Irenaeus explicitly connects this idea to a group associated with 'Mark':
And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, "And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it." Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?" Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.[Irenaeus AH i.21.2]
There is of course no doubt that Irenaeus is telling us the Marcosians had a baptism ritual called the apolutrosis which was superior to the water immersion associated by other Christians with John the Baptist. Nevertheless, I get the distinct feeling that Irenaeus is citing HIS version of the gospel of Mark which subtly argues AGAINST the notion of another baptism being hidden in certain heretical variations of the narrative BECAUSE Jesus is implying here that the baptism he was to baptize his disciples had yet to come.
Could the Marcosians have had a different reading of the same material?
Let's first break apart the two quotes:
And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it.
and then:
they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, "Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with? [Irenaeus AH i.21]
The first thing that strikes me is that the addition of the word 'another' to Luke 12:50 seems uniquely Marcosian. The implication is 'other' than water immersion of John the Baptist. I am not sure that this is the original reading I prefer the parallel citation in the Egyptian gospel of the Pistis Sophia has Jesus clearly emphasizes that he will establish a baptism which will baptize others "I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished?" This has to be the original reading behind the rest of the Marcosian understanding - i.e. that Jesus was establish a new kind of baptism for the world.
Irenaeus doesn't say which text he is citing. If it is Matthew it is a rare text. The only other early MS of Matthew to have the extra line is the Codex Ephraemi (fifth century). Yet the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism has the same to quotes directed against the same Marcosian heresy (both reference the heretical sects relation to Anaxilaus - see below) but here the textual reading is explicitly 'Markan':
But "I have another baptism to be baptized with." [Luke 12:50] Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: "Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" [Mark 10:38] Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism [Anonym. Treat. 14]
and then notice what follows later in the treatise - a clear echo of Irenaeus's reference to the beliefs of the Marcosians:
lest perchance some heretic should dare, of his subtlety, to assail those of our brethren who are more simple. For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; you have neither part nor lot in this work; for your heart is not right with God. [Acts 8:20-21] And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be— of Anaxilaus— whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. [Anonymous Treatise 16]
It is easy to demonstrate that this treatise comes from the same original report as that which Irenaeus draws from - i.e. regarding the heretic Marcus. Yet the context is lost on scholars who immediately want to connect the report to the Ebionite tradition that when Jesus came to the Jordan that fire was on the waters.
This was not the original source but a parallel development from the original source which is the Samaritan idea - developed in the writings of Mark - that when the Israelites were crossing the sea fire was present in the water.
This is why Irenaeus connects the heretical baptism of Mark with Anaxilaus because as Pliny reports:
Anaxilaus used to employ this substance [sulfur] by way of pastime : putting sulphur in a cup of wine, with some hot coals beneath, he would hand it round to the guests, the light given by it, while burning, throwing a ghastly paleness like that of death upon the face of each. [Pliny Natural Science 35]
The common thread is the idea of a fascination with the concept of 'fire' being present in a liquid. Irenaeus' source was likening the Alexandrian interest in associating 'fire being in the water' during baptism. As noted this is developed in a number of Alexandrian texts including Origen's Commentary on John cited above.
In the Pistis Sophia we not only see a variant reading - no reference to 'another' baptism which implies that there was no preceding 'John the Baptist baptism' (as with the Marcionite gospel). The context is important too. After Jesus explains the fire is present in the waters of baptism to his disciples, Mary gives the proper interpretation for a number of baptism references in the gospel:
Then Mary started forward and said: "Yea, my Lord, in truth I enquire closely into all the words which thou sayest. Concerning the word then of the forgiveness of sins thou hast spoken unto us in similitude aforetime, saying: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth,' and again: 'What will I that it burn?' And again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished? Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three.' This, my Lord, is the word which thou hast spoken clearly.
"The word indeed which thou hast spoken: 'I am come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I that it burn?'--that is, my Lord: Thou hast brought the mysteries of the baptisms into the world, and thy pleasure is that they should consume all the sins of the soul and purify them. And thereafter again thou hast distinguished it clearly, saying: 'I have a baptism, to baptize in it; and how shall I endure until it is accomplished?'--that is: Thou wilt not remain in the world until the baptisms are accomplished and purify the perfect souls.
"And moreover the word which thou hast spoken unto us aforetime: 'Think ye I am come to cast peace on the earth? Nay, but I am come to cast division. For from now on five will be in one house; three will be divided against two, and two against three,'--that is: Thou hast brought the mystery of the baptisms into the world, and it hath effected a division in the bodies of the world, because it hath separated the counterfeiting spirit and the body and the destiny into one portion; the soul and the power on the other hand it hath separated into another portion;--that is: Three will be against two, and two against three."
And when Mary had said this, the Saviour said: "Well said, thou spiritual and light-pure Mary. This is the solution of the word." [Pistis Sophia Book III, Chapter 116]
If the reader goes back to the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (where the orthodox authorities ATTACK the Alexandrian understanding several of these passages are specifically referenced.
Some other notes on textual variants that might have been present in the Marcosian gospel:
The Arabic Diatessaron placed "And I have a baptism to be baptized with, and greatly am I straitened till it be accomplished" long before the equivalent Mark x.35. In section 27 of the Arabic Diatessaron we read:
And I have a baptism to be baptized with, and greatly am I straitened till it be accomplished. See that ye despise not one of these little ones that believe in me. Verily I say unto you, Their angels at all times see the face of my Father which is in heaven. The Son of man came to save the thing which was lost.
It is important to note that in Ephrem's Diatessaron there is no "can you be baptized with the baptism I will be baptized with" at the tail end of Jesus's announcement to the brothers Zebedee as we read in his commentary on the related section in the Diatessaron:
[the] two sons, came forward, and said unto him, Teacher, we would that all that we ask thou wouldest do unto us. He said unto them, What would ye that I should do unto you? They said unto him, Grant us that we may sit, the one on thy right, and the other So on thy left, in thy kingdom and thy glory. And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it. [section 30]
So we should see that instead of:
And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? and with the baptism that I am to be baptized with, will ye be baptized? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized ye shall be baptized: but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.
Ephrem's Diatessaron just read:
And Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am to drink? And they said unto him, We are able. Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink but that ye should sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give; but it is for him for whom my Father hath prepared it.
I have also discovered that Ephrem's Commentary not only supports the Marcosian ideas regarding 'redemption' in this passage but their (and the greater Alexandrian communities idea that Jesus wanted 'the chalice' to be passed on to the Church through his prepared representative (John Mark) as he notes in his Commentary again:
our Lord said to them "Are you able to drink of the chalice that I am about to drink?" to show that [such places] are to be bought at a price. "Like me." [p. 239]
A little later he does reference a series of sayings which explain Jesus' saying about 'letting the chalice pass from me' he DOES connect Mark x.38 with baptism but it is with Luke 12.50 as he goes back through the gospel demonstrating all the sayings which prove that Jesus wanted others to partake of the chalice:
If he had not wanted to drink it, he certainly did not refuse to drink. If he had not wished to drink it, but rather had wanted to reject it, he would not have compared his body to the temple in this saying, Destroy this temple and on the third day I will rebuild it, [nor would he have said] to the sons of Zebedee, Can you drink the chalice which I am going to drink? [Nor would he have said], There is a baptism for me [with which] I must be baptized, and, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so will the Son of Man be in the bosom of the earth ...
Origen has a similar idea in his Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John makes no reference to the John the Baptist baptism of Jesus. So as Origen goes line by line through the Gospel of John and he comes to the words of the Baptist, "I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit" he decides to whisper to his audience that there is something they don't know about baptism.
Indeed immediately after his citation John 1:33 Origen explains "baptize you with the Holy Spirit" as a reference to "His last baptism, as some hold, that He (also) references in the words, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?'" (Luke 12:50)
So Origen is implying that THERE IS A TRADITION which connects Luke 12:50 with 'another baptism' which Jesus would introduce to the world.
Epiphanius says that the so-called Marcionites also took the same passage to mean a baptism given by Jesus:
He [Marcion] says that after the Lord's baptism by John he told the disciples, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with and why do I wish to if I have already accomplished it?' And again, 'I have a cup to drink and why do I wish to if I have already fulfilled it?' And because of this he decreed the giving of more baptisms[Epiphanius Panarion Section Marcionites III.3.9]
And if we go back to Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron he alludes to a similar situation when he implies that Marcion kept the reference to Jesus being thirty but erased the baptism reference at the beginning of Luke:
Jesus was about thirty years, when he came to be baptized. This [was] confusion for Marcion. For, if he had not assumed a body why should he have approached baptism. A divine nature does not need to be baptized. [But] does not the fact that he was thirty years also disclose his humanity [Ephrem Comm. Diat. IV.1a]
I clearly see this as a confirmation that Ephrem accused Marcion of deleting the 'baptism by John the Baptist' passage but retaining the Jesus was thirty reference.
Immediately following these lines Ephrem writes:
just as he [Jesus] clothed himself with a body and appeared as in need, so too he drew near to baptism to testify to the truth especially that through his baptism he might mark an ending for that [baptism of John], for he had baptized once again those who had been baptized by John. He showed that [the baptism of John] had served up until a time only, since true baptism [or the 'baptism of truth'] which purifies from the evil of the Law, was revealed through him. [ibid 1c]
This seems to imply again that Jesus was introducing his own form of baptism which is expanded a little further again in what follows:
Through baptism [the Lord] assumed the justice of the Old [Testament] in order to receive the perfection of the anointing and to give it fully and in its entirety to his disciples. For he put an end to John's baptism and the Law at the same time. He was baptized in justice, because he was sinless, but he baptized in grace because [all others] were sinners. Through his justice he dispensed the Law and through his baptism he abolished baptism. [ibid 2]
There always seems to be some awareness in these ancient tradition that Jesus did dispense 'another baptism' to a disciple or disciples but that tradition inevitably gets reconciled IN ALL TRADITIONS BUT THE MARCIONITES with the Catholic claims about John the Baptist. This even though it is readily apparent that whatever John's baptism was it was rendered useless by the coming of Jesus!
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."