Yet we are a long way from that right now. We still have to figure out whether people or things were addressed in the diminutive in the ancient Christian liturgy. The most common misunderstanding of course is the word abba which is preserved in the gospel of Mark and the Apostolikon. The ordinary word for "father" in Aramaic and Hebrew is ab. Abba has been argued to be an intimate diminutive, similar perhaps to "Dad" or "Daddy" in English. Jeremias thought that Abba might represent Aramaic 'baby talk' but I am not sure. I think it might rather be a ritual expression of intimacy between 'the brides' and their Christ.
When we read Origen's discussion of Romans 8:15 he goes out of his way to deny that those adopted at Christians at baptism in Alexandria were infants. Instead they appear to have been neaniskos, or youths old enough to leave the care of a pedagogue:
And for children especially, fear is a pedagogue. This is why the Apostle also says of such a child, "As long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave, though he is the lord of everything; but he is under tutors and guardians until the date established beforehand by the father. So with us, while we were children we were under the elements of this world, being enslaved." (Gal 4:1 - 3) You see how Paul here, in accordance with the wisdom bestowed upon him by God, could designate the spirits of slavery that are given in fear as children's tutors and guardians, which keep each one of us, while a child according to the inner man, in fear, until we come to the age when we merit receiving the Spirit of adoption of sons and become now a son and lord of everything. For he says, "All things are yours," (1 Cor 3:22) and he has given all things to us with Christ. What Paul is teaching, therefore, is this: After we have died together with Christ, and his Spirit has come into us, we do not receive once again a spirit of slavery unto fear. That is to say, we have not become children and beginners again, but as those who are perfect we now receive the Spirit of adoption once again a spirit of slavery unto fear. That is to say, we have not become children and beginners again, but as those who are perfect we now receive the Spirit of adoption once and for all, "by which" Spirit "we cry: Abba, Father!" For no one but a son cries out to a father. But what he has added, "Abba," has repeated the same word from his mother tongue. It is as if he said, Father, Father.
So then, the Spirit of adoption himself, through whom someone is adopted as a son, bears witness and assures our spirit that we should be sons of God after we have gone from the spirit of slavery to the Spirit of adoption, when we no longer do anything out of fear, that is, out of fear of punishment, but instead, perfect everything on account of love. He has admirably said that the Spirit of God bears witness not with the soul but with the spirit, which is the human being's better part. It can be considered, in addition, in order to distinguish those who are being led by a spirit of slavery unto fear and those [who are led) by the Spirit of sons, that Abraham indeed gave his inheritance to Isaac; but to the sons of slave women or concubines, it is said that he had given not an inheritance, but gifts and presents." Doubtless, what was being foreshadowed in this is that those who go on serving God out of fear will not be entirely rejected, but there are gifts for them and there are presents; it is, however, to those who merit to receive the Spirit of adoption that the inheritance belongs, through which they are glorified together through Christ. [Origen Commentary on Romans 7.2,3]
There is no doubt in my mind that the transference from 'fear' to 'love' was understood by the Alexandrian tradition in a Marcionite sense (i.e. from Law to gospel). Yet there is also something of the context of the Letter to Theodore as well.
I can't possibly see how anyone understands the whole death baptism concept from the familiar 'curtailed gospel.' Yes of course there was overlap between the two Alexandrian gospel texts. The curtailed gospel undoubtedly like the Gospel of Peter had Mary discover the risen Christ on the eighth day from Jesus's death in the same way as the youth of the mystic gospel 'dies' and undergoes baptism:
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." [Clement, To Theodore II.26 - III.10]
I find it very intriguing to see that both Origen's 'baptism of the perfect' and the baptism narrative from the gospel Clement describes as 'for the perfect' assume the ritual context of the adoption of a young man. The only thing that stands in our way of course is our tradition understanding of Jesus as 'the Son.' I think that for the early Alexandrian tradition he was the Father. Those who hold this position were called 'Patripassians' or Sabellians and Sabellius - whoever or whatever 'Sabellius' was, was intimately connected with Alexandria.
I know all contemporary research into the Letter to Theodore has tried to distance itself from Morton Smith's interpretation of the material, nevertheless isn't it strange that Origen also understands the ritual interest in the 'love' of a neaniskos for his 'Father' to be at the heart of the Alexandrian mysteries. I still don't think this any of this was 'homosexual' but it could certainly have been misinterpreted as such.
Someone hearing the uttering of 'Μαρκίων!' - an expression of intimacy from various 'youths' to their father St. Mark - all hoping to 'love' St Mark and be adopted in the manner in which he was adopted by Jesus 'the Father' would have certainly fueled this confusion.
