Irenaeus’s Fingerprints on the Gospel
The pagan critic Celsus just testified to the existence of a ‘sealing’ and heavenly ascent rite in earliest Christianity connected with Mark 10:25. In a previous part of our investigation we saw the heretics associate Mark 10:35 - 45 with 'another baptism' explicitly distinguished from that of John the Baptist.1 Each report testifies to a ‘before’ and ‘after’ a missing section of the gospel of Mark which was especially dear to the tradition associated with the evangelist in Egypt and Gaul. However we shall take matters one step further in our present chapter. We shall finally explain the concept of ‘redemption’ in the original gospel of Mark and in so we will hopefully bring together all the separate elements developed during the course of our investigation.
The standard way of reading the so-called Question of James and John pericope in the Gospel of Mark is that it is about martyrdom. This understanding develops from the the passage being understood to immediately follow Jesus’s statement about his Passion in Mark 10:35 – 45. “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.”
To this end it has become almost second nature to assume that Jesus is calling out to his disciples and imploring them to die with him. The first person to read the material this way is – not surprisingly – Irenaeus. Irenaeus is in fact the first person to emphasize this as the correct chronology and - as is his habit - he makes his case from a presumption of Matthean primacy.2 Of course almost no one takes seriously the idea that Mark was dependent on Matthew any more. It was clearly part of Irenaeus’s effort to subordinate not only the apostle Mark but also his gospel.
To this end, given what we have seen about Irenaeus’s agenda, we should take a second look at the gospel of Mark to better understanding the implications of a restored ‘secret gospel’ have on our understanding of the Markan tradition’s interest in Mark 10:35 – 45. For it would seem there was another long passage in between the statement about Jesus’s death in Jerusalem which no longer allows for us to simply assume that Jesus was talking about death when he was answering James and John’s request. Indeed we can’t even assume that the two men were requesting to be seated at his right and his left.
Moreover we should be very cautious about allowing Irenaeus to be our guide to understanding any particular passage in the New Testament. He was a partisan who had a strong agenda to promote a particular edition of the New Testament which clearly added and removed material to ‘correct’ the sins of previous generations. As it now stands Jesus’s allusion to redemption in Mark 10:35 – 45 is event prompted James and John to request to 'grant them a request.' When Jesus essentially asks ‘what’s up?], they state make explicit their desire to be established at his right and left hands.3
Most translations of the Gospel of Mark render the surviving 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.”
Everyone, including Irenaeus, assumes that the two men are reacting to what immediately preceded this story. The ultimate question 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 or whether they just learned about the baptism of that other disciple and now want to undergo the same rite together.
Most of the effort to understand ‘Secret Mark’ has been to assume that the extra passage was simply an extension of what came before it. What we are about to suggest is that that Mark had Jesus predict the coming of another rite – the redemption – where two men would be ordained together. The best known example of this type of initiation seems to be reflected in the story of Gregory Thaumaturgus – originally named ‘Theodore’ – and his partner Athenodorus at the hands of Clement’s student Origen.4 The rite seems to have been perpetuated in monastic circles as adelphopoiesis and was very prominent in Byzantine circles although its origins were never properly understood.5
The problem of course is that no one stops to consider that the first person to promote our particular edition of the New Testament – i.e. Irenaeus - is also the first person to argue for the 'martyr interpretation' of the Question of James and John. We shouldn’t necessarily trust his exegesis of the Question of James and John as he has a vested interest in promoting a particular recension of the gospel, one which makes it seem as if a mother was encouraging her sons to die with Jesus. 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. In the end, the reality is that Irenaeus is again the first person to emphasize the "killing yourself to live" paradigm with respect to the passage. 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.
As such, Irenaeus's interpretation of Mark 10:35 - 45 depends on the corruption of the gospel of Mark employed by his followers in Gaul. Indeed as has been noted many times before, Matthew and Luke are little more than two deliberate forgeries of the gospel of Mark aimed at particular demographic groups. Irenaeus 'martyr interpretation' of the Question of James and John necessarily assumes the deliberate corruption of the gospel. It can only develop from our current arrangement of the narrative.
Irenaeus writes in one place 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.’
Irenaeus immediately adds by way of emphasis “in the one case the passion is referred to, in the other the kingdom is understood.” In other words, Irenaeus argues against the heretics that the Question of James and John is to be understood as a reaction to what immediately precedes it in the gospel.
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 there is something rather striking about the new development in Matthew. It is amazing to see how Salome's 'idea' reminds us of the situation during the persecutions in Gaul in 177 CE. As we have already seen, 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 in the textual manipulation that is Matthew’s version of Mark 10:35 – 45 the 'Lot's wife typology’ we examined earlier. The image of a mother volunteering up her children to die is again very striking. It is clearly an important theme in Irenaeus's writings related undoubtedly to an unprecedented interest in women generally. Matthew's sudden insertion of the mother of James and John rather than James and John clearly could only have come from the hand of Irenaeus.
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 so arranged to reinforce the Catholic martyrdom interpretation. Yet as we have already just seen that Clement did not hold martyrdom in as much esteem as his Roman colleague. 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.
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 because 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.
In other words, we shouldn’t think about Irenaeus conspiring to end the second baptism practices of the Markan community as much as he was trying to introduce a new doctrine within the Church by means of its omission. Because there was no pre-existent martyrdom imperative Irenaeus has to 'come in through the backdoor' with an editorial omission like this. Yet we should also acknowledge that 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.6 It would seem then that a late editor was haphazardly arranging the gospels to reinforce a particular theological point of view.
It is generally agreed that Mark's original account was being used as a template for all the other gospels. The changes made to canonical Mark such as the omission of the second baptism in chapter 10 were also being reinforced - and even strengthened - in the parallel canonical accounts of Matthew and Luke.7 Indeed 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.8
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 further 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.
Indeed 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.
The author of De Rebaptismate 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. 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.'
The author of De Rebaptismate 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 everyone who thirsts may come and drink."
Notes
1
2
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
6
7 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. In other words, he never says that Christians were using these words to imitate his example.
