This was the original ending of the 'curtailed' gospel of Mark reflected (negatively) through anti-Marcionite sources (Tertullian Against Marcion 43) and positively in Clement's writings (i.e. not merely the Letter to Theodore but Clement's consistent Marcionite interpretation of the Apostolikon material). When the apostle declared that he originally only proclaimed 'Jesus and him crucified' (1 Cor 2.2) this was taken by this underlying Alexandrian tradition (hence the Marcionite canon's preservation of an Epistle to the Alexandrians) to be a reference to the 'curtailed' public gospel and what follows (1 Cor 2.6,7; 3.10) regarding a 'secret wisdom' reserved for the perfect - the mystic gospel of Mark.
Again the important thing to learn from what we have established is that it was Irenaeus who deliberately manufactured the Gospel of Luke from the arguments of the Marcionite Antitheses which apparently accompanied this publicly circulating gospel. There were reports of a Marcionite 'secret gospel' and Irenaeus deals with them as if they represented a separate heretical group affiliated with Marcion (i.e. 'others' cf. AH 3.11.7, 8). The idea of two Marcionite bodies has not been noted before but it is important to note that the second groups affilitation with 'Marcionitism' cannot be questioned given that what is established at the beginning of the chapter (i.e. Marcion's 'rejection' of the Gospel of John AH 3.11.2) is confirmed as one of the tenets of these 'other' Marcionites in AH 3.11.8) and the Philosophumena's parallel identification of a Marcionite 'Gospel of Mark' (7.18 cmp AH 3.11.7).
Once we accept that it was Irenaeus who developed the Gospel of Luke to distract from the original Marcionite paradigm of a short 'public' and long 'secret' Gospel of Mark we can use its grounding in 1 Cor 2.1 - 3.10 to our advantage. For it is very puzzling that the apostle specifically identifies the short gospel as proclaiming only 'Jesus and him crucified' (1 Cor 2.2) and Clement in to Theodore 'the acts of the Lord'). One would have expected 'Jesus and him raised.'
Why not reference the public gospel as the one whch proclaims 'Jesus and him raised'?
It cannot be denied that the endings of Mark and Luke reflect some sort of original understanding that Mary did not see Jesus raised. So it is that the editor (Irenaeus?) is able to have an angel (or angels) only tell Mary that Jesus was raised. It is clearly keeping to the sense of the original Marcionite gospel (ur-Mark if you will). Matthew only 'cheats' by having Jesus outside greeting Mary after the same narrative. It is Irenaeus's report about the 'other' Marcionite Gospel of Mark however which explains the original Marcionite interpretation of the showing of his 'hand' to Mary. Tertullian's (Against Marcion 43) attempt at explanation shows he had no first-hand knowledge of Marcionite exegesis.
For Irenaeus says quite specifically that the 'other' Marcionites "separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered" (AH 3.11.7) from their original Gospel of Mark. The implication clearly is that the 'Christ' who showed his hands to Mary to indicate the stigmata was not Jesus according to this formulation but the other 'Christ' figure mentioned above.
In other words, Mary walks in sees the empty tomb (which indicates that Jesus had no body) and then is ultimately greeted by 'Christ' who proves that Jesus is now within him (or has become one with him) by means of the mystic rites imparted to him by the Lord including baptism (which explains the baptism ritual of to Theodore II.23 - III.11).
It must be remembered that von Harnack acknowledges that there was no baptism of Jesus by John in the Marcionite gospel. Tertullian not only says that (a) Jesus immediately enters the synagogue after coming down from heaven in the 'curtailed' public gospel of the Marcionites but (b) that the name 'John' only appears 'suddenly' (Against Marcion 4.12) for the first time in the section which begins with the equivalent of Mark 2.14/Luke 5.27. As such the underlying context of the Marcionite gospel was wholly different - it was of God's 'mystic' preparation of a particular disciple for the messianic throne.
Of course the existence of a 'curtailed' public gospel explains how the Catholic misunderstanding about 'Jesus Christ' ultimately developed (at least from a Marcionite perspective). There was no attempt to distinguish between 'Jesus' and 'Christ' at least openly (other than Jesus's consistent denial that he was the Christ or 'the Son.' Marcionite doctrine was clearly a development of what appears in Philo regarding of two heavenly powers of mercy and judgment. 'Marcion' apparently developed this into two manifestations of the messiah - i.e. Jesus the good and 'Christ' who is all the things expected of the tradition Jewish messiah (i.e. a royal, bloodthirsty figure occupied with exacting divine judgment). Celsus certainly knew of this formulation (cf. Against Celsus 4.73) and it is clearly reflected in the two advent system of the Alexandrian Fathers including Clement and Origen.
Who then was this 'Christ' who wasn't Jesus? Origen makes this absolutely clear for us. He was the apostle who declares that he 'bears the marks of Christ' (Gal 6.17) on his body. Of course to understand the Marcionite doctrine buried in Origen's writings (which have been superficially 'cleaned up' from showing signs of contact with the heresy of his patron Ambrose, the deacon of the Church of St. Mark and 'former' Marcionite) we have to go back to all that we have shown were hallmarks of Marcionitism over the last posts but most importantly (a) a eunuch presbytery and (b) an interest in Daniel as a eunuch prophet for the coming of Christ.
When all of this is recalled it will be very easy to reconstruct the original Marcionite formulation 'Christ' (not Jesus) resurrected and displaying "the mark's of Christ" to Mary Magdalene as a sign that Jesus is now tabernacling in his flesh (cf. John 1.14). Origen the castrated eunuch presbyter, obviously channeling his crypto-Marcionite roots writes at one point in his Homilies on Ezekiel that it is:
now obviously Noah had sons, but let us try to imagine how Daniel will be shown to have had sons, since the Jews have the tradition that he was a eunuch. Well, since his soul was fertile and holy, and since by prophetic and divine words he procreated many children, therefore it is said: "If for instance Noah and Job and Daniel were present at this time or that, they alone will be saved [Ezekiel 14:14,18] So then, even we can become a Daniel, and lest I enumerate all the saints, I can be a Paul, if I become an imitator of him who says: "Be imitators of me" [1 Cor 11:1]. This will happen if I have the cautery by which Paul was marked [cf. Gal 6.17] if I possess the same form by which he was formed in Christ, through which he said like a good father: "My little children, for whom I suffer birth pains again until Christ is formed in you" [Gal 4:19]. But if I am exposed for bearing a counterfeit resemblance, since Paul had a different form than I have in my soul, then I am deceiving myself when I say: You are his son, you are Paul's seed. Do not be amazed that you may become the apostle's son. If you possess the virtues, you will even become Christ's son. For he says: "Little sons, I am with you still for a little while" (John 13:33] . But when you become Christ's, you will also belong to the Almighty Father, since they are of a single and unified nature. [Origen Fourth Homily on Ezekiel]
It has always bothered me to no end when scholars buy into the castration of Origen either as some 'invention' of later Patristic writers or uncritically follow the claim that it was some misguided 'inspiration' on Origen's part promoted by these same sources. Origen's castration witnesses his Alexandrian traditions development from the classic 'Marcionitism' preserved in other sources (Origen only witnessing how it had to survive through sophisticated allegorism and superficial embracing of foreign 'rules' of what was 'orthodox').
While this passage does not overtly witness is how Marcionites jumped from the 'Christ' who wasn't Jesus witness of the stigmata to Galatians 6.17 this is done in another passage from the Homilies on Luke. Clearly we need only recognize that Origen is deliberately avoiding acknowledging himself as a Marcionite with his empty protestations:
The apostle Paul warns against inordinate and irrational love when he says of himself, "I fear that someone might have an opinion of me above what he sees or hears from me, and that the greatness of the revelations might exalt me," and so on. (2 Cor 12:6-7) Paul feared that even he might fall into this error. So he was unwilling to state everything about himself that he knew. He wanted no one to think more of him than he saw or, going beyond the limits of honor, to say what had been said about john, that "he was the Christ." Some people said this even about Dositheus, the heresiarch of the Samaritans; others said it also about judas the Galilean. Finally, some people burst forth into such great audacity of love that they invented new and unheard of exaggerations about Paul. For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of "sitting at the Savior's right and left" (Mk 10:38) applies to Paul and Marcion: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left. Others read the passage, "I shall send you an advocate, the Spirit of Truth," (Jn 14:16) and are unwilling to understand a third person besides the Father and the Son, a divine and exalted nature. They take it to mean the apostle Paul. Do not all of these seem to you to have loved more than is fitting and, while they admired the virtue of each, to have lost moderation in love?" [Origen, Homilies on Luke 23]
I think people must be blind not to be able to connect the two passages just cited from Origen. On the one hand Origen is able to acknowledge that the mystery of Alexandrian Christianity is developed from the apostle witnessing the 'marks of Christ' on his body (Gal 6.17) but he stops short of (openly) connecting this with the Christ in the tomb who shows Mary this very thing.
Indeed Origen clearly identifies the Marcionites in the last passage as those who have 'fallen into error' by identifying the apostle as their Christ and Paraclete while in the previous passage he is the very template for the mysteries of the Alexandrian tradition. The 'mark' on his hand become the justification for ritual castration and the 're-formation' of men after the image of 'Christ.' How can these now be separated? Indeed Tertullian's many references to Marcion being castrated cannot be accounted merely by assuming that he is some second century figure because as von Harnack acknowledges Mark 10:38 becomes the justification for Marcion sitting on the throne.
We must go back to Clement's identification of Marcion's conversion to Christianity at the time of Simon's hearing the preaching of Peter as an Alexandrian dating for Marcion in the apostolic period. Indeed Tertullian also shows contact with this tradition when he says that he says that Marcion's 'curtailing' of the original gospel happened at the time of Antoninus but that Marcionites themselves say it happened at the time of the Apostolikon.
The only solution which makes sense of course is again that 'Marcion' is only a diminutive of Mark (an affectionate sign of affection used to address the early third century Popes in Rome as Hilgenfeld notes). As such 'Marcion' on the throne is really 'Mark' and the 'throne' is the patriarchal line established in Alexandria in his name. How can we reconcile the Marcionite Christ's witness of the a marked 'hand' and Origen's understanding of the Apostle's showing of 'the mark of Christ' (Gal 6.17) as the basis to Alexandrian ritual castration? It is reconciled in the earliest reference to Mark as kolobodaktulos (curtailed fingered) in the same source which witnesses the Marcionites employing a Gospel of Mark (Philosophumena 7.18).
The 'hand' and the 'finger' can always be understood as euphemistic references to the penis in all languages of the early Church. Thus the curtailed gospel's perplexing reference to 'Christ' witnessing Jesus's resurrection in his body by means of the exposure of his private parts is already explained in the passage by Origen earlier. All we have to do is go back to the very end where Origen already intimates the substitution of 'apostle' for 'Christ' and we read:
I can be a Christ, if I become an imitator of him who says: "Be imitators of me." This will happen if I have the cautery by which Christ was marked if I possess the same form by which he was formed in Christ, through which he said like a good father: "My little children, for whom I suffer birth pains again until Christ is formed in you." But if I am exposed for bearing a counterfeit resemblance, since Paul had a different form than I have in my soul, then I am deceiving myself when I say: You are his son, you are Christ's seed.
In other words what is being described in this 'exposure' is the proof of being re-formed as an angel, the mystic understanding of being 'baptized into Jesus' death' and emerging as a living Christ.
We must remember that these things were not 'exposed' in the public gospel. As the apostle says he originally came to them with a gospel announcing only 'Jesus and him crucified.' This gospel was announced for the catechumen. The gospel containing the 'secret wisdom' and the Apostikon itself was only ever read to members of the presbytery - i.e. 'the perfect.' But the end result were two classes of Christians in the earliest Church - the 'carnal members' who were established in 'faith' and the 'spiritual' who were necessarily castrated after the ritual baptism described in the 'secret gospel of Mark' referenced in to Theodore.
Indeed even Demetrius of Alexandria, the first 'orthodox' Pope of the tradition is remembered in the Coptic history of Severus of Al'Ashmunein as partaking in the eunuch rituals associated with Daniel exactly as we just read in Origen's Homily on Ezekiel. The underlying inference here is that all who sat as representatives of St. Mark (himself a 'Christ' according to Severus's First Homily on St. Mark) necessarily had to be 'cut' like him after the example of Daniel who proclaimed his messiahood. Yet notice how Demetrius (who was clearly a foreigner and described as ignorant of Alexandrian tradition) was clearly was NOT castrated (he was after all married and is continually described on the one hand as having to resist natural temptations of the flesh) is still made to 'fit' in the pattern of the traditional expectations of Alexandrian Patriarchs by somehow 'secretly' undergoing ritual castration:
But the people were unjust towards this patriarch, Demetrius, saying that he was the twelfth of the patriarchs, counting from Mark, the evangelist, and that all of them were unmarried except Demetrius; and they bewailed his fall. He had a gift from God, which was that when he had finished the liturgy, before he communicated any one of the people, he beheld the Lord Christ, giving the Eucharist by his hand; and when a person came up who was unworthy to receive the Mysteries, the Lord Christ revealed to him that man's sin, so that he would not communicate him. Then he told that man the reason, so that he confessed his offence. And Demetrius reproved him, and said : «Turn away from thy sin which thou dost commit, and then come again to receive the Holy Mysteries.» When this practice had continued a long time, the faithful of Alexandria left off sinning for fear of the patriarch, lest he should put them to open shame; and each one said to his friend or his kinsman : «Beware lest thou sin, lest the patriarch denounce thee in the presence of the congregation.» But some of the people said : «This is a married man. How then can he reprove us, seeing that he has dishonoured this see? For none has sat therein to this day who was not unwedded.» Again others said : «His marriage does not lessen his merits, for marriage is pure and undefiled before God.» But it was God's will to make his virtues manifest, that he might be glorified, and might not leave this great secret unknown. As he said in his holy gospel, by his pure mouth : «A city when it is set on a hill cannot be hidden,» so God made the merits of this patriarch manifest, that his people might increase in virtue thereby.
Accordingly, on a certain night, an angel of the Lord came to Demetrius, and said to him : «Demetrius, seek not thine own salvation by neglecting thy neighbour; but remember what the gospel says, that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep». Then Demetrius said to the angel : «O my Lord, teach me what thou commandest me to do. If thou wilt send me to martyrdom, I am ready to let my blood be shed for the name of Christ.» Then the angel said to him : «Listen to me, Demetrius, and I will tell thee. The Lord Christ was incarnate only to save his people; and it is not right that thou shouldst now save thine own soul, and allow this people to be filled with scruples on account of thee.» So Demetrius answered : «What is my sin against the people? Teach me, my Lord, that I may repent of it.» Then the angel said : «This secret which is between thee and thy wife; namely, that thou hast never approached her. Now therefore make this known to the people.» But Demetrius said : «I pray thee that I may die before thee rather than that thou shouldst reveal this secret to any man!» Then the angel answered : «Know that the scripture says : He that is disobedient shall perish. Tomorrow, therefore, after the end. of the liturgy, assemble the priests and the people, and make known to them this secret which is between thee and thy wife.» When the patriarch heard this, he marvelled, and said : «Blessed is the Lord, who does not abandon those that trust in him.» Then the angel departed from him.
So on the morrow, which was the feast of Pentecost, the patriarch celebrated the liturgy, and bade the archdeacon give directions to the clergy and the people that not one of them should leave the church, but that they should gather together round the patriarchal throne. The archdeacon, therefore, proclaimed to the congregation : «The patriarch's wish is to speak to you all. Let none of you, therefore, depart without hearing what he shall say.» When they had sat down, the patriarch bid the brethren collect much fuel; and they did so, marvelling thereat and saying : «What is this that the patriarch will do ?» Then he said to them : «Rise and let us pray!» So they prayed, and afterwards sat down. And he said to them : «I beg you out of your love for me, to allow my wife to be present before you, that she may receive of your blessing.» Then they marvelled, and thought in their hearts : «What is this that he does?» And they all said : «Whatever thou biddest us do shall be done.» Then the patriarch commanded one of his servants, saying : «Call my wife, the handmaid of the saints, that she may receive their blessing.» So the holy woman entered, and stood in the midst of the congregation. And her husband, the patriarch, arose, where they could all behold him, and stood by the blazing logs, which had already been lighted, and spread out his cloak, and took burning embers from the fire with his hand and put them in his cloak; and all the spectators were astonished at the quantity of burning fuel in his garment, and yet it was not burned. Then he said to his wife : «Spread out thy woollen pallium which thou hast upon thee.» So she spread it out; and the patriarch transferred the embers to it while she stood there; and he put incense on the fire, and commanded her to incense all the congregation; and she did so, and yet her pallium was not burned. Then the patriarch said again : «Let us pray»; while the embers were blazing in his wife's pallium, which yet was not burned.
You have now heard, my friends, this great wonder. This man had made himself an eunuch of his own free will, so that he was more glorious than those that are born eunuchs; and therefore the fire had no effect upon this saint, nor upon his garments, nor upon those of his wife, because he had extinguished the flames of lust. But now let us abridge our discourse upon this subject, and return to the history, glorifying God for ever and ever.
So when the clergy had prayed, they said to the patriarch : «We beg of thy Holiness to explain to us this wonderful mystery.» And he replied : «Attend, all of you, to what I say. Know that I have not done this seeking glory from men. My age is now sixty-three years. My wife who stands before you is my cousin. Her parents died and left her when she was a child. My father brought her to me, for he had no other child than me, and she was the only child of my uncle. So I grew up with her in my father's house, and we dwelt together. When she was fifteen, my parents resolved to many me to her, in order that their possessions might not pass to a stranger, but that we might inherit them. So the wedding was performed, as men do such things for their children; and I went in to her. And when they had left us alone, she said to me : «How could they give me to thee, seeing that I am thy sister?» So I said to her : «Listen to what I say. We must of necessity remain together in this chamber without being separated all our lives, but there must be no further connexion between us, until death shall part us; and, if we remain thus in purity, we shall meet in the heavenly Jerusalem, and enjoy one another's company in eternal bliss.» And when she heard this, she accepted my proposal; and her body remained inviolate.
But my parents knew nothing of our compact. Then the wedding-guests demanded the customary proof of the consummation of the marriage, as you know is done by foolish men; but my mother said to them : «These two are young, and the days before them are many.» Thus we kept our purity; and when my parents as well as her parents were dead, we remained orphans together. It is now forty-eight years since I married my wife, and we sleep on one bed and one mattress and beneath one coverlet; and the Lord, who knows and judges the living and the dead, and understands the secrets of all hearts, knows that I have never learnt that she is a woman, nor has she learnt that I am a man; but we see one another's face and no more. We sleep together, but the embraces of this world are unknown to us. And when we fall asleep, we see a form with eagle's wings, which comes flying and alights upon our bed between her and me, and stretches its right wing over me, and its left wing over her, until the morning, when it departs; and we behold it until it goes. Do not think, my brethren and ye people who love God, that I have disclosed this secret to you to gain the glory of this world which passes away, nor that I have told you this of my own will; but it is the command of the Lord, who bade me do it, for he desires the good of all men, and he is Christ our Saviour.»
When Demetrius had finished this discourse, the people all fell upon their faces on the earth, saying : «Verily, our father, thou art more excellent than many of the saints; and God has shewn his mercy towards us in making thee head over us.» And they gave thanks to him, and besought him to forgive their evil thoughts of him. Then he gave them his blessing, and prayed for them; and they dispersed to their own homes, praising God. And after this, Demetrius bade his wife depart to her house.
Have you ever heard, you that listen to me, of such wonders? This holy, father dwelt so long with his lovely and virtuous wife, and yet endured the trial. Where now are the men who are married, and yet commit adultery also, while professing to be Christians? Let them come and listen to the Father Demetrius, the patriarch, saying : «I have known the face of my wife and no more», that they may be ashamed and confounded! O that valiant saint, fighting against his bodily desires! O that miracle! How could his heart remain unmoved when he beheld his wife's beauty, and how could his senses remain unexcited before her loveliness! How wonderful was thy discourse, O thou saint, in thy bridal chamber! The archer whose arrows strike all men, namely Satan, was unable to strike thee. Demetrius said : «I am a man and have a body like all other men, but I will teach you how to answer the suggestions of the Devil. When my heart was troubled by evil thoughts, I remembered the compact I had made with Christ; and if I broke it, I feared that he would reject me in the kingdom of Heaven, before the Father and his holy angels. Moreover, when I saw the beauty and grace of her form, I thought of the corpses lying in their tombs and the foulness of their odour, so to keep myself from strange words, through fear of the fire that is not quenched, and the worm that sleepeth not, in the other world, where none can open his mouth». O my friends, this Father was chosen by God, and in his courage and valour was braver than those that slay lions; as one of the doctors says : «The brave man is not he that kills wild beasts, but he that dies pure from the embraces and snares of women». Blessed is this saint, for his degree is exalted! Like Joseph in the house of the Egyptian woman, when she solicited him on every occasion that she could, so Demetrius fought against his desires every day and night until his battle was finished, and preserved his chastity and his right faith throughout his life.
Demetrius remained patriarch forty-three years. In his time there was a disturbance at Alexandria, and the emperor Severus banished him to a place called the quarter of the Museum; and there he died on the 12th. day of Barmahat, which, I believe, was the day of the manifestation of his virginity. [Severus of Al'Ashmunein History of the Coptic Patriarchs 12]
The point of this story is that this man who was the persecutor of Clement and Origen was clearly a historical usurper of the throne of St. Mark but the apostle of the 'eagle's wings' (cf. Irenaeus AH 3.11.8) is now argued to have accepted him even though he was not refashioned after the example of a eunuch. The example of burning in flames but being unharmed is derived from the eunuch prophet Daniel. The point is to argue that even though he wasn't castrated he had attained the same degree of holiness.
