As I have said over a thousand times in a thousand days - the greatest danger to the study of Christianity is allowing Protestants and specifically American Evangelicals to have undue influence over the direction of research. Yes to be certain 'textual criticism' has its place but it is only one teeny, tiny aspect of the necessary overhaul of our inherited presuppositions. Above all else we have examine the LITURGY of the first Christian communities because this is how the gospel LIVED among its members. There can be no doubt that the liturgy of most Christian communities underwent a dramatic change in the age of Constantine. It was in this period that the forty day fast BEFORE Easter was introduced as well as the practice of baptizing of the catechumen on Easter. Whatever liturgy the various communities of Christianity originally maintained, the edicts of Nicaea threw them aside.
I happen to think that this wasn't the first time that Christianity was changed. There were a series of changes initiated by a number of Emperors over a hundred and fifty year period dating back to the wicked Emperor Commodus. I am strongly convinced that Irenaeus' authority - the late second century authority who effectively introduced the four gospels, the basic form of the New Testament as well as the general sense of 'orthodoxy' as we now know it - was tied to his intimate relationship with the royal court of Commodus and his beloved Christian concubine Marcia.
Irenaeus intimates that the opponents of his Roman 'Catholic Church' were saying as much in Book IV Chapter 30 of his Against the Heresies.
So what is the truth in Christianity? I am not one of those writers who wants to use history to write off religion. I think there is a truth but we have to go to another major urban center in the Empire to find it. I believe that Alexandria was the place that Christianity got started. I think there are a lot reasons to suppose this. I have developed them elsewhere in this blog.
What is more important for our current investigation is that all of Irenaeus' efforts can be seen to curb the influence of Alexandria over the contemporary Christian world. Indeed both Irenaeus and his master Polycarp can be seen to have been waging a protracted struggle against the founder of the Alexandrian See - St. Mark.
If we want to find the truth we should in my mind follow the suggestion of Psalm 118:22 and look to the tradition which was rejected by these new builders. For the stone that refused should now be recognized as the original head stone of the corner.
In other words, there is a reason why Alexandria isn't mentioned in Acts. There is a reason why the pre-Nicaean Church Fathers never acknowledges the See of St. Mark's authority and consistently demonize its earliest representatives.
To accept the authority of St. Mark and his independence from Rome and St. Peter was heresy and - as we see throughout the third century culminating in the Great Persecution of Diocletian - steadfast refusal to acknowledge Roman authority and to secret maintain a variant doctrine to that established by the courtiers of the last Antonine Emperor - was tantamount to disloyalty to the Emperor.
My interest as always been to rescue the original beliefs of the Alexandrian See and part of that process is my taking seriously the Letter to Theodore. I see no reason to reject Morton Smith's discovery and think that if anything even its modern supporters aren't up to the task of understanding its liturgical significance.
Yes, Talley attempted to work out these details but the bottom line is that he couldn't leave the safety of 'orthodoxy.' What I mean by this is that as I have shown time and time again the earliest representatives of the Alexandrian tradition had very close links to the heretical traditions associated with Mark - Clement with the so-called 'Marcosians' of the first two books of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies and Origen has been cited over and over again as drawing from Marcionite tradition which shouldn't be at all surprising as his patron was a (reformed) Marcionite.
I have also shown that both Clement and Origen employed a single, long Alexandrian gospel which blended the details which immediately preceded LGM 1 (the first addition to Secret Mark, the resurrection of the neaniskos cited in Clement's Letter to Theodore) in to a continuous and better integrated narrative which mirrored the order of the Diatessaron.
The point I am getting at here is that Talley's work was insufficient to integrate LGM 1 into the Alexandrian liturgical year especially if you are interested in the period when Clement and Origen were active. Talley pointed out the testimony of Macarius of Memphis. This is very important and I am indebted for this line of argument.
Nevertheless the only sensible way to proceed if you want to integrate LGM 1 into the Alexandrian liturgical year is to follow the verbatim parallels between Irenaeus' second century See of St. Mark and the heretical 'Marcosians' in Irenaeus regarding the 'redemption' ritual cited in Against the Heresies Book 1 chapter 20.
Of course traditional scholars aren't interested in this report. It generally forms a little more than a footnote in any study of Irenaeus. Nevertheless the influence of 'those of Mark' must have been considerable as their beliefs regarding 'the redemption' - a liturgical practice referenced in the gospel and perpetuated by their 'bishops' - form the basis to the instruction against heresy at the heart of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism, Hippolytus' Against the Heresy and is connected with the Marcionites by Epiphanius in the fourth century.
The point then is that 'the redemption' really wasn't some 'throw away' concept. It was a highly significant part of an organized ecclesiastic body (hence Hippolytus' references to 'bishops' among the Marcosians). Nevertheless the lead has never been followed up owing to the fact that this practice shows up among the 'heresies' who are - according to most modern scholars 'insignificant' or 'unknowable' commodities.
I happen to think that 'the redemption' can be understood as a liturgical concept as it shows up in Ephrem's discussion of the very same material (Mark x.38). Of course Ephrem makes explicit what anyone should have expected from the outset - the request of the sons of Zebedee to sit on or by the divine throne is connected with the concept most of us think about when we reference the concept of Christian 'redemption' - the Passion of Christ.
Ephrem informs us that the request of the sons of Zebedee is called redemption because by the end of the gospel Jesus will offer up his person for the redemption of humanity. Yet Ephrem goes further and says that at least one of the two sons of Zebedee will be an active participant in this 'redemption.'
My point here is only that if we take the combined testimony of the Church Fathers AGAINST the various 'heresies' associated with Mark AND the various statements of Ephrem on the subject of Mark x.38 and its connection with the ultimate redemption of humanity in the Passion one can begin to see the manner in which the entire period FROM Mark x.38 TO the Resurrection was the foundation to the pre-Athanasian Lental Feast of Alexandria the See of St. Mark.
I have uncovered a number of arguments for this presumption. You can go through the last hundred or so posts to see the argument unfold. I plan on writing an academic paper on the subject. Yet let me walk you through one specific aspect of my theory - my unshakable conviction that the Redemption feast lasted thirty days.
Again the foundation of this understanding is rooted in the liturgical understanding of Passover in SEPHARDIC JEWISH CIRCLES and in specific the thirty day period which stretches from Purim to Passover which is identified as 'the Redemption' or 'redemption to redemption' in authoritative sources including the Talmud.
Now, let's stop here for a moment and look at what traditional scholarship has done to develop an understanding of where the Lenten festival originated ...
They haven't done a thing and most of them don't care because they come from Protestant denominations which don't fast or celebrate Lent in the first place. All they do is cite the words that Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus from some lost text that there existed a great divergence of opinion in the late second century - not only regarding the manner in which Easter was calculated - but moreover with regards to the preliminary celebrations:
For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night [Church History v.24]
Indeed Eusebius himself adds that "this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith." [ibid]
Of course all this tells us that by Eusebius' time - and certainly in Irenaeus' day - the forty day Lenten fast was unknown. As we see Athanasius justifying his introduction of this new formula he also attacks an older tradition that was still in use among the Meletians of Alexandria.
The only bit of information that we can glean from Eusebius' account is that Alexandrian tradition shared the same practices as the churches in Jewish lands - i.e. Palestine - such as Narcissus of Jerusalem and Theophilus of Caesarea, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them. They state that their tradition was aligned with the Egyptian church:
Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day. [Church History v.25]
Now it seems unthinkable to me that the churches in Palestine and Alexandria who have to be thought to have been more firmly anchored in Jewish tradition - did not simply develop their own celebration of the 'true Passover.' One has to imagine that in some manner it would have betrayed itself to be closer or at least show signs of greater affinity with the traditional manner that Jews in that region celebrated Passover.
Indeed given the fact that Irenaeus shows us that the 'Marcosians' who celebrated the aforementioned 'Redemption' maintained their liturgy in Aramaic, has a highly developed mystical interpretation of Old and New Testaments (complete with kabbalah) I find it hard to argue against the idea that the 'Redemption' would be in some way recognizably 'Jewish.'
So it is very interesting for us to pay closer attention to the manner in which Sephardic Jews linked the redemption of Purim and the redemption of Passover into a highly integrated 'redemption' tradition.
However it should be noted that before we proceed that most traditional (Protestant) scholars couldn't have even arrived at this line of reasoning because they consistently divorce texts from their ritual context. Indeed while they think they have 'studied Judaism' they in actual fact - as I have noted several times in great frustration - don't know what the hell they are talking about.
They imagine that 'Judaism' is just like Protestantism insofar as they recycle the Jewish 'interpretation' of a particular 'scripture.' To understand Judaism - or early Christianity for that matter - as a series of 'textual interpretation' is so stupid I don't know where to begin with these people.
I will demonstrate now what entirely escapes these boneheads.
The Jews didn't just 'celebrate Purim' by reading the book of Esther and then 'celebrate Passover' by reading the Torah. As I will demonstrate, the two holidays were highly integrated as a 'redemption period' especially in Palestine, Egypt and north Africa.
As Dobrinsky notes of the practices of Sephardic Jews:
The sanctuary was erected in the month of Nisan, and the princes brought their offerings for the dedication of the altar during that month, each prince bringing his gift on a different day. It is therefore the custom to read from the Parashat hanesiyim each day for the first twelve days of Nisan.
Preparation for the Passover celebration begins on Shushan Purim (thirty days before Passover) by cleaning up all the chamez (unleavened foods) left over from the Purim seudah.
The children begin to study the laws of Pesach and to become familiar with the Hagaddah before the seudat Purim (commanded Purim). The women begin to clean the house room by room, to prepare it for Pesach. Weeks before Pesach, the women begin to prepare the rice for the Passover meals. Rice which is neither chamez nbor kitniyyot (beans), nevertheless has to be examined very carefully to see that there is no wheat between the rice. Special care is taken not to purchase rice which is sprayed with a wheat coating. The rice is scrupulously checked between the kernels three times on top of a clean white tablecloth to make sure that there is no wheat chaff. After it has passed this rigid inspection, it is packed away in plastic bags to be kept for Pesach. Great importance is attached to the rice because it is the staple food among the Syrians for the entire Pesach.
The rabbi begins to teach the congregation Hilkhot Pesach daily beginning a month before Passover ... The day before Pesach (Ereb Pesach) is known as the Fast of the First-Born (Taanit bekhorot) and this is stringently observed by the Syrians. Every male and female 'firstborn' attends the Shacharit service on Ereb Pesach in order to participate in the siyum (ceremony marking the conclusion of the learning of a tractate of the Talmud) so that they can participate in the Seudah shel mitzvah which will free them from fasting. OTherwise they must fast. This Fast of the Firstborn is considered so important that firstborns come from all over the city and even travel from out of town to participate in the service and ceremonies. Immediately after the services, everyone waits and the Birkhat hagefen (blessing over the wine) is made since this is a seudat mitzvah. Then cake is given to everyone. This cake is eaten and may also be taken home for the firstborn infants, firstborn daughters, and for any firstborn who may not have been able to personally attend the service. For many Syrians, the fact that they have partaken of the seudat mitzvah through the eating of this piece of cake (whether or not they attended the service) frees them to eat throughout the rest of the day. Everyone who attends the service is extremely silent throughout the rabbinic dissertation on the Talmudic tractate which is bring concluded, and they are intent on hearing every word in order to properly qualify for participation in the seudat mitzvah which will follow.
Now I want to stop here in Dobrinsky's study to remind the reader about what I have been saying about the original pre-Athanasian 'Lent' of Alexandria. My supposition has been all along that it necessarily seemed more to resemble 'Jewish' services. We hear this over and over again, not merely with regards to the Easter controversies in the period but specifically the attacks coming from 'the orthodox' in the fourth century (i.e. Alexander and Athanasius) against the Meletians and the Arians who maintained the traditional beliefs of St. Mark.
Many of us lose sight of the fact that Passover is above all else a celebration of the redemption of firstborns. Our whole understanding of the original Jewish festival is shaped by Protestants, movies (Charleton Heston) and the interest that St. John had in portraying Jesus as the lamb of God.
The more that we bring forward the original Sephardic customs associated with Passover the more that we will see that the 'crazy sounding ideas' associated with 'those of Mark' (i.e. 'the Marcosians') don't sound all that crazy after all. Let's drop the discussion of the 'redemption' for the moment and develop another comparison with the Syrian Jews and the description of the Marcosians from Irenaeus.
I think any one frequenting my post has some familiarity with Irenaeus' original report about the 'Marcosians.' He attacks them for having a very pronounced interest in kabbalah and the mystical significance of letters of the alphabet. Yet he also identifies a strange ritual meal - obviously connected with 'the redemption' which we will now argue was developed from Sephardic Passover rituals.
Irenaeus says that the Marcosian bishop:
Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that grace who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the grace which is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that grace which is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.
The description of the ritual terminates with the acknowledgement that it is connected with 'the redemption' and so Irenaeus writes "they affirm, that because of the "Redemption" it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. But even if he should happen to lay hold upon them, then they might simply repeat these words, while standing in his presence along with the "Redemption:" "O thou, who sittest beside God, and the mystical, eternal silence, thou through whom the angels (mightiness), who continually behold the face of the Father, having thee as their guide and introducer, do derive their forms from above, which she in the greatness of her daring inspiring with mind on account of the goodness of the forefather, produced us as their images, having her mind then intent upon the things above, as in a dream,--behold, the judge is at hand, and the crier orders me to make my defence. But do thou, as being acquainted with the affairs of both, present the cause of both of us to the judge, inasmuch as it is in reality but one cause."
As a Jew, when I read this description of an early Christian teacher developing a ritual associated with Passover which is called 'redemption' I don't see all the 'strange' associated ideas which Irenaeus puts forward here as all that 'strange' after all. Jewish groups had always developed the story of Passover or other legends that develop around the redemption of firstborns associated with the fourteenth of Nissan (the binding of Isaac, the selling of Joseph etc.) into a modern context. I know from personal experience that the Jews of my family hiding in Switzerland during the Nazi period identified themselves as 'Isaacs' and developed a whole set of mystical interpretations of their situation associated with Passover.
There are other documented cases throughout history of a similar sort of mystical application of Passover that we see associated with these Marcosians. I don't find it at all that strange that the bishops of Marcus would be promoting the idea that the rituals associated with the original 'redemption of the firstborns' would save them from being discovered by their contemporary enemies in the Imperial government. It is in fact one of the most authentically 'Jewish' expressions in Christianity that I have ever come across.
Now let's look at the further description of the Syrian Jewish Passover - the redemption of firstborns - and see if we can at least discern the grounds out of which these 'followers of Mark' got many of their ideas.
Dubrinsky continues:
The men come home from work earlier in the afternoon in order to help prepare for Pesach. The Seder table is set since before sunset. The duty of the husband is to set up the wine cups, take out the Haggadot, set up candlesticks and generally to participate in getting the Seder table ready.
The keara (Passover plate) is set up representing the Ten Sefirot (Kabbalistic emanations) ... The Kos shel Eliyahu (Cup of Elijah) is included on the Seder table. Four cups of wine are drunk during the Seder, but there are only two blessings made over the wine - one for the Kiddush and the other after Birkat hamazon ('grace after meals').
Before the Kiddush is made, water is added to the wine (meziga). The kiddush is then recited and one leans to the left in order to fulfill heseiba (leaning) as required by Halakhah.
For yachaz, the middle mazzah is broken and, according to Kabbalah, it is cracked in the shape of a dalet (Hebrew letter with a numerical equivalent to four) and a vav (Hebrew letter with numerical equivalent of six) making for a total representation of 'ten' to symbolize that the mazzah is the counterpart of the Ten Sefirot of the Kabbalah.
The Afikoman is then wrapped within the specially embroidered napkin cover, and it is thrown over the shoulder by each one as they recite, 'Micharotam zerurot besimelotam al shikhmam ubenei Yisrael kidebar Moshe (Exodos 12:34). Then they ask in Arabic, 'Where do you come from?' to which the individual responds 'Egypt!'; then 'Where are you going?' to which the response is 'Jerusalem!'[p.256 - 257]
I could go on and on with the Sephardic ritual but the point is only to say that what is being described in Irenaeus' report on 'those of Mark' is just a development of the redemption rituals of Middle Eastern Jewry albeit with an obvious messianic spin.
The fact that I have already demonstrated that Clement of Alexandria cites word for word quotes from this report about the beliefs, writings and practices of 'those of Mark' leads me to conclude that 'Mark' is St. Mark and Irenaeus is merely citing the existence of a worldwide Markan Church which the Copts have always claimed existed in antiquity. Moreover the report in Eusebius that links contemporary Palestinian and Alexandrian practices further cements this idea.
Our most immediate interest is to emphasize that the redemption ritual of the Marcosians HAS TO BE a development of Jewish practices especially in the Middle East. Here as Dubrinsky points time and time again there is a consistent understanding of the ENTIRE THIRTY DAY PERIOD between Purim and Passover as a continuous period of 'redemption' which I believe was already developed in the original gospel of St. Mark and which moreover was reflected in the original Alexandrian liturgy and the basis for the Lentan festival as such.
Dubrinsky notes of the practices of Moroccan Jews that "no sooner is Purim over than the intense cleaning for Pesach begins." Much the same tradition is reflected as we saw with the Syrian community - viz. "in the schools the children study the Haggadah in order to become proficient in its meaning and its melodies before the Sedarim." Similarly the Judeo-Spanish Jews where again:
preparations for Pesach begin one month before holiday immediately after Purim. The Judeo-Spanish used to say "Purim Purim lanu Pesach en la manu," meaning "Purim is come and before you turn around, Passover is here." The women begin to clean their houses, room by room, in preparation for the removal of all chamez. The children begin to study the Haggadah in the schools. [p. 272]
And the same thing with Spanish and Portuguese Jews:
A full month before Passover the preparation for the Festival begin. Children in the school are taught the Four Questions and become familiar with the Haggadah. Right after Purim the women begin the tedious job of cleaning the house for Passover and the traditional spring cleaning. The Spanish and Portuguese Jews follow the tradition of refraining from eating mazzah from Purim until Passover ... the siyum for the Fast of the Firstborn takes place on Ereb Pesach. Wine and cakes are served to all the firstborn who are present. In the case of a minor bekhor (firstborn) the father should fast for the child. [p.280 - 281]
I could go on and on but I think the point is made. We have ALL the building blocks for understanding how Lent necessarily developed from a much earlier thirty day redemption ritual of the Marcosian which itself was a messianic development of the traditional thirty day Jewish 'redemption' period which stretched from Purim to Pesach.
For instance it is hard to avoiding seeing that the 'Fast of the Firstborn' must have been seminal for the fasting we associated with Lent. Yet my guess is that it did so by originally transforming the thirty day period between 14th of Adar and 14th of Nisan as a 'Pidyon Haben (the redemption of the firstborn Son).'
The custom is necessarily based on the events of Passover. The thirty day period is firmly fixed among all Jewish traditions and - most importantly - the Samaritans too which necessarily dates the practice to a period long before the advent of Christianity.
For those who want to see how I developed the connection between the 'redemption of the first born' go here. The fact that the Pidyon Haben and the 'redemption' period between Purim and Passover are thirty days necessarily lent themselves to be blended together in the manner I imagine occurred in the earliest Markan traditions.
John Mark, the child disciple of Jesus was the redeemed 'Isaac,' Jesus the sacrifice ram (see Melito of Sardis for the earliest confirmation of the latter interpretation). John Mark is established from the beginning of the redemption period (see Ephrem on Mark x.38). It is he who is redeemed. It was he who was the mystagogue who established the gospel as a holy 'instruction manual' to re-establish the paradigm of redemption for all in his flock.
All of this begins with the 'baptism on behalf of the dead' in LGM 1, the first addition to the gospel of Mark mentioned in To Theodore.
Now before the reader questions how I arrived at my assumption we should take note of one of the earliest features associated with Lent - its association with the baptism ritual. In the fourth century catechumens were elected for Easter baptism at the beginning of Lent; so too, penitents were designated for sacramental reconciliation in the Church on Holy Thursday just before Lent. They were ultimately baptized at Easter.
Now I know that all the experts out there will argue that BECAUSE the Catholic Church organized its Lenten baptism rituals in this manner yet Talley has shown quite clearly that the Alexandrian tradition did not know of an Easter baptism. Interesting also is the fact that the Syrian and Armenian churches organized their baptism in relation to the Epiphany.
Johnson has argued that there was a concerted Nicene effort to establish the Easter baptism and I have to agree with his line of argument. Yet Talley has already pointed us in the direction of what the original Alexandrian formula must have been - viz. the 'secret Mark' baptism of LGM 1 beginning a period of time before Easter.
Where I think I have improved on Talley's thesis is by introducing the 'redemption' ritual of the Marcosians. Clement of Alexandria was a 'Marcosian' because Mark was St. Mark the founder of the Alexandrian Christian community. IF the reader accepts my arguments about why the Marcosian redemption HAD TO HAVE BEEN thirty days, THEN it should be obvious WHY I think the 'redemption' itself was developed as a Pidyon Haben.
I have already written about this in previous posts but because this was Alexandria I think that LGM 1 had something to do with castration being viewed as 'the true circumcision.' I would like to add one more thing now that we have spent so much time developing Passover as a 'redemption of the firstborn' ritual.
The original priesthood of Israel - the Levites - were established as God's firstborn as the Jewish Encyclopedia notes:
in Ex. xiii. 11-15 and Num. iii. 12 et seq. (comp. ib. 40 et seq. and viii. 15-18) the dedication of the first-born to YHWH is connected with the slaying of the first-born of Egypt and the consecration of the Levites to the service of the sanctuary. By destroying the first-born of Egypt and sparing those of Israel, YHWH acquired an especial ownership over the latter. But as it was not feasible to select the first-born of the entire nation and thus disturb the family organization, the Levites were substituted for them; and, indeed, rabbinical tradition assigns the priesthood to the first-born until the completion of the Tabernacle (Zeb. 112b, 115b; comp. Targ. to Ex. xxiv. 5 and Rashi and Ibn Ezra to Ex. xix. 22, 24). The view implied in the passages quoted seems to be that the Levites took the place of only those first-born which YHWH actually spared in Egypt, and that while the Levites continued to serve at the sanctuary, all the first-born after the Exodus were nevertheless the property of YHWH, and therefore had to be redeemed, just as the 273 first-born who surpassed the number of the Levites at Sinai had to be redeemed each with five shekels (Num. iii. 45-51). Doubtless there is here also the adaptation of an ancient custom (comp. Gen. iv. 4). The dedication of the first-born of man is the extension and application by analogy of the custom of consecrating to God the first-fruits of the soil and the firstlings of animals (comp. Ex. xxii. 28 et seq.), a custom found also among other peoples. In Israel this dedication had the significance of an acknowledgment that it was YHWH's "heritage," that it owed to Him all which it had and was.
It is important to note that Clement understood the contemporary Alexandrian priesthood to be successors to the 'ransomed' Levites of old. He even intimates that baptism was the ritual by which these 'redeemed firstborns' were consecrated:
So the high priest, putting off his consecrated robe (the universe, and the creation in the universe, were consecrated by Him assenting that, what was made, was good), washes himself, and puts on the other tunic -- a holy-of holies one, so to speak -- which is to accompany him into the adytum; exhibiting, as seems to me, the Levite and Gnostic, as the chief of other priests (those bathed in water, and clothed in faith alone, and expecting their own individual abode), himself distinguishing the objects of the intellect from the things of sense, rising above other priests, hasting to the entrance to the world of ideas, to wash himself from the things here below, not in water, as formerly one was cleansed on being enrolled in the tribe of Levi. But purified already by the gnostic Word in his whole heart, and thoroughly regulated, and having improved that mode of life received from the priest to the highest pitch, being quite sanctified both in word and life, and having put on the bright array of glory, and received the ineffable inheritance of that spiritual and perfect man, "which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man;" and having become son and friend, he is now replenished with insatiable contemplation face to face. For there is nothing like hearing the Word Himself, who by means of the Scripture inspires fuller intelligence. For so it is said, "And he shall put off the linen robe, which he had put on when he entered into the holy place; and shall lay it aside there, and wash his body in water in the holy place, and put on his robe." But in one way, as I think, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the region of sense; and in another, he who through Him has believed puts off and puts on, as the apostle intimated, the consecrated stole. Thence, after the image of the Lord. the worthiest were chosen from the sacred tribes to be high priests, and those elected to the kingly office and to prophecy were anointed. [Stromata V.6]
Now of course, the million dollar question is why would LGM 1 be placed AT THE BEGINNING of the thirty day redemption? Of course we have said that there might have been a castration ritual which preceded the water immersion but these seem to be two separate events.
The 'true circumcision' establishes the thirty day 'redemption' which follows. But what was the function of water immersion? Of course most people know that the Jews employed mikva'ot (singular mikveh). Yet very few people are aware that among the Sephardim water immersion is specifically employed during the adoption of non-Jewish children.
Dobrinsky notes that while the Syrian community has:
preference for a non-Jewish child in order to avert all problems of mamzerut, etc. Notarized documents describing the lineage of the child who has been adopted must be present to the Bet Din for their approval. The Bet Din will follow up by seeing that the circumcision (in the case of a boy) and a tebila leshem gerut (immersion for the purpose of conversion) will take place in accordance with Halakhah under the supervision of the Syrian rabbinate. The child is immersed in the water of the mikveh three times by the father, who stands in the mikveh holding the baby. [p.20]
I want my readers to pay close attention to the immediate context of the adoption - circumcision first and then water immersion. In other Sephardic communities the same pattern exists albeit the immersion can follow by months.
There is of course a mystical dimension I haven't discussed yet but before I go to bed let's remind ourselves of the familiar Pauline context for baptism (we have already discussed the 'baptism for the dead' and how it fits into LGM 1 a number of times already):
we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. [Rom 8:23 -24]
I have to go to bed. But more tomorrow ...
