To An Archaeologist Investigating the Location of the Martyrium of St. Mark

A sample of what appears in the Real Messiah order it here

What I am suggesting now is not that you are incorrect in the location of the Martyrium but that the Church and the Martyrium were two separate locations associated with the same geographic location. The closest example I can give is in Paneas (Caesarea Philippi). John Wilson has located a fortress of Berenice the sister of King Marcus Agrippa and a couple hundred yards away there is a shrine of St. Berenice (Latin Veronica) which is mentioned in virtually every early Church Father. When I argue that these two sites were somehow related scholars disagree with me even though St Berenice is almost always identified as a 'ruler of the Jews' in the ancient sources). I will send you a photo to demonstrate what I mean.

So it is that even before I had the great fortune of coming into contact with you and learning that location of20the church is discovered I thought even from the descriptions in the literature that the two places were somehow separate from one another. I know everyone ridicules the authority of the documents but W Telfer among others has argued that it rests on some historical bedrock. Other scholars hold a similar view. Telfer concluded that the Acts material goes back to a 'Jubilee Book' dated to 368 CE that was gathered together as part of the celebration fo the forty-year jubilee of Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria in 419 sent a copy of this book to Carthage perhaps acting upon a request to supply that church with the history of the Alexandrian see. Telfer suggests that this book was perhaps the best ro the only history that Cyril had 'If Cyril could find nothing better than this Jubilee Book to serve his purpose in 419 it argues an acute dirth of Christian local records at Alexandria in the early fourth century.'

Telfer notes that Severus al-Ashmunein had two versions of the martyrdom. The shorter rescension (S) ends with the beheading of Peter in prison. Severus remarks that 'in another copy however it is said that he came out through the hole in the wall and the soldiers took him away to a place called Boucalia." Telfer does not regard this latter text as authentic but most disagree with him. P Devos writing after Telfer published a Greek version of the Martyrdom which he says is 'pre-Metaphras tic' (i.e. before 960). This text is longer than that preserved by Severus, yet shorter than the Latin translation attributed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius.


Here is the description from both Devos' version of the martyrdom. Severus' text is almost identical throughout:

The tribunes took him (Peter) and went to the place called Boukolos where the holy and blessed evangelist Mark attained perfection through martyrdom. Fear and trembling seixed the men when they saw the courage of the blessed and famous Peter in the face of death and the firmness of his holiness. The blessed bishop asked them, saying 'If it is agreeable to you and your hearts are not hardened, I would like to go down to the tomb and bid farewell to Mark the holy apostle and evangelist of Christ.' They answered bowing their faces to the earth, ashamed before the sight of the blessed one, 'As you command. Only do it quickly.' The archbishop went down and opened the tomb of the blessed apostle Mark and - in very truth - while he was sitting there and speaking he saw the evangelist of Christ before him. Weeping he cried out, saying, 'Honored father and evangelist of the only-begotten Son of God ...etc." [After the speech] Rising from the tomb of the blessed and holy evangelist Mark [Peter] stretched forth=2 0his hands to heaven and said "Son and Logos of God ...[speech follows] Then was fulfilled the vision of the virgin. For in that very hour a certain most holy virgin who had a monastery in a private suburban house near the resting place of the holy Mark was finished her evening service; while she was praying she heard a voice from heaven come and say 'Peter the first of the apostles, Peter the last of the martyrs.' And after the most holy archbishop Peter completed his prayers, he kissed the tomb of the holy evangelist Mark and of the holy bishops resting there who had come before him. He went up to the tribunes and they saw his face as if it were the face of an angel. Filled with fear they hesitated to speak with him. It is true in every way that the Lord does not forsake those who have faith in him. For by chance there were two coming from the countryside one an elderly man and one an elderly virgin. The two entered the city, the old man to sell a hide covering and to go away again, the old woman to sell a pair of winding sheets. They came to the attention of Peter, the martyr of God ...

The point I am trying to make is that yes, the story is stupid in many respects and makes little sense but the one thing you would figure that couldn't have been altered would be the description of the physical area around the Martyrium. Why on earth would the narrative completely ignore the existence of a Church ON TOP or OVER the tomb? Surely visitors to the church at Boucalis would have noticed the inaccuracy. Why make up the detail that the tomb was separate from the Church. Indeed it seems to be part of an adjacent site which could be seen from the main road.

Remember I am not saying that any of this stupid story is true. The whole idea that the Roman soldiers wanted to kill Peter but somehow decided to take a break and let him commune with St. Mark is incredible. But again the stupid story had to have been developed around the actual physical landscape which any visitor would have known all to well. Even if the story was made up by someone who got it wrong the story would have been altered by Alexandrians who knew that the narrative was downright stupid. The end result would be the same, THE STORY PASSED DOWN TO US REGARDING THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER HAVE TO REFLECT A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE AROUND THE MARTYRIUM.

One can argue that after the story was settled someone (possibly Cyril) built another Church on top of the martyrium and thus changed the understanding reflected in the book. But if we read a little further that would necessitate the discovery of TWO churches around the Martyrium because the Acts of Pe ter clearly assumes the existence of a church BESIDE the martyrium where Peter I was ultimately enthroned. We read that after Peter instructs the soldiers and the two believers how to properly martyr him (!) he directs them toward the 'commemorative chapel' near by:

Then the most holy archbishop said to the tribunes, 'Come here, my children, since it is still early, that you might fulfill what has been arranged by our King.' Taking him from the southside of the commemorative chapel of the holy evangelist Mark, they stood him in a deep valley where there were tombs. The blessed one said to the old man as they stood there, 'Stretch out the hide ...'

The story concludes with an impossible suggestion - that the crowd took the body to the Church of Theonas in the Greek part of Alexandria. We read:

The people were milling about in great confusion; some from Dromos wanted to take him to where Theonas had been buried; others from otehr parts wanted to take him to where Saint Mark had been perfect ed. There was a great uproar and the people were about to fight. Some from Dromos saw the uproar among the people ad were afraid that there was going to be a big battle. They ran and found a ship and got it ready near the place - for it was near the sea - and after a great deal of time and arguing among the people, quickly seized the martyr and ran and placed him in the ship. They put off from shore and sailed away.

Now you and I know that this story is complete nonesense but that's not the point again. The physical description of the landscape is the key. There was clearly a tomb of St. Mark cut into the rock on the southside of a commemorative chapel near a bunch of tombs. Let's discount the whole travel to the western part of the city narrative (which was only developed by the Greeks to prove that they had the relics of St. Mark). The point of course is that the crowd must have taken Mark back to the church in Boucalis where an ancient throne was kept. The Coptic tradition of Severus interestingly in contrast to the Greek just cited takes for granted that Peter was enthroned at the adjacent church at Boucalis.

And the city was in confusion, and was greatly disturbed, when the people beheld this martyr of the Lord Christ. Then the chief men of the city came, and wrapped his body in the leathern mat on which he used to sleep; and they took him to the church, and placed him there on the synthronus, until the celebration of the liturgy. And, when the liturgy had heen performed, they buried him with the fathers.

The suggestion here - and Severus and his sources must have known what the physical landscape around the Martyrium looked like - is that there was a church and a cave where the various Popes were buried and they were definitely two different locations in close proximity to one another but not located IN THE SAME CHURCH BUILDING. I read the text as if the martyrium was located in or near a cemetery but I will let you be the judge of that as you know the landscape better.
=0 A

So now we should see also that despite the Greek texts insistance that Mark was taken to the church in Alexandria proper (undoubtedly to help argue that the Greeks rather than the Copts possessed Peter's true relics) the underlying story is the same - Peter, who had always refused to sit in the throne of St. Mark 'owing to modesty' now was placed into this seat and buried - in my mind establishing the strange ritual associated with the Coptic patriarchs ever since.

I know you have serious reservations about the literary traditions associated with the martyrium and this I believe is to your credit as a scholar and a thinker. I take very much the same approach. However it must also be acknowledge that we can't go so far as to argue that these stories could have existed in a complete vacuum. They must have been passed along by people in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries - up to the Muslim conquest and beyond - who knew the physical lay out of Boucalis.

The first point we have to consider when constructing the truth is that Arius is identified as being a presbyter of the church at Boucalis which must have been adjacent to or related to the martyrium. This continued through much of the reign of Alexander. The symbolic significance of Arius' officiating at Boucalis certainly gave him great authority among the native Egyptians who were kept out of the Greek city of Alexandria. The accusation of Alexander the eighteenth Patriarch against Arius and Achillas that they “built for themselves caves, like robbers, and now constantly assemble in them, and day and night ply slanders there against Christ and against us” (Theodoret Hist. Eccles. i. 3) is particularly striking. It cannot be seen as anything other than a reference to the shrine at Boucalis described in Severus as “near the sea, beside a rock from which stone is hewn” (p. 145). Boucalis is also consistently described as the home for ‘robbers’ in the period.

So this is what I am suggesting now as a solution to the present situation at the Martyrium. The church on which the Casino was built was built in the third or fourth centuries possibly expanded in the fifth century by Cyril who knows yet it was not typical of capellas or churches as we know them insofar as the church was not built on top of the bones of a martyr. Why do I suggest this? Because I am not convinced that Mark was buried underneath the building. I think Michael the Syrian is correct and the body was buried at Paneas. Yet there is more to this theory that just what I believe. St. Mark is identified by Michael and a number of other sources to have built the naos associated with him. This is a most peculiar scenario given that it has no parallel in ancient Christianity. Usually someone is martyred their remains are buried somewhere and then years later - once Christianity became more powerful - a building was erected to show that here was buried an important saint in the church.

With Mark this is completely reverse. Tradition makes him a rich Jew who built monasteries, the Catechetic school of philosophy, the naos which later became identified as his martyrium (out of habit I think) where an important throne which Peter I refused to sit in rested. Whether or not the throne was identical with the one I found in Venice isn't really the point - the idea that Mark established a magical chair which transformed the Patriarchs into living representatives of Christ is well established. Notice the manner in which the Alexandrians had to immediately bury on patriarch and then enthrone the next to perpetuate his divine presence on earth. They call their patriarchs the earthly Christ according to a number of witnesses. The Coptic ordination rites are also replete with this sort of mysticism

So once we take the idea that Mark established a shrine WHILE ALIVE and put in their a 'magical chair' which conferred the authority vested in him to his successor Anianus WHILE MARK WAS STILL ALIVE and then Mark left Alexandria whatever this naos was it seems to be the furthest thing from a martyrium proper EVEN IF THIS IS WHAT IT WAS LATER IDENTIFIED AS BEING. It seems very unlikely to me that he established this building with a cavern underneath where not only he but a number of patriarchs COULD BE buried in the future. Now someone might argue Mark never came to Alexandria, never made a shrine, never established a throne and that all these things were established by later believers through misunderstanding or intentional mythmaking. Yes that has to be conceded. Nevertheless I have reasons for believing the basic idea of some one named Mark coming to Boucalis by boat and being enthroned in the Jewish quarters went back to actual history. I will tell you the reasons for that when I meet you hopefull in the next month or so.

But let's for the moment accept the universal testimony of early Fathers that someone name Mark came to Alexandria and built a number of buildings (monasteries etc) and might well have established a naos in the caverns of the shore of Shatby beach. Doesn't it make more sense in light of the Acts of Peter tradition that down to the early fourth century at least the chapel was something separate from the imposing church structure which now lies under the Chatby Casino? I think so. If Peter can just slip in and out of this cave to visit the bodies of the Popes and commune with Saint Mark while the Roman soldiers stood outside and then could come out of the cave and be seen by people walking down the road without any mention of an imposing church separating the 'outside' from 'the cavern' - doesn't that demonstrate that a situation which must have extended throughout much of the fourth century? I mean it seems unbelievable that the Arians who seemed to have control of Boucalis through most of Athanasius' tenure would have initiated a building program in the period. As I said one might argue that at the time of Cyril the Greeks had sufficient control over the region to complete a major renovation establishin g a structure on top of the cave but the point of this long email is to give us hope that THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Maybe just maybe the building of the Casino didn't effect the cave which lay somewhere in the vicinity of the church but not at the exact place where the poles destroyed everything underneath it.

Let's hope.