Secret Mark and Chekhov's Gun

Chekhov once wrote that if you introduce a gun in the beginning of a play it has to go off before the play ends.   I read the Gospel According to Mark in a very different manner than most of my colleagues.  I think the enthronement ending in Mark's gospel was connected with the beginning of the Alexandrian Episcopal line which extended from the throne of St. Mark.

While Irenaeus [AH iii.10.5] emphasizes that the PROPER ending to any gospel claiming to be written by Str. Mark reflects JESUS enthroned in heaven, he essentially whispers here and elsewhere [AH iii.11.7] that a variant heretical gospel had 'Christ' - a wholly separate figure - ending up sitting in a wholly terrestrial throne.

Indeed Irenaeus announces elsewhere that "they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within" the earth [AH iv.3.1]

Now let me tell my readers why I think the Alexandrians had the correct reading.  You won't find other scholars even attempting this because - quite frankly - they are already partisans for an inherited world view.  I didn't start out life as an apologist for the Coptic tradition.  In fact, I have found that only a very small number of the surviving Coptic tradition are even prepared to accept my theories.  Nevertheless, I think they are very logical (all crazy people think their views make perfect sense).

I take Mark to be the greatest of writers.  A great narrative MUST, as Chekhov notes, only introduce elements which 'move along' the purpose of the narrative.  THERE HAS TO BE A REASON why Salome's request for the enthronement of her offspring (Mark 10:35 - 45; Matt 20:20-28) is introduced to the narrative.

The pious just view the material as a kind of 'video recording' of events during Jesus' ministry.  These pitiable fools miss the whole glory which is St. Mark's original composition.  Mark arranged the material to reflect something more than just Jesus' less-than-a-year-long-ministry.  It wouldn't be a great work - even the greatest work of all time - if it was just 'newspaper reporting.'

Mark wrote his gospel in such a way as to say that Jesus helped usher in the long awaited kingdom of God.  The kingdom of God isn't some magical concept like a flying saucer came down from heaven in the shape of a 'kingdom.'  The kingdom of God is the Church which represents the physical world transformed after the assembly of angels in heaven.

In other words, Mark was writing about HIS Church in Alexandria.  He is using a narrative based on God coming down to earth (Jesus in 37 CE) TO PROPHESY the ushering in of 'the kingdom of God' after the destructive events of the Jewish War (c. 70 CE).

My guess, and it is only a guess so far, is that while the temple of Jerusalem was finally destroyed in this period, the replica temple in Alexandria continued to function in the world to come (i.e. the age AFTER 70 CE) but with a messianic reformation of the old covenant.  In any event so much for my theory.

Nevertheless it should be noted that the Alexandrians HAVE ALWAYS believed that Mark wrote his gospel in such a way so as to prophesy the advent of their tradition.  We shouldn't sneer at them.  The Roman Church has done the very same thing with lines THAT WERE ADDED TO THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE IN THE THIRD CENTURY, such as the words to Peter "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." [Matt 16:19]

Irenaeus doesn't know this line and would have cited them if he did as it furthered his argument for the sanctity of the Roman Church.  But the point is - as I have shown on numerous occasions - the Alexandrian Church always took the various 'rock' references in the Gospel (Mark 4:30 - 32) to have been Mark's way of foreshadowing the establishment of his 'assembly' (ekklesia) on a large rock on the eastern shores of Alexandria where waves were known to crash (cf. Severus of Al'Ashmunein History of the Patriarchs 1:2)

In any event, this is again only one example of how the Alexandrian Church understood the gospel written by Mark to point to the ekklesia established by same Evangelist.  The language of To Theodore (written by one of the earliest representatives of the Alexandrian tradition) reflects much the same idea.

Let's take the example of LGM 1, the first addition to the Gospel of Mark mentioned in to Theodore.  As I have been noting all week now, Jesus is portrayed as initiating this young man 'into mystery of the kingdom of God.'   The nakedness has led to some insults from the Carpocratians (who do not keep the original Alexandrian gospel in its original form).  As the only historical Carpocratians we ever hear of live in Rome I suspect that Irenaeus' deliberate use of the Latin descendo to describe these rites was shared by the Carpocratians.

Irenaeus says that the only true baptism narrative has a dove descend on Jesus.  We all know the kind of narrative Irenaeus means.  It's in OUR gospels.  But those gospels were clearly originally edited or approved by either Irenaeus or later Christians in the third and fourth century who shared his original editorial instincts.

Against the idea of dove descending on Jesus, Irenaeus mentions incorrect baptism narratives in gospels associated with heretical groups where Jesus descended on another figure who identified as the messiah or 'Christ' by the sects.  As I have shown however descendo has a secondary meaning which alluded to the going down into or penetrating of another human being - i.e. sexual intercourse.

This is where I think the HOSTILE 'naked man and naked man' reference to the Alexandrian gospel circulating among 'the Carpocratians' got started.

In any event, I believe that LGM 1 had nothing to do with homosexuality.  The real idea is reflected in Ephesians chapter 2 where the Apostle explicitly says:

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him ... in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace ... For it is by grace you have been saved ... for we are God's workmanship, created in Christ ... For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. [Ephesians 2:6 - 16]

Notice that the passage begins with an enthronement reference and ends with the idea that the two have become one (i.e. Jesus and a separate figure later named 'Christ'). I can't help see this as rooted in the Alexandrian Episcopal throne of St. Mark as a reference to Zechariah 6:9f is etched in the backrest (i.e. where Christ and Jesus sit as one together on the chair).

I know these are difficult concepts for my readership to understand without the proper knowledge of the mysticism which develops in later Alexandrian Christianity but I inevitably reference to Stephen J Davis' exceptional scholarship on these matters (although, as I note, I feel he underestimates the role played by the throne of St. Mark in this regard).  Davis makes clear that the Incarnation wasn't just associated with Jesus birth to the Virgin Mary.  The Incarnation is seen as a process that continues in the Alexandrian Church down to the present age where the members of the church seek to become angels through participation in the sacraments.

The Alexandrian tradition also makes explicit that the throne of St. Mark is the 'Virgin Mary' which continues the process of Incarnation through the Patriarchs of the tradition.  But enough distraction.

The important thing for us to focus on is the clear understanding in Clement's Letter to Theodore that what is written in St. Mark's gospel - viz. the mystery imparted from Jesus to his disciple (later identified as 'Christ' I suspect) - IS CARRIED ON TO THIS DAY by the Alexandrian Church.  It is another example of that transference from 'narrative about something that happened during Jesus ministry' to 'sacrament practiced ONLY by the Alexandrian Church.'

I have always argued that of the handful of scholars who take the Letter to Theodore seriously almost none of them have any knowledge about how the Alexandrian tradition has actually functioned over the last two thousand years.  This explains why they have such difficulty actually formulating anything resembling an explanation of what the document actually says.

For better or worse I am the only game in town folks.  The rest of the lot are set up only to do battle with Stephen Carlson.  As the day is dawning when the silly ideas of the Gospel Hoax are going away, they might actually have to come up with explanations of their own as to what the text actually tells us about Alexandrian Christianity.

God help us all.

So given the fact that I am the only game in town now, let's take a second look at the 'transference' I am referencing.  Before Clement alludes to LGM 1 he says that Mark

brought in certain sayings [in addition to what was laid down in a narrative written for Peter] of which he [Mark] knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

Now those handful of scholars who actually take to Theodore seriously HAVE TO INTERPRET the line 'lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils' ALLEGORICALLY - i.e. as some 'mystical mumbo jumbo' because they don't have a clue what an Alexandrian house of worship looks like, where the adyton was located, how it was separated from the rest of the catechumen by curtains or veils and how a throne called 'truth' or aletheias [Isa 16:5 LXX] stood in the most prominent position of that inner sanctum.

When I talk about these things to these people I might as well be speaking Chinese.

The point I want to raise in this post however is that we should take care to note how Clement is saying all of this BEFORE he brings forward A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a saying not found in the other gospel Mark wrote for Peter - i.e. a saying which is only found in the guarded or secret Alexandrian gospel of Mark - which was laid down by Mark as a mystagogue (i.e. one who presided over sacred mysteries) to lead people to want to 'go over to the other side' of that curtain and partake in what was going on in the inner sanctum.

You see, it follows the pattern of saying we have already noted, where Mark is directing people to his 'secret mysteries' in Alexandria.

Now I have argued time and again that the throne of St Mark was at the center of these mysteries.  The image of a man seated on a replica of the divine chariot in heaven was a powerful symbol illustrating that God's presence was hear on earth in a living form.

But let's go back to our original point.

LGM 1 appears in a section which I call "Chekhov's gun" because the foreshadow the eventual enthronement of 'Christ' at the end of the narrative.  The section as a whole would read:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, 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. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Now I want to stress that this is the most simplified exposition of how this section must have actually read in Clement's Alexandria. We see from Quis Dives Salvetur that his version of Mark's narrative does not match up to our own in every detail.

I find it hard to believe for instance that the Alexandrian text would remove Salome, the mother of the James and John from the narrative. I also think that from what we see in LGM 2 that the Alexandrian Gospel According to Mark resembled the Diatessaron in many respects. Thus it is VERY, VERY important to note that Ephrem's Diatessaron NEVER, NEVER includes the business about:

"'You don't know what you are asking,' Jesus said. 'Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?' "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, 'You will drink the cup I drink ..."

We see not only in Ephrem's Diatessaron but in the Egyptian gospel of the Pistis Sophia the clear indication that this material was placed much earlier in the narrative, arguing - I believe - for the idea that the baptism where Jesus and disciple are baptized TOGETHER - is in fact LGM 1. In other words, that the oldest versions of the gospel had a place for a 'second baptism' an idea confirmed also in the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism.

Now as I have noted many times here, Irenaeus [AH i.21.1 - 3] explicitly references a redemption (apolytrosis) baptism ritual being present in the gospel of a heretical community associated with Mark (viz. 'the Marcosians'). Scholars from the last century have recognized that Clement's writings betray contact with 'those of Mark.' I would argue of course that that is because Mark is St. Mark and the tradition of the 'Marcosians' is that of the Alexandrian tradition of Clement.

In other words, it confirms once again that the Letter to Theodore is referencing real historical ideas in circulation in the late second century.

The Diatessaron of Ephrem not only places the 'Can you be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized' BEFORE the material found in Mark chapter 10 but also has a very different version of the enthronement which ends the gospel.  The figure who is enthroned is called 'Christ' rather than Jesus and there is no reason to think that the enthronement happened in heaven rather than on earth - as Irenaeus tells us is held by his heretical opponents.

An even more amazing pattern occurs in the Egyptian gospel of the Pistis Sophia. Where as Mark has Jesus DENY that the enthroned disciples will be rulers of the world:

You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all [Mark 10:42 - 44]

The Egyptian gospel clearly argues that the enthroned disciples WILL rule with Jesus over the population of the whole world.  We read:

On this account have I said unto you aforetime: 'Ye will sit on your thrones on my right and on my left in my kingdom and will rule with me.' [Book Two Chapter 96]

But we should pay careful attention that the two offspring of Salome are not identified as James and John but Mary Magdalene and John:

On this account I have said unto you aforetime: 'Where I shall be, there will be also my twelve ministers.' But Mary Magdalene and John, the virgin, will tower over all my disciples and over all men who shall receive the mysteries in the Ineffable. And they will be on my right and on my left. And I am they, and they are I. [ibid]

Clearly then there were great variations in form of the original gospel.  I cannot of course prove that any or all of these things were part of Clement of Alexandria's Gospel of Mark but the pattern I think suggests that the disciple who is pointed out as being worthy to sit in the throne - John - must also be identified with Mark, the founder of the Alexandrian tradition.

Of course we aren't yet a position to prove these assertions yet.  It is enough that we clear the way for their eventual revelation as we comb through the material in Irenaeus writings regarding the so-called 'Marcosian sect.'  A new day is dawning my friends, and no one is prepared for it yet.