The Marcosian 'Redemption' Mentioned in Irenaeus Was a Thirty Day Alexandrian Fast Period which Immediately Preceded Easter (i.e. pre-Athanasian Lent)

I know most scholars don't care much about the 'heresies' - i.e. those traditions condemned by the Fathers of the Church in the early period In my mind there is a bad quality in very successful people. They have an innate ability to 'organize' their lives AND THEIR MINDS and push away things that 'get in the way' of the system that they devise for themselves.

To this end 'the heresies' are an inherent 'problem' for these men. The existence of 'alternative systems' of Christianity in the earliest period challenge the foundation of their INHERITED presuppositions and so they are ignored by a collective unconscious conspiracy of like-minded systematizers ...

Of course when I look at the earliest Church Fathers I can't join these 'experts' in developing a system based on the 'trustworthiness' and 'reliability' of the Church Fathers because I see the whole Catholic tradition as reactionary.

I challenge any of you to name a prominent Father of the Church who lived within a century and a half of Jesus and I will show you someone whose entire theology is a REACTION against the influence of the Markan See of Alexandria.

Yes Irenaeus was probably accurate in some respects. There may well have been a great diversity of sects and opinions within the 'heretical community.' I am also quite certain that Irenaeus' church - the Catholic Church of Rome - looked organized and uniform in its 'orthodoxy' by comparison. However all of this can be attributed to the fact that the Catholic orthodoxy had just been invented the night before.

I won't get into discussion where I think Irenaeus got his ideas but the short answer is that he robbed the beliefs and established scriptures of the very same traditions he condemned.

For twenty years I have tried to rescue something from this 'original faith.' I made a number of novel discoveries, the most intriguing being that they all go back to St. Mark, that most ignored and abused of apostles - so abused and reviled he isn't even considered a 'true apostle' by the Catholics.

I have explained that the name 'Marcionite' means 'those of Mark' as does the 'Marcosian' sect. 'Marcion,' that greatest of arch-heretical caricatures, is only a back formation from the Aramaic 'Marqiyone.' One of a number of Patristic 'boogeymen' invented by this abuse of the general ignorance of how words are formed in Semitic languages. 'Ebion' of the Evyonim is another Frankenstein-figure developed through back formation. 'Elxai' of the Elchasites is yet another.

In short 'Marcion' and his gospel were really just 'St. Mark' and an older and specifically Alexandrian version of the Gospel of Mark.

Yet after all these little victories I came up against a brick wall. It would impossible to reconstruct what the Marcionite gospel looked like because - quite frankly - the Catholics and their Imperial co-conspirators did such a good job systematically destroying the tradition of St. Mark.

The bottom line is that as I tried to explain to my wife every way we can make sense of what the Marcionite gospel 'must have' looked like I realized I was fighting a losing battle. People will always prefer a sure misrepresentation over an uncertain truth.

I think that's why scholars ignore the heresies - there's just too much uncertainty.

I wrote a book called the Real Messiah where I tried to offer the world a whole different paradigm to understand Christianity based on my best 'hunch.' Yet in the end even that proved too large a leap for most people to take seriously.

Then, owing to the direction of my television documentary - which is coming out in July of 2010 - I started re-evaluating the Letter to Theodore that Morton Smith discovered in the Mar Saba monastery in the fifties.

Initially I have to admit I was reluctant to take sides on whether or not the letter was really authentic. You see, when you live at the periphery of scholarship already the last thing you need is to have your arguments depend on a text that most academics reject as spurious in the first place.

As it turned out the documentary people liked the controversy surrounding the letter and so my attention was focussed once more on Morton Smith's amazing discovery.

I had already read everything that had been published for or against the authenticity of the discovery. The truth is that I couldn't see any smoking gun no matter how hard I tried. I kept asking myself - could one of the greatest minds of the last century really have made up a fake letter as a kind of April Fool's joke on the world?

In the end, I decided to go where the evidence pointed me. There was no case against the authenticity of the letter. The Letter to Theodore just happens to say things that most conservative scholars don't want to hear. It brings Alexandria and all those variant gospel traditions which these men have been so successful at ignoring for the last two hundred years into the fore.

So they found a way of finally making it go away.

Yet look at the testimony of Hadrian in the Letter to Servianus. It explicitly testifies on behalf of the fact that Alexandria had a functioning Papacy a half century before we have any parallel witness to the existence of a Roman Church. Yet these same men find any excuse possible to isolate and ignore this piece of evidence so you start thinking that there is an unconscious agenda behind all the personal attacks against Morton Smith for bringing this letter to our attention in the first place.

As such, when we go back to the Letter to Theodore and realize that there is no substantial case against its authenticity we are left with this very strange idea that our canonical gospel of Mark is somehow 'incomplete.' Indeed it forces us to look at the whole manner in which we approach Christianity.

The Letter to Theodore only mentions two additions to the gospel of Mark of course but this statistic is a little misleading as both additions appear in a discussion of a very small section of the text. If this ration held up over the course of the rest of the narrative we would have something approaching the great number of additions and 'alterations' to the canonical gospels which the Church Fathers report about the aforemented heretical sects of Mark (i.e. the Marcionites and the Marcosians).

So I started asking - what was the original Alexandrian tradition which dated back at least to the time of Hadrian and undoubtedly even older? The more I looked I couldn't help but see that the earliest authorities from Alexandria who are typically identified among the ranks of the Church Fathers - Clement and Origen - actually were undoubtedly heretics doing their best to 'fit in' with the new orthodoxy.

I noticed for instance that Irenaeus cites Clement's writings as if he were a Marcosian. It was only a matter of time before I started realizing the commonality - Clement and the Marcosians were both devoted to a guy named 'Mark' who was undoubtedly the author of the original gospel.

As I started to develop a deeper understanding of what they saying, it became apparent that both took an active interest in the SAME SECTION OF TEXT - the latter portion of the Gospel of Mark chapter 10 - as if it were critical to make sense of the gospel as a literary composition.

The idea comes up time and time again in ancient writers but the Marcosians seem to have developed their liturgical system around this section of text identifying 'another baptism' as being present even when none is explicitly mentioned in our canonical gospel of Mark.

I can't explain the Marcosian efforts to connect a baptism with Mark x.38 without presupposing that the Letter to Theodore is real and that its first 'addition' to the Gospel of Mark (called LGM 1 by scholars) was the foundation of what was called 'the redemption' in Markan circles.

This thing called 'redemption' began in chapter 10 and clearly 'ended' when Jesus ended up appearing crucified in Jerusalem. The best surviving summary of WHY it makes sense to connect this material in Mark x.38 with the 'redemption' of Jesus on the cross is interestingly found in the writings of Irenaeus - the very guy I have noted slams the heretics for believing in one thing and then ends up stealing the idea and changing it a little a few days later.

Listen carefully when Irenaeus explains WHY Mark x.38 SHOULD BE identified as the beginning of the redemption which is fully manifested on the Cross (even though again he just attacked the Marcosians for believing the same thing). Look carefully at the very opening words of his discussion:

But he [Christ], emerging from the depth [of Hell], spat out the brine of sins, and rejoiced to plunge into the sweet waters of piety. And now, in like manner, with regard to that mother of Zebedee's children, do not admire merely what she said, but also the time at which she uttered these words. For when was it that she drew near to the Redeemer? Not after the resurrection, nor after the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom; but it was when the Lord said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again. [Matthew 20:18-19]

These things the Saviour told in reference to His sufferings and cross; to these persons He predicted His passion. Nor did He conceal the fact that it should be of a most ignominious kind, at the hands of the chief priests. This woman, however, had attached another meaning to the dispensation of His sufferings. The Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality. The Lord was asserting that He must stand arraigned before impious judges; but she, taking no note of that judgment, requested as of the judge: Grant, she said, that these my two sons may sit, one on the right hand, and the other on the left, in Your glory. In the one case the passion is referred to, in the other the kingdom is understood. The Saviour was speaking of the cross, while she had in view the glory which admits no suffering. This woman, therefore, as I have already said, is worthy of our admiration, not merely for what she sought, but also for the occasion of her making the request. [Irenaeus Fragment 55]

Irenaeus is clearly developing allegories and arguments from familiar cliches. In this particular case I found it impossible to believe that the reference to Christ having "emerged from the depth [of Hell], spat out the brine of sins, and rejoiced to plunge into the sweet waters of piety" DOES NOT come from Secret Mark. The narrative there presupposes a death and a return from hell as we read that Jesus "went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand." Morton Smith has argued that the text which follows alludes to Jesus baptizing the young man who emerges from the tomb.

Yet most important of all Irenaeus connects the request from Salome (which immediately follows LGM 1) with Christ's 'redemption' in the conclusion. While we cannot accurately how long the original gospel of Mark was (i.e. once all its 'additions' are restored) we can say with some degree of certainty that the ritual called 'redemption' must have formed a central part of the liturgy of the Marcosians and which in turn MIRRORED the original structure of that lost.

This is very important as it turns out because I believe that I can accurately determine that the liturgy of the churches of Mark MUST HAVE identified the gap between baptism and Passion as amounting to EXACTLY thirty days. This inference can be drawn from the testimony of Irenaeus, Hippolytus and the author of the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism.

If LGM 1 is 'day one' we can determine that the baptism occurred on Friday February 23rd, 37 CE in real history. Jesus' crucifixion followed on 'day twenty eight' and Sunday March 25th or 'day thirty' was the date of Christ's resurrection.

We should also keep in mind that Irenaeus tells us over and over again that the Marcosians identified Jesus and Christ as two separate people.

If this was the structure of the liturgy the redemption was based on a gospel which understood the Passion to have begun with Jesus' baptism of his beloved neaniskos (youth) and works its way to their appearance TOGETHER in Jerusalem (Jesus Barsabba and Jesus) and ends with Jesus crucified and Christ watching impassably.

This was the original Alexandrian gospel and this was the original Alexandrian thirty day fast which preceded Easter, both inextricably linked to St. Mark who, it was claimed participated in the very events established in his Church.

Of course thirty days is not the length that would eventually get established as the duration of Lent. The word 'Lent' is a Anglo-Saxon barbarism. The original name of the fast was 'fortieth day' which I believe was merely developed in order to distinguish it from the heretical implications of 'the redemption' which as I noted was thirty days.

Heretical implications?

Thanks to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library scholarship has started to piece together the idea that the redemption of the Marcosian involved angels coming down into the water and uniting themselves with the mortal body of the initiate. That is undoubtedly why the same ritual is identified among the Marcionites as 'the baptism on behalf of the dead.'

Yet there's more.

I can't help but see that ANY discussion of the redemption of Jesus in the period whether Catholic or heretical reflects THE SAME UNDERLYING FORMULA. It's just that we have been preconditioned to avoid seeing the truth by our formulation of what must have been Semitic truths in the Greek language.

Look at the concept of the Passion of Christ. In English whenever we use this term we are conditioned to think in terms of Christ 'suffering.' But this wasn't the original sense of the term. Look at Clement of Alexandria. As a Marcosian he continually refers to the 'impassability' of Christ and those baptized into him. Impassability is a fancy word which means 'without passion' or feelings.

The original Aramaic word behind 'the Passion' meant something different. The event was known as the Transformation of Christbecause - yetzer - necessarily means that it actually means 'nature' rather than 'feeling.' This is very significant and serves as the proper basis to our reevaluation of both the liturgy and the gospel narrative.

During the course of the thirty day 'Passion' Christ was really understood by Clement and his Alexandrian community to have been prepared for a transformation from mortality to immortality. This was the function of 'the redemption.' Just read Irenaeus' many statements on the subject again. You can see the heretical 'peaking' through even though the Church Father has done his best to 'clean up' all those weird gnostic ideas and terminology.

This isn't just 'a guess' on my part; it is implicit from Irenaeus explanation of the term redemption in the passage cited above. Irenaeus goes out of his way to stress that it is a 'passion' because Jesus suffered. But this does not at all follow from the Aramaic original. Indeed Origen goes out of his way in Peri Pascha to declare that pathe has nothing to do with the Christian Passover.

Yet let's not get away from our original discussion.

Once we acknowledge that the original Christians spoke in the Jewish language and thought in the Jewish language we might begin the process of understanding Easter and the fast which preceded it in Jewish terms.

How so?

Well if you actually look at the manner in which Jews in the Middle East have ALWAYS celebrated Passover you see that the preparations begin - yes you guessed it - thirty days before the fourteenth of Nisan.

What's more the whole period is identified as 'the redemption' just as we see among the first Christians 'of Mark.'

So when I put all these details together I can finally make sense of one of the strangest, most impossible to understand things that Irenaeus has ever uttered in all his writings. He writes:

They further maintain that the passion which took place in the case of the twelfth AEon is pointed at by the apostasy of Judas, who was the twelfth apostle, and also by the fact that Christ suffered in the twelfth month. [AH i.3.3]

You can't imagine how I struggled to make sense of this statement. Everyone knows that Passover can't be in the twelfth month and because we all 'know' that the Passion lasted three days. So the only inference we can make is to accept Irenaeus' suggestion that they were crazy, right?

Well not exactly.

Let's look at the same idea as it is repeated time and again in Irenaeus writings as he notes:

They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth AEon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. [ibid ii.20.1]

Indeed the argument occurs over and over again in Irenaeus' writings that there can be no doubt that the original tradition of 'those of Mark' was that the Passion - the 'transformation' - of Christ began in the twelfth month.

Of course when you look at my reconstruction of the thirty day fast which preceded Easter as 'the redemption' of these heretics the liturgical period (based on the lost original gospel of Mark) necessarily would also have started at Purim or the 14th of Adar, the twelfth month of the Jewish calendar.

There is a way to make sense of all of this. All you have to do is incorporate what we have established about a Jewish 'redemption' period which lasted from Purim in the middle of the twelfth month until Passover in the middle of the first month.

In other words, for the followers of Mark 'the Passion' was identical with 'the redemption.' This because this Aramaic speaking community knew the term meant 'the transformation of Christ.'

So how was this possible? How could 'the transformation' be stretched out over thirty days? Well let's go back to the liturgy for a moment. In the fourth century the cetechumen were prepared over forty days. We must imagine that in the churches of Mark their 'redemption' was stretched out over thirty days. In the Catholic tradition that catechumen PLEDGE at the beginning and end up baptized on Easter. I am certain that we reconstruct an understanding of the heretical tradition where initiates were baptized FIRST and then a thirty day redemption period followed developed from the Pidyon Haben ritual of Judaism.

I believe I have already started this process in my previous posts.

For the moment though let's go back to Irenaeus' testimony at the very place we left it to see that he too CONFIRMS the presence of a baptism at the beginning of the Passion in the heretical formula. We read:

There are not, therefore, thirty AEons, nor did 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, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the fullness of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month [ibid]

Indeed at first glance again many might be willing to accept Irenaeus at his word. Yet I think we should start over so we don't lose sight of the truth.

The heretics seemed to have held that there were thirty powers in heaven. Jesus came from heaven embodying its 'fullness' and thus had within himself 'the thirty.'

The number twelve has always been significant for Hebrews. The heretics emphasized that the Passion began in the twelfth month AND EXTENDED into the first month owing to a thirty day redemption period already discussed.

As Irenaeus himself acknowledges elsewhere in the same book:

they maintain that those things [above] 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 [AH ii.15.1]

And again:

they maintain the month to be a type of the thirty and consist precisely of thirty days, but some have more and some less, inasmuch as five days remain to them as an overplus ... 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. [AH ii.24.5]

But Hippolytus who repeatedly says that he has improved the accuracy of Irenaeus' report makes specific mention of the Marcosians identifying the thirty powers with the thirty days of the cycle of the moon:

the moon, which traverses the heaven in thirty days, by reason of (these) days portrays the number of the Aeons [AH vi.48]

The followers of Basilides connected the Aeons to days of the week. Indeed perhaps the closest parallel between the thirty day redemption and the thirty powers in heaven is the manner in which various gnostics understood to be seven - one for each planet - which is the source for the seven days of the week.

It should be noted that the months of certain Jewish sects and the Egyptian population did indeed have twelve months of exactly thirty days plus the five mentioned here. The real question is of course - did the Marcosians hold that Jesus was 'thirty' so that his disciple 'transformed' himself over the thirty days of the redemption period?

Of course i do. It's obvious.

I also think that it is obvious that Irenaeus tells us that this thirty day period began with a baptism which I identify again with LGM 1 as we read:

But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover[ibid]

In other words, Irenaeus points to the Gospel of John to counter the argument that there were thirty days between his baptism and his Passion in Jerusalem. John infers that Jesus went on preaching for years after the baptism and after his going up to Jerusalem. According to Irenaeus the thirty day redemption period was just as stupid as the other things the Marcosians promoted.

Under Irenaeus' REVISED system then:

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 ... He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age." [ibid]

Of course Irenaeus follows up by arguing that BECAUSE Christ is identified as the magister by the heretics this means that Jesus HAD TO HAVE BEEN almost fifty on the cross. This is a stupid argument as magister has been deliberately mistranslated. It must have went back to the Greek word arche which as Tertullian notes was used to denote a heavenly power [Adv Hermogenes 19.2]

To this end I think we can revisit the original gospel passage cited by Irenaeus in a strange textual variation - 'Now Jesus was as it were BEGINNING to be thirty' to imply that in the heretical gospel the same passage would suggest that he was an arche consisting of thirty (powers).

It is worth noting that Schaff recognizes that the opinions of 'those of Mark' are ONCE AGAIN identical with what we find in the writings of Clement of the Alexandrian See of St. Mark. Clement writes "and again in the same book: “And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old,” [Luke iii. 1, 2, 23] 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. [Stromata vi.11]

As Schaff writes, this passage is "a fair parallel to the amazing traditional statement of Irenæus, and his objection to this very idea, vol. i. p. 391, this series. Isa. lxi. 1, 2."

What has escaped everyone is that the 'year of favor' is a specific Jewish messianic concept - the Jubilee. For those who have read my book I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the year Jesus was crucified was 37 CE AND THAT FROM PASSOVER OF THAT YEAR UNTIL THE END OF 38 CE WAS THE SAMARITAN JUBILEE.

Read here if you want to know more.

Indeed let's not forget that Epiphanius reports that the heretics say that Jesus' ministry continued AFTER the Resurrection for up to eighteen months. As such Clement is once again identifying his connection with those traditions identified as 'heretical' by the Church Fathers.

Irenaeus Borrows, Steals and Adapts the Heretical Concept of 'Redemption'

For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person "knew the mind of the Lord," or who else "has become His counsellor?" Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We--who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation --have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,--all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.

Vain indeed are those who allege that He appeared in mere seeming. For these things were not done in appearance only, but in actual reality. But if He did appear as a man, when He was not a man, neither could the Holy Spirit have rested upon Him,--an occurrence which did actually take place--as the Spirit is invisible; nor, [in that case], was there any degree of truth in Him, for He was not that which He seemed to be. But I have already remarked that Abraham and the other prophets beheld Him after a prophetical manner, foretelling in vision what should come to pass. If, then, such a being has now appeared in outward semblance different from what he was in reality, there has been a certain prophetical vision made to men; and another advent of His must be looked forward to, in which He shall be such as He has now been seen in a prophetic manner. And I have proved already, that it is the same thing to say that He appeared merely to outward seeming, and [to affirm] that He received nothing from Mary. For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by which He redeemed us, unless He had summed up in Himself the ancient formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth this opinion, in order that they my exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned.

Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the harms) of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God.

And vain likewise are those [i.e. the Marcionites] who say that God came to those things which did not belong to Him, as if covetous of another's property; in order that He might deliver up that man who had been created by another, to that God who had neither made nor formed anything, but who also was deprived from the beginning of His own proper formation of men. The advent, therefore, of Him whom these men represent as coming to the things of others, was not righteous; nor did He truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man, restoring to His own handiwork what was said [of it] in the beginning, that man was made after the image and likeness of God; not snatching away by stratagem the property of another, but taking possession of His own in a righteous and gracious manner. As far as concerned the apostasy, indeed, He redeems us righteously from it by His own blood; but as regards us who have been redeemed, [He does this] graciously. For we have given nothing to Him previously, nor does He desire anything from us, as if He stood in need of it; but we do stand in need of fellowship with Him. And for this reason it was that He graciously poured Himself out, that He might gather us into the bosom of the Father.

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins." And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,--that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves? [Irenaeus AH v.1 - 2]

Irenaeus' Portrait of Those Who Underwent 'the Redemption'

These men discourse to the multitude about those who belong to the Church, whom they do themselves term "vulgar," and "ecclesiastic." By these words they entrap the more simple, and entice them, imitating our phraseology, that these [dupes] may listen to them the oftener; and then these are asked) regarding us, how it is, that when they hold doctrines similar to ours, we, without cause, keep ourselves aloof from their company; and [how it is, that] when they say the same things, and hold the same doctrine, we call them heretics? When they have thus, by means of questions, overthrown the faith of any, and rendered them uncontradicting hearers of their own, they describe to them in private the unspeakable mystery of their Pleroma. But they are altogether deceived, who imagine that they may learn from the Scriptural texts adduced by heretics, that [doctrine] which their words plausibly teach. For error is plausible, and bears a resemblance to the truth, but requires to be disguised; while truth is without disguise, and therefore has been entrusted to children. And if any one of their auditors do indeed demand explanations, or start objections to them, they affirm that he is one not capable of receiving the truth, and not having from above the seed [derived] from their Mother; and thus really give him no reply, but simply declare that he is of the intermediate regions, that is, belongs to animal natures. But if any one do yield himself up to them like a little sheep, and follows out their practice, and their "redemption," such an one is puffed up to such an extent, that he thinks he is neither in heaven nor on earth, but that he has passed within the fullness; and having already embraced his angel, he walks with a strutting gait and a supercilious countenance, possessing all the pompous air of a cock. There are those among them who assert that that man who comes from above ought to follow a good course of conduct; wherefore they do also pretend a gravity [of demeanour] with a certain superciliousness. The majority, however, having become scoffers also, as if already perfect, and living without regard [to appearances], yea, in contempt [of that which is good], call themselves "the spiritual," and allege that they have already become acquainted with that place of refreshing which is within their fullness.[Irenaeus AH iii.15.2]

Ephrem on the Marcionite Interpretation of Jesus' Angelic Nature

Blessed the womb which bore you and the breast which suckled you. [Luke 10.27] Marcion said, 'They were really tempting him, as to whether he was really born.' Similarly in the case of [the words] Behold your mother and your brothers are seeking you. [Mark 2.22] What was the purpose of the appearance of his body and his nourishment? [Marcion] said, 'That he might hide his greatness and make them believe that he was corporeal, because they were not capable of [grasping] it." [Comm. Diat]

Catalogue of Ancient Manuscripts

I don't know if you are aware of this but BYU just did an inventory of all the manuscripts in a number of ancient churches, monasteries and convents in Egypt and Israel. There's a lot of interesting stuff. Go here to see all the material. I passed on details of the Samaritan material to my friend Benyamim Tsedaka one of the heads of the Samaritan community in Israel. Who knows what you might find!

Tertullian Says that Mary the Mother of Jesus Did Not Follow Jesus

I love Ephrem the Syrian. He witnesses what I consider to be an older 'orthodoxy' but I won't get into my beliefs. Let's allow the Commentary on the Diatessaron (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron. Translated and edited by Carmel McCarthy. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 2) speak for itself. I will start with the comments of McCarthy on the section as a whole:

Ephrem appears to confuse Mary, the mother of Jesus with Mary Magdalene here. See II. 17 above and XXI.27 below for similar types of 'fusion' or confusion and the note on John 20:15 at II. 17 above for the comment on this 'fusion' of the two Marys. [p.98]

I don't believe for one moment that Ephrem is confused. In my opinion, the Syrian tradition is right and our 'separated' gospels are wrong. But again I don't want to let my opinions distract from the original testimony of Ephrem which offers the BEST explanation for how Jesus could have used 'Woman' as part of his address to Mary (answer - Mary wasn't his mother according to Ephrem, she was Mary Magdalene).

Boisimard has argued that two commentaries have been fused into one in the existing MS - the original text of Ephrem being blended with another orthodox treatise by a later editor. He cites this section as an example of the 'diluting' process.

Let me now transcribe the entire section in the Commentary which forms the start of Section V. The Commentary as it now stands begins:

There was a wedding feast in Cana. When our Lord came there, his mother said to him. There is no wine here. He said to her, What is that to me and to you, Woman? My hour has not yet come. This means 'Shall I impose myself on them [the Jews]? Rather, let them perceive themselves that the wine has run short, and let them all ask to drink' ...[p.95]

This is considered to be an example of the 'inauthentic' text of the Commentary and is followed by a much more interesting discussion:

Mary hastened to be a servant of his will instead of the apostles, but since it was not her place to give orders or to anticipate his word, he reproved her for having been hasty. My hour has not come, that is they will ask to drink and become aware that the wine had run short, and thereafter will be the miracle. Thus, after his victory over Sheol, when she saw it, she wished to express affection for him like a mother [cf. John 20.16 - 17]. He entrusted Mary, who had followed him to the cross, to John there saying Woman behold your son, and Young man, behold your mother. [John 19.26-27] He restrained her again from drawing near to him, because he said, 'From henceforth, John is your son.'[p.98]

Okay, now that I have cited the section let me remind the readers of the Coptic tradition which says that St. Mark is John Mark and has a mother named Mary and who appears secretly throughout the narrative.

Indeed I should note that as Tertullian attacks Marcion and the heretics associated with him for denying Jesus had a mother (he was an angel), he gives us a clear idea of what was actually reflected in the Marcionite gospel. So in De Carne Christi:

But as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born, on the ground that he asked, Who is my mother and who are my brethren? So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that remark must be taken into consideration. Well then, in the first place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that he had a mother and brethren ... [t]his I say, in spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from the Gospel the statements that those who marvelled at his doctrine said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters, were very well known to them. 'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom actually he had not.' ...But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord's brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion's day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. [De Carne Christi 7]

Indeed Tertullian's understanding of this passage and others like it is that Mary the mother of Jesus was a real person but she did not accompany him like the Marys and his disciples. Indeed the idea that Jesus' mother never attended him as he progressed through his ministry is reflected elsewhere in Tertullian's texts:

A woman from the multitude cries out, that blessed was the womb that had borne him, and the breasts which had given him suck. And the Lord answers, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it: because even before this he had rejected his mother and his brethren, because he prefers those who hear God and obey him. For not even on the present occasion was his mother in attendance on him. It follows that neither on the previous occasion did he deny having been born. [AM iv.23]

Just thought it would be nice to allow a different perspective to come forward namely that the passages which say that Jesus' mother WAS IN ATTENDANCE with him would likely be seen by Tertullian, Ephrem and Marcion as having been systematically altered by later editors

State Department Details Report of Sad Plight for Assyrian Christians

Washington (AINA) -- The U.S. State Department has released it's annual International Religious Freedom Report, which details religious freedom issues for all countries of the world.

AINA has excerpted the passages relevant to Assyrians from the reports on Iran, Syria Turkey and Iraq -- the ancestral homeland of Assyrians and where Middle East Assyrians live.

The population of Assyrians in these countries is:

Iraq 800,000
Syria (nationals) 700,000
Syria (refugees from Iraq) 500,000
Iran 50,000
Turkey 24,000
Jordan (refugees from Iraq) 150,000

Since 2004 nearly half of Assyrians in Iraq have fled the country because of religious and political violence directed at them (see here and here), with most settling in Syria and Jordan.

Excerpts from each country's report follow.

Iraq
Reported estimates from Christian leaders of the Christian population in 2003 ranged from 800,000 to 1.4 million. Current population estimates by Christian leaders range from 500,000 to 600,000. Approximately two-thirds of Christians are Chaldeans (an eastern rite of the Catholic Church), nearly one-fifth are Assyrians (Church of the East), and the remainder are Syriacs (Eastern Orthodox), Armenians (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), Anglicans, and other Protestants. Most Assyrian Christians are in the north, and most Syriac Christians are split between Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ninewa Province. Christian leaders estimate that as much as 50 percent of the country's Christian population lives in Baghdad, and 30 to 40 percent lives in the north, with the largest Christian communities located in and around Mosul, Erbil, Dohuk, and Kirkuk. The Archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Diocese reported that 15,000 to 16,000 Armenian Christians remained in the country, primarily in the cities of Baghdad, Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Evangelical Christians reportedly number between 5,000 and 6,000. They can be found in the northern part of the country, as well as in Baghdad, with a very small number residing in Basrah.

There were allegations that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) engaged in discriminatory behavior against religious minorities. Christians and Yezidis living north of Mosul claimed that the KRG confiscated their property without compensation and that it began building settlements on their land. Assyrian Christians alleged that the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)-dominated judiciary in Ninewa routinely discriminated against non-Muslims and failed to enforce judgments in their favor. There were reports that Yezidis faced restrictions when entering the KRG and had to obtain KRG approval to find jobs in areas within Ninewa Province administered by the KRG or under the security protection of the Peshmerga.

There were also allegations that the KRG exhibited favoritism toward the Christian religious establishment, and it was alleged that on February 17, 2008, KRG authorities arrested and held incommunicado for four days an Assyrian blogger, Johnny Khoshaba Al-Rikany, based on articles he had posted attacking corruption in the church.

On April 26, 2009, in the city of Kirkuk, three Chaldean Christians were shot and killed in their homes and two others were injured. On April 29, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in Kirkuk received reports that eight suspected members of al-Qa'ida in Iraq had been arrested in connection with the attack. However, the suspects were later released due to lack of evidence, and no additional arrests were made.

On April 2, 2009, according to press reports, three Assyrian Christians were stabbed and killed in their homes in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad. Although the motive is unknown, a local Christian leader indicated that the motivation for the killings was "theft."

On April 1, 2009, a Christian man was found dead in Kirkuk, with his throat slit.

On July 2, 2008, a group calling itself the Battalion of Just Punishment, Jihad Base in Mesopotamia, sent threatening letters to Assyrian churches in Mosul, demanding they not cooperate with Coalition Forces.

In a symbolically significant event, the Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Paulus Faraj Rahho, was kidnapped on February 29, 2008, for failing to pay protection money or "jizya" to Islamic insurgents. The archbishop died while in captivity. Government security forces subsequently arrested one of the kidnappers, and he was sentenced to death.

The security situation in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad improved sufficiently to allow 325 Christian families who had been displaced by sectarian violence to return. Two churches were operating in the neighborhood--one Assyrian Orthodox and one Chaldean--along with a Chaldean seminary. Church leaders reported full attendance at services in these churches throughout the reporting period. Christmas was declared a national holiday, and on December 20, 2008, the Ministry of Interior sponsored a public Christmas event in Baghdad.

Chaldean patriarch Cardinal Delly led Christmas Mass at the Virgin Mary convent church in Baghdad's Karada neighborhood with Ammar Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a prominent member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), in attendance.

Syria
The Government restricts full freedom of choice in religious matters. The Government does not recognize the religious status of Muslims who convert to Christianity. The reverse is not true. In the event of a conversion to Christianity, the Government still regards the individual convert as Muslim and still subject to Shari'a (Islamic Law). A Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man, but a Christian woman can marry a Muslim man. If a Christian woman marries a Muslim man, however, she is not allowed to be buried in a cemetery for Muslims unless she converts to Islam. If a person wants to convert from Christianity to Islam, the law states that the presiding Muslim cleric must inform the prospective convert's diocese.

The largest Christian group is the Greek Orthodox Church, known in the country as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. Most citizens of Armenian descent belong to the Armenian (Apostolic) Church, which uses an Armenian liturgy. The largest Uniate church in the country is the Greek Catholic Church. Other Uniate groups include the Maronite Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, and the Chaldean Catholic Church, which derives from the Nestorian Church. Protestant Christian denominations include Baptists and Mennonites. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) is also present.

All public schools are officially government-run and non-sectarian, although in practice some schools are operated by the Christian and Druze communities. There is mandatory religious instruction in public schools for all religious groups, with government-approved teachers and curriculums. Religious instruction is provided on Islam and Christianity only, and courses are divided into separate classes for Muslim and Christian students. Groups that participate in Islamic courses include Sunni, Shi'a, Alawite, Ismaili, Yezidi, and Druze. Although Arabic is the official language in public schools, the Government permitted the teaching of Armenian, Hebrew, Syriac (Aramaic), and Chaldean in some schools on the premise that they are "liturgical languages." There is no mandatory religious study at the university level.

Iran
By law, religious minorities are not allowed to be elected to a representative body or to hold senior government or military positions, with the exception that 5 of a total 290 seats in the Majles are reserved for religious minorities. Three of these seats are reserved for members of Christian religious groups, including two seats for Armenian Christians and one for Assyrian Christians. There is also one seat to represent Jews and one to represent Zoroastrians. While Sunnis do not have reserved seats in the Majles, they are allowed to serve in the body. Sunni Majles deputies tend to be elected from among the larger Sunni communities. Members of religious minorities are allowed to vote; however, no member of a religious minority, including Sunni Muslims, is eligible to be president.

The Government generally allowed recognized religious minority groups to conduct religious education for their adherents in separate schools, although it restricted this right considerably in some cases. The Ministry of Education, which imposed certain curriculum requirements, supervised these schools. With few exceptions, the directors of such private schools must be Muslim. Attendance at the schools was not mandatory for recognized religious minorities. The Ministry of Education must approve all textbooks used in coursework, including religious texts. Recognized religious minorities could provide religious instruction in non-Persian languages, but such texts required approval by the authorities. This approval requirement sometimes imposed significant translation expenses on minority communities. However, Assyrian Christians reported that their community was permitted to write its own textbooks, which, following government authorization, were then printed at government expense and distributed to the Assyrian community.

In late March 2009, according to domestic human rights groups, a revolutionary court closed the Pentecostal church of Shahr Ara in Tehran, which belongs to Assyrian Christians. According to reports, the stated reason for the closure was the "illegal activities" of converting Muslims to Christianity and "accepting converts" to worship as members of the congregation.

Turkey
The number of Syriac Christians in the southeast was higher before 1990; however, under pressure from government authorities and later under the impact of the war against the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), many Syriacs migrated to Istanbul, western and northern Europe, or North and South America. Over the last several years, small numbers of Syriacs returned from overseas to the southeast, mostly from Europe. In most cases, older family members returned while younger ones remained abroad.

Religious minorities are exempted legally from compulsory religious and moral instruction in primary and secondary schools. The Government claimed that the compulsory instruction covers the range of world religions, but religious minorities asserted that the courses reflect Hanafi Sunni Islamic doctrine and that antimissionary rhetoric remained in compulsory school textbooks. A few religious minorities, such as Protestants and Syriac Orthodox, faced difficulty obtaining exemptions, particularly if their identification cards did not list a religion other than Islam.

Restoration or construction may be carried out on buildings and monuments considered "ancient" only with authorization of the regional board on the protection of cultural and national wealth. Bureaucratic procedures and considerations relating to historic preservation in the past impeded repairs to religious facilities, especially in the case of Syriac and Armenian Orthodox properties.

In August 2008 three muhtars (the lowest level of nonpartisan elected official with limited authority) in Midyat filed a criminal complaint with a local prosecutor against the Syriac Mor Gabriel Monastery, alleging it illegally appropriated territory by building a wall. On May 22, 2009, a local court ruled in favor of the monastery regarding the claims of three local villages. The Department of Forestry and Department of Treasury filed separate cases, accusing the monastery of occupying government-owned forest land and Treasury Department land. Official photographs from the 1950s documented the provincial administrative board's approval of the monastery's borders. The monastery does not have legal status and is represented by a foundation established during the Ottoman Empire. The five local court cases related to forest lands and Treasury Department lands continued at the end of the reporting period (Click here for complete coverage of the St. Gabriel Monastery case).

Syriac residents of Bardakci village who fled in the mid-1980s found upon their return after 2005 that one of the village's two Syriac churches had been converted into a mosque without the Syriac community having been consulted. By mid-2009 construction of a new mosque was underway, and local government authorities assured Syriac leaders that as soon as the new mosque was completed, the converted church would be returned to the Syriac community as a place of worship. Some returning Syriacs claimed that government authorities reclassified properties while the Syriacs were out of the country in ways that caused them to lose some of their land.

In November 2008 a court convicted four suspects, including one village guard, to a total of 60 years' imprisonment for the November 2007 kidnapping of Syriac priest Edip Daniel Savci in Midyat. Three other suspects were acquitted.

Did Mohammed Ultimately Get Islam's Thirty Day Fast From the "Redemption" of the Secret Gospel of Mark?

I happen to have an uncle who is a Christian native of Palestine. He is Armenian and speaks fluent Arabic and has told me a story about the founder of Islam, which says that many of his teachings were derived from his acquaintance with his teacher a Coptic priest. Whatever the case may be, as we have been developing an argument that at one time Christians did indeed celebrate a thirty day fast it is worth noting that some Christians in the East - i.e. outside of the control of Rome - did indeed preserve the original thirty day fast.

Wagtendonk writes "the Koran itself indicates that the obligation to fast did not come out of the blue by explicit reference to fasts of preceding religious communities." Indeed al-Fihrist of al-Nadim about a thirty-day fast among the Manichaeans and Harranians.

As I have shown in many ways and on many different occasions, the Acts of Archelaus - a text set in Harran - is a Marcionite text. The main character, Marcellus, is after all the Latin equivalent of the Greek 'Marcion,' his beliefs are explicitly Marcionite (Paul as the Paraclete), and only the bishop Archelaus can actually 'see' him.

There can be no doubt that if my understanding is correct the Manichaeans got their idea for the thirty day fast from the Marcionites of Harran. The purpose of Mani's visit to Harran is to gain 'Marcellus' acknowledgement that he was the true Paraclete. 'Marcellus' does not speak to anyone but Archelaus who in turn argues on behalf of the original understanding of 'Marcellus' and Paul that the Apostle alone was the Paraclete.

Indeed if we look carefully at the two thirty day fast we have knowledge of - those of the Manichaeans and the Muslims - it is quite clear that they were both developed relative to a Passover or Easter context. Kramer notes:

According to Ibn al-Nadim the Manichaeans used to fast until sunset for thirty days beginning at Aquarius - i.e. March from the eighth day - quite significantly 1 Ramadan on the first higra fell on the 9th of March 623. To be sure this datum merits consideration.

The point now is that we have a thirty day fast in two traditions one can argue developed in close contact with the Marcionites of Harran.

The Original Jewish Context for Lent

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 ...