Scapegoat Sacrifice and the Crucifixion

[Secret Alias]

So the question comes back to - what gospel passage does Origen, the student of Clement, have in mind when he explains Leviticus 16:4. Origen says:

"A consecrated linen tunic will be put on.” (Tunica inquit linea sanctificata induetur Lev 16.4)

Linen rises up from the earth (linum de terra oritur) a sanctified linen tunic that Christ puts on (tunica ergo sanctificata linea induitur uerus pontifex Christus), with the nature of an earthly body (cum naturam terreni corporis sumit). Remember that it is said about the body that it is earth and it will go into the earth. (de corpore enim dicitur quia terra sit et in terram ibit cf. Genesis 3:19) Therefore my Lord and Savior, wanting to resurrect that which had gone into the earth, took an earthly body that he might carry it raised up from the earth to heaven (Volens ergo Dominus et Saluator meus hoc, quod in terram ierat, resuscitare terrenum suscepit corpus, ut id eleuatum de terra portaret ad caelum).

And the assertion in the Law that the high priest is clothed "with a linen tunic" contains a a figure of this mystery (Et huius mysterii tenet figuram hoc quod in lege scribitur, ut linea tunica pontifex induatur). But that it added "sanctified" must not be heard as superfluous (Sed quod addidit: sanctificata, non otiose audiendum est). For "the tunic" that was the flesh of Christ was "sanctified," for it was not conceived from the seed of man but begotten of the Holy Spirit (Sanctificata namque fuit tunica carnis Christi; non enim erat ex semine uiri concepta, sed ex sancto Spiritu generata).

LXX Lev 16:4:

And he shall put on the consecrated linen tunic, and he shall have on his flesh the linen drawers, and shall gird himself with a linen girdle, and shall put on the linen cap, they are holy garments

and he shall bathe all his body in water, and shall put them on.

καὶ χιτῶνα λινοῦν ἡγιασμένον ἐνδύσεται καὶ περισκελὲς λινοῦν ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ζώνῃ λινῇ ζώσεται καὶ κίδαριν λινῆν περιθήσεται ἱμάτια ἅγιά

ἐστιν καὶ λούσεται ὕδατι πᾶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνδύσεται αὐτά

The root of the word for bathe here is λούω. The closest passage which conforms to what Origen is suggesting is Secret Mark:

Jesus went off with her into the garden where the tomb was (Ἰησοῦς ἀπῆλθεν μετ᾽ αὐτῆς εἰς τὸν κῆπον ὅπου ἦν τὸ μνημεῖον), and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him (ἐξέτεινεν τὴν χεῖρα καὶ ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν), 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 (ὁ νεανίσκος πρὸς αὐτὸν περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνῷ). And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And rising (Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς), he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

Notice that the body is 'in the earth' (= Jesus raised him). This conforms exactly to the idea of a body raised and resurrected from the earth as in Origen. Notice also the linen cloth and the concept of 'resurrecting.' While it is unfortunate that we don't have the original Greek, there can be no doubt that it is this passage of all gospel passages which most closely resembles the act of Jesus that Origen has in mind related to the ceremonial washing of the priests and this is further confirmed by the context in which Clement places the ritual in Secret Mark,

Clement associates the rite with "the hierophantic teaching of the Lord" which are in turn are associated with "the adyton (holy of holies) of truth hidden by seven veils" (τὸ ἄδυτον τῆς ἑπτάκις κεκαλυμμένης ἀληθείας). Of course the high priest is washing and redressing in the very same place in the Leviticus 16 rite and interestingly Clement says of that rite in the Stromata:

And they say that the robe prophesied the ministry in the flesh, by which He (the Logos) was seen in closer relation to the world. So the high priest, putting off his consecrated robe (the universe, and the creation in the universe, were consecrated by Him assenting that, what was made, was good), washes himself (λούεται), and puts on the other tunic -- a holy-of holies one (ἅγιον ἁγίου), so to speak -- which is to accompany him into the adytum (τὰ ἄδυτα); exhibiting, as seems to me, the Levite and Gnostic, as the chief of other priests (those bathed in water, and clothed in faith alone, and expecting their own individual abode), himself distinguishing the objects of the intellect from the things of sense, rising above other priests, hasting to the entrance to the world of ideas, to wash himself from the things here below, not in water, as formerly one was cleansed on being enrolled in the tribe of Levi.

But purified (καθαρὸς) already by the gnostic Word (τῷ γνωστικῷ λόγῳ) in his whole heart, and set up right (κατορθώσας), and having improved that mode of life received from the priest to the highest pitch, being quite sanctified (ἡγνισμένος) both in word and life, and having put on the bright array of glory (ἐπενδυσάμενος τὸ γάνωμα τῆς δόξης), and received the ineffable inheritance of that spiritual and perfect man (τοῦ πνευματικοῦ ἐκείνου καὶ τελείου ἀνδρὸς τὴν ἀπόρρητον κληρονομίαν ἀπολαβών), "which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man;" and having become son and friend (υἱὸς καὶ φίλος γενόμενος), he is now replenished with insatiable contemplation face to face (πρόσωπον ἤδη πρὸς πρόσωπον ἐμπίπλαται τῆς ἀκορέστου θεωρίας).

For there is nothing like hearing the Word Himself, who by means of the Scripture inspires fuller intelligence. For so it is said, "And he shall put off the linen robe, which he had put on when he entered into the holy place; and shall lay it aside there, and wash his body in water in the holy place, and put on his robe." But in one way, as I think, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the region of sense; and in another, he who through Him has believed puts off and puts on, as the apostle intimated, the consecrated stole. Thence, after the image of the Lord. the worthiest were chosen from the sacred tribes to be high priests, and those elected to the kingly office and to prophecy were anointed. [Stromata 5.6.39.2 - 5.6.40.4]

While Clement doesn't specifically reference the concept of 'resurrection' there can be no doubt given Clement's explicit reference to Secret Mark in the Letter to Theodore that he and Origen are talking about the same thing. There is a basic understanding that Jesus and a disciple had an experience similar to what transpired when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle once in the year (= Yom Kippur).

This is what isn't grasped by most people in the debate. Everyone accepts that there was a basic understanding regarding the applicability of the high priest entering the holy of holies bathing and seeing God AND the Christian experience. Look at Mazur notes about the Alexandrian tradition:

Philo formulates a Platonizing allegory on the basis of the passages of Leviticus that prescribe the ritual procedures to be performed by the high priest upon entering the tabernacle. The priest, according to Philo, must remove his garments that symbolize the lower faculties of opinion (δόξα) and imagination (φαντασία) prior to entering the Holy of Holies, which apparently represents the intelligible realm;68 at this point, “he will enter naked, without colors or sounds, to offer up psychic blood, and to sacrifice the whole intellect to the salvific and beneficent God.”69 Signifi— cantly, Dodds also adduced a clearly related passage of Clement's Excerpta ex Theodoto that he believed to reflect the doctrine of the Valentinian heresiarch Theodotus himself. Thus at Exc. 26.2—27.3, the high priest (identified with the Monogenes—Son) is said to remove not garments but a gold plate on which is inscribed the Tetragrammaton (the Name of God) at the precise moment he passes through the “second veil” which separates the antechamber (the “Holy Place”) of the tabernacle from the Holy of Holies itself.70 The high priest is subsequently compared to the ascending soul, which, once “naked” (yuuvrj), enters into the spiritual realm.71 Dodds therefore suggested that a Valentinian allegory of the sort one finds in the text of Clement/Theodotus served as the more immediate source for Plotinus' ritual imagery at 1.6.[1]7.

As reasonable as this hypothesis might seem however it has been largely ignored by subsequent commentators. in part, one may presume, be- cause of the widespread but (in my view) overly-simplistic assumption of Plotinus' fundamental antipathy toward the Gnostics (which, if correct, would render such a borrowing implausible),but also because of the recognition that the process by which the motif was transmitted between its ostensibly Philonic origin and its eventual Plotinian iteration must have been considerably more complex than Dodds had originally supposed. In 1970, F. Sagnard observed that the allegorical interpretation of the high priest's ritual divestiture of the sort we find in the Excerpta occurs elsewhere in Clement, at Strom. 5.6.32.1–40.4, in a passage which clearly expresses Clement's own thought and not merely that of his Valentinian source:74 “So the high priest, shedding his consecrated tunic ... bathes himself and puts on his other, so to speak,'Holy of Holies' tunic, and he enters together into the adyton with it." Sagnard further demonstrated that the entirety of this extended passage echoes another Philonic passage originally neglected by Dodds, Mos.2.95–135, in which Philo allegorizes certain passages of the Pentateuch (especially Exod 25–31, 35 - 39, and Lev 8) that describe the sacrificial procedures and ritual paraphernalia attending the high priest's entrance into the Holy of Holies. [https://books.google.com/books?id=BfiZA ... 22&f=false]

When you start to calculate how much damage to Smith's scholarly reputation merely because a bunch of uptight Christian scholars saw the word 'naked' and peed their pants it is simply astounding. Clearly Clement, Origen and Valentinians before them understood the nakedness of the Jewish high priest during the ritual immersion in the holy of holies as being passed on to Christian initiates at baptism. It is incredible that this charade has gone on as long as it has.

The logical inference here is that the catechumen were immersed into a rite understood to have been originally associated with the Jewish high priest. This is undoubtedly why in many early Christian cultures baptism takes place away from the unbaptized in a secret chamber mirroring the 'holy of holies.'

[andrewcriddle]

I can't see any evidence that Origen in this homily is linkimg Christian baptism to the entry of the high priest into the holy of holies. He seems to be talking about living a holy Christian life and there is a reference to the Christian's purification through baptism

Through the grace of baptism you have become a clean animal

The homily as a whole draws a distinction between Christians ministering in the outer tent and Christ entering the holy of holies.

Andrew Criddle

(Post expanded and corrected)

[Secret Alias]

Well now that you changed your original post, my response looks stupid. Let me change that (or at least attempt to avoid looking stupid).

The problem that I see with your interpretation of Origen is explaining what Leviticus 16 has to do with 'resurrecting' something buried in the earth. It is sudden. The most he does to introduce the idea is to say that linen rises up from the earth. But there are no gospel passages where someone is resurrected by Jesus and specific mention is made of linen.

I would argue that all three witnesses (Clement, Origen, Theodotos) are referencing elements of Leviticus 16 in ways that suggest some underlying point of contact which I suggest has to be Secret Mark. Clement and Theodotos do not reference 'resurrection' per se, only the nakedness of the high priest in relation to Gnostic and his heavenly ascent. Origen references 'resurrection' but not baptism as you note. But Leviticus 16 explicitly references the high priest 'washing' before putting on the linen. This doesn't need to be referenced by Origen because it is assumed from the text.

But let's look a little closer at the commonality in Clement and Origen. Clement tells us that the linen robe (ἔνδυμα) "prophesied" Jesus's "ministry in the flesh" (τὴν κατὰ σάρκα προφητεύειν οἰκονομίαν). Origen on the other hand says that Jesus "takes up the nature of an earthly body" and again more specifically that he "wanting to resurrect that which had gone into the earth, took an earthly body that he might carry it raised up from the earth to heaven. And the assertion in the Law that the high priest is clothed "with a linen tunic" contains a a figure of this mystery." How so? Origen says that the word 'sanctified' (ἡγιασμένον) in Leviticus 16:4 - a sanctified linen tunic will be put on."

The same word appears in Genesis 2:3 LXX so we know that the idea is that of a blessing (בָ֤רֶך). God 'blesses' the flesh in the way that he 'blessed' the seventh day. Or as Origen expresses it:

For "the tunic" that was the flesh of Christ was "sanctified," for it was not conceived from the seed of man but begotten of the Holy Spirit.

So what does Origen have in mind? I think the underlying reference to Leviticus 16 helps us limit things to one idea - i.e. that Jesus 'hallowed' the flesh in the way he did the seventh day, with a spoken utterance. This is why all these writers were so interested in the high priest on Yom Kippur.

Then Aaron is to go into the tent of meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. He shall bathe himself with water in the sanctuary area and put on his garments.

The Christian writers writers apparently saw the idea of putting on this robe after water immersion as symbolic or presaging the establishment of Christian baptism. After all this immersion took place in a 'holy place.' Thus the immersion itself was 'holy.'

So what has changed? For Christians the idea here is that the same flesh became transformed by means of the Holy Word - i.e. through baptism. I think this runs through Clement and Origen. In other words, Jesus's prophesied ministry in the flesh was 'hallowing' mortal flesh (by means of a blessing during the baptismal rite). The original idea has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. It is rather that Jesus took one disciple, baptized him and consecrated his flesh in the manner of the high priests. Origen even goes so far as to say - in effect - he resurrected him. This is how Clement explains the same passage:

"And he shall put off the linen robe, which he had put on when he entered into the holy place; and shall lay it aside there, and wash his body in water in the holy place, and put on his robe." But in one way, as I think, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the region of sense; and in another, he who through Him has believed puts off and puts on, as the apostle intimated, the consecrated stole. Thence, after the image of the Lord. the worthiest were chosen from the sacred tribes to be high priests, and those elected to the kingly office and to prophecy were anointed

[Secret Alias]

Perhaps the first question that should be asked is - is there an underlying interpretation of Leviticus 16 common to the Alexandrian tradition (= Clement, Origen etc)? There certainly is according to a consensus of scholars. They point to Philo:

[Philo] is the first to use the high-priestly entrance of Leviticus 16 explicitly to describe the mystical ascent of the wise man's soul to God. His theology strongly influenced later Alexandrinians such as Clement and Origen. Philo 's concept of Yom Kippur as an "open day" to the wise man's lifestyle will be adopted by Christians such as Origen. [Ben Ezra, the Impact of Yom Kippur p. 118]

Philo's influence on Origen with respect to Leviticus 16 is confirmed also by Laporte:

Origen's teaching on forgiveness is interpreted in the light of Philo. The Philonic models which Origen develops in his theology of forgiveness are: (a) the sacrifice for sin, particularly in the ritual of Yom Kippur; (b) the confession of sin; (c) the word of God as a source of divine energy; (d) asceticism, or the struggle against the passions; (e) divine punishment; (f) intercession, and the care of the community for sinners; (g) public penance. [Runia Philo p. 245]

That Clement drew from Philo is clearly no revelation:

Drawing from Philo, Clement places the lamp between the inner and outer coverings of the tabernacle, since the soul leaves the physical world behind and enters the Holy of Holies representing the eternal noetic world [Itter, Esoteric Teachings p. 141]

So Clement and Origen are drawing from at least one source for their interpretation of Leviticus 16. But what about another - Secret Mark? Scott Brown takes this one step further making specific mention of Secret Mark as another influence on Clement's interpretation of the Leviticus 16 noting:

The Letter to Theodore's imagery of entering the innermost sanctuary is a mixed metaphor combining Greek mystery initiation language with Jewish mystical reflection on the veils and sanctuaries of the Jerusalem temple. The metaphor of a mystagogue leading initiates evokes the practice at Eleusis where persons who had already undergone the great mysteries served as sponsors for the first-time initiates and led them into the Telesterion, the temple in which the spectacle of the great mysteries occurred. The letter's reference to "the hierophantic teaching of the Lord" further elaborates this metaphor by alluding to the hierophant who makes the sacred symbols appear during this spectacle (I.23 - 24). And "the things not to be uttered" (ta aporreta I.22) correspond to the secrets revealed in the Greek mysteries themselves, the contents of which initiates were prohibited from divulging. The mystic Gospel of Mark does not contain these things because they are too secret and sacred to be written down. The author, therefore, is intentionally employing imagery of the highest grade of a secret initiation.

Whereas the image of the mystagogue draws upon the mystery religions, the notion of an ordinary person (someone who is not an authorized priest) entering the innermost sanctuary of the temple draws on Jewish and Christian sources, especially Philo and the Letter to the Hebrews. In real life, ordinary Jews were no more permitted to enter the holy of holies in Jersualem than were the initiates in the Telesterion permitted to enter the innermost sanctuary of that temple (called the Anaktoron). The innermost shrine of a temple was normally the throne room of the god and only cult-sanctioned housekeepers were permitted in these most holy areas. Hence the word adytum, which literally means 'not to be entered.' The author of Hebrews however used the image of entering the holy of holies as a metaphor for salvation describing Christ as the high priest in the heavenly temple whose self-sacrifice has given Christians "confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain that is through his flesh" adding "and since we have a great priest over the house of God let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Clement expanded on Hebrews' metaphor of Christians entering the inner shrine, using Philo's philosophical allegories about the wilderness tabernacle and the high priest as his main source. Three passages in the Stromateis and one in Three passages in the Stromateis and one in Excerpta ex Theodoto describe in detail who may enter the inner sanctuary and what penetrating the veil(s) entails.

I will only focus on Brown's reference to the one passage from the Stromata I have cited over and over again here:

Clement describes the moral and intellectual preparations that a gnostic undertakes in order to perceive these supersensible realities in the form of an exegesis of the high priest's preparations to enter the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3–4):

39.3 Now mark you, the “ruling” priest (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς), having undressed from his consecrated garment, . . . washes himself and gets dressed in the other, so to speak, holy of holies garment, the one that goes with him into the innermost chambers (τὰ ἄδυτα), 39.4 representing, it seems to me, the Levite and gnostic as a “ruler” (ἄρχοντα) over the other priests—those priests washed in water ... (μόνην) and expecting their own abode (μονήν)—he himself distinguishing the noetic things (τὰ νοητά) from those of sense perception, (and), according to a hierarchical progression, hastening past the other priests to the entrance to the noetic (world), to wash himself from the things here below—not in water, as he was previously cleansed on being enrolled in the tribe of Levi, but already by the Gnostic Word.

40.1 <Being> pure,43 after having set right his whole heart, and having expanded measurably his administration to the highest degree beyond that of the priest, in short being sancti- fied both in word and life; having dressed in the array of glory; having received the ineffable inheritance of that spiritual and perfect man, “which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which has not arisen in the heart of human beings” (1 Cor 2:9); having become son and friend, he is now satisfied with the insatiable contemplation “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). There is nothing like obedience to the Word himself, who by means of the Scripture inspires fuller intelligence.

The first paragraph and part of the second (up to “having dressed in the array of glory”) describe the gnostic's extensive describe the gnostic's extensive preparations for entering the innermost sanctuary. Before he is worthy to enter, he must first surpass other Christians (priests) not only in virtue and understanding, but also in the extent of his service within the church (40.1). Clement expresses similar ideas in Strom. VII.1.3.1–5, where he compares the gnostic's duties in relation to other Christians with those of the deacons and elders, and in VII.10.56.2, where he speaks of the “very great preparation and previous training” requisite to receiving instruction in gnosis.

In Clement's mystery religion parlance, this stage of moral and intellectual purification that follows baptism constitutes the lesser mysteries and can be summed up metaphorically as a washing “from the things here below.” Further, the words “himself distinguishing the noetic things from those of sense perception” refer to the gnostic's ability “to discern the intelligible archetypes present in sensible realities,” which is acquired through the gnostic science of nature, the gnostic science of nature, the bridge between the lesser and great mysteries.44 The remainder of the second paragraph describes the divine secrets, honours, and unmediated vision of God that the gnostic receives inside the adyta, which correspond to the great mysteries and the epopteia to the great mysteries and the epopteia in Clement's mystery religion language. As with Clement's description of the great mysteries in Strom. V.11, which I quoted earlier, the process of preparing to enter the innermost sanctuary is here specifically contrasted with the lesser purification of baptism. On the literal level, Clement is alluding to two priestly washings: the ritual washing involved in any priest's enrolment (Exod 29:1, 4; Lev 8:6) and the washing required of the high priest before entering the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3–4). Since the other priests correspond allegorically to allegorically to the ordinary Christians who lack gnosis, the former washing “in water” signifies the equally literal washing of Christian baptism. By contrast, the latter washing of the high priest “from the things here below" is “not in water, as he was previously cleansed.” Unlike Christian baptism, this is a figurative washing, a thorough purification of the soul from earthly things preparatory to entering the noetic world and the eventual “insatiable contemplation 'face to face.'” That this process is completed by only a few is implicit in the high priest's status as “a ruler over the other priests” and is made explicit in Strom. V.6.35.5, which says that “the noetic world . . . is hidden and closed to the many.” This passage comparing the gnostic to the high priest therefore further illuminates not only the mystical experience described by the Letter to Theodore as entering the innermost sanctuary of the truth (I.26) but also the contours of the process undergone by “those who were being perfected” (I.22). This is a lengthy process of moral and intellectual purification necessitated by the principle that only the holiest of the holy can enter God's presence. [Burke Secret Mark p. 260 - 264]

[Secret Alias]

The implication that Brown seems to be on the verge of making (but never quite threads the needle) is that the "secret Mark" narrative of to Theodore was from the very beginning recognized to be the 'missing link' in the gospel Yom Kippur borrowing. As we noted earlier, the gospel begins on Yom Kippur with a clear reference to Jesus as the scapegoat which/who is attempted to be pushed over a precipice. This is almost certainly true. The gospel ends with a second attempt to kill the scapegoat in the 'stations' of the Passion. This is also generally accepted. Yet most curious of all now is that a few days before Passover - again almost certainly on the first day of the Jubilee year, the secret Mark narrative described in Clement's Letter to Theodore has a youth die and become resurrected by Jesus. This is the missing piece in development of the start to finish 'scapegoat' references in the gospel.

One would not expect a scapegoat sacrifice (the Passion) on Passover. I've noticed that modern commentators have puzzled over this state of affairs and come up with ingenious solutions like the gospel writers must not have been familiar with Jewish holidays. But the reincorporation of Secret Mark helps explain what is going on. The fact that Eusebius notes an alternative dating for the crucifixion via pagan sources (= 20/21 CE) helps confirm all the internal clues that we are dealing with a 49th/50th (= Jubilee) scenario. The opening of the gospel is Yom Kippur where Jesus announces that he has come for the six month period to announce the messianic Jubilee. In this period the world will be transformed and so the festivals too.

In the Samaritan tradition there is a reference to a Dosithean heresy which transformed the holidays, this group has been consistently identified as having Christian-sounding beliefs. We must suppose then that given the timing of Jesus's initial appearance in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur and the Passion on Passover that the initiation in Secret Mark necessarily took place on the first of the first (= New Year's, the first day of not only the particular Jubilee year but also the transformation of the world via the Jubilee - i.e. the messianic age).

In the realized messianic age all the previous holidays were only imperfect understandings (= shown on the mountain to Moses Ex 25:40). The Christian liturgical calendar now described in the gospel is the realized 'year of favor' with Jesus announcing on Yom Kippur his coming to baptize on the dawn of the perfect age. The baptismal practice then was undoubtedly key to the establishment of a new priesthood, the order of Melkizedek which was not established through the bloodline of human beings but according to God himself.

[Secret Alias]

It is of course hard to prove that the early Christians (or the author of the gospel for that matter) understood that a new cycle of festivals would be inaugurated with the beginning of the Jubilee and the Jubilee 'age.' Nevertheless the Book of Jubilees has a precedent for this. Look at its discussion of Noah where it is clearly assumed that Noah not only built the ark on the first of the first but that seas dried up and his ship rested on the earth at the beginning of a Jubilee Year. The same assumption is acknowledged by the Samaritans and the same idea is behind Exodus 40:1:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, On the first day of the first month you shall set up the tabernacle of the tent of meeting.

I am not saying of course that the Book of Jubilees or Exodus knew about the Christian transformation of the festivals or the schema of the gospel. Rather I am merely showing how it would naturally have been 'self-evident' that IF such a transformation of all values took place it would commence on the first of the first month of the Jubilee year.

The reference to 364 tells you that the first of the Jubilee year will always be a Sabbath. The Passover will always fall on a Sabbath, the Day of Preparation always falls on Friday. This is the schema of the Gospel of John but more importantly the known interpretation of Clement of Alexandria. https://books.google.com/books?id=a41xB ... 22&f=false The Arabic Diatessaron has the same idea. In Section LI the crucifixion occurs - "and that day was the Friday of the passover ..."

Already we are beginning to establish a circumstantial case that the Christian gospel not only started on Yom Kippur but more importantly that the Jubilee Year commenced on a Sabbath too and that it was likely the date of the initiation in Secret Mark.

[Secret Alias]

Some more context for the gospel narrative as 'Jubilee centered' - Jesus appears in Jerusalem to start the gospel and 'reveal himself' in the very manner that the Israelites saw him on Mount Sinai:

The jubilee laws, like sabbath-year law in Leviticus, are important, not for the practical impact of their actual observance, but for the theological and moral principles that they establish. Though these laws do not advocate universal abolition of slavery, for example, they do establish the principle that Yahweh's people are inherently free, that slavery is an affront to God's relationship with Israel. Paired with the more universal vision of literary contemporaries, such as the author of Isaiah 56, the jubilee ban on Israelite slavery lays the moral foundation for the universal abolition of human slavery. ''My house will be a house of prayer for all peoples,' says Yahweh my lord who gathers the outcasts of Israel, 'I will gather others to them besides the ones already gathered! (Isa 56:7 - 8)

Jubilee is tied to the larger theological narrative of Israel in a number of ways. But one of the most powerful, if subtle, connections comes with the announcement of jubilee: "You must sound a blast on the trumpet (shofar) in the seventh month on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement" (25:9). Jubilee begins on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:1-34; Num. 29:7-11), which Leviticus 23 places just after the "festival of trumpets" (23:23-32; Num. 29:1-11). The Day of Atonement, like sabbath year and jubilee, is a sabbath of complete rest (shabbaton, 16:29-31; 23:28-32; Num. 29:7), a day of self- denial (16:29; 23:27; Num. 29:7). Most importantly, it is a day of purification for the people and the sanctuary (16:1-34) to prepare Israel to stand in the royal presence of Yahweh, who appears "in the cloud over the mercy seat (16:2). Announced on the Day of Atonement, jubilee is associated with Israel's purification, its holiness. Jubilee prepares Israel to encounter God. Jubilee liberty is announced by trumpet blast. In Torah and Prophets, blowing the trumpet usually signals the beginning or end of battle8 and the election or coronation of a king.9 In the psalms, the trumpet blast is associated with Yahweh's royal enthronement as king of the universe and liberator of Israel (Pss. 47:6 [5]; 81:4 [3]; 98:6; 150:3). The trumpet's associations with human and divine coronation merge when David brings the ark of the covenant into his new capital city. David leads the procession, dancing before the ark with trumpet blasts and the sound of the shofar (2 Sam.6:15//l Chr. 1 5:28; cf. Isa. 27:13). Leviticus 23:24-25 and Numbers 29:1-6 describe a festival of trumpets or "day of acclamation" (Num. 29:1) for Yahweh just before the Day of Atonement, possibly celebrating Yahweh as lord of the agricultural cycle. Numbers 10:1 - 10 instructs Aaronid priests to blow trumpets for various reasons related to Yahweh's cult — alarms, convocations, new moons, burnt offerings, and sacrifices.

In Israel's encounter with Yahweh at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 - 20, God appears to Israel and Moses with thunder and lightning and "a trumpet blast so loud that all the people in the camp trembled" (19:16; cf. 20:18). As the trumpet blasts grow louder, Moses speaks and Yahweh answers in thunder (19:19). The blowing of the shofar, the trumpet, signals theophany — specifically, the people's encounter with God at Mount Sinai. This connection is made explicit in the jubilee tradition by the extraordinary literary inclusion that introduces and concludes the jubilee laws in Leviticus 25 - 26 "Yahweh spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai" (25:1; 26:46)

Jubilee observance, announced with trumpet blast on the Day of Atonement, is a Sinai experience for Israel, a direct encounter with the God who redeems and frees them from all human bondage. The social legislation associated with jubilee - abolishing slavery and usury, redistributing land, allowing the land to rest — reveals Yahweh. When Israel exercises jubilee self-restraint for the sake of the poor and the well-being of the land, they purify and prepare themselves. In these acts of mercy and justice, Israel encounters God. https://books.google.com/books?id=HcMQu ... 22&f=false

The point then is that if the gospel is written as if occurring in a Jubilee Year (i.e. Yom Kippur appearance etc) then we can immediately see that the revelation which follows (not just the baptism but also the so-called 'anitheses' of 'sermon on the mount') form a larger narrative of a second Sinai revelation.

[andrewcriddle]

So what has changed? For Christians the idea here is that the same flesh became transformed by means of the Holy Word - i.e. through baptism. I think this runs through Clement and Origen. In other words, Jesus's prophesied ministry in the flesh was 'hallowing' mortal flesh (by means of a blessing during the baptismal rite). The original idea has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. It is rather that Jesus took one disciple, baptized him and consecrated his flesh in the manner of the high priests. Origen even goes so far as to say - in effect - he resurrected him. This is how Clement explains the same passage:

"And he shall put off the linen robe, which he had put on when he entered into the holy place; and shall lay it aside there, and wash his body in water in the holy place, and put on his robe." But in one way, as I think, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the region of sense; and in another, he who through Him has believed puts off and puts on, as the apostle intimated, the consecrated stole. Thence, after the image of the Lord. the worthiest were chosen from the sacred tribes to be high priests, and those elected to the kingly office and to prophecy were anointed

I'm afraid I still think Origen is (at least primarily) speaking about the meaning and effects of Jesus' incarnation.

Clement also seems to be linking the Leviticus 16 passage to the incarnation

And they say that the robe prophesied the ministry in the flesh, by which He was seen in closer relation to the world...But in one way, as I think, the Lord puts off and puts on by descending into the region of sense;...

although he links this to Christian spiritual experience more strongly than Origen does.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I am not disputing that Origen is speaking about Jesus's incarnation. But what is Origen's understanding? Is it possible that Origen knew Secret Mark and knew its baptism narrative was rooted in Leviticus 16? Let's start with what we know for certain. Origen on some level understood the Incarnation to be about 'weaving together the human and divine' as Stephen J Davis notes citing Origen's statement in Against Celsus 3:

‘We say that (the Word’s) mortal body and the human soul within it have received the greatest things not only by their communion with him, but also by their union and mixing up: after having partaken of his divinity, they were changed into God.’

This passage is taken from his apologetic work Against Celsus. Earlier in the same treatise, he characterizes Jesus himself as a ‘partaker in the divine nature’ (cf. 2 Peter 1: 4), and then goes on to emphasize that through the Incarnation ‘the human nature and the divine began to be woven together, in order that the human, by communion with that which is more divine, might become divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who, with the help of faith, grasp hold of the life that Jesus taught’

Is it possible that in contemporary Alexandria there was a second baptism rite which originally facilitated this 'incarnation' of divinity in mortal flesh? Yes I think so. Might it have been described in terms of 'resurrection' owing to Secret Mark and this explains Origen's 'resurrection' reference in his discussion of Leviticus 16:4? I think so.

For those who are interested Stephen J Davis's now classic discussion of continuity in the Alexandrian concept of 'incarnation' - http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/503.pdf

[Secret Alias]

And there are two questions here - (1) can I prove that Origen's 'resurrection' interpretation of the high priest donning new linen necessary relates to Secret Mark and then (2) was Secret Mark developed from Leviticus 16. I would like to focus on the second question for a moment. I found this passage interesting in Margaret Barker book which deals with high priests being 'resurrected' in the holy of holies. Her idea seems to be that all the Jewish ascent literature develops from the idea that high priest died and was resurrected on Yom Kippur:

1 Enoch is one of the best represented texts at Qumran, and this is important evidence for the priestly traditions there. According to the Book of Jubilees Enoch was a priest who burned the incense of the sanctuary (Jub.4.25), was the first to learn ‘writing and knowledge and wisdom’ (Jub.4.17), and entered the holy of holies (1 En.14). The name Enoch probably means the ‘taught or initiated one’[70] When the high prist entered the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement, he was enacting the experience of the mystics and he too entered in great fear (m.Yoma 5.1;7.4; contrast Heb.10.19 ‘We have confidence to enter the sanctuary...’). [The Great Priest p. 15]

and later:

The experience of 'death' is common to many mystery traditions, the condition of transition to another mode of being. 'The true knowledge', wrote Eliade, 'that which is conveyed by the myths and symbols, is accessible only in the course of, in the course of, or following upon, the process of spiritual regeneration realised by initiatory death and resurrection ... If one knows death already here below ... then one is living, we may say, a beginning of immortality or growing more and more into immortality. His material was drawn from the mystery and shamanic traditions of many cultures. Chernus has shown that a similar pattern can be detected in third-century CE Jewish midrashim: 'the direct vision of God conceived in an esoteric context, the fire phenomenon related to revelation, the need to accept death as a means for special access to the knowledge of Torah, and the dew as the agent of resurrection.' The tradition by this period was associated with the revelation at Sinai,36 but Merkavah texts also warn of the danger of attempting to experience the vision of the throne. Of the four rabbis (Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Aher and Akiba) who attempted to enter the garden (i.e. Paradise), only Akiba entered in peace and came out in peace (b. Hagigah 14b). Those who successfully experienced the vision were transformed by it and began a new existence as an angelic being. There is the cryptic account in 1 Enoch 71 which cannot be dated, but a very early account of this experience is embedded in Isaiah 33:

Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire
Who can dwell with the burnings of eternity?
Your eyes will see the King in His beauty;
They will see the land that is very far off. [p. 19]

And finally most explicitly:

The natural setting for the original 'angelic liturgy', as can now be seen from the liturgical texts found at Qumran, was the holy of holies in the temple, the place where the royal high priests had themselves been resurrected. The question that cannot be answered with certainty is: Was this imagery of the tomb introduced simply because it 'fitted' the prevailing mood, or did those who adopted it know the temple traditions associated with the holy of holies as a place of resurrection? The evidence suggests the latter.123

A recurring theme in texts associated with the Eucharist is fear and awe, the fear which the high priest felt as he entered the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. In the Liturgy of St james, the priest, felt as he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. Thus Narsai (Homily 17A): 'The dread mysteries. . .let everyone be in fear and dread as they are performed ... the hour of trembling and great fear." Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of 'the most awful hour' and 'the most awfirl sacrifice' (Catecheses 23.4, 9). The Nestorian Liturgy speaks of 'the great fearful holy life giving divine mystery', and the priest prays in the words of Isaiah in the temple: ‘Woe is me. . for mine eyes have seen the Lord of Hosts’ and. like Moses before the ark he says ‘I have seen the Lord face to face’. Throughout the liturgies, the imagery is of the holy of holies and the angel hosts. Just as the ancient kings had been ‘born’ in the glory of the holy ones, and were thus ‘raised up’, so too the bread and wine was raised up at the moment of consecration. Thus Narsai (Hom XVIIA), having described the awe and stillness in the sanctuary at the moment of consecration, continued: ‘The Spirit which raised him from the dead comes down now and celebrates the mysteries of the resurrection of his body’. The consecration was the resurrection: the power of the Godhead comes upon the oblation, ‘ and completes the mystery of our Lord’s resurrection from the dead’ 9 Narsai Hom XVIIA). Thus the Lord emerging from the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement, accompnaied by the angel hosts, became the procession when the bread and wine from the sanctuary. Narsai again: ‘Thousands of Watchers and ministers of fire and spirit go forth’ with the resurrected Lord, and the people rejoice ‘when they see the Body setting forth from the midst of the altar.’

Finally, the setting of the Liturgy. The Altar in a traditional Christian church, is set apart, in an orthodox church literally beyond the veil. It must have derived from the kapporeth, the place of atonement in the temple, where the Lord was enthroned. In the eastern churches, the altar is known as the throne, and in some of their traditions[37], drawing a curtain across the holy place is still part of the liturgy[38]. Early sources speak of the cherubim of the altar[39] and in Ethioppian churches, there is an ark in the sanctuary. Finally, there is the preparation the bread of the Eucharist in the Orthodox tradition. The priest ‘sacrifices’ the loaf and then removes the central portion to mix with the wine in the chalice. An exactly similar procedure was used from the Day of Atonement sin offering according to the Letter of Barnabas. [p.100]

The underlying suggestion of Barker is that the high priest was recognized to have died, resurrected and become an angel when he entered the holy of holies and bathed. I think she might be right. The question is whether Origen is independently tapping in to this Jewish tradition or (as I would have it) he and the Alexandrian tradition including Clement knew that Leviticus 16 was the underlying theological bedrock for the Secret Mark passage.