They remind me in a lot of ways of Charlesmagne whose hands had become so accustomed to holding a sword that he was incapable of writing with a pen. The reality is that Stromata Book Five is an explicit reference to what we call 'LGM 1' (i.e. the first addition to the (L)onger (G)ospel of (M)ark referenced in the letter Clement wrote to a certain Theodore). I want to go through the material, almost line by line, so that my readers can follow at home. If they want to read the original text on their own it is here.
It is only because this article is too long that I had to divide it up into a series. This is the first of three articles on what appears in the Stromateis Book Five Chapter One, and it doesn't make it all the way to what I see as an explicit reference to LGM 1 which I will cite here:
Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh," that He might be seen. The righteous man (= Zacchaeus) will seek the discovery that flows from love, to which if he haste he prospers. For it is said, "To him that knocketh, it shall be opened: ask, and it shall be given to you." "For the violent that storm the kingdom " are not so in disputations speeches; but by continuance in a right life and unceasing prayers, are said "to take it by force," wiping away the blots left by their previous sins.I would like very much to have jumped right into a discussion of this passage and compare it to the material in Clement's recently discovered letter but I think that most scholarship on the Mar Saba suffers from this kind of impetuousness, from this kind of ambition. As such I would like to matters slowly and demonstrate the literary context of this important reference in the work itself.
"You may obtain wickedness, even in great abundance? And him who toils God helps; For the gifts of the Muses, hard to win, Lie not before you, for any one to bear away."
The knowledge of ignorance is, then, the first lesson in walking according to the Word. An ignorant man has sought, and having sought, he finds the teacher; and finding has believed, and believing has hoped; and henceforward having loved, is assimilated to what was loved -- endeavouring to be what he first loved. [Clement Strom. 5.1.56]
So let's start from the beginning of Clement's fifth book. Clement says that 'faith' has reference to the 'Son' (i.e. the divine Logos) while 'knowledge' pertains to the Father:
εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ τὴν 〈μὲν〉 πίστιν ἡμῶν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τὴν δὲ γνῶσιν περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι διαστέλλοντες. (Strom 5.1.1)This, as I have noted many times here is yet another indication of the two 'editions' of Mark referenced in the Letter to Theodore (i.e. the canonical text being the 'faith' edition, while the 'secret' text dispenses mystic 'knowledge' of the previously unknown 'Father'). Indeed Clement concludes the first paragraph with the reference to a 'gnostic canon' which represents 'the knowledge of the Son and Father' and 'is the attainment and comprehension of the truth by the truth':
ἐκ πίστεως γὰρ εἰς γνῶσιν, διὰ υἱοῦ πατήρ· γνῶσις δὲ υἱοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τὸν γνωστικὸν τὸν τῷ ὄντι γνωστικὸν ἐπιβολὴ καὶ διάληψίς ἐστιν ἀληθείας διὰ τῆς ἀληθείας (Strom 5.1.4)Already we have a clear sign that something like a discussion of 'Secret Mark' is going to follow. There are two gospels, one of 'faith' and one of 'knowledge' and the understanding of the latter is only found through the proper exegetical method, that is - 'by comparing like with like' - or by using the 'public' gospel of Mark as the basis for one's interpretation of the mystic texts. All these points form the backbone to the Letter to Theodore, and Clement shows a parallel exegetical method in Quis Dives Salvetur.
So let's move on to his first point in this demonstration of how 'the gospel of faith' is to be used to interpret 'the gospel of knowledge' according to the 'gnostic canon' (κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τὸν γνωστικὸν) of Alexandria. Clement says that the harmony between the gospel of 'faith' and the gospel of 'knowledge' leads to 'salvation' of those who understand (Strom 5.1.4). 'The Apostle' witnesses this fact when he speaks of the 'gnostic canon' desire to 'set into you some spiritual gift, in order that ye may be strengthened.' (Rom 1.11 - 12; Strom 5.1.5).
The verb στηρίζω which is here translated as 'to set' is a common Greek word usually associated with establishing something fixed. The implication is clearly that the individual will be changed or transformed in some way. The common manner of interpreting the passage is of course that 'the apostle' is talking about a 'spiritual teaching' but Clement intimates that he is talking about a form of baptism always associated with the heresies - i.e. the immersion of the individual into 'fire and war' which in turn will transform his being from something 'natural' into something 'spiritual.'
The earliest report about this 'other baptism' is found in Irenaeus's detailed discussion of the 'redemption' (ἀπολύτρωσις ) rite of 'those of Mark.' I have always argued that the 'Mark' here is clearly the St. Mark of contemporary Alexandria. The rite is connected with Mark 10:35 - 35 by both the followers of Mark and Marcion (cf. Irenaeus AH 1.21.1,2). This cannot be coincidental with the discovery of the Mar Saba document given that LGM 1 (the first addition to the long gospel of Mark referenced in to Theodore) appears immediately before Mark 10:35 - 45.
Clement says the following about this 'other baptism' ritual in what follows in Stromata 5.1. He begins by making the following commentary on Romans 1.11 - 12 cited above:
The apostle, then, manifestly proclaims (καταγγέλλων) a twofold faith, or rather one which admits of growth (αὔξησιν) and perfection (τελείωσιν); for the common faith (κοινὴ πίστις) lies beneath as a foundation. To those, therefore, who want to be healed (θεραπευθῆναι ποθοῦσιν), and are moved by faith, He added, "Thy faith hath saved thee." (cf. Mark 5:34) But that which is excellently built upon (ἐξαίρετος ἐποικοδομουμένη συντελειοῦται) is consummated in the believer, and is again perfected by the faith which results from instruction and the word, in order to the performance of the commandments (cf. Mark 10:17 - 31)Before we develop the proper understanding of this passage in terms of the existence of Secret Mark, let's just confirm my initial claim that 'baptism' is at once also the context. As Matyáš Havrda (Some Observations on Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book Five. Author: Havrda, Matyáš1. Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 64, Number 1) notes:
According to Le Boulluec, SChr 279, 11, Clement’s description of the content of faith refl ects the part of the pre-baptismal catechetic instruction that is concerned with the Son. Since the statements concerning the Son are presented as the content of faith (rather than mere instruction), Clement presumably refers specifically to the baptismal confession formula. In addition to the Christological part of the baptismal formula in Traditio apostolica 21, mentioned by Le Boulluec in this connection, compare also the creedal statements preserved by Ignatius, Eph. 18,2; Trall. 9,1-2; Smyrn. 1,1-2, and Justin, Apol. I,13,3; cf. J. Pelikan–V. Hotchkiss (eds.), Creeds and Confessions of Faith in Christian Tradition, I, New Haven–London 2003, 40, 46. Clement’s distinction between faith and knowledge in Strom. V,1,2 may be compared to the two stages of Christian initiation mentioned in Strom. V,71,2 and described as ὁμολογία (“confession”) and ἀνάλυσις, respectively (cf. below, 18). In the latter passage, ὁμολογία replaces the “cathartic mode” of initiation, viz. the purifi catory rites (τὰ καθάρσια) in the Greek mysteries, which, according to Strom. V,70,7, correspond to “the bath” (τὸ λουτρόν) among “the barbarians,” i.e. presumably Jews. Th is juxtaposition of (Greek) purifi cation, (Jewish) bath and (Christian) confession probably indicates that ὁμολογία amounts to the baptismal confession in Strom. V,71,2; cf. Le Boulluec, SChr 279, 242 (ad Strom. V,70,7) and 244. (p. 4)So much then for our need to justify the connection of the passage with an Alexandrian baptism ritual. Let's move on to the question of whether Clement is witnessing a 'secret gospel' in addition to the 'gospel of faith.'
Now we have consistently noted here that Clement interprets 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 3:12 in terms of the 'public' and 'secret' gospels of Alexandria. While not explicitly referencing the distinction between original 'preaching' of Christ and him crucified and the 'secret wisdom' meant for the perfect in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, Clement once again references his consistent variant reading of 1 Corinthians 3:10 to mean that the 'gospel of knowledge' was built on top of the original foundation of the 'gospel of faith' in Jesus and the historical narrative preserved publicly in the churches.
This pattern is evidenced throughout the section cited above. There is a gospel (or 'faith') which pertains to 'growth' - i.e. development - and another which is 'of perfection.' This concept is explicitly referenced in to Theodore no less than 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 9. Yet what is most striking of all about this section is the juxtapostion of the Healing of the Mary Magdalene (Mark 5:24 - 34) and the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10:17 - 31). In all the commentary on this material no one actually discusses the scriptural referenced.
There can be no doubt that these are the only two passages being cited here. The first reference is so identified in the Roberts and Donaldson and other editions. The second reference is typically ignored presumably because it is just a 'generic reference' to references in the gospel. This is just incredible as there is only one possible reference here - Mark 10:17 - 31. Let's look at the citation again:
ἡ δὲ ἐξαίρετος ἐποικοδομουμένη συντελειοῦται τῷ πιστῷ καὶ συναπαρτίζεται αὐτῇ ἡ ἐκ μαθήσεως περιγινομένη καὶ τοῦ λόγου τὰς ἐντολὰς ἐπιτελεῖν κτλ.There is a great debate in scholarship as to the proper understanding of these words. Clement has just referenced 'the common faith' and is now explaining the 'excellent faith.' Yet there really can be only one scripture being referenced here given the allusion to 'perfecting' (συντελειοῦται), 'instruction' (μαθήσεως) and the relationship between the gospel (τοῦ λόγου) and the performance of the commandments (τὰς ἐντολὰς ἐπιτελεῖν κτλ).
But that which is excellently built upon is consummated in the believer, and is again perfected by the faith which results from instruction and the word, in order to the performance of the commandments
Indeed given our previous discussions about Clement's variant reading of Mark 10:17 - 31 and his texts inclusion of the Greatest Commandment within this pericope (as with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Marcionite gospel and early versions of the Diatessaron) it is important also to keep our eye on the reference to the 'consumation of the believer' at the very beginning of the section. Clement is not only referencing Mark 10:17 - 31 but more importantly something or some pericope which implies that the 'lesson' here was 'consumated' in the rich youth at some later section of the gospel. So it is that Havrda translates the section as:
the excellent faith, on the other hand, being built upon it, matures along with the believer, and the faith that arises from learning is perfected along with it so that it can fulfill the commandments of the Word (i.e. Jesus).To this end we already know that one of the commandments Clement consistently identifies as being in his version of Mark 10:17 - 31 is 'do not lust' (cf. Strom. 3.1.3,6 etc). However what is important for us to keep in mind is that Clement has already moved beyond the pericope of the Question of the Rich Youth to a later section where the rich youth has appeared 'consumated' and complete after his ritual initiation.
For those who are familiar with Clement's consistent exegesis of Mark 10:17 - 31 the answer of the exact place when the rich youth appears 'consumated' and 'perfected' should be obvious. Clement tells us over and over again in Quis Dives Salvetur and his other writings that it is in the Zacchaeus narrative (which appears immediately after Mark 10:17 - 31 in all copies of the Diatessaron. As we noted 'Zacchaeus' is an obvious codeword for 'ritually cleansed' for it means exactly that in Aramaic - i.e. 'cleansed,' 'purified,' 'blameless' and is the word used in the Targumic literature as a substitute for 'righteous' in Hebrew scripture. It is also the name apparently that gnostics used for those who were purified by baptism (Epiphanius Panarion 32).
While Clement does not explicitly reference Zacchaeus it is extraordinarily significant that he immediately goes on to site the section which follows the Zacchaeus narrative in the Diatessaron in what follows in Stromata 5.1:
The apostle, then, manifestly announces a twofold faith, or rather one which admits of growth and perfection; for the common faith lies beneath as a foundation. To those, therefore, who desire to be healed, and are moved by faith, He added, "Thy faith hath saved thee." But that which is excellently built upon is consummated in the believer, and is again perfected by the faith which results from instruction and the word, in order to the performance of the commandments who were the apostles (ὁποῖοι ἦσαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι), in whose case it is said that "faith removed mountains and transplanted trees." Whence, perceiving the greatness of its power, they asked "that faith might be added to them;" a faith which salutarily bites the soil "like a grain of mustard," and grows magnificently in it, to such a degree that the reasons of things sublime rest on it. (p. 5)It is simply amazing that Havrda immediately skips over this section in his study of this section of the Stromata. Yet this perfectly demonstrates what is wrong in contemporary scholarship and why the topic of 'Secret Mark' is ignored by authorities on Clement.
Patristic scholars are only interested it seems in examining Clement in terms of things said by him or other Church Fathers. This is why they are 'Patristic scholars' rather than 'New Testament scholars.' Yet 'New Testament scholars' want to typically avoid using the Patristic exegesis of a given pericope (the reading yes, but the interpretation no). The New Testament scholar likes to use linguistic arguments - or better yet his or her interpretation of patterns in language - to determine the meaning of a given passage. Yet the only way that the authenticity of Secret Mark can be addressed is if we notice patterns of exegesis in Clement of Alexandria which suggest a relationship with Morton Smith's discovery at the Mar Saba monastery.
Yet we are laying bare the hidden agenda of all scholars at the moment. They want to be free to use their imagination. No one wants to be 'handcuffed' by Clement. It is a very monotonous exercise to stick to what Clement says and the patterns of scriptural exegesis he engages in. The Patristic scholars want the freedom to interpret Clement by their assumptions about who or what Clement was, in the same the New Testament scholars want the freedom to support their notions of how the gospels developed.
If only people like Havrda wouldn't 'skip over' sections of text like the one we just cited they would immediately realize that Clement HAS TO BE using a gospel related to the Diatessaron. It's so fucking scandalous. The scholar and HIS needs and desires takes precedent over the search for truth.
So it is again that we must go back to this section and see that in no uncertain terms that Clement identifies 'an apostle' or 'apostles' as having underwent this ritual purification and 'perfection' connected with Mark 10:17 - 31:
The apostle, then, manifestly announces a twofold faith, or rather one which admits of growth and perfection; for the common faith lies beneath as a foundation. To those, therefore, who desire to be healed, and are moved by faith, He added, "Thy faith hath saved thee." But that which is excellently built upon is consummated in the believer, and is again perfected by the faith which results from instruction and the word, in order to the performance of the commandments who were the apostles (ὁποῖοι ἦσαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι), in whose case it is said that "faith removed mountains and transplanted trees." Whence, perceiving the greatness of its power, they asked "that faith might be added to them;" a faith which salutarily bites the soil "like a grain of mustard," and grows magnificently in it, to such a degree that the reasons of things sublime rest on it.In most translations there is a period placed immediately following the phrase 'the performance of the commandments' because the sentence seems to be a run on sentence to our sensibilities. Yet it is important to note that in the original Greek there is no break here. The apostles are being described as the one's 'perfected,' the one's to whom all that follows applies.
Yet this notion of the apostles already starting to be perfect before the Passion seems totally bizarre to us. And our discomfort will increase when we realize that Clement is not stringing together a series of random citations from the gospel but instead citing directly again from a non-canonical gospel related to the Diatessaron. For we read Clement cite both the transplanting of mountains and trees:
in whose case it is said that "faith removed mountains and transplanted trees." Whence, perceiving the greatness of its power, they asked "that faith might be added to them" - a faith which salutarily bites the soil "like a grain of mustard,"Yet the only gospel which has this narrative is Luke 17 and it just has the mention of the transplating of the trees:
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.However the Diatessaron tradition preserves a back to back reference to both 'mountain' and 'tree':
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Let there be in you the faith of God. Verily I say unto you, if ye believe, and doubt not in your hearts, and assure yourselves that that will be which ye say, ye shall have what ye say. And if ye say to this mountain, Remove, and fall into the sea, it shall be. And all that ye ask God in prayer, and believe, he will give you. And the apostles said unto our Lord, Increase our faith. He said unto them, If there be in you faith like a grain of mustard, ye shall say to this fig tree, Be thou torn up, and be thou planted in the sea; and it will obey you. [Diatessaron 32]The same pattern is evidenced in the early citation of this passage by Ephrem and Aphrahat which I will demonstrate in a subsequent post.
The point of course is that once again Clement is thinking in very linear terms here with the order of the so-called 'Phillips Narrative' (see my previous posts) very much in his mind. There is a section of text which is common to almost every Diatessaronic narrative which begins with the Rich Fool and proceeds through the Question of the Rich Youth, Dives and Lazarus and then the Question about Sitting on the Right and Left, the Zacchaeus all the way to the entrance into Jerusalem. This passage appears immediately after the Zacchaeus in the Diatessaronic narratives and I think is being used in a way consistent with the ordering of the chronology which precedes it. Clement is here saying that the Word (i.e. Jesus) can perfect the initiation of the Church of Alexandria in the same way as he transformed the rich youth who asked the original question about perfection.
To this end it might be useful here to cite Osborne's translation of this same section noting again that Clement, says that the apostle references:
a double faith or rather a single faith which is capable of growth and perfection. For the common faith remains as the foundation ... The other, the higher faith, builds on the first and is perfected with the believer. With study it achieves its goal of obedience to the commands of the logos. This was the disposition of the apostles of whom it was said that their faith could move mountains and transplant trees. Consequently, perceiving the greatness of this power, they asked that faith might be increased in them, the faith which, like a grain of mustard seed, stimulates the soul for good and grows in it magnificently so that the loftiest reasons rest upon it. (Clement of Alexandria p. 157)
The point then is that is that Clement was not only clearly citing from a gospel related to the Diatessaron but the chronology of the narrative is very important because he clearly infers that the apostles 'saw' that someone or something had just taken place which embodied the very transformation or 'perfection' introduced back in Mark 10:17 - 31. Clement isn't being casual with his references. He is specific saying that the gospel is twofold - one edition being written for beginners and another for those wishing 'completion.' Yet in order for us to see how Clement envisioned this process of 'completion' we have to advance further in to Stromateis Book Five.
After bring forward some notable heretics (Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion) and demonstrating how their position is inconsistent with what is written in the gospel - i.e. Jesus coming down to earth to for the explicit purpose of transforming the phusis of man and thereby 'save' him - Clement explains what is the correct interpretation of some passage that is held in common, but specifically unmentioned. We should however remember that every interpreter of this material has acknowledge that Stromata 5.1 begins with a discussion of the instruction which precedes baptism and now proceeds to the purpose of that ritual - viz. the context of the transformation of the physical nature of the initiation.
Instead of going through each heretic that Clement brings up I thought it might be useful to only touch upon Havrda's attempt to disentangle the notorious difficult passage which introduces this section - Clement's discussion of Basilides' interpretation of the section. We read in Clement:
V,3,2/SChr 3,6-12: Εἰ γὰρ φύσει τις τὸν θεὸν ἐπίσταται, ὡς Βασιλείδης οἴεται, τὴν νόησιν τὴν ἐξαίρετον πίστιν ἅμα καὶ βασιλείαν καὶ <. . .> καλῶν, κτίσιν οὐσίας ἀξίαν τοῦ ποιήσαντος πλησίον ὑπάρχειν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνεύων, οὐσίαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐξουσίαν, καὶ φύσιν καὶ ὑπόστασιν, κτίσεως ἀνυπερθέτου κάλλος ἀδιόριστον, οὐχὶ δὲ ψυχῆς αὐτεξουσίου λογικὴν συγκατάθεσιν λέγει τὴν πίστιν.Again for those of us who are interested in Secret Mark the themes are obviously in keeping with the assumption of a baptism narrative being placed in the middle of this chronology. However Havrda bipasses the question of the gospel Clement is using entirely.
For if we know God by nature, as Basilides contends when he calls the excellent intellection 'faith' as well as 'kingdom' and < . . . >; and interprets it as the creation of substance worthy of being near to the Creator, then he says that faith is essence
Instead his discussion focuses on whether Basilides's interest in the term 'kingdom' and its relationship with the mustard seed passage which precedes it:
Perhaps instead the whole syntagma τὴν ἐξαίρετον πίστιν ἅμα καὶ βασιλείαν should be understood as a subject. It might refer to the specific kind of πίστις discussed immediately before our passage (2,6-3,1), where Clement compares it to “a mustard seed” (κόκκος σινάπεως: 3,1/SChr 3,3). This is obviously an allusion to the metaphor of faith in Matthew 17:20 (ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως κτλ.), but also (as lines SChr 3,4-5 indicate) to Matt 13:31-32 parr., where “the mustard seed” is a symbol of “the kingdom of heaven” (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν). It strikes me as plausible that πίστις ὡς κόκκος σινάπεως mentioned in 3,1 remains the subject of the next sentence (3,2) in the form of ἡ ἐξαίρετος πίστις ἅμα καὶ βασιλεία, since the identifi cation of πίστις as βασιλεία is already implied in 3,1. If so, it might be possible to retain Schwartz’s conjecture and translate the first part of the sentence as follows: “For if we know God by nature, as Basilides contends when he calls the excellent faith as well as kingdom ‘intellection’ . . .” (p. 6Of course we have just demonstrated that Havrda is wrong here. The passage is not connected with Matthew but with the specific wording of a non-canonical gospel related to the Diatessaron. Yet Havrda's observation about Matt 13:31-32 might be a good place to bring to a close this current discussion.
Clearly both Clement and Basilides are thinking that the 'mustard seed' being connected with 'the kingdom.' But why? Why has the mustard seed been used as an allegory for the concept of 'kingdom' or 'kingship'? Yes we are all aware that somehow it means something about 'the smallest of things' growing up into a massive tree but how is this supposed to be connected with the uprooted fig tree? The play on words is obvious to any native Aramaic speaker for the word for fig tree is 'te'enah' and to teach is 'tena.' In other words it is an antinomian symbol of the core belief of Marcionitism.
Indeed the fact that Clement specifically references 'the transplanting' of trees n the section cited earlier it is difficult not to see this as somehow imply that in the non-canonical gospel used by Clement, Jesus intends the mustard tree is to replace the 'fig tree' - i.e. the Law. It is worth noting that as late as Severus of Al'Ashmunein, the parable of the mustard seed has a very specific applicability to St. Mark himself. We read in his First Homily on St. Mark that the patriarchs of Alexandria:
sat upon his episcopal throne, one after another, each of them succeeding his predecessor; and thus all were his [i.e. Mark's] representatives, and the shepherds of his flock, and his imitators in his faithSeverus goes on to liken St. Mark to the tree that grew from the mustard seed because he is Christ:
St. Mark the apostle and servant of Jesus Christ has appeared among all creatures like the mustard seed (which speaks the Gospel), which grows and becomes a huge tree, so that the birds come to rest on its branches and get away from his shadow, because, although our Lord Jesus Christ (may he be glorified!) have wanted to nominate himself for this comparison, however, can also apply the meaning to St. Mark, this shining light, for those who follow Christ are themselves Christs and other members of Christ." [Homily on St. Mark 1 p.7]Indeed that Clement himself has the very same thing in mind - viz. the Alexandrian Church - is clear from a fragment preserved in Nicetas - "the word which proclaims the kingdom of heaven is sharp and pungent as mustard, and represses bile, that is, anger, and checks inflammation, that is, pride; and from this word the soul's true health and eternal soundness flow. To such increased size did the growth of the word come, that the tree which sprang from it (that is the Church of Christ established over the whole earth) filled the world, so that the fowls of the air--that is, divine angels and lofty souls--dwelt in its branches." (Nicetas Canon on Matt 13:31, 32)
Now before we go let's just sit back and make mental note of why the author of Clement's non-canonical gospel would have introduced a saying about 'something very small' being transformed and being an example of the kingdom just before the entrance into Jerusalem. The answer has to be - given the specific context of the material in a discussion of catechetical instruction accompanying baptism - that Clement knew of the redemption ritual of the 'followers of Mark' and other heretics. Yet this reference to the heretic Mark (or 'Marcus') is very significant because at the very beginning of Irenaeus's discussion of the sect there is this curious reference to the parable:
Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that grace, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the grace, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that grace who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." (Irenaeus AH 1.13.1)Does everyone now see it? The followers of Mark are interpreting the passage in the EXACT same way as Alexandrians do down to Severus of Al'Ashmunein and beyond. In other words, the discussion is about the transformation of the physical nature of man. The mustard seed stards as something 'small' but is transformed - by Jesus - into something great, and indeed the very embodiment of the 'kingdom.'
Irenaeus is clearly implying that the heretic tradition thinks that its 'Mark' is the very embodiment of this mustard seed - viz. 'the Christ' - no less than the Alexandrian tradition of Severus of Al'Ashmunein thinks that St. Mark is intended. In other words, the common conceptual concept is that 'something little' is being transformed into the king who will preside over the earthly kingdom. Jesus is not originally intended because he is already perfect; he doesn't need transformation.
To this end the initiation in LGM 1 cannot be seen as coincidentally involving a νεανίσκος someone of a young age (or 'small'). He too is being initiated in order to have his nature transformed and more significantly taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. We already know what this 'mystery' is by Clement's other references here - the youth is like the mustard seed because the youth is St. Mark himself.
