Why 'the Redemption' Was Thirty Days Long

There can be no doubt in my mind that the heretical redemption ritual was based on the Alexandrian (LXX) version of Exodus chapter thirteen which has God declare to Moses:

Sanctify (hagiason) to me every firstborn, first produced, opening every womb among the children of Israel both of man and beast; it is mine. And Moses said to the people, 'Remember this day in which ye came forth out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for with a strong hand the Lord brought you forth thence, and leaven shall not be eaten. For on this day ye go forth in the month of new corn. And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land of the Chanaanites, and Amorites, and Evites, and Jebusites, and Gergesites, and Pherezites which he sware to thy fathers to give to them a land flowing with milk and honey that thou shalt perform this service in this month. Six days ye shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day is a feast to the Lord. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; nothing leavened shall be seen with thee, neither shalt thou have leaven in all thy border. And thou shalt tell thy sons in that day saying, 'Therefore the Lord dealt thus with me, as I was going out of Egypt. And it shall be to thee a sign upon thy hand and a memorial before thine eyes that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth, for with a strong hand the Lord God brought them out of Egypt. And preserve ye this law according to the times of the seasons from year to year.

And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land of the Chanaanites as he sware to thy fathers and shall give it thee that thou shalt set apart every offspring opening the womb, the males of the Lord, every one that opens the womb out of the herds or among thy cattle as many as thou shalt have; thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord (ta arsenika hagiaseis to Kurio). Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it (lutrose auto); every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem (pan prototokon anthropou ton uion sou lutrose). And if thy son should ask thee hereafter saying, 'What is this?' then thou shalt say to him, 'With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us away, he slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt of man and the firstborn of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every male offspring that offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every firstborn of my sons I will redeem (lutrosomai). And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and immovable before thine eyes, for with a strong hand the Lord brought thee out of Egypt. [Exodus 13.1 - 17 LXX]

This my friends, is the basis to the heretical 'redemption' ritual that necessarily preceded Passover. I think the context for the ritual being 'a month' is established here. The thing I want the reader to see is that when we dig deeper into the Jewish interest in the original ritual the more the connection with the establishment of the priesthood comes to the fore. So the Jewish Encyclopedia notes that:

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.

Indeed the manner in which I look at the development of the Markan redemption ritual is to see the Passion narrative as necessarily being about TWO people - viz. Jesus and Christ. That the original Gospel of Mark necessarily reflected this reality is confirmed by Irenaeus who says that in his day there was a discernible community devoted to Mark and who preferred his gospel and - based on its original (and now lost) narrative - "separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered." [AH iii.11.7] This is the clearest expression of the redemption concept of the Pidyon Haben developed as a gospel narrative attributed to St. Mark.

I cannot but help think that when Irenaeus also mentions that those of Mark identify Mark x.38 with the redemption, they are also referencing LGM 1, the first addition to the Gospel of Mark witnessed by Clement letter to Theodore and which appeared immediately before Mark x.38.

As I mentioned I think that LGM 1 started the original pre-Athanasian Lenten festival which led up to Easter. Talley was the first to suggest this but he was unable to get past the reforms of Athanasius and see that the thirty day Redemption ritual as the original Alexandrian feast.

I have mentioned a number of times that Ephrem seems to also understand the request of the sons of Zebedee as connected with the start of the 'redemption' which is only completed with the Passion. I also noted that Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron mentions has only a few of the narratives that are preserved in our existing Diatessaron texts:

XV 1 - 11 The Rich Man
XV 12 - 13 The Rich Man and Lazarus
XV 14 - 17 The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard
XV 18 - 19 The Request of James and John
XV 20 - 21 Zacchaeus
XV 22 The Blind Man of Jericho

I noted in a number of previous posts that Phillips, Petersen and others before have noted that Origen had an Alexandrian gospel text which fused these 'separated' gospels of our New Testament into a seamless narrative. I also demonstrated that Clement referenced this Alexandrian single, long gospel in at least two of his works.

Is this text 'Secret Mark'? I think so but that's not what I want to talk about here. We have already noted that LGM 1 fits just before the Request of James and John but I just noticed that Irenaeus tells us that the traditions which celebrated the Redemption ritual interpreted the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard as hinting at some mystery regarding the number thirty. We read:

Such are the thirty AEons in the erroneous system of these men; and they are described as being wrapped up, so to speak, in silence, and known to none ... And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"--for they do not please to call Him "Lord"--did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these AEons. They maintain also, that these thirty AEons are most plainly indicated in the parable of the labourers sent into the vineyard. For some are sent about the first hour, others about the third hour, others about the sixth hour, others about the ninth hour, and others about the eleventh hour. Now, if we add up the numbers of the hours here mentioned, the sum total will be thirty: for one, three, six, nine, and eleven, when added together, form thirty. And by the hours, they hold that the AEons were pointed out; while they maintain that these are great, and wonderful, and hitherto unspeakable mysteries which it is their special function to develop; and so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations. [AH i.1]

Clearly Clement was one such 'Marcosian.' Irenaeus cites his traditions cited in the Stromata word for word as belonging to the heretical 'those of Mark' group. Clement says for instance "that three hundred cubits are the symbol of the Lord's sign; and fifty, of hope and of the remission given at Pentecost; and thirty, or as in some, twelve, they say points out the preaching; because the Lord preached in His thirtieth year; and the apostles were twelve. And the structure's terminating in a cubit is the symbol of the advancement of the righteous to oneness and to 'the unity of the faith.'" [Stromata vi.11]

Yet my discovery today is that Marcosians might well have used the parable of the workers in the vineyard as proof that Jesus established the redemption ritual as lasting exactly thirty days based on its proximity to LGM 1 and the request of John and James, the place Irenaeus acknowledges the heretics say the 'redemption' was first referenced in the gospel.

Irenaeus keeps mentioning this mystery associated with this parable again a chapter later:

The thirty AEons are indicated (as we have already remarked) by the thirty years during which they say the Saviour performed no public act, and by the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. [AH i.3]

Yet notice when Irenaeus ALSO SAYS that these 'Marcosians' connect the mystery of the thirty to the dimensions of things mentioned in the Old Testament:

And then the union of all these, which is called the Triacontad, they strenuously endeavour to demonstrate by the ark of Noah, the height of which was thirty cubits; by the case of Samuel, who assigned Saul the chief place among thirty guests; by David, when for thirty days he concealed himself in the field; by those who entered along with him into the cave; also by the fact that the length (height) of the holy tabernacle was thirty cubits; and if they meet with any other like numbers, they still apply these to their Triacontad. [AH i.18]

Yet this is again a near verbatim expression of the beliefs and traditions of Clement of the Markan see of Alexandria when he writes:

And let the testimony of geometry be the tabernacle that was constructed, and the ark that was fashioned, -- constructed in most regular proportions, and through divine ideas, by the gift of understanding, which leads us from things of sense to intellectual objects, or rather from these to holy things, and to the holy of holies. For the squares of wood indicate that the square form, producing fight angles, pervades all, and points out security. And the length of the structure was three hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty, and the height thirty; and above, the ark ends in a cubit, narrowing to a cubit from the broad base like a pyramid, the symbol of those who are purified and tested by fire. And this geometrical proportion has a place, for the transport of those holy abodes, whose differences are indicated by the differences of the numbers set down below. [Stromata vi.11]

Indeed if someone takes the time to go through Irenaeus' arguments in Book 1 and Book 2 regarding the interest of these heretics in the number thirty (there are forty eight references in Book Two alone!) they will see that they ALL resemble things taken as orthodoxy in Clement's Alexandria. Of course Irenaeus focuses on the most sensational aspects of the opinions of the 'heretics.' Nevertheless he does let a few important statements about the liturgical interest in this number among these same groups such as:

And, in the first place, let them tell us the reason of the production of the AEons being of such a kind that they do not come in contact with any of those things which belong to creation. For they maintain that those things were not made on account of creation, but creation on account of them; and that the former are not images of the latter, but the latter of the former. As, therefore, they render a reason for the images, by saying that the month has thirty days on account of the thirty AEons, and the day twelve hours, and the year twelve months, on account of the twelve AEons which are within the Pleroma [AH ii. 15.1]

Indeed Irenaeus also provides us with conflicting understandings of how the heretics applied the thirty for liturgical purposes. He notes at one point that:

the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent AEons of their system [AH ii. 22.5]

As I mentioned Irenaeus DOES repeat and modify things that Clement and his Markan tradition say about 'the mystery of the thirty.' For instance the whole chapter just cited is a variation of Clement's statement in the Stromata that:

And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered [Stromata i.21]

I don't have the original Greek of Clement in front of me but I suspect that what Clement's tradition is really saying is that 'the thirty were completed till the time he suffered' - i.e. the thirty days of the redemption ritual which he himself acknowledges in his writings.

Notice that Irenaeus seems to be adapting the heretical doctrine in a more orthodox form:

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered [AH ii.22.5]

I can't help but seeing that if we just remove the word 'year' from the whole discussion we have the confirmation that LGM 1 formed part of the heretical gospel narrative and stood at the head of their Lenten festival (see previous posts):

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirty, but was beginning the thirty and ... on completing His thirty He suffered his Passion

Indeed as I press forward trying to establish that indeed the heretical Markan system knew indeed of a thirty day Lenten festival which began with Jesus' baptism and was somehow understood to typify the hidden sefiroth of their system I stumbled upon this in Irenaeus:

The Saviour therefore acted unwisely in constituting the month a type of the entire Pleroma, but the year a type only of that Duodecad which exists in the Pleroma; for it was more fitting to divide the year into thirty parts, even as the whole Pleroma is divided, but the month into twelve, just as the Aeons are in their Pleroma. Moreover, they divide the entire Pleroma into three portions,--namely, into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. But our year is divided into four parts,--namely, spring, summer, autumn, and winter. And again, not even do the months, which they maintain to be a type of the Triacontad, consist precisely of thirty days, but some have more and some less, inasmuch as five days remain to them as an overplus. The day, too, does not always consist precisely of twelve hours, but rises from nine to fifteen, and then falls again from fifteen to nine. It cannot therefore be held that months of thirty days each were so formed for the sake of [typifying] the Aeons; for, in that case, they would have consisted precisely of thirty days: nor, again, the days of these months, that by means of twelve hours they might symbolize the twelve Aeons; for, in that case, they would always have consisted precisely of twelve hours. [ii.24.5]

Of course ALL of Irenaeus' criticism are eliminated when you realize that Egyptian calendar (and various Jewish sectarian groups including the Dositheans) had a 360 day calendar made up of twelve months made up of exactly thirty days. Even Irenaeus stupid statement about four seasons is misguided; the Egyptian calendar again had three seasons as the Marcosians did BECAUSE THEY REPRESENTED THE TRADITIONAL ORTHODOXY OF ALEXANDRIA!!!!!

In any event I think that at the very least Irenaeus has done us a great favor. He has provided us with enough evidence to suggest that the Marcosians likely did have a thirty day festival of Lent which they associated with their heavenly sephiroth. This festival began with Christ's baptism - not Jesus because Irenaeus already tells us that they separated Jesus and Christ - and thirty days later Jesus was crucified and Christ resurrected.