It would be impossible to physically 'dip' or 'dunk' an angel. As such those traditions that emphasized Jesus' ability to fly and pass through crowds and buildings had a very different understanding of 'the baptism he had to be baptized with' [Luke 12:50] - is there anyone else who thinks that this statement is an odd witness to LGM 1 by its mere placement in ANY GOSPEL NARRATIVE, even after the 'John the Baptist baptism' in our canonical texts?
Whatever the case may be, those older traditions associated with Mark (and his various offshoots) emphasized another kind of baptism. This was not a water immersion for the remission of sins but something called 'the redemption,' a ritual which involved water immersion and 'something else' and was connected with Mark x.38.
I think the thing that heretics are referring to when they emphasized a baptism which made someone perfect, which involved 'being wedded to angels' is of course the 'initiation' ritual identified by those who study Secret Mark as LGM 1. I have just alluded in a previous post that I have noticed that the Tripartate Tractate is filled with 'redemption' references. The baptism described here is called 'the redemption' (and explicitly distinguished from our 'animal' water immersion which comes from 'John the Baptist').
There can be no doubt that this community is related to the Marcosians in Irenaeus' report in Against the Heresies. I also think the author of that text knows Secret Mark. I can certainly see how the baptism of the Tripartate Tractate was established from LGM 1.
Yet before I get to far let me confess that I suffer from that dreaded 'disease,' that thing which scholars hope they never get afflicted with - viz. 'imagination.' Oh please Lord, take this away from me! Please let me be like the others, those who look to orthodox sources and smugly conclude that because Secret Mark's ideas are not represented there that the text has no witnesses in antiquity!
OK, enough joking around. I am going to cite the Tripartate Tractate without(much) commentary. As I am not an authority on the Coptic language I think this argument is best developed by someone who is (Marv Meyer where are you?). I will set out the argument for that 'someone else' - whoever he turns out to be.
The Tripartate Tractate introduces 'redemption' in the following way:
Some come forth from passion and division, needing healing. Others are from prayer, so that they heal the sick, when they have been appointed to treat those who have fallen. These are the apostles and the evangelists. They are the disciples of the Savior, and teachers who need instruction.
And then there is that business about Jesus as the 'image' which - I would argue - greeted the initiated one as he came out of the baptismal waters:
The Savior was an image of the unitary one, he who is the Totality in bodily form. Therefore, he preserved the form of indivisibility, from which comes impassability. They, however, are images of each thing which became manifest.
And then 'the redemption' is specifically referenced in what immediately follows:
For the will held the Totality under sin, so that by that will he might have mercy on the Totality and they might be saved, while a single one alone is appointed to give life, and all the rest need salvation. Therefore, it was from (one?) of this sort that he began to receive grace to give the honors which were proclaimed by Jesus, which were suitable for him to proclaim to the rest, since a seed of the promise of Jesus Christ was set up, whom we have served in (his) revelation and union. Now the promise possessed the instruction and the return to what they are from the first, from which they possess the drop, so as to return to him, which is that which is called "the redemption."
And then 'the fullest' explanation of the 'redemption' ritual follows so I will cite a much longer section of text:
And since the man of the Church was happy and glad at this, as he was hoping for it, he separated spirit, soul, and body in the organization of the one who thinks that he is a unity, though within him is the man who is the Totality - and he is all of them. And, though he has the escape from the [...] which the places will receive, he also has the members about which we spoke earlier. When the redemption was proclaimed, the perfect man received knowledge immediately, so as to return in haste to his unitary state, to the place from which he came, to return there joyfully, to the place from which he came, to the place from which he flowed forth. His members, however, needed a place of instruction, which is in the places which are adorned, so that they might receive from them resemblance to the images and archetypes, like a mirror, until all the members of the body of the Church are in a single place and receive the restoration at one time, when they have been manifested as the whole body, namely the restoration into the Pleroma. It has a preliminary concord with a mutual agreement, which is the concord which belongs to the Father, until the Totalities receive a countenance in accordance with him. The restoration is at the end, after the Totality reveals what it is, the Son, who is the redemption, that is, the path toward the incomprehensible Father, that is, the return to the pre-existent, and (after) the Totalities reveal themselves in that one, in the proper way, who is the inconceivable one and the ineffable one, and the invisible one and the incomprehensible one, so that it receives redemption ... the redemption also is an ascent to the degrees which are in the Pleroma and to those who have named themselves and who conceive of themselves according to the power of each of the aeons, and (it is) an entrance into what is silent, where there is no need for voice nor for knowing, nor for forming a concept, nor for illumination, but (where) all things are light, while they do not need to be illumined.
Not only do humans need redemption, but also the angels, too, need redemption, along with the image and the rest of the Pleromas of the aeons and the wondrous powers of illumination. So that we might not be in doubt in regard to the others, even the Son himself, who has the position of redeemer of the Totality, needed redemption as well, - he who had become man, - since he gave himself for each thing which we need, we in the flesh, who are his Church. Now, when he first received redemption from the word which had descended upon him, all the rest received redemption from him, namely those who had taken him to themselves. For those who received the one who had received (redemption) also received what was in him.
Among the men who are in the flesh redemption began to be given, his first-born, and his love, the Son who was incarnate, while the angels who are in heaven asked to associate, so that they might form an association with him upon the earth. Therefore, he is called "the Redemption of the angels of the Father," he who comforted those who were laboring under the Totality for his knowledge, because he was given the grace before anyone else.
This individual who 'received the grace before anyone else' is not 'Jesus' for God's sake! In the heretical tradition - as I have shown time and time again - Jesus was the angel of the presence, the living spirit of the Father who came down to earth to bestow his 'fullness' into the imperfect flesh of humanity. This is the central mystery of gnosic Christianity expressed - as I have argued - in LGM 1 of the most secret gospel of Alexandria.
Now we already know who was the only historical individual who was ever identified to have received this 'grace' from the writings of Irenaeus - viz. 'Mark.' I have long sought to prove that this individual was the 'Mark' of Clement's Alexandrian tradition and have drawn up several unassailable arguments in favor of this identification.
The individual who established the mysteries of 'redemption' in the Tripartate Tractate is described in a similar way to this 'Mark' viz.
He who gave them knowledge of him was one of his powers for enabling them to grasp that knowledge in the fullest sense is called "the knowledge of all that which is thought of" and "the treasure" and "the addition for the increase of knowledge," "the revelation of those things which were known at first," and "the path toward harmony and toward the pre-existent one," which is the increase of those who have abandoned the greatness which was theirs in the organization of the will, so that the end might be like the beginning.
And then in the end, the text confirms our identification of the 'redemption' of the Marcosians with the 'baptism on behalf of the dead' of the Marcionites (both being 'those of Mark' expressed in two different languages):
As for the baptism which exists in the fullest sense into which the Fullness [Pleroma] will descend and in which they will be, there is no other baptism apart from this one alone, which is the redemption into God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when confession is made through faith in those names (I, 5, 127 - 134)
Ferguson (Baptism in the Early Church) adds his analysis that:
The further statement that "they have come to believe what has been said to them" (128, 1) indicates a previous period of instruction.
I think someone should develop a study connecting Secret Mark to the 'redemption' baptims ritual of the heretics (especially 'those of Mark') AND the surviving references to apolytrosis in the Nag Hammadi writings. I think if we follow Morton Smith's understanding of LGM 1 (i.e. that it is another form of baptism) I am sure we will confirm the authenticity of Secret Mark.
After all, while most scholars dismiss the heretics effectively as misguided imbeciles not worthy of study, I and surely others have to assume they got their ideas for somewhere - even another EARLIER more authentic (i.e. pre-Irenaean) version of the New Testament canon.
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
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."