An Alexandrian Brother-Making Rite
As we wind down our preliminary investigation into the beginning of Christianity it becomes plain that the question of all questions comes down to whether Irenaeus corrupted the Gospel of Mark. Do we necessarily have to assume a static development for the canonical texts? Of course not. The only advantage for assuming this is that it allows for one's pronouncements about scriptures to go beyond the earliest available manuscript evidence. However it is by no means certain that any of the canonical texts represent anything other than a specifically Catholic recension of an earlier gospel. To this end, our present 'shorter' gospel of Mark may well have been specifically developed to pull the rug from out of the original tradition associated with the evangelist.1
Indeed the Gospel of Mark as we have seen is a work shrouded in mystery. There are for instance no commentaries on the Gospel of Mark that have come down to us.2 Once we learn that Irenaeus, Clement and the Philosophumena tell us there were other recensions of the gospel of Mark with additional mystical narratives or sayings it becomes very difficult to decide whether our present text represents the gospels intended length. There many familiar examples of narratives being added or deleted from the gospels. Th Adulterous Woman pericope in the Gospel of John immediately comes to mind.3 A similar situation seems to have existed with respect to the ending of the gospel of Mark. Yet this by no means exhausts the question of additions or deletions to Mark.
Irenaeus himself in the most explicit terms possible identifies the words "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal Him" as originally being found in Mark.4 Clement's student Origen makes similar 'slips.'5 Yet the ultimate question in Markan studies in many ways comes down to the addition to our canonical text as witnessed by Clement's Letter to Theodore. Does 'secret Mark' really represent an expansion of our familiar text of Mark or was Clement merely attempting to ease into an explanation of the existence of a longer gospel?
We have already seen by now that Clement's testimony about an additional baptism narrative that was not present in canonical Mark agrees Irenaeus's testimony about a similar text in the hands of the followers of Mark in Gaul. The heretics clearly thought that the narrative in Mark chapter 10 verses 35 - 45 came immediately following an account of 'another baptism' in addition to the description of that associated with John the Baptist at the beginning of the gospel.6 Our standard way of reading the so-called Question of James and John is to assume the text originally read as it does not - i.e. where Mark 10:35 - 45 immediately follows a declaration by Jesus that he is about to die in Jerusalem. Irenaeus's is the first person to emphasize this as the correct chronology and - as is his habit - he makes his case from the presumption of Matthean primacy.7
Nevertheless almost no one takes seriously the idea that Mark was dependent on Matthew any more. To the same end we should take a second look at the gospel of Mark to help determine which of the two possibilities makes more sense when determining what event prompted James and John to request Jesus 'grant them a request' regard their desire to be established at his right and left hands.8 The surviving manuscripts preserve the account as follows:
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.””
The ultimate question here again is whether we are meant to assume that James and John just heard Jesus's prediction of his death and are vying to die with him - this is Irenaeus's interpretation based on our existing manuscripts of Mark - or whether James and John just learned Jesus baptized the unnamed youth of secret Mark and want to be established together by the very same process. This must have been the interpretation of the followers of Mark in Gaul based on a text resembling 'secret Mark.'
The problem of course for scholars is that no one stops to consider that the first person to promote a four gospel canon is also the first person to argue for the 'martyr interpretation' of the Question of James and John. If we look at the pericope standing on its own, there is nothing that naturally presupposes this particular interpretation. Jesus references 'baptism' - even a special kind of baptism - rather than anything to do with death and dying. He even speaks of redemption - so the interpretation of the followers of Mark - i.e. that the redemption is a special kind of baptism is intuitively correct.
The reality is that Irenaeus is again the first person to emphasize the "killing yourself to live" paradigm. Up until that point, there is no reason to think that Christians sought out martyrdom in the manner that becomes encouraged by Irenaeus in the Fourth Book of Against Heresies. To this end, Irenaeus's interpretation of Mark 10:35 - 45 depends on the corruption of the gospel of Mark employed by his followers in Gaul or this communities complete failure to connect the Question of James and John to this passage:
They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
It is always a bad idea to assume that the heretics couldn't read texts properly or couldn't make the most obvious inference from a gospel where Mark 10:32 - 34 immediately preceded Mark 10:35 - 45. Given that we know about the existence of another version of the Gospel of Mark where Mark 10:35 - 45 was immediately preceded by a secret baptism narrative, it seems to be very likely that the baptism interpretation of community of Mark at Gaul was based on this variant reading.
In the same way Irenaeus 'martyr interpretation' of the Question of James and John is explicitly developed from our current arrangement of the narrative. He writes in one place, developing his interpretation again from his assumption of Matthean primacy that the question of James and John arose because the words of Jesus regarding his impending Passion were still ringing in their ears. Indeed as he notes even though Jesus words about Jerusalem were only told "in reference to His sufferings and cross" the mother of James and John:
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.
If we allow for a moment the idea that Irenaeus could have edited the current edition of the Gospel of Mark and related gospel accounts (= Matthew), it is amazing to see how Salome's 'idea' reminds us of the situation during the persecutions in Gaul in 177 CE. Irenaeus's official account of these events presents Blandina in very similar terms as "a noble mother (the church) who sent forth her children before her victorious to the King (nikephorous propempsasa pros ton basiliea)." The same idea is reinforced in Against Heresies i.e. the Church which "makes strong, and sends forward, children to their Father’ (propempusa tous ouios pros ton Patera auton).
It is impossible not to see a connection again with respect to the phenomenon identified by Charles Hill as the 'Lot's wife' paradigm. The image of a mother volunteering up her children to die is a striking. It is clearly an important theme in Irenaeus's writings related undoubtedly to an unprecedented interest in women generally.9 Matthew's sudden insertion of the mother of James and John rather than James and John making this supposed 'martyr request' can even be more strongly related to Irenaeus. It is hard not to get the idea that it was Irenaeus who made the substitution. Mark, as we have noted assumes only that the request came from James and John.
Indeed until the discovery of the Letter to Theodore there appeared no other way to interpret Mark 10:35 - 45, save for Irenaeus's hermeneutic. This is because Mark and Matthew have been arranged to reinforce the martyrdom interpretation. We have already just seen that Clement did not hold martyrdom as the end all and be all of Christian gnosis. Like the author of the Nag Hammadi text the True Testimony, Clement argues that the value of becoming a martyr is overrated by some traditions within the Church. For the Alexandrian tradition then martyrdom is not a panacea. Just throwing yourself out there, goading the authorities to the point they put you to death is not salvation. The purpose of Christianity is to redeem the world and redemption is not found in acting foolishly. Indeed Clement goes on to argue that not only does the individual bring harm on himself by acting this way, he more importantly causes problems for those involved in his execution as they have now committed a sin by murdering someone.10
To this end it has to be recognized that we have before us two wholly different texts of the gospel of Mark which absolutely reinforce two wholly separate understandings of Christian 'redemption.' The fact that Clement testifies that another narrative immediately preceded Mark 10:35 - 45 challenges Irenaeus's claim that the mother of James and John was reacting to Jesus's statement about martyrdom. After all, as we can plainly see from Clement's citation of the material at least a week elapsed between what Jesus said in Mark 10:32 - 34 and that said in Mark 10:35 - 35:
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, 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.
It must be seen then that Irenaeus needs Mark 10:32 - 34 to immediately precede Mark 10:35 - 45. The presence of the passage in 'secret Mark' gets in the way of Irenaeus's central argument about the value of the voluntary sacrifice to further the Christian agenda.
Indeed it is very peculiar when we really think about it that something as important as voluntary martyrdom became for Irenaeus has to 'come in through the backdoor' like this. It was clearly a change made to Mark's original gospel. Yet the idea that it is a mother who - according to Irenaeus - has this idea about offering up her children is hardly tantamount to a 'commandment.' One would think if Jesus wanted people to sacrifice themselves he would have simply said so. To this end, this alteration made to Matthew by Irenaeus is a wholly unconvincing one. Moreover one made only a few short lines after another implausible alteration - Matthew's uncharacteristic use of the term 'kingdom of God' in 19:24. Indeed Origen already cites for us the original material from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Matthew's supposed ancestor, and it does not look provide us with this anomaly.
It would seem then that a late editor was haphazardly arranging the gospels to reinforce a particular theological point of view. Mark's original account was being used as a template and changes made to Mark were reinforced - and even strengthened - in the parallel canonical accounts. We might even look at the problem another way. Celsus testifies that Jesus's repeated allusion to his coming Passion was only used to prove that he could foretell the future.12 In other words, he never says that Christians were using these words to imitate his example.
Moreover it should be noted that the gospel of Luke, written after the canonical text of Mark and Matthew seems to contradict the interpretation developed in those two texts. Immediately after Luke's equivalent of Mark 10:32 - 34 we see the addition of the words "The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about" and then a complete erasure of Mark 10:35 - 45. This seems to recognize the historical reality that the Gospel of Mark did not interpret the material as a command to martyrdom. Irenaeus simply removed the secret Mark passage and left the meaning ambiguous, only defining the meaning by means of the alleged 'mother' of James and John. The original 'tradition of the disciples' however must have been that Jesus originally a disciple here.13
Indeed it is only owing to the assumption that Mark 10:35 - 45 is a call to martyrdom that they fail to see what Luke is actually reacting to - viz the heretical interpretation of the original section in Mark and its use to justify the 'redemption' baptism. If we go back to Irenaeus's testimony in Book One of Against Heresies about the Markan sect he says that they distinguish between the baptism of John the Baptist and another immersion rite described in this very section of the gospel. We read:
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. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above.
After the priest announces a lengthy set of prayers Irenaeus concludes:
Such are words of the initiators; but he who is initiated, replies, "I am established, and I am redeemed; I redeem my soul from this age (world), and from all things connected with it in the name of Iao, who redeemed his own soul into redemption in Christ who liveth." Then the bystanders add these words, "Peace be to all on whom this name rests." After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things.
In no unmistakable terms then Mark 10:35 - 45 was identified by these heretics with a secret baptism rite. This must be what Luke is rejecting. In other words, Luke is saying that any interpretation made by 'the disciples' - that is the twelve male followers of Jesus - beyond the bare details of these words is unacceptable. This understanding only becomes stronger when we see the same scriptural material being cited again by the De Rebaptismate much to the same effect.
The author of De Rebaptismate begins by mentioning the efficacy of martyrdom as long the individual holds to orthodox ideals. He specifically echoes Irenaeus's interest in Lot's wife:
let nobody flatter himself who has lost the occasion of a glorious salvation, if by chance he has excluded himself there from by his own fault; even as that wife of Lot, who in a similar manner in time of trouble only, contrary to the angel's command, looked behind her, and she became a pillar of salt. On which principle also, that heretic who, by confessing Christ's name, is put to death, can subsequently correct nothing, if he should have thought anything erroneously of God or of Christ, although by believing on another God or on another Christ he has deceived himself: he is not a confessor of Christ, but in the name only of Christ.
Then the author goes on to cite the same material we just saw in Irenaeus's account of the Markan sect in Book One of Against Heresies:
And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, "But I have another baptism to be baptized with." 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]
It is incredible that no one has noticed not only the near verbatim citations of these sections in Mark and Luke back to back but more importantly Irenaeus's interest in Lot's wife and its echo in the parallel section in Matthew. We are clearly witnessing Irenaeus's 'fingerprints' on the development of the canon.
Irenaeus was clearly aware that the followers of Mark interpreted this section of text as a justification for their 'redemption' baptism. He knows this and removes the section and then proceeds develop the material in another direction completely - i.e. as a call to martyrdom. Interestingly this exactly echoes his reworking of the historical details surrounding the persecution in Gaul in 177 CE. At first Irenaeus supported the government arguing that it was a legitimate response to the growing influence of the heresies. He also refused to acknowledge the status of the victims as martyrs or even confessors. It is only by the time of the Letter of the Christians from Vienne and Lyons that Irenaeus embraces the witness of these victims, however he does so by means of reinterpreting everything by means of the typology of Lot's wife. The very same process took place in a macrocosm with respect to Mark 10:35 - 45 and Matthew's insertion of the mother of John and James into the narrative.
Clearly then the example of Lot's wife is consistently used in the writings of Irenaeus - it is a symbol of double-mindedness. When the opportunity presents itself to die on behalf of Christ the faithful should rush after it. The Markan invention of a 'second baptism' is now taken to be a denial of the original understanding of the gospel - namely that Jesus's words were a call to martyrdom. So he writes that Jesus "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."Irenaeus also differs with the heretical interpretation of the words "I have another baptism to be baptized with," noting that 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" - i.e. martyrdom, the so-called 'baptism of blood.'
Irenaeus does go on to acknowledge that martyrdom or 'baptism of blood' can be the only 'second baptism' accepted by the true Church. Mark 10:35 - 45 cannot be used to support the heretical claims about a 'redemption baptism.' Indeed this martyrdom is only open to those "who are made lawful believers" and moreover "the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink."
Clearly Irenaeus did indeed not only know of a sect of Mark which used a redemption rite but that this rite was based on a variant text of the gospel of this same evangelist. This 'redemption' rite is specifically identified with the words 'redeem' (lutron) Mark 10:35 - 45. Both lutron and apolutrosis derive from the simple verb luein, which means “to release.” Lutron is typically used to denote the payment to an owner for a slave's freedom or a captive's ransom. Irenaeus has trained us to see Jesus's death as the 'ransom' paid for the release of us captives. But the followers of Mark saw it in terms of a baptism rite which starts with a ritually 'dead' person freeing himself from the Law.14 The apostle's Letter to the Romans clearly connects it with "waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons" - which again underscores a baptism context.
It might be difficult for readers to tie all these bits and pieces together so it might be good to take a second look at the language of this section in Mark. Perhaps the things most often overlooked by commentators is that James and John don't actually ask to be enthroned. Instead they each ask to be given (dos) 'from' (ek) his left and right hand, so that they may be established in his glory. The structure of the request is very interesting. They request that Jesus make participate in his divinity.15 To this end, if we retrace our steps for a moment through the steps of this Markan 'redemption' rite, the laying on of hands 'impressed a seal' or branded the forehead of the individual which must have allowed them to partake in his glory.
This is why presumably, as Irenaeusmakes explicitly clear, the Markans themselves thought that the water was superfluous to the rite. The key was impressing the seal on the forehand by the hand of the priest.16 Indeed the Treatise on Second Baptism seems to develop from the same understanding with respect to the sacredness of the laying on of hands. The author declares that "only the bishops hands should be laid upon them for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith." This statement is repeated at least a dozen times in the text.
The 'bishop' here means the man chosen by the Catholic Church for 'overseeing' the faith. It would appear that the Markans allowed any baptized person the right to perform the rite.17 The author of De Rebaptismate makes clear that this is unacceptable. The laying on of hands requires the hand of a bishop - i.e. the official representative of the apostles - to perform the laying of hands:
And for that reason, they who repent and are amended by the doctrine of the truth, and by their own faith, which subsequently has been improved by the purification of their heart, ought to be aided only by spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of the bishop's hands, and by the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the perfect seal of faith has been rightly accustomed to be given in this manner and on this principle in the Church. So that the invocation of the name of Jesus, which cannot be done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting; although such an invocation, if none of those things of which we have spoken should follow it, may fail and be deprived of the effect of salvation.
It is thus clearly an important and often ignored attestation here that the author essentially agrees with the Markan sect that 'second baptism' is equated with the laying of hands to seal the forehead of the individual - presumably with the charakter of Jesus, the letter F.
Once all of this is established it shouldn't be hard to see how the rest of Mark 10:35 - 45 was connected by this tradition to the passage from the secret gospel of Mark. "Can you be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with" is a reference to the individual being transformed into the likeness of Jesus. Indeed through the power of the branding he suddenly is the living embodiment of Jesus. Once he is sealed by Jesus the living 'sixth letter' F one becomes a redeemed fugitivus - that is a ma'arq.
With respect to the original question Jesus says that to be established at the right and left hand is not his to give but rather 'those for whom it has been prepared.' What exactly does this mean? Scholars have struggled with these words forever it would seem. The best guess would seem to be from the perspective of the Markan tradition is that this type of baptism will be established after Jesus's death.16 The basic 'redemption baptism' passed on by Jesus as a rite involving a priest and a single initiate is interesting confirmed to be rooted in slavery:
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
In other words to be 'first' is to be like Peter cf. Clement Can the Rich Man be Saved "the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute" (phoron). Clement's reference is not to Jesus paying the half-shekel to the temple but rather Jesus baptizing him according to the redemption rite.18
To be 'first' one must first become a slave. Jesus is the fugitivus whose symbol is the digamma. The redemption rite above all else about substitution by means of laying on of hands, branding, and thus restoring them to their rightful master - "for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for many." This is clearly the origin also of the Islam pseudepigrapha's transposition of various figures with Jesus - especially Judas - so that the Lord escapes crucifixion.19
No clearer sign of this connection with the laying on of hands to 'the dead' than in Clement's Excerpts of Theodotus's where we read:
And when the Apostle said, "Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead?" . . . For, he says, the angels of whom we are portions were baptised for us. But we are dead, who are deadened by this existence, but the males are alive who did not participate in this existence. "If the dead rise not why, then, are we baptised?" Therefore we are raised up "equal to angels," and restored to unity with the males, member for member. 'Now they say "those who are baptised for us, the dead," are the angels who are baptised for us, in order that when we, too, have the Name, we may not be hindered and kept back by the Limit and the Cross from entering the Pleroma. Wherefore, at the laying on of hands they say at the end, "for the angelic redemption" (apolutrosis) that is, for the one which the angels also have, in order that the person who has received the redemption (apolutrosis) may, be baptised in the same Name in which his angel had been baptised before him.
This writer clearly holds very similar ideas to the Markan community with respect to the redemption being a baptism of the dead which is accomplished by 'laying on of hands.'
The concept of baptizing for the dead was also preserved among the Marcionite sect and not surprising there is also a strong sense in the reporting of an interest in the liberating of slaves.20
The Marcionite Jesus is a 'stranger' a fugitive alien who swoops down and 'plunders' the slave property of the Creator - that is man. As Celsus against notes in his extended diatribe against the Marcionites:
Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure those who, as you assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children?
Origen notes further that "Celsus subjoins the following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise"
Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those sinners who are condemned by another (god), and of the needy, and, as themselves say, of the very offscourings (of men), and who is unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him!
In no unmistakable terms this Markan sect also understood Jesus to be the original fugitive, who comes into realm of a 'strong man' and binds and 'steals his good' - that is the slaves he owns - in order to 'redeem' them.21
As we have already mentioned it would appear that 'one on one' baptism was the original methodology of Jesus with respect to his beloved youth. However the gospel seems to recognize that in due course two men were baptized together, side by side - that is with each of their heads sealed by right and left hands of the priest.22 This brother-making or adelphopoiesis rite has a long history in the Greek orthodox community and apparently continues to this day in certain remote places.23 While James and John are said to be actual brothers - that is sons of the same mother and father - in our version of Mark i.e. "then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him" it is important to note that Clement's gospel of Mark simply has "and James and John come to him." The implication we should draw from that is that originally James and John were not material brothers and that the redemption rite developed into a brother-making rite - that is James and John become 'brothers in Christ' by undergoing redemption together.24
That Clement believed that Jesus baptized one of his disciples is preserved for us in two different sources. The ninth century Byzantine historian Nicephorus cites the words of Clement’s Hypotyposeis much better than our other sources:
Christ with his own hands baptized only Peter, Peter in turn baptized Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, Andrew and the sons of Zebedee the rest of the apostles.
It is enough to say that Irenaeus's description of the redemption baptism tradition in the late second century there were many, many variations.25 One may suppose for the moment that Peter's baptism of 'Andrew' and 'the sons of Zebedee' represent two different approaches to the same phenomenon - the former according to Jesus's baptism of Peter, the latter according to the answer given to 'James and John.'26
Indeed we should see that the the redemption baptism reference in secret Mark is - as Morton Smith noted long before - an outgrowth of the Question of the Rich Man (Mark 10:17 - 31). In his Can the Rich Man be Saved Clement explains to his readers how they should interpret this narrative which features a rich man being told that he must give up his property in order to receive the true riches of the kingdom of heaven. So it that Clement says
Jesus, accordingly, does not charge him with not having fulfilled all things out of the law, but loves him, and fondly welcomes his obedience in what he had learned; but says that he is not perfect as respects eternal life, inasmuch as he had not fulfilled what is perfect, and that he is a doer indeed of the law, but idle at the true life ... For Christ is the fulfilment 'of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth' and not as a slave making slaves, but (son making) sons, and (brother making) brethren, and (fellow-heir making) fellow-heirs, all who perform the Father's will.
Anyone who does not see the mystical significance of these statements will not properly understand Clement and his Alexandrian tradition.
Clement says then that he who has been purified through this sacred rite at the heart of the Gospel of Mark now:
ministers from them to the God who gives them for the salvation of men; and knows that he possesses them more for the sake of the brethren than his own; and is superior to the possession of them, not the slave of the things he possesses; and does not carry them about in his soul, nor bind and circumscribe his life within them, but is ever labouring at some good and divine work, even should he be necessarily some time or other deprived of them, is able with cheerful mind to bear their removal equally with their abundance.
As part of the secret rites of his community Clement acknowledges that each rich owner like himself effectively agrees to become 'the Father' - the new Lord - of each one of his brothers - "we owe our lives to the brethren, and have made such compacts [synthekas] with the Saviour, why should we any more hoard and shut up worldly goods, which are beggarly, foreign to us and transitory?"
Again, in it most primitive form we should imagine that a priest pressed his hand on the head of an individual - or perhaps his ear after whispering some secret doctrine.27 The context here was clearly a slave redemption but freedom is attained through becoming a brother of Jesus and son of the good Father. As Clement proceeds to give a verbatim citation of his Alexandrian text of the Gospel of Mark, it should be noted that another significant variant appears in Mark 10:29. This different wording helps point us in yet another confirmation of the secret rite in the evangelists original text.
In our Roman version of the Gospel of Mark we read Jesus say that:
There is no man that hath left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my sake and the gospel's. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecutions and in the world to come eternal life
In Clement's Alexandrian Gospel of Mark we read instead the words:
Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the Gospel's, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brothers, with persecutions; and in the world to come is life everlasting.
There can be no mistaking that this points to a brother-making doctrine once we see Clement's commentary where he notes again as we have already shown, that "Christ is the fulfilment of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth; and not as a slave making slaves, but (a son making) sons, and (a brother making) brethren, and (an heir making) fellow-heirs, who perform the Father's will."
When we look at the gospel narrative itself, it becomes clear that Peter ultimately 'flees' when Jesus is about to get arrest. Yet if he was the one who underwent this rite then this is merely part of the fugitive subtext to the Markan tradition. According to the redemption rite Jesus and Peter 'change places' - that is Jesus ransoms his soul for Peter's. It is really Peter's 'old self' that died on the cross and Jesus now who escapes in Peter's body. The Islamic pseudepigrapha tells the same story with a Judas-Jesus transposition, Basilides's Simon narrative was undoubtedly originally a variant of the Peter transposition.28 When Peter baptizes Mark in the Acts of Mark the divine soul enters into Mark and he becomes a spokesman for Jesus writing the gospel.
It is important to note that it is Peter who declares "Lo, we have left all and followed Thee" just before the baptism narrative of secret Mark. Jesus's response to Peter that those who leave what is his own will receive "possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions; and in the world to come is life everlasting." In the secret Mark the youth is said to be "rich" with a "house" in which they lodge. Yet all of this is just symbolic of what happens to the individual when he is 'redeemed' through the redemption rite. He shall, in the words of Jesus just previously, receive "an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brothers, with persecutions." All these things did Peter get according to tradition.
The idea that Peter goes on to head of the Church is clearly based on some assumption that Jesus is somehow living within him. Clement of Alexandria's understanding that he was baptized by Jesus - presumably by means of the redemption rite - clearly helps explain where he got his authority. More significantly perhaps also is the fact that uncharacteristically Peter is not present when James and John make their demand. This is most uncharacteristic of the gospel. Peter is almost always the one disciple who corresponds directly with Jesus. The fact that James and John have taken over and Peter is nowhere to be found is a clear sign that Peter was baptized in the previous narrative.
Notes
12
3
4
In the very same manner as we see Irenaeus in Book One of Against Heresies go on to argue against the heretics belief in another god who instituted this second baptism rite to 'snatch' men from their Maker, the author of the Treatise on Second Baptism says: For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged, all those things which he has previously done being wiped away and obliterated. And therefore, although in martyrdom there is so great a change of things in a moment of time, that in a very rapid case all things may be changed; let nobody flatter himself who has lost the occasion of a glorious salvation, if by chance he has excluded himself therefrom by his own fault; even as that wife of Lot, who in a similar manner in time of trouble only, contrary to the angel's command, looked behind her, and she became a pillar of salt. On which principle also, that heretic who, by confessing Christ's name, is put to death, can subsequently correct nothing, if he should have thought anything erroneously of God or of Christ, although by believing on another God or on another Christ he has deceived himself: he is not a confessor of Christ, but in the name only of Christ; since also the apostle goes on to say, "And if I shall give up my body so that I may be burnt up with fire, but have not love, I profit nothing." We have already seen the connection between the martyr and 'Lot's wife' and we will develop the reference even further in our next chapter where we see it specifically alluded to in the persecutions in Gaul of 177 CE. Irenaeus's point here is to deny the heretics assumption that this form of baptism 'instantly redeems' us from our worldly masters. This Church Father is, as we shall see, intimately associated with the idea of monarchianism which strenuously argues for one rule, one Lord over all things and through all things. The heretics may indeed claim to have a second baptism called 'redemption' and which pretends to liberate slaves from their worldly Lord to another but as Irenaeus notes this an "empty confession and passion profits nothing, except that thereby it appears and is plain that he is a heretic who believes on another God, or receives another Christ than Him whom the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament manifestly declare, which announce without any obscurity the Father omnipotent, Creator of all things, and His Son. For it shall happen to them as to one who expects salvation from another God. Then, finally, contrary to their notion, they are condemned to eternal punishment by Christ, the Son of God the Father omnipotent, the Creator whom they have blasphemed, when God shall begin to judge the hidden things of men according to the Gospel by Christ Jesus, because they did not believe in Him, although they were washed in His name." Indeed if anyone's has any doubts about the same underlying context behind the description of the Marcite rites in Book One of Against Heresies and this text, one need only notice the common reference to the Anaxilaus the magician (Adv Haer 1.13.1; Anom. Treat. 16) and the liturgy of the sect and more importantly the common scriptural interest in Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38. We read: And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, "But I have another baptism to be baptized with." 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] But Irenaeus unlike the followers of Mark does not interpret these passages as reinforcing another baptism rite used to liberate men from their masters and restored to their fugitive Lord Jesus but apparently the one rule of water baptism known to the Catholic Church: 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; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. Irenaeus does go on to acknowledge that martyrdom or 'baptism of blood' can be seen as a kind of 'second baptism' but it is only open to " those who are made lawful believers" for "the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink." Clearly then Irenaeus did indeed not only know of a sect of Mark whose numbers were greatly augmented by fugitive slaves but as we have already seen possessed a 'secret gospel.' (Praescr. 25) As we already demonstrated there, our source here - Irenaeus - already intimates that this written 'hidden gospel' was associated with Mark. Now we can already come full circle and go back to Clement of Alexandria - himself a recognized Marcite - and his reference to the actual wording of the passage dealing with the second baptism, it becomes even more apparent how these ideas connect back to the original slave culture that Christianity developed from. For in no unmistakable terms do we see Clement identify that this 'redemption rite' was placed just before the aforementioned reference from the Gospel of Mark - i.e. Mark 10:38.
5 And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men; so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. Which none of us may disallow, although this invocation, if it be standing bare and by itself, could not suffice for affording salvation, lest on this principle we should believe that even Gentiles and heretics, who abuse the name of Jesus, could attain unto salvation without the true and entire thing.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 This is very reminiscent of the teachings of a pre-Christian baptizing sect among the Samaritans, the Israelite culture just to the north of Judea, called the Dositheans. Dositheus was called “father” and his followers were called the children of Dositheus. They were empowered to become children of God by Dositheus. “They said the dead would rise soon as children of Dositheus the Prophet of God”.
