stephan huller

It is possible to speculate that Paul/Mark could have been a Jew from Sinope. The difficulty of course is that then you have to accept at least part of the Catholic story about his father being a bishop from Pontus, or arguing against it while while accepting it in part. It all becomes an entangled mess.

There are a number of other possibilities:

a) the connection between St. Mark and Serapis is well established in the earliest literature. Whenever the Alexandrian cult of St. Mark is referenced there is some mention of his 'war' with the priests of Serapis (undoubtedly because there were similarities in the two religions). The idea comes through in Hadrian's Letter to Servianus (without Mark being mentioned by name), in Paulinus's Letter and the Martyrium Marci. Plutarch says that Serapis was brought from Sinope.

b) Marcionites and Christians generally were always mistaken for Cynics (because of their mode of dress as well as other reasons). Diogenes was from Sinope.

c) there is also the possibility that Marcion of the Pontos (the Sea) became corrupted into Pontos of Sinope. The cult of Marcion the ship-master (Adv. Marc. III. 6, and IV. 9, &c.) and pilot (ibid. I. 18) might have been related and all might have been developed from Plato's understanding of the gnostikos. The gnostikos is always described in these terms.

I have never been able to figure out which is the more likely possibility but I tend not to believe the origins of Marcion from Sinope but that doesn't mean I am right.

bacht

Can we say for sure that "Mark" was a Jew, even a diaspora Jew? The author of Matthew clearly emphasizes Jewish tradition, was he reacting to the 'gentile' gospel of Mark/Marcion?

stephan huller

Here's the difficulty I have with any Christian tradition claiming a complete break from Judaism (even by Jesus) - where does the concept of holiness come from? I mean, without something pre-existent how does Jesus prove he is God? There has to be some context even if the Jubilee ultimately wipes the slate clean.

Matthew's interest in Judaism might be an impoverished understanding of Jesus but it can't be justy ascribed to an anti-Marcionite reaction. It would have been natural to take an interest in the Law even if it was beggardly.

DCHindley

ph2ter,

I am not so sure how you can go from the rather accurate first paragraph quoted below to the final ones.

This is all very true. I take it you have been reading either revised Schuerer's Jewish People volumes or Kloppenborg's Voluntary Associations, maybe both. You are actually the first person I have encountered on a discussion list who has appeared to have read any of this stuff. Excellent!

Isn't that letter from the member of a Christian monastery, and dated to the 2nd or 3rd century?

This again is quite true, and reflects statements in some of the articles in Voluntary Associations. I also agree with this.

Boy I am not too keen on this Paul = Mark = Marcion equation.

Paul was associated with Cilicia, but appeared to have traveled around Syria, Arabia, Asia Minor (which includes Cilicia, Galatia and Pontus/Bithinia), Greece, and ultimately Rome.

The Jewish colonies you mention were in Asia Minor, the Jews having been deported there by one of the Macedonian kings of Syria (offhand I forget which). The Jews with whom Paul was in opposition in Galatia were more than likely residents of the Hellenized Galatian cities along the Mediterranean coast that Acts claims Paul visited.

There is absolutely no connection in Church tradition between Paul and Alexandria. There is a connection between John Mark and both Peter and Alexandria, though.

Person	Asia Minor	Pontus	Rome	Alexandria
Paul	x		x
Mark			x	x
Peter			x	x
Marcion		x	x
Thousands of others	x	x	x	x

DCH

stephan huller

DC

Your forming your opinions about the Marcionites based on a canon they didn't use, which they argued was spurious and which likely was specifically Marcionite at its core

I'm watching Tangled right now but I will demonstrate how the gospel and Apostolikon leads to this understanding

For the moment though remember that the Muratorium Canon references a Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians and notice the complete absence of Alexandria in the early (pseudo)history of the Catholic tradition.

The two phenomenon are most certainly related

stephan huller

DC,

I am curious to find out what connection Peter has with Alexandria. I have never heard of this before. Would like some more information.

stephan huller

The Marcionite in Adamantius's Dialogues says that Marcion is the Episkopos of the Marcionite community. Every bishop needs a See? But where was Marcion's? There is a strong argument to be made that the Dialogues were originally written in Alexandria. Yes to be certain Petty and others don't think so but this does not end the question.

Who other than Origen is known to have been called Adamantius? Why are so many of Adamantius's positions identical with Origen's?

The differences may well be explained by subsequent rewrites and reworkings which no one doubts have made their way into the text.

It was first noticed by von Harnack that not only did the Marcionite gospel retain Mark 10:37 - 41 but that it is clearly connected with Origen's statement that Marcion eventually sat enthroned beside Jesus. The connection between the request for enthronement by James and John and the historical enthronement of Marcion is further complicated by the fact that the surviving Alexandrian tradition identifies St. Mark's mother as one of the Mary's - the most likely candidate being Mary Salome. The Copts also identify St. Mark with John Mark.

The only way to reconcile everything (instead of just ignoring the intriguing paradigm that von Harnack wrestles with) is that 'John' in Mark 10.37 - 41 was understood to be enthroned somewhere at some time besides Jesus. Ephrem takes an interest in this subplot. There are a number of interesting Semitic stories about John hiding and preserving the original host from the Last Supper.

Let's face it, the only reason that we think that Mark and John are separate figures is because Irenaeus tells us so with the organization of the canon (i.e. with the development of two separate gospels identified as being 'according to Mark' and 'according to John').

Now that we know that Clement identified the existence of TWO gospels associated with Mark, the very place that John occupies in the canon (i.e. the 'final word' and indeed 'the more spiritual gospel' cf. Quis Dives Salvetur) it is conceivable that this distinction between 'Mark' and 'John' might have been late and artificial.

In a canon like that associated with the Marcionites or Ephrem's community - i.e. a single gospel - plus Apostolikon it would be more difficult to tell them apart.

There are ancient Alexandrian documents which take a deep interest in the enthronement of John as a fulfillment of Jesus's original promise in Mark 10:37 - 41 and moreover - let's not forget - the Alexandrian See is founded on the idea that Mark was indeed enthroned, that he was the Christ after Jesus (cf. Severus al-Ashmunein Homily on St. Mark 1) and that through St. Mark the line of god-men Christs was perpetuated.

If it is conceded that the Alexandrian ALWAYS thought that Mark was also called John (they have ever since Severus of al-Ashmunein) then a number of the cryptic statements in Origen comparing John favorably to Peter and identifying John as the child singled out by Jesus for his worth in the gospels (cf. Commentary on Matthew) start taking added significance.

There is a general supposition that Mark is the neaniskos of Mark 14:52. Epiphanius interestingly however knows of a tradition which identifies the figure as James. Does this connect Mark with James? I don't know. I prefer to think of it as a sign that there were TWO rival gospel traditions which identified James and John as the ones enthroned beside Jesus. The current gospels resolved this conflict by having a 'right' and 'left' enthronement associated with 'both' the sons of Zebedee.

I doubt that John and James were ever really brothers any more than Peter and Andrew. They were certainly not fishermen (why would the Ebionites have thought James functioned in the temple?). These were all contrivances of the late second century editor to bring 'peace' to the Church.

The Pistis Sophia interesting has a John and Mary Magdala enthronement to the right and left of Jesus.

My guess is that in the original Gospel of Mark the same neaniskos who undergoes death, burial and baptism was not only responsible for the Alexandrian mysteries (i.e. that he was Mark the 'mystagogue') but that the request for enthronement which follows (i.e. Mark 10.37 - 41) was understood to have been historically fulfilled.

I happen to have stumbled upon a small throne built for a child which original sat in the Martyrium of St. Mark in Alexandria which now resides in Venice. Among the most interesting things that I discovered about the relic is that there is a strange image in the backrest:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...O42isAPPm6GkDA (I can't upload the images from blogger.com)



There is a tree whose branches contain a deliberately asymmetrical distribution of fruit. There are five branches and on each branch counting from right to left we find the following number of fruit:

8, 7, 6, 5 and 9.

The prayer shawls of men in Sephardic Jewish communities will have their knots tied up to spell the divine name (i.e. ten knots, five knots, six knots, five knots) or other important words or sayings.

When I translated the arrangement of fruit into Aramaic letters I got the word "the ninth vision" or h.ezwa tish'ana חזוה תשענה חזוה תשענה - i.e. cH (8th letter) tZ (7th letter) V (6 letter) eH (5th letter) reading right to left in Samaritan Aramaic from the number of fruit or leaves on each of the five main branches of the tree.

When I spoke with a colleague at Columbia about the expression he unhesitatingly pointed me to the ninth vision of Zechariah which identifies the messiah as sitting on the divine throne. The counting of nine visions in Zechariah was established in Alexandria and recently been demonstrated by Marie-Joseph Lagrange.

The vision that is seen is the messianic king enthroned and ruling with the High Priest. In the Alexandrian text of Zechariah the priest’s name is Jesus while the messianic king is only identified as the Dawn [anatole]. The text begins by telling of the historical 'crowning' of both Jesus and immediately goes on to announce the royal messiah who would follow him:

Behold the man whose name is Dawn; over the horizon he will dawn [anatelei], and build the house of the Lord. And he will take on nobility [or prowess: Greek aretê], and sit and rule upon his throne; and there will be a Priest on his right hand, and there shall be concord between them

This is the proper context for the enthronement rituals of the Alexandrian Patriarch - a blending of traditional Egyptian and Jewish expectations of messianic figure seated on a throne.

The iconography is clearly Jewish. There are the four living creatures of Jewish mystical speculation (bull, man, lion, and eagle) flanking each side of the divine throne. But the expectation that a divine king would one day sit on such a throne and rule the world was shared in common by Jewish and Egyptians.

Whether or not you buy into the interpretation of the throne, the Coptic tradition always understood 'Jesus' or the divine presence to have sat on St. Mark's episcopal throne. There is a curious story in the Passio Petri Sancti where Pope Peter of Alexandria refuses to sit on the chair because he sees Jesus there.

The idea then that Mark and Jesus sat on the same throne and thus become 'one new man' who was divine fits in perfectly with the traditional Coptic view of their Popes as living God-men. Again from the Passio Petri Sancti where Peter prays in front of the object pictured above:

O father most honourable, you evangelist of the only-begotten Saviour, you witness of His passion, you did Christ choose, who is the Deliverer of us all, to be the first pontiff and pillar of this See ... [N]ot without justice, are you counted worthy to be saluted evangelist and bishop. Your successor was Anianus, and the rest in descending series down to the most blessed Theonas, who disciplined my infancy, and deigned to educate my heart. To whom I, a sinner and unworthy, have been beyond my deservings appointed as successor by an hereditary descent ... [T]o you, I say, I with prayers commend it, who are approved as the author and guardian of all preceding and subsequent occupiers of this pontifical chair, and who, holding its first honours, art the successor not of man, but of the God-man, Christ Jesus.

The idea that is being expressed here is that St. Mark emptied the Christ-soul of Jesus into the Alexandrian Church through his Episcopal chair. He witnessed the Passion, partook in the sufferings of Christ and his resurrection and then led the Church in order to continue the process of establishing men as living Gods like himself.

Sheshbazzar

Mystery religion goop.

DCHindley

Oopsie,

The Peter-Alexandria connection was a leftover from the table creation. Mark was supposed to be the interpreter of Peter, and Mark is definitely connected to Alexandria.

DCH

stephan huller

Mark might have been an interpreter of Peter (so Papias and Irenaeus) but Peter has no connection with Alexandria. Alexandria is (strangely) completely left out of the orthodox historical narrative.