I was thumbing through my Septuagint Concordance and noticed something which might be key to taking my theory about LGM 1 (the first addition to 'Secret Mark' in the letter to the Theodore) and the Jewish holiday of Purim to the next level. Here's what I noticed. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew yom naqam (day of vengeance) of Isaiah 61.2 as hemeran antapodoseos in Greek. There is nothing wrong with this rendering. Vengeance is often understood as 'recompense' in the Jewish tradition. But here's what got me thinking ...
Let's suppose that sometime after the translation of the Book of Esther in to Greek in Alexandria Purim became identified as the hemeran antapodoseos.
And let's take for granted that St. Mark actually wrote the LGM 1 narrative which Clement says formed a part of the autographed copy of his gospel at the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria.
And let's suppose that the Marcosians were somehow connected to this 'secret tradition' and their thirty day 'redemption period' was the pre-Athanasian Alexandrian Lenten fast which - as we have shown for the last few days - this fast began on the traditional hemeran antapodoseos - i.e. Purim.
With me so far?
When you accept this liturgical structure what you start to see happen is that the 14th of Adar - the hemeran antapodoseos of the Alexandrian community - might well have been developed into a day of messianic fulfillment in his gospel.
Just think about it.
There can be little doubt that the Samaritans at least - a very significant part of the Jewish population of Alexandria would naturally have expected the messiah to appear on this day.
Were there other Jewish sects which shared the Samaritan understanding of the 'day of vengeance' and the 'year of favor' being the time and place that the messiah would appear?
Certainly.
This section of Isaiah is very interesting. The LXX uses antapodoseos to translate 'vengeance' in Isaiah 61.2. But antapodosis is also used translate shalam throughout the LXX and this is significant because both 'vengeance' and 'recompense' together in the Samaritan version of Deuteronomy 32:35 'the day of Vengeance and Recompense.'
The 'acceptable' year - ratson - is clearly connected with the Samaritan concept of divine favor or rahuta.
When we start looking at the manner in which Purim became an expression of divine 'vengeance' (against the Persians) and divine 'favor' (for the Israelites who were redeemed) it is difficult in my mind to avoid seeing that a baptism which took place on a 'day of recompense' before a 'year of favor' (the manner in which Irenaeus tells us the Marcosians developed their ideas about the gospel narrative) would necessarily be tied to the revelation of the messiah.
You have to remember - if we accept my reconstruction of the narrative of the gospel IN REAL TIME - the fourteenth of Adar used to be 'just' Purim the 'redemption' thirty days from the other 'redemption' Passover connected by a period of ritual preparation and teaching.
What I am suggesting is that LGM 1 - that addition which on some level must have been 'cut out' of the Gospel of Mark - marks the author's deliberate attempt to place a significant water immersion - one that must have served some liturgical function - on the very 'day of recompense.'
I think the concept might well be specifically 'Dosithean' given that Jerome says that Dosithean characters appear in the gospel.
You can't get from Purim to LGM 1 without the Samaritans.
Indeed we have to admit there certainly was circumcision and water immersions in the historical narrative of Esther. Nevertheless there is no evidence to suggest that Jews traditionally established proselytes on Purim.
The connecting 'link' between the two narratives is the Samaritan (and possibly Sadducean) idea of the messiah appearing on the 'day of vengeance' or the 'day of recompense.'
Let's look at the gospel again.
There is no reference to Jesus baptizing any of his disciples in our existing narratives. What I am thinking is that the deliberate placement of Jesus baptizing a particular beloved disciple on THAT DAY served as a sign to anyone who had any familiarity with the traditions of Israel that this neaniskos was the Christ.
We hear of such a Christ-who-was-not-Jesus throughout Irenaeus' account of the Marcosians.
Indeed the implicit argument of Irenaeus' account of the Marcosians was that 'Mark' himself was the secret messiah of his community.
Just read the narrative with an open mind ...
