I can't tell you how great a kick I get interacting with religious scholars. You couldn't find a group of people more unlikely myself in terms of temperament, weltanshuaung, 'blood' or most anything else. Nevertheless I love interacting with these aliens because they are so utterly predictable. You can't imagine what it is like to be a Jew dropped in the middle of Gentiles discussing the Bible.
Of course I am a mashugana Jew at that. I come from a strange background. My mother survived the Holocaust by living hand to mouth in Switzerland for five to six years (sounds good until you realize what Swiss people are like).
I grew up in a very working class and very, very white neighborhood in Canada. My best friends were all Italian (the closest thing I could find to Jews or to be honest - I still think Italians are better than Jews). I wouldn't have traded my neighborhood friends for anyone.
The point is that I was always the outsider looking in. I went to Catholic school dances because the women were always more attractive (it's hard to say this without sounding creepy but it was hard to get around how much better young girls looked in traditional outfits).
The point is that I always liked Catholics because I love tradition. I think in some sense every Jew is bound to the idea of tradition. So now we arrive at my approach to Christianity.
I hate the Protestant obsession with textual criticism WITHOUT tradition. You can't claim to be a 'believer' in the gospel or a believer in the Church Fathers without adhering to one of the three apostolic sees that these Fathers orbited.
The three sees being - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.
There are no other choices. You can't invent a Christianity that didn't orbit one of these three apostolic sees. All Christianity comes down to these three cities and the three apostolic thrones associated with these sees.
I think we can pretty much discount Antioch right off the bat. However I share the Marcionite repulsion with regards to the Acts of the Apostles. I don't believe a word that it says any more than I do the Christianized copies of Josephus. Nevertheless if you do accept Acts it is hard to get around the significance of this see of St. Peter.
Byzantium transferred its authority from Antioch. This is why Antioch occupies second position in the Greek Orthodox tradition. It is worth noting however that only the Alexandrian Patriarch holds the title Papa in this tradition. All Patriarchs hold equal rank but only the Alexandrian Patriarch is also called 'Pope.'
Because of my interest in heretics and others chastised by the official Church I have gravitated towards the orbit of Alexandria. That doesn't mean that I can claim to be a Copt. I have some difficulties with the stance of the surviving tradition towards Origen and the Origenists that originally dominated their tradition through to the beginning of the fourth century.
Nevertheless I can honestly say that I love the Coptic Church. I am touched whenever I receive emails from monks and leading men within their tradition. I hope - I think - that they see me as a friend. I see it as my duty to defend their tradition - the Alexandrian tradition - from the Roman centered prejudices which dominate scholarship. However if the truth be told, I prefer the Roman Church to any of the new heresies that sprouted in the new world.
It all comes down to three cities people. Rome, Antioch or Alexandria. I discount the middle one because I think its claims to being an Apostolic See are utterly contrived. Antioch just happened to be a regional administrative center.
In my mind we have to chose between Alexandria and Rome for our orbits as scholars. I know picking Rome is the easy way out. Every thing is already laid out. Irenaeus' original arguments become recast in 'scientific sounding' statements but it is hardly that convincing to me.
All the early Roman bishops were foreign born - and mostly from Syria. I doubt the authenticity of almost anyone on the list before Anicetus (yet if the truth be told the same problem exists with regards to Alexandria before Demetrius; they all seem to be variations on the figure of Marcus Julius Agrippa).
Yet on this day - Nayrouz - the beginning of the Coptic year, won't some of you consider orbiting their tradition at least for the purpose of scholarship. Won't some of you decide to see things from their point of view or again, as if their Apostolic See had primacy.
It all makes sense you know. You just have to consider it. Imagine the possibilities.
If you will take up my suggestion there are two books for you to consider. The first is an authoritative text written by the current Pope - HH Shenouda III - written for lay people but which has ex cathedra status. It is called 'the Evangelist Mark' and it is available free to anyone who wants it here.
For those who want something a little bit different - a text which is certainly not ex cathedra - which does not represent the official position of the Coptic Church but rather my attempt to give its legendary claims some foundation in historical truth. Read my the Real Messiah.
Buy it here
