stephan huller

Here is the page from Jastrow http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/..._38237_226.pdf I am particularly fascinated about the possibility that the term might be associated with 'fire' and 'yoke.' For 'the baptism by fire' is always associated with martyrdom.

Nir is identified as the Aramaic equivalent of ζυγόν http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...entry=jugum-cn Here is the discussion in Plato's Cratylus:

On the lyre similarly:

stephan huller

We can therefore take the question step by step. Was ζυγόν used to describe the function or the essence of a 'cross'? In its most banal sense it was something which brought two things together like the yoke which was used to tie two oxen together



But was there an applied sense that a ζυγόν was the tying together of two beams or the beam which crossed another to make a Cross? I don't know. Or was the term used that was in Aramaic with respect to its Aramaic equivalent ניר?

stephan huller

Indeed one could possibly see that the author of Hebrew's interest in the sacrifice of the red heifer could have introduced the association with ζυγόν:

This Mosaic rite certainly had a reference to things done under the Gospel, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has remarked: "For if," says he, "the blood of bulls and of goats," alluding, probably, to the sin-offerings and the scape-goat, "and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!" [Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14]. The principal stress of the allusion here is to the ordinance of the red heifer, we may certainly conclude that it was designed to typify the sacrifice of Jesus. Could the reference to 'no ζυγός' somehow be related 'mystically' to understanding the Cross a kind of yoke? I certainly thinks so.

Look at Matthew 11:30 ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

stephan huller

The highlighted text reads in Greek - ἄρατε, φησίν, ἀφ' ὑμῶν τὸν βαρὺν ζυγὸν καὶ λάβετε τὸν πρᾶον, ἡ γραφή φησι, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ποιηταὶ δούλειον καλοῦσι ζυγόν. My guess is that this is his gospels variant of Matthew 11:29. Let's compare:

The logical assumption here of course is that what is cited by Clement in the Stromata was followed immediately by something like that which appears in Matthew 11:30 so we would read:

Bronzeage

"Baptism by fire" is a metaphor used to describe someone who has survived an ordeal, from which a lesson was learned, or they proved themselves worthy. In either case, they survived and are better for it.

One of the chief requirements of a martyr, is to not survive one's martyrdom.

stephan huller

Actually I can do one better. It would seem that Clement's citation of the entire saying is known and differs significantly from the existing gospel. In Stromata 5.5 we read his cite the gospel again:

So the second half of the saying reads:

Compare again with Matthew 11:30:

So Clement's (secret) gospel reads here:

I find that new reading quite cool, it seems to be of a higher literary quality - almost lyrical. But most important of all the question arises - what is the 'yoke' he is talking about? The answer I am certain is that for Clement at least it had some mystical significance, and certainly it was connected with the related words συζυγία (= union) and συζύγιος (= to be joined, united) with Christ (or in this case perhaps 'chrestos' a word which already shows up in the text interestingly).

stephan huller

And then when we do some more digging we hit a brick wall. That's the amazing thing about Clement of Alexandria. For when we look to the Exhortation to the Greeks we find what appears at first glance to be a direct citation of Matthew 11:29 - 30 but strangely, it is couched in an an imaginary proclamation made by Jesus through Clement's hand to the audience of his present treatise Clement writes:

The citation of the same saying is:

The question then becomes - why does Clement cite the same saying in two different ways? Clearly he used more than one gospel, right? But there is something else very odd about this passage. Note these words especially:

These words sound uncannily similar to Irenaeus's description of the 'followers of Mark' (= Marcosians) a group which Clement himself clearly belonged to or used literary texts of the sect (cmp Stromata 6.11 to Irenaeus's account of the sect). But now look at this other passage from Irenaeus's account, where he quotes or paraphrases the appeal of the Marcosian minister to the unsuspecting 'virgins' whom he wants to unite to himself

My point is that in either case the same underlying understanding is being conveyed. Before Eve was separated from Adam, man had immortality. The followers of Mark seemed to argue that by means of 'Christ's yoke' and being 'united' to Christ (two related words) the original perfection could be re-established. I think this was understood to take place by means of crucifixion and the 'baptism by fire.' But was conceived in terms of a 'marriage' or 'union' with something. More to follow.

stephan huller

So here are the two announcements of 'grace' in each account. First Clement's Jesus:

And then Irenaeus's parody of 'Marcus the Magician':

I think there is a definite connection here. Irenaeus is only parodying Clement's 'Exhortation to the Heathen' and creating a straw man with respect to 'Marcus the Magician' (= St Mark). The reality is that the interest in the Alexandrian interest in 'uniting' with Jesus which accounts for the sexual depravity of the sectarians.

stephan huller

The only question is how do we reconcile the rest of the material in each account and why they differ so markedly from one another - at least at first glance. I think that even Andrew Criddle will acknowledge that if we can do that then we are finally on the road to authenticating Secret Mark. The path there is to follow the 'yoke' references in Irenaeus in his account of the followers of Mark:

But otherwise - interestingly - the word 'pair'/'couple' - and its related term 'yoke' - do not appear anywhere in the account of the desire for union that the women of the Marcosian community have for Marcus.

Sheshbazzar

<edited>