Isn't it Strange that Clement and Origen Never Take Any Pride in the Antiquity of the Alexandrian See?

I know all the garbage that most scholars like to promote about the Alexandrian See. They say that BECAUSE Clement and Origen never mention St. Mark or the Alexandrian See (at least in their 'genuine' letters) that these concepts were invented at a later date. I have actually had to endure a conversation with J Harold Ellens (in order to get a plug for my book) which went to this effect.

The Alexandrian tradition and its relationship with St. Mark, according to Ellens, was 'invented' at a much later date. In other words, what we see occur in Venice in the ninth century was first developed by the people of Alexandria in the sixth or seventh century.

This is so stupid I don't know what to say.

The fact is that doubts can emerge with ALL apostolic traditions. How did both Antioch and Rome both emerge as 'Petrine Sees'? I don't want to get too deeply involved in all of this but the real question is why - if Morton Smith is the forger of the Mar Saba document - did he decide to introduce these 'fictitious' traditions about St. Mark's relationship with Alexandria?

I have read every book written in the English language which claims that the Mar Saba document is a hoax. I have never seen any proof that it was ever part of Morton Smith's 'agenda' to introduce St. Mark's 'fabulous' relationship with the Alexandrian See.

Indeed if you really think about it, I find it difficult to believe that Morton Smith ever BELIEVED that the story of St. Mark's visit to Alexandria was 'historical.' So why introduce these things to a forgery which would be scrutinized by other skeptical authorities?

Smith must have known that nowhere in the existing Clementine literature does the Church Father ever endorse the legendary Markan origins of the See. I struggle to see why or how Morton Smith the forger would have introduced these things to a letter associated with Clement. It would have been a challenge enough to introduce all the other 'agendas' that supposedly motivated his 'forgery' - i.e. introducing homosexuality, getting revenge on the church, establishing a series of codes that would allow Stephen Carlson to prove he was the author of the letter so as to get him accepted into a doctorate program at Duke (I am laughing to myself as I write this; Carlson should have put THAT in his book - as well as a cryptic 'kudo' to Morton Smith).

Now we have to add Morton Smith's otherwise unknown interest in making Clement a witness for the antiquity of St. Mark's founding of the See of Alexandria. It seems to be madness to me to introduce things which are never found in Clement's writing (i.e. his endorsement of Alexandria as the See of St. Mark) while trying to 'corrupt' the Church with madness, sex and all the other nonsense Jeffrey's sees in the text.

'Ah, but that's exactly the point,' Jeffrey would surely chime in. 'Morton Smith was mad.'

I am sorry folks. Identifying someone as insane in order to absolve you of the academic responsibility to explain motive is not acceptable. Smith might have been eccentric but he was still in possession of his faculties to the end. The fact that references to St. Mark, his church in eastern Alexandria and a number of other features which ARE witnessed by later tradition (i.e. from the fourth to sixth centuries) including the image of St. Mark the naked neaniskos as we see from the Acts of Peter the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Peter ends up going to the same martyrium of St. Mark mentioned in the Mar Saba letter and has a vision beside the tomb of St. Mark. He also has a vision of a naked neaniskos shortly before his death who is certainly St. Mark. As we read:

For in this night, while I was solemnly pouring forth my prayers to God, there stood by me a boy of about twelve years, the brightness of whose face I could not endure, for this whole cell in which we stand was radiant with a great light. He was clothed with a linen tunic divided into two parts, from the neck to the feet, and holding in his two hands the rents of the tunic, he applied them to his breast to cover his nudity. At this vision I was stupefied with astonishment. And when boldness of speech was given to me, I exclaimed: Lord, who has rent your tunic? Then said he, Arius has rent it, and by all means beware of receiving him into communion; behold, tomorrow they will come to entreat you for him. See, therefore, that you be not persuaded to acquiesce: nay, rather lay your commands upon Achillas and Alexander the priests, who after your translation will rule my Church, not by any means to receive him. You shall very quickly fulfil the lot of the martyr. Now there was no other cause of this vision. So now I have satisfied you, and I have declared unto you what I was ordered. But what you will do in consequence of this, must be your own care. [The Acts of Peter of Alexandria]

There are several versions of this story and I happen to possess the DeVos's Greek text which I will reference to see if the specific term neaniskos is used here.

The point of course of all of this is to draw attention to the fact that all previous efforts to establish an 'agenda' for Morton Smith's 'forgery' have been done without the usual academic seriousness. If we really were to make a case for forgery the most convincing argument would be that while Clement never references the legendary details of St. Mark's founding of the Alexandrian See later Church Fathers certainly do.

If Clement didn't write the Mar Saba letter then the person who did certainly had a discernible 'agenda' in making Clement - the earliest known Alexandrian Father - a mouthpiece for these traditions. As I said, I can't see a logical reason for thinking that Morton Smith had any reason for promoting this agenda. As such I see a much stronger argument that the 'forgery' was accomplished by a native Alexandrian or that other possibility that - heaven forbid - the text may well be genuine.

Indeed, if we stop in our tracks and consider for a moment how incredible the idea is that neither Clement nor Origen TAKEN ANY PRIDE in their Alexandrian See, that they do not further legendary details about its apostolic foundations - it doesn't make sense.

Think of the modern Mormons with all their ludicrous beliefs about Jesus coming over to America and meeting Indians. Is there a Mormon alive that would look one of us in the faith and claim that these ideas were in circulation before Joseph Smith? Of course not. But they will all the same declare their belief in these legendary stories despite their relatively recent 'discovery.'

In the same way, I can't believe that neither Clement nor Origen ever boast about the apostolic origins of their Alexandrian See. It goes against human nature. Even the most obscure city in the most remote corner of the world has some ridiculous claim that it was visited by an apostle. Why the silence on the part of Clement and Origen?

Indeed there is no doubt that Christianity started in Alexandria at a very early date. Hadrian saw 'the Patriarch' of Alexandria in 135 CE. Various heretical traditions were active in the city from that time AND most important of all - the Marcionites had an epistle which claimed that the apostle 'Paul' actually granted Alexandria premier status among all the cities in the world.

How then could Clement and Origen maintain their silence? How could they not have boasted in the greatness of their city?

Or better yet - how could they have VOLUNTARILY 'bought into' a system which diminished this traditional authority of the Alexandrian See?

The answer to me is clear - Clement and Origen had no choice. Both ended up being persecuted for their beliefs so the idea that a 'threat' hung over the Alexandrian community is not some abstract concept. The most reasonable proposition is that Clement knew and promoted the idea of St. Mark's founding of the Alexandrian See.

As the Mar Saba document makes clear he did so 'secretly' as the longer Alexandrian gospel of Mark - and the canon of Alexandria (as I have shown in the last post) - was promoted in secret.

It's time for scholarship to wake up to the THREAT against Alexandrianism in the Commodian period and subsequent ages. Yeah, like that's ever going to happen ...