.jpg)
Just a thought ...
Let's leave aside the obvious MESSIANIC symbolism that the throne represented to the Alexandrians of the (first?), second, third and fourth centuries for a moment. The throne necessarily represents the culmination or realization of a messianic expectation which I have identified as 'Samaritan' owing to three Samaritan Hebrew letters on the left portion of the inscription that greeted all who gazed upon this object.
Yet who were these 'Samaritans' of Alexandria?
It is clear that Dositheans (the alleged followers of 'Dositheus') and 'regular Samaritans' (whatever that means) lived in Alexandria. Because I think that the 'Dositheans' were centrally focused on the original 'gift of God' - viz. the ten utterances from heaven - AND because I instantiate the existence of an ur-Gospel of Mark which looked rather like what we would call a 'Diatessaron' or gospel-harmony (i.e. that stories which we associate with Luke and John appeared in this text too) I see 'Mark' as pointing to a Christian development from Dositheanism in the story of Jesus greeting Foti the Samaritan woman near mount Gerizim (our John chapter 4).
Jerome makes clear that he knew a tradition that identified this woman as a member of the Dosithean sect. While Boid has yet to endorse my interpretation he has noted in previous articles that the Dositheans seemed to have rejected the development of the original Israelite religion toward 'temples' or buildings which had roofs (I am not sure that either the Samaritan or Jewish temples actually had roofs but that's another story).
St Stephen the Protomartyr's arguments in Acts have been identified by Boid as being typically Dosithean. He has even drawn parallels between the fate of Stephen and that of a figure called Libi or Levi in the near contemporary Dosithean tradition.
The point of course is that I am not at all sure that Christianity was a natural development from Judaism. If the Dositheans represented the original tradition of Israel (and if my tentative identification of them being associated with 'the gift of God' i.e. the heavenly Torah stands then it is well established that this was indeed the original understanding according to rabbinic sources) the early appearance of Jesus at Gerizim to a Dosithean believer who understands him and his missionary activity as being entirely compatible with that original tradition which did not stray from the original principles of the Mosaic covenant is pregnant with possibilities.
Did Mark develop a religion out of the soil of 'Dositheus' because it would perfectly suit the post-70 CE environment in Palestine? In other words, was he arguing for a return to the original principles of monotheism embodied ONLY in the ten utterances originally 'given by God' at Sinai?
Again, Boid has not accepted any of my speculations. There are bound to be difficulties and much - if not all - of what I am saying could be rejected based on pieces of evidence I haven't even considered or knew existed.
Nonetheless, I can't help think when I look at this throne of St. Mark that it not only represented the beginning of something new (i.e. Christianity) but moreover the fulfillment of something old. In my mind, the realization of the Dosithean messianic figure seems the most likely possibility. However it will take experts in the field of Samaritan studies to sort this one out.
As I said, just a thought ...
