baptism in Mark x.38 is authentic (viz. [can ye] be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?) utilizing the Irenaeus inspired understanding of an association with martyrdom, Origen explicitly refutes this line of reasoning. He says that 'some promote' this understanding but that this is incorrect and - ignoring the words '[can ye] be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?' and utilizing only Jesus' statement that he 'has a baptism to be baptized with' [Luke 12:50] he argues that Jesus had to prepare and purify one at least one of his disciples with baptism in order to allow 'the angels' and the 'Holy Spirit' to make their home in him. This sounds remarkably similar to what LGM 1 must have represented to Clement (who makes similar allusions to the significance of 'nakedness,' 'baptism' and the 'linen cloth.' In short Scott Brown's efforts to reintegrate LGM 1 into our familiar gospel of Mark utilizing a WHOLLY FOREIGN understanding of the words '[can ye] be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?' is refuted by Origen, Clement's successor. Brown's interpretation is un-Alexandrian and should be wholly refuted.
(e) Brown's (and other scholar's) attempts to reconcile LGM 1 with Mark xiv. 51 - 52 are equally misguided as no Ante-Nicene Church Father knows or cites these lines, Alexandrian or otherwise. The silence is even more peculiar when the citation of these words would be wholly appropriate (i.e. the discussion of 'another baptism' or 'the preparation' for martyrdom). The fact that the words were not present in Ephrem's Diatessaron AND THEN ONLY INTEGRATED IN A LATER PERIOD in a haphazard manner, done differently by different later editors suggests that they were added to Mark at the same time that the ending of Mark was edited out of the text. Indeed as I will demonstrate in Part 3 of my discussion of Ephrem's analysis of the 'redemption' ritual he sees present in his Diatessaron text - redemption specifically meant 'the attainment of the divine throne.' To this end the addition of Mark xiv. 51 - 52 to Mark (and later Diatessarons) and the removal of the enthronement narratives in fourth century copies of the Gospel of Mark (which in their form in the Diatessaron of Ephrem and Aphrahat suggest a twofold enthronement one of 'Jesus' in heaven and the other of Christ on earth) was part of a campaign to finally eradicate the secret gnosis originally associated with the Secret Gospel of Mark (viz. that there was a hidden neaniskos in the narrative beloved to Jesus who was resurrected, baptized and restood as the Lord Christ in the narrative and ultimate seated on the divine throne (in Alexandria and Jerusalem) to preside over the earthly Church not only in his own person but a succession of Popes. In short the secret narrative in the Secret Gospel isn't just something associated with the past it is the mystical 'core' to the Papacy which was established in Alexandria and so a threat to the parallel establishment of a Roman See in the late second century under the authority of Commodus and systematically manipulated and supported by Irenaeus.
Of course this is a theory that would never gain acceptance among scholars. Brown's theory is more useful but again I am emphasize when we piece together the actually beliefs of the Alexandrians of the period like Origen it is patently obvious how artificial (and dishonest) Brown's attempts to integrate LGM 1 into a canonical gospel of Mark really are.
Yes, Clement does his best to argue that there is nothing strange about having these two additions to the gospel of Mark. Yet Brown is not acknowledging the chaos and danger inherent in the age in which Clement was writing. Clement was indeed run out of town; Origen was tortured and brutalized all the while the official overseer of the Church Demetrius, (a married (!!) foreigner whom the Alexandrian tradition still recognizes as an unlearned ignoramus) manages to keep his job for almost fifty years throughout all the persecutions of the period. What about a guy dressed up in ornate robes and exotic trappings like Liberace made it impossible for the Roman persecutors to identify Demetrius. Maybe the fact that a guy named 'Demetrius' was appointed by Commodus as an overseer of Egypt as a whole in the very year Church tradition says 'bishop Demetrius' came to Alexandria and shared the same last name with Commodus' favorite Christian concubine Marcia Cedonia Demetria (the lady who help conspire Pope Victor of Rome to rescue the future Pope Callixtus from the mines with Commodus' help) has something to do with it!!!
In any event, even though Scott Brown continues the 'injustice' (as Pope Shenouda calls it) of the layering of Roman doctrine on top native Alexandrian tradition let's turn back the hands of time and ask whether Origen MUST HAVE KNOWN a tradition of Jesus BAPTIZING and preparing the sons of Zebedee for their eventual enthronement at the end of the gospel. We start in Book 12 Chapter 29 of his Commentary on Matthew (the text I have already demonstrated Origen secret employs a Diatessaron-like text in the background throughout his commentary). Origen begins by saying that there were two 'forms' that Jesus took in the gospel, the familiar 'form' that we know (i.e. the meek, suffering servant) and another which he 'prepared' the sons of Zebedee for which clearly involved the 'might' and 'grandeur' of having one of them sit on the throne of God. We read:
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father with His angels.”[Matt. xvi. 27]. Now, indeed, the Son of man has not come in His glory; “for we saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was dishonoured and defective compared with the sons of men; He was a man in affliction and toil, and acquainted with the enduring of sickness, because His face was turned away, He was dishonoured and not esteemed."[Isa. liii. 2, 3]. And it was necessary that He should come in such [a lowly] form that He might bear our sins [Isa. liii. 4]. and suffer pain for us; for it did not become Him in glory to bear our sins and suffer pain for us. But He also comes in glory, having prepared the disciples through that epiphany of His which has no form nor beauty and, having become as they that they might become as He, “conformed to the image of His glory,” [Rom. viii. 29] since He formerly became conformed to “the body of our humiliation,” [Phil. iii. 21] when He “emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant,” [Phil. ii. 7] He is restored to the image of God and also makes them conformed unto it.
Yes, I know what Scott Brown will say - there is no explicit mention of baptism or water immersion. Yeah, well the imagery that Origen uses clearly suggests it. Does he really expect the Church Fathers to openly declare all of their secret doctrines? This isn't a cookbook of spirituality after all. This is a mystery doctrine.
Origen continues his argument by declaring that it is only natural to acknowledge 'that the word appeared in two different forms' in the gospel. Peter I, as Vivian demonstrates, was likely an 'Origenist' (as all Alexandrian Popes in the third century were) and argues that Jesus came 'in another form' after the Resurrection (hence the disciples couldn't recognize him). Origen now however says in what immediately follows that:
But if you will understand the differences of the Word which by “the foolishness of preaching” [1 Cor. i. 21] is proclaimed to those who believe, and spoken in wisdom to them that are perfect, you will see in what way the Word has the form of a slave to those who are learning the rudiments, so that they say, “We saw Him and He had no form or beauty" [Isa. liii. 2] But to the perfect He comes “in the glory of His own Father,” [Matt. xvi. 27] who might say, “and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” [John i. 14]. For indeed to the perfect appears the glory of the Word, and the only-begotten of God His Father, and the fulness of grace and likewise of truth, which that man cannot perceive who requires the “foolishness of the preaching,” in order to believe. But “the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father” not alone, but “with His own angels.” And if you can conceive of all those who are fellow-helpers in the glory of the Word, and in the revelation of the Wisdom which is Christ, coming along with Him, you will see in what way the Son of man comes in the glory of His own Father with His own angels. [ibid 12:30]
Who are these 'angelic helpers'? I will save the reader the suspense - they are the sons of Zebedee. Origen goes on to reinforce again that:
And consider whether you can in this connection say that the prophets who formerly suffered in virtue of their word having “no form or beauty” had an analogous position to the Word who had “no form or beauty.” And, as the Son of man comes in the glory of His own Father, so the angels, who are the words in the prophets, are present with Him preserving the measure of their own glory. But when the Word comes in such form with His own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler form. But when shall these things happen? Shall it be when that apostolic oracle is fulfilled which says, “For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad?” [2 Cor. v. 10] [ibid]
Gee I wonder why the 'judgement seat' is referenced here in association with the 'angelic helpers' who I have already identified as the sons of Zebedee. Origen is of course referencing the Alexandrian Episcopal throne and the Coptic idea of the one who sits therein - i.e. the Pope of the line of John Mark - as the living representative of Christ on earth.
The Coptic Pope is still given the title 'Judge of the World' as his official title so the words which immediately follow make perfect sense too:
But if He will render to each according to his deed, not the good deed only, nor the evil apart from the good, it is manifest that He will render to each according to every evil, and according to every good, deed. But I suppose—in this also following the Apostle, but comparing also the sayings of Ezekiel, in which the sins of him who is a perfect convert are wiped out, and the former uprightness of him who has utterly fallen away is not held of account—that in the case of him who is perfected, and has altogether laid aside wickedness, the sins are wiped out, but that, in the case of him who has altogether revolted from piety, if anything good was formerly done by him, it is not taken into account. [Ezek. xviii. 21–24] But to us, who occupy a middle position between the perfect man and the apostate, when we stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, [2 Cor. v. 10] there is rendered what we have done, whether good or bad; for we have not been so pure that our evil deeds are not at all imputed unto us, nor have we fallen away to such an extent that our better actions are forgotten. [ibid]
Yes there is a 'real judgement seat' being referenced here (this is Alexandria, not Rome). The Episcopal chair was the place the living 'earthly Christ' (as the Copts call their Pope) sat and as I have already noted in my treatment of To Theodore, the initiation described in LGM 1 served as the basis to a mystery ritual involving the divine throne.
Let's go back to the most critical section of Clement's letter. Clement says of Secret Mark that:
which [Mark] transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
I have already explained the division of this narrative to regular readers of this blog:
sentence 1 - "[those making] progress toward knowledge" represent the initiate before baptism and being brought before the image of the Pope sitting on the throne as a living representation of the Father (the adyton of Coptic churches - and especially we must imagine the 'great church' of St Mark in the Boucolia - were hidden behind curtains or veils so those who did not receive the mysteries could not see what was going on inside; they could only hear the choir singing and the shadows of the people inside reflected on the veil which divided them).
sentence 2 - "he [Mark] composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected." Notice Origen says the exact same thing over and over in reference to his discussion of the 'judgment seat.' The man sitting on the throne - the Pope (Papa = Father) is the living representative of the Father in heaven and embodiment of perfection. All others within the adyton occupy the 'middle position' referenced by Origen.
sentence 3 - "[Mark] brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils." I have already shown that 'truth' refers to the Episcopal throne which - in Jewish writings, Clement's other texts and in the existing Coptic Churches is hidden by veils, in its original form seven in number to represent the seven heavens. This is an idea supported in the writings of Origen too.
sentence 4 - "he [Mark] prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." The initiation described in LGM 1 called the 'redemption' by Markites, Marcosians and Marcionites is the ritual which is perpetuated by the Alexandrian Church in reference to the Episcopal throne of St. Mark because it was acknowledged that Jesus' redemption led to John Mark ultimately sitting on the throne of God so as to serve as an example for them of the 'glory of the Father' and in turm allow them to be recreated after the image of this 'highest God' rather than the angel which created the world (and which Adam received his glory or image). I believe that the reason Origen was castrated was because the Alexandrian redemption ritual found in the Gospel of Mark necessarily involved being 'refashioned after angelic glory.' But that's another argument. Back to Origen's analysis ...
In the very next line (I have been faithfully citing ALL THE WORDS of Origen up until now, we see Origen refer to the line “Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death.” [Matt. xvi. 28] of the Transfiguration narrative where both he (and the existing Coptic tradition) understand the disciples saw Jesus transformed as another person sitting on the divine throne.
Origen says that the number six is important because it refers to creation - or this case - the future 'recreation' of one of Jesus' disciples after his image. Origen writes here that:
when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that “His face shone,” etc., “they saw the kingdom of God coming with power.” [Mark ix. 1]. For even as some spear-bearers stand around a king, so Moses and Elijah appeared to those who had gone up into the mountains, talking with Jesus. But it is worth while considering whether the sitting on the right hand and on the left hand of the Saviour in His kingdom refers to them, so that the words, “But for whom it is prepared,” [Matt. xx. 23, Mark x.40] spoken because of them. Now this interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have seen Jesus transfigured, is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as “new-born babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile,” [1 Pet. ii. 2] to whom Paul says, “I have fed you with milk, not with meat,” [1 Cor. iii. 2] etc. Now, too, every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy ground of the Scriptures, which flows with milk and honey. But he who has been weaned, like Isaac, [Gen. xxi. 8] worthy of the good cheer and reception which Abraham gave at the weaning of his son, would seek here and in every Scripture food which is different, I think, from that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food, and from what are figuratively called herbs, which are food to one who has been weaned and is not yet strong but weak, according to the saying, “He that is weak eateth herbs.” [Rom. xiv. 2] In like manner also he who has been weaned, like Samuel, and dedicated by his mother to God, [1 Sam. i. 23, 24] —she was Hannah, which is, by interpretation, grace,—would be also a son of grace, seeking, like one nurtured in the temple, flesh of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests. [ibid 12:31]
It is utterly amazing to see how people only look to the surface of what Origen is saying here. He begins by noting that three disciples are on the mountain and that all lived to see 'the kingdom of heaven' established through the throne of God. He goes on to explicitly reference the 'preparation' that Jesus speaks of in the next chapter where one of the sons of Zebedee was prepared for the same throne as is going to be manifest in the theophany on the mountain but what follows is deliberately veiled - veiled for all those who lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic.
He introduced 'those designated by Peter' as only being capable of 'milk' - i.e. the most rudimentary understanding but that there is another whose name is related to the Hebrew word for 'grace' - channan - who has the true 'meat' or bassor (the same word for gospel for those following at home) of enlightenment. Let's look at that section again:
every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk, ... [b]ut he who has been weaned, like Isaac, [Gen. xxi. 8] worthy of ... that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food [i.e. which is spiritual] ... is, by interpretation, grace,—would be also a son of grace, seeking, like one nurtured in the temple, flesh of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests.
Come on, people Origen is identifying for the enlightened that John was the one who was established by Jesus to sit on the throne of God AND NOT PETER. He does this explicitly again in other sections in the text but this posts is already too long.
In the next lines which follow Origen makes absolutely clear that Jesus 'prepared' [Mark x.40] John to represent his 'second form' to the Christian community after his death:
The reflections in regard to the passage before us that occur to us at the present time are these: Some were standing where Jesus was, having the footsteps of the soul firmly planted with Jesus, and the standing of their feet was akin to the standing of which Moses said in the passage, “And I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights,” [Deut. x. 10] who was deemed worthy to have it said to him by God who asked him to stand by Him, “But stand thou here with Me.” [Deut. v. 31] Those who really stand by Jesus—that is, by the Word of God—do not all stand equally; for among those who stand by Jesus are differences from each other. Wherefore, not all who stand by the Saviour, but some of them as standing better, do not taste of death until they shall have seen the Word who dwelt with men, and on that account called Son of man [!!!!!], coming in His own kingdom; for Jesus does not always come in His own kingdom when He comes, since to the newly initiated He is such that they might say, beholding the Word Himself not glorious nor great, but inferior to many among them, “We saw Him, and He had no form or beauty, but His form was dishonoured, defective compared with all the sons of men.” [Isa. liii. 2, 3] And these things will be said by those who beheld His glory in connection with their own former times, when at first the Word as understood in the synagogue had no form nor beauty to them. To the Word, therefore, who has assumed most manifestly the power above all words, there belongs a royal dignity which is visible to some of those who stand by Jesus, when they have been able to follow Him as He goes before them and ascends to the lofty mountain of His own manifestation. And of this honour some of those who stand by Jesus are deemed worthy if they be either a Peter against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, or the sons of thunder, [Mark iii. 17] and are begotten of the mighty voice of God who thunders and cries aloud from heaven great things to those who have ears and are wise. Such at least do not taste death.[ibid 12:32]
Yes, Origen modifies his words here to avoid attacking Irenaeus' Roman tradition but it is well known that in what follows again and again Peter is subtly subordinated against the preferred authority of John Mark, the man who was prepared by Jesus to sit in the TRUE episcopal throne in Alexandria.
The next lines make even more explicit that the 'thunder' references here reference John and James as the 'sons of thunder' (a title explained by me here):
But we must seek to understand what is meant by “tasting of death.” And He is life who says, “I am the life,” [John xiv. 6] and this life assuredly has been hidden with Christ in God; and. “when Christ our life shall be manifested, then along with Him” [Col. iii. 3, 4] shall be manifested those who are worthy of being manifested with Him in glory. But the enemy of this life, who is also the last enemy of all His enemies that shall be destroyed, is death, [1 Cor. xv. 26] of which the soul that sinneth dies, having the opposite disposition to that which takes place in the soul that lives uprightly, and in consequence of living uprightly lives.
In case those following at home forget - 1 Cor xv.26 is a throne reference. It should be no surprise then that Origen follows with a discussion of the disciples who ended up sitting on thrones:
for the sons of thunder who were begotten of thunder, which is a heavenly thing, it was impossible to taste of death, which is extremely far removed from thunder, their mother. But these things the Word prophesies to those who shall be perfected, and who by standing with the Word advanced so far that they did not taste of death, until they saw the manifestation and the glory and the kingdom and the excellency of the Word of God in virtue of which He excels every word, which by an appearance of truth draws away and drags about those who are not able to break through the bonds of distraction, and go up to the height of the excellency of the Word of truth.
As I have noted so often that I think I must be boring my readers to distraction the word 'truth' - in all the writings of the Fathers of this period means truth because of Isa 16:5 "A throne will even be established in lovingkindness, And a judge will sit on it in faithfulness in the tabernacle of David." This was ALWAYS identified by Church Fathers as a reference to the Church and the Episcopal throne.
Now we have just seen Origen do the most extraordinary thing (which even Bultmann did notice). He makes explicit here that 'the Son of Man' is another form of Jesus equated with one of his disciples, and specifically one of the 'sons of Zebedee.' In what immediately follows he connects the seating of these in a throne of truth with the coming of the kingdom of heaven:
But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death “until” [Matt. xvi. 28] they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom, but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word “until” signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the “until,” that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place. Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, “Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age.” [Matt. xxviii. 20] When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is “called the age to come,” He would be no longer with them?—so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question—it being granted that He would be with them—whether sometimes He was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said “all the days” He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.) But if such is the force of the words, “until the consummation of the age,” plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that “until the consummation of the age” He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence of things that He who has seen once for all “the Son of man coming in His own kingdom,” and seen Him “in His own glory,” and seen “the kingdom of God come with power,” could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things so good and great. But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were not yet held worthy to see “the kingdom of God come with power,” and “the Son of man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom.”
Origen's words might not make sense to those who don't understand the subtleties of the Alexandrian Papacy but let me say just this. Origen believed in the transmigration of souls in a very Christian manner - viz. the continuous manifestation of the Christ-soul after baptism. I believe that this was established in LGM 1 and 'remembered' through various references among the heretics that Jesus did indeed baptize at least one of his disciples (cf. Tertullian de Bapt.). The Coptic Papacy emphasizes in various ways that the soul of John Mark is perpetuated with the new candidate sits in the Episcopal throne. This is done ritually by the candidate having what they claim is the original skull of St. Mark in their lap but there are other rituals and practices too which we will examine at another time.
Let's just cite the final words of this discussion recognizing that Origen and his tradition know that the disciples are about to get a glimpse of the divine throne on the mountain as a presage for the ultimate conclusion of the gospel - viz. one of them sitting in the divine chair at the right hand of God. Origen writes that:
if it be necessary to give an exposition clearer than what has been said of what is signified by seeing the Son of man coming in His own kingdom, or in His own glory, and what is signified by seeing the kingdom of God come with power, these things—whether those that are made to shine in our hearts, or that are found by those who seek, or that enter gradually into our thoughts,—let each one judge as he wills—we will set forth. He who beholds and apprehends the excellency of the Word, as he breaks down and refutes all the plausible forms of things which are truly lies but profess to be truths, sees the Son of man, (according to the word of John, “the Word of God,”) coming in His own kingdom; but if such an one were to behold the Word, not only breaking down plausible oppositions, but also representing His own truths with perfect clearness, he would behold His glory in addition to His kingdom. And such an one indeed would see in Him the kingdom of God come with power; and he would see this, as one who is no longer now under the reign of “sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who sin,” [Rom. vi. 12] but is ever under the orders of the king, who is God of all, whose kingdom is indeed potentially “within us,” [Luke xvii. 21] but actually, and, as Mark has called it, “with power,” and not at all in weakness within the perfect alone. These things, then, Jesus promised to the disciples who were standing, prophesying not about all of them, but about some. [ibid 12:35]
Come on people! All those have been reading my post over the last few weeks must recognize that Origen's final words can only mean one thing - Origen is saying that Jesus was prophesying only about the sons of Zebedee and in particular John - whose name signifies 'grace' (see above) - and who is the 'Son of Man' who will sit on the throne. Notice Origen's emphasis that only Mark's understanding was 'perfect' namely that the kingdom of heaven would come 'with power' - this is the same word that describes 'the Son of Man' sitting on the throne in Jesus dispute with the high priest.
I have to leave you here but it should be clearly recognized by now there really was an Alexandrian understanding known to Origen but clearly which went back as far as his predecessor that John the son of Zebedee was 'prepared' (Mark x.40) with baptism (see Origen's other quote here) in order that he might follow Jesus to the Passion and assume his 'other form' after the Resurrection and sit on the divine throne as the living representative of the perfection of the heavenly Father and pass on that Christ-soul to the initiates of the Christian mysteries until the 'consummation of the age' through the continual 'reformation' of this 'Father' through the Alexandrian Papacy.
If you can't see it now you will eventually get it, my friends. You just - as Origen notes - have to let the idea settle in your head after a long period of reflection and getting all those inherited "Roman concepts" to flee like Peter did as the Passion neared ...
BTW what I have just demonstrated here is what we Germans call Fingerspitzengefühl - something I have (it was mystically drilled into me since birth by my parents) and clearly those before me do not have.
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
