The point is that as I was going through Brown's dissertation I can't believe the manner in which Brown wants at all costs to remove 'Secret Mark' from the very Alexandrian setting it is firmly placed in To Theodore.
For instance Brown spends a lot of time attacking the argument of Morton Smith and others after him that the 'mystery' described in LGM 1 is a baptism ritual. His argument here is quite annoying for it displays a complete lack of sensitivity to the changing sands of history.
We have just spend a number of posts demonstrating that there can be no doubt that the Alexandrian clergy in the second and third centuries was principally made up of eunuchs. It is equally clear that from the fourth century onward there is a complete transformation of the religious paradigm in Egypt, owing to a series of shrewd tactical moves by Athanasius, supported in no small part (at least initially) by Imperial benefactors on the other side of the Mediterranean.
So let's get to the heart of the problem. Talley noticed that the Secret Mark's reference to baptism on the 'sixth day' was paralleled by an ancient Alexandrian tradition associated with St. Mark that Jesus baptized his 'disciples' on the sixth day. The citation comes from a frustrated Macarius of Memphis who is upset that the established practice is (again) giving way to new rules' and customs from Byzantium. So Macarius writes:
It was thus that there was introduced a custom to please the people and the rule of the see of Mark the Evangelist was changed. They knew not that touching this day, and on it, there were numerous virtues, mysteries and interpretations. And this because it is the consummation of the sacred quarantine and is the day of the fast. It is told that this is the day on which the Lord Christ baptized his disciples. This is the sixth day of the week, figure of the sixth millenary, on which God the Word was incarnate and delivered Adam and his posterity from the domination of the enemy over them and freed them from his enslavement. And it became the day of baptism. This is why the patriarch of Alexandria performed it on the consecration of the chrism, which is the oil of the balm, and of the oil of gladness, which is the olive, and of the water of baptism and he baptized then the people of every land.
It is simply incredible that Brown can dismiss the connection of THIS PASSAGE to Secret Mark merely because of Talley's unique conclusions about the composition of the Alexandrian traditon cited here.
Talley argues that the gospel of Mark was read in Alexandria according to a liturgical beginning on January 6th where the day Jesus baptized his disciples was assigned to the sixth day of the sixth week. Yet Brown cleverly uses Talley's theoretical reconstructions to divert people's attention from the fact that Macarius himself only says that Jesus baptized his disciples on the sixth day. St Mark is never said to have assigned the date to the 'sixth day of the sixth week' only 'the sixth day.'
Do you want to hear the quote again? Macarius says:
It is told that this is the day on which the Lord Christ baptized his disciples. This is the sixth day of the week, figure of the sixth millenary, on which God the Word was incarnate and delivered Adam and his posterity from the domination of the enemy over them and freed them from his enslavement. And it became the day of baptism.
What's the matter with these scholars? How do they use another scholar's stupid theories to write off original testimony of this import. Indeed if Brown actually fails to mention that Talley himself goes so far as to say that Macarius DID NOT identify this date as having any relationship with Epiphany [The Origins of the Liturgical Year p. 199]. Indeed as I already noted, whatever Macarius identifies as contemporary Alexandrian practice (as opposed to what was being mandated from Byzantium) he only identifies 'the sixth day' as being delivered 'in the beginning.'
Indeed I happen to think that Talley's theory has a lot going for it. But the point again is that if we stick only to what Macarius says there IS a very intriguing line of reason to follow back to the use of Secret Mark in second and third century Alexandria. Scott Brown's objections not withstanding ...
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
