Secret Mark and the Baptism of the Dead

This post is more of a speculative argument.

Peter Jeffery has argued that Secret Mark can't be authentic, because it appears to be about baptism (symbolized by the raising of the dead man).  But it doesn't seem to reflect any actual baptismal practices in place during Clement of Alexandria's time, therefore it can't be authentic.  Thus, any claims about the use of Secret Mark in early Christian baptismal ritual (in Alexandria or elsewhere) can't be true.

I've tried to argue against this in many ways, but here I'm just going to address one specific facet of Jeffery's claim, namely: the relationship of the resurrection of the man in Secret Mark to baptism in general.

It is an interesting metaphor, and basically works: baptism was a kind of regeneration of the soul, saving believers from death and (maybe) hell, granting them immortality.

I think there could also be some gnostic or proto-gnostic symbolism in the passage, too: the gnostics saw the body as a tomb, so Christian gnostics saw baptism as a salvation from the body.  The corporeal body weighed them down with sin, and kept them from ascending to a sinless paradise.  So the burial of the man in a tomb, in the Secret Mark pericope, could represent that gnostic symbolism as well.

Yet some (like Jeffery) don't see the right baptismal symbolism in this passage.  They wonder why the man is being instructed after baptism, why he wears the sindon after baptism, or why he wears the sindon at all.

First let me note that Jeffery is wrong about Clement on perfection and baptism.  Contrary to Jeffery's claim, on page 7 of his response to Brown, that Jesus was perfected before baptism, Clement actually states that baptism gave Jesus a perfection, just as it does us!  Indeed, post-baptismal perfection is for Clement a process that is not finally completed until the Parousia.  I think Jeffery has gotten this rather badly wrong.

I also think that teaching after baptism must surely have been a practice of the early church--and, in my previous post, I've wondered if the early church might have placed some importance on the experience of spirit baptism, in addition to water baptism. But we will leave these issues aside.

Because even beyond that, if there is anything unusual with the passage with respect to baptismal practices in Clement's time (the use of the sindon, for example), I also wonder if there is a relationship between Secret Mark and the early church's practice of the baptism of the dead.

We know the baptism of the dead extends back to the teaching of Paul (1 Cor 15:29).  We also know it was still practiced as late as the late 4th c., due to the canons of the Third Council of Carthage, which advise against the practice.  Other patristic evidence shows it may have been practices by other heretical groups--including the Marcionites, I might add.

As for Clement's time, we have Tertullian's statement, speaking sarcastically of the Marcionite god, that "He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a cælebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism." (Nuptias non coniungit, coniunctas non admittit, neminem tingit nisi caelibem aut spadonem, morti aut repudio baptisma servat.) This does seem to refer to a practice of baptizing the dead, around 200CE.  Recall also that Tertullian is writing from Africa--right where the Third Council of Carthage was held two hundred years later.  We might be looking at a peculiarly African/Egyptian practice (or one that was centered on the African churches).

How could the baptism of the dead relate to Secret Mark?  The connection seems fairly obvious--Jesus raises a dead man in Secret Mark.  Notice that there are three resurrections in the gospels attributable to Jesus: the daughter of Jairus (though "Jairus" is unnamed in Matthew's version), the widow of Nain's son, and Lazarus. The connection of Lazarus with Secret Mark is obvious.  I would argue that the widow of Nain's son is also a version of the Secret Mark/Lazarus story--other critics have noted the connection between the widow of Nain and the Lazarus story as well.  The daughter of Jairus might not be a proper resurrection miracle at all, since Jesus says of the girl that she is only "sleeping", but this may be a symbolic statement--notice Jesus says the same of Lazarus.  So we only have two resurrection miracles in the gospels--one the resurrection of a young girl, the other the resurrection of an adult man (called "young" in English, although a NEANISKOS was in his twenties).

Now, why does Jesus raise these two youths?  It could be that he has to, to prove he is a prophet--Michael Turton, for example, portrays the raising of Jairus' daughter as a re-telling of Elisha's raising of the Shunamite woman's son. Making Jesus a prophet as powerful as Elisha.

But why does Jesus get so upset, in both Jn 11 (where he weeps) and Secret Mark (where he becomes angry at the man's sister)?  Why is the man still wearing a sindon in Secret Mark?  Why does Jesus instruct him in Secret Mark after he is raised? 

What if the answer to these questions is, because Secret Mark was connected with early Christian practices of baptizing the dead?  Jesus becomes angry in Secret Mark because the woman is asking for something controversial.  The author is trying to indicate how suspect the practice of baptizing the dead was. The raising of the man is not just symbolic of the baptism of the living believer; it's also symbolic of the baptism of the dead! Similarly, Jesus weeps in Jn 11 because Lazarus has died before he could be baptized.  Mary proclaims that Lazarus will be raised on the resurrection day at the Parousia, but Jesus replies "I am the resurrection"! Meaning, the baptism of Jesus is the only path towards resurrection. Why not just leave the dead alone? Why weep for them? Isn't Mary right that they will be raised anyway?  But if they died before baptism--and especially if they were too young to make an adult profession of faith when they died, as with Jairus' daughter--then there might be some commotion (as there is in all versions of the story). Indeed, Jesus only raises the man (and Lazarus) because he is asked to, and there is a strong implication that he is making an exception.

The man shows up in a sindon. Because, those are his clothes! Notice how when Lazarus is raised, he, too, is still "tied hand and foot with burial bands, and his face was wrapped in a cloth."  Why does Jesus instruct the man after he was raised?  Because he's been dead--so he hasn't had a chance to get the catechesis he needs, unlike the living catechumens! The lesson for the living may simply be: the dead will get the instruction they need, too. There might have been grumbling among neophyte Christians at the time about the need for catechesis--why should they have to learn about he mysteries of the church, if the dead can be raised anyway? Seems like the dead get a free pass!  But Secret Mark says no, they too will have to be taught the meaning of the mysteries.

All of this is incredibly speculative, but it puts a new spin on not only Secret Mark, but also all the resurrections in the gospels, and I find it a refreshing idea. It helps provide an explanation where otherwise there might be none. It is only one of several explanations for Secret Mark I have provided, but the point is that several explanations are available for it, insted of none as Jeffery claims.