After Judah b Ilai's description of the dyplastoon or double stoa (just cited below) there is an important addition - a short question and answer that should be mentioned. It runs:
And who destroyed it? The impious Trogianus (Trajan).
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Just a Thought ...
I think everyone is beginning to see that we might be on to something REALLY BIG. I think that our entire understanding of how Judaism became Christianity will have to be rewritten as a result of what we are about to prove (if you just started to read this blog see below). I just want to remind my readers about something when they look at the image of Lochias (the peninsula that justs out in the sea). This was the place where the Royal Palaces were located. If the reader thinks in terms of the Flaccus story for instance, this is where Flaccus lived. The walls of Alexandria were just further east and beyond the walls were the Jewish community. While the rectangular shape might look like it is 'way off shore' it is owing to changes in the shoreline wrought by modern engineers in Egypt.
Getting back to Lochias, the peninsula that now remains is a shadow of its former self. The Royal Palace filled the northeast angle of the town and occupying the promontory of Lochias, which shut in the Great Harbour on the east. Lochias has almost entirely disappeared into the sea, together with the palaces, the "Private Port" and the island of Antirrhodus.
If we can mentally 'fill in' what is missing from that peninsula we can more easily fill in the original shoreline which would have placed what I assume to be the Jewish temple (the rectangular shape in the water) as the original shoreline in Boucolia.
One might even imagine a situation where the Jews might have built the temple out into the waters (either by moving stones or concrete) to avoid the 'pollution' of the graves which dotted the shore).
Discovering the 'Jewish Atlantis'
I just sent an email to my friend who tells me "I have met in Athens, two days ago with a member of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt and Director of the Alexandria Museums. I did ask him information about the possibilities of obtaining a professional license for filming underwater in the area of Chatby. I will meet him again, who is also a long time friend, in Alexandria on Saturday April 3rd on the occasion of a Conference on Underwater Archaeology (I am a speaker at this conference) and I expect to have information on this subject."
When we hear that this was a replica of the Jewish temple, we have to start wondering - are we just talking about the house of worship or everything associated with it? For instance, if I am right Judah b Ilah's reference to a dyplastoon where tradesmen sat together is a garbled reference to the Royal Stoa of the Herodian temple which - as I noted in a previous post - was a 'double stoa' structure made famous for modern audiences in the gospel where Jesus is said to have gone to 'the temple' and:
In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
I have always gotten the sense from Philo's description of the main Jewish house of worship (he never calls it a 'synagogue') that there was a large courtyard. Judah ben Ilah MIGHT represent a garbled reference to another part of massive physical structure. Both make reference to its gargantuan size.
Harry is very keen on diving to see if I am correct. I bet I am, my friends. The whole area was the Jewish quarter of Alexandria. Philo infers that the governor could look out of his palace to see what was going on with the Jews below. I will try and draw the lines of the old city walls in a new post, but trust me folks, this is what the rectangular object under the surface of the sea is.
We are on the brink of discovering what I call 'the Jewish Atlantis.' Sounds like a cable documentary to me ...
New Information from Imad Boles that the Venetians Were Interested in Stealing More than the Body of St. Mark from Alexandria
You may be interested in this story that I re-read today in the Live of the Coptic Patriarch Mathew IV (1660-1675). The story deals with what the Copts regard as a miracle “Miracle of the Icon of Michael, the Archangel”: there used to be in the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria a beautifully painted icon of St Michael, which Coptic tradition says it was painted by St. Luke, the Evangelist.
The story goes that the Venetians stole this icon (no exact date but during the patriarchate of Mathew IV), but when they tried to sail off to their city the ship found difficulties. The Venetians suspected the reason to be their stealing of the icon, and consequently they returned it back to the church.
When the Arabs around Alexandria heard of the story, and the interest of the Franks (all Europeans were Franks “Frinja” to Arabs) in it, they thought of stealing it themselves, and then selling it to the Franks. So one night they broke into the church to take the icon by force, but as they were about to depart their legs would not support them. Scared, they returned the icon, and left without it.
Johann Michael Vansleb (Wansleben) in his visit to Egypt in 1672 saw this icon. When Napoleon Bonaparte conquered Egypt in 1799, he destroyed St. Mark’s church fearing that the English might use it when landing. Its icons, books, etc., were taken by the Copts to the Church of Rashid (Rosetta), and the icon was fixed to its wall. It is still there.
So the Venetians were after more than the body of St. Mark.
Why Do We Have to Keep Believing that the Surviving Texts of Josephus Are Corrupt When the Texts Themselves (and Archaeological Evidence) Prove that They Are?...
In my opinion, the original material written by Josephus in the first century is completely lost to us. But as this isn't going to be a post about how and why I think that what has survived in his name should be used cautiously let's move on to deal with the claims of this material that the Jewish temple in Egypt was located in Leontopolis rather than Alexandria. Scholars tend to just open the works of Josephus and exclaim 'there it is!' and end the discussion of alternative possibilities at that. Some will even tell you that W M Petrie 'found' the temple at the turn of the twentieth century. Yet this is academic research at its very worst.
As Albert Pietersma Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek at the University of Toronto recently noted on Petrie's claim to have uncovered the Jewish Temple at Leontopolis "my impression has been that his identification of the Oniad temple was highly dubious."
Pietersma is not the only one to think this. Only those who don't notice the fact that everyone who has ever accepted Petrie's claims that he has found Josephus' temple in Egypt has to find ways of creatively 'cutting corners' to make one resemble the other. Let's not forget what the surviving text of Josephus claims was at Leontopolis.
Oh, but wait a minute. I forgot. We also gloss over the fact that Josephus' account is absolutely contradictory.
You see at first he says that the building that Onias made in Egypt was an EXACT REPLICA of the Jewish temple:
the son of Onias the high priest, who was of the same name with his father, and who fled to king Ptolemy, who was called Philometor, lived now at Alexandria, as we have said already. When this Onias saw that Judea was oppressed by the Macedonians and their kings, out of a desire to purchase to himself a memorial and eternal fame he resolved to send to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, to ask leave of them that he might build a temple in Egypt like to that at Jerusalem, and might ordain Levites and priests out of their own stock. The chief reason why he was desirous so to do, was, that he relied upon the prophet Isaiah, who lived above six hundred years before, and foretold that there certainly was to be a temple built to Almighty God in Egypt by a man that was a Jew. Onias was elevated with this prediction, and wrote the following epistle to Ptolemy and Cleopatra: "Having done many and great things for you in the affairs of the war, by the assistance of God, and that in Celesyria and Phoenicia, I came at length with the Jews to Leontopolis, and to other places of your nation, where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about Divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; for the prophet Isaiah foretold that "there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God; and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place." [Antiquities 13]
So let's remember that this whole story is supposed to end with the building of some sort of a building THAT WAS NOT like the Jewish temple (according to what is written at the end of Jewish War). So let's continue with the story:
So this was what Onias wrote to king Ptolemy. Now any one may observe his piety, and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra, by that epistle which they wrote in answer to it; for they laid the blame and the transgression of the law upon the head of Onias. And this was their reply: "King Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra to Onias, send greeting. We have read thy petition, wherein thou desirest leave to be given thee to purge that temple which is fallen down at Leontopolis, in the Nomus of Heliopolis, and which is named from the country Bubastis; on which account we cannot but wonder that it should be pleasing to God to have a temple erected in a place so unclean, and so full of sacred animals. But since thou sayest that Isaiah the prophet foretold this long ago, we give thee leave to do it, if it may be done according to your law, and so that we may not appear to have at all offended God herein."
So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer. I do not think it proper for me now to describe its dimensions or its vessels, which have been already described in my seventh book of the Wars of the Jews. However, Onias found other Jews like to himself, together with priests and Levites, that there performed Divine service. But we have said enough about this temple.
Okay, the words on the page say that the temple was located in Leontopolis. There is no doubt about that. That's what the text NOW reads. There's no doubt about it.
There is also the same story reference (sort of) in the First Book of the Jewish War, where it says:
Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter. [Jewish War 1.1]
Okay, so it would seem like there are no problems with this story, right? There was a temple made to resemble the Jewish temple only now in Leontopolis. So let's read that story that the last story tells us will confirm everything just said:
So Ptolemy complied with his proposals, and gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis. That Nomos was called the Nomos of Hellopolls, where Onias built a fortress and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones to the height of sixty cubits; he made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts, excepting the make of the candlestick, for he did not make a candlestick, but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold, which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold; but the entire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The king also gave him a large country for a revenue in money, that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them, and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition, but he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem, and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly, he thought that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself. There had been also a certain ancient prediction made by [a prophet] whose name was Isaiah, about six hundred years before, that this temple should be built by a man that was a Jew in Egypt. And this is the history of the building of that temple.
And now Lupus, the governor of Alexandria, upon the receipt of Caesar's letter, came to the temple, and carried out of it some of the donations dedicated thereto, and shut up the temple itself. And as Lupus died a little afterward, Paulinns succeeded him. This man left none of those donations there, and threatened the priests severely if they did not bring them all out; nor did he permit any who were desirous of worshipping God there so much as to come near the whole sacred place; but when he had shut up the gates, he made it entirely inaccessible, insomuch that there remained no longer the least footsteps of any Divine worship that had been in that place. Now the duration of the time from the building of this temple till it was shut up again was three hundred and forty-three years. [Jewish War 7.10]
The way scholars work of course is to abuse Occam's razor and basically 'find the path of least resistance' to make everything work. The notes to Whiston's translation of Josephus is typical in this regard - "of this temple of Onias's building in Egypt, see the notes on Antiq. B. XIII. ch. 3. sect. 1. But whereas it is elsewhere, both of the War, B. I. ch. 1. sect. 1, and in the Antiquities as now quoted, said that this temple was like to that at Jerusalem, and here that it was not like it, but like a tower, sect. 3, there is some reason to suspect the reading here, and that either the negative particle is here to be blotted out, or the word entirely added."
Of course these people think that deciding where the Jewish temple in Egypt is just a matter of deciding between two different parts of the 'writings of Josephus.' Why is it that they forget that the rabbinic tradition is consistent in its attributing a dyplastoon (double stoa) having been established in the Jewish quarter of Alexandria. In case there are those who are up to speed on the matter - the Herodian temple in Jerusalem was a dyplastoon as Rocca notes:
two dyplastoon buildings within a Jewish context did exist at the end of the Second Temple period ... The first was Herod's royal stoa the second building was the main synagogue of Alexandria. It seems to me that Antipas (or Agrippa I/Agrippa II) erected the dyplastoon at Tiberias in imitation of Herod's Stoa Basilike and perhaps also the dyplastoon of Alexandria.
Now I don't want to spend too much time on this right now but with the irreconcilable contradictions in the writings of Josephus, we can't just assume that because the surviving texts of Josephus tell us that the replica temple was at Leontopolis that means that it has to be true. Petrie nor anyone has found anything resembling the building to our right in the remains of Cairo. Surely, you'd think that if a building like this was ever there SOMETHING OF IT WOULD HAVE SURVIVED.
Petrie's 'discovery' is a joke. In my mind a more likely scenario is that the rabbinic accounts were right and that the Jewish temple in Egypt was actually located beside the eastern wall of the city of Alexandria in the region called Boukolou EXACTLY where the Church of St. Mark would appear in a later period of the city's history.
All we need to do now is look at the rabbinic writings to help remind ourselves that the Jews ALWAYS agreed with what I am proposing. How could Judah b Ilai and his contemporaries NOT KNOW where THEIR temple was located? It just doesn't make sense.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Could the Original Church of St. Mark Have Been the 'Double Stoa' of Alexandria' Rededicated to Christ? [Part One]
Yes, this is a stupid question because it can't be proved either way. Nevertheless it is what I like to do nowadays. Past stupid activities of mine have included wanting to be hockey player (I am Canadian after all), being a Casanova (I'm not Latin so it is no wonder that failed) and being a successful author (still working on that one).
So now that we have just cited Birger Pearson's ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE arguments that demonstrate the likelihood that the Martyrium of St. Mark in the Passio Petri Sancti (which describes events in 311 CE) is the same church associated with the evangelist in the Acts of Mark which in turn was located in the exact same geographical area described in Philo of Alexandria's Flaccus, the nature question now before us is whether the same synagogue mentioned in the last text might have been rededicated as not just a Christian church but THE ONLY Christian church in all of Egypt.
Again, it is impossible to prove and I should throw out there one fact which would argue AGAINST the idea that the massive synagogue managed to survive into the second century.
There was a massive revolt throughout Egypt and north Africa. The assumption of many scholars is that nothing from before the revolt could have survived into the period after the revolt. They point to the statement of Eusebius that Hadrian 'rebuilt Alexandria ruined by the Jews.' The Chronicle of Jerome reads "Hadrian restored Alexandria, which had been sacked by the Romans, from public funds."
At first glance these reports seem to suggest that the Jewish synagogue in the Boucolia couldn't have survived the destruction. Yet we are forgetting one important thing. The synagogue would have been located OUTSIDE the walls of the city. All our reports suggest that it was the Romans who finally settled the revolt. They came by ship and unloaded soldiers and horse and as Jerome suggests, laid siege to cities like Alexandria.
It would have only natural for the Jews, who used to live principally OUTSIDE the city walls to have taken shelter against the impending Roman assault by taking refuge within the same fortifications.
Now IF the synagogue continued to function as a Jewish house of worship it would certainly NOT have survived the revolt. The Greeks of the city would certainly have razed it to the ground as retribution for Jewish assaults on pagan buildings in the city.
However IF the synagogue was rededicated to the Christianity of St. Mark BEFORE the revolt then a whole different set of possibilities arises.
Our historical sources indicate that Jews from Cyrenaica came over to Egypt to continue the destruction they wrought in their native land. What would have happened when these Jews alongside native Alexandrian Jews came upon this former synagogue now re-dedicated to Christ? It is impossible to say, but my guess is that they wouldn't have destroyed the building but rather take it over again and turn it back to its original function as a Jewish house of worship.
Of course we don't know anything about what happened before, during or after the revolt. Yet one piece of evidence is decisive I think that suggests that the original synagogue was still a functioning place of worship in the early second century. Rabbi Judah b Ilai, a Galilean who flourished in the early second century, is cited as praising the greatness of this structure - "whoever has not seen the double stoa of Alexandria has never in his life seen the glory of Israel. It is a kind of large basilica, a stoa within a stoa, holding at times, twice the number of those who left Egypt."
There can be no doubt that Judah b Ilai was connected somehow to the Alexandrian tradition. He seems to have a great deal of information also about the Septuagint, the temple of Onias and other things. While it is certainly possible that the Jewish building did not survive the revolt of the Trajanic period, it is also possible that it did.
Yet before we get into all of that I hope the reader allows me to go off on a little tangent and use Judah b Ilai to ask an even more shocking question - could the 'double stoa' of Alexandria have been the survival of the replica temple established by Onias at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period?
Of course the surviving texts of Josephus says no - that building was established near modern Cairo. Yet this never made any sense to me. The logical place for that building would have been exactly where R. Judah b Ilai says it is - just outside the city of Alexandria. After all this is where most of the Jewish (and Samaritan) population was living at the turn of the common era.
Once again, all of scholarship naturally takes for granted the fact that because our existing texts of Josephus say that the replica temple was established at Leontopolis (Cairo). Yet the entire rabbinic tradition and the medieval chroniclers ALL agree that the building was actually located in Alexandria.
This isn't the first time that I have taken on the establishment. The entire basis to my Real Messiah was the fact that the rabbinic tradition PROPERLY remembered that there was only one Marcus Julius Agrippa rather than two as the texts of Josephus maintain.
why do I think that Josephus consistently gets it wrong? The answer is simple - I think that a Christian editor (or editors) 'corrected' the obvious connections between St. Mark and Marcus Julius Agrippa.
In the case of the location of the Jewish temple of Egypt this is taken one step further. If I am right than the ONE CHURCH in all of Egypt for its first three hundred years had its special significance because it was the re-dedicated temple of Judaism.
This would also explain all of Clement's statements about the high priest and the function of the temple AS A PRECURSOR for the establishment of the Christian church.
Oh, and I will give my readers one clue of what is coming in my next post. Just as we saw in R. Judah b Ilai's account the specific term 'synagogue' is never applied to this structure. If you look carefully at Philo's Flaccus, there are five references to 'synagogues' in the text. The massive building that is at the center of the revolt is never once identified as a 'synagogue.'
Hmmmm ....
So now that we have just cited Birger Pearson's ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE arguments that demonstrate the likelihood that the Martyrium of St. Mark in the Passio Petri Sancti (which describes events in 311 CE) is the same church associated with the evangelist in the Acts of Mark which in turn was located in the exact same geographical area described in Philo of Alexandria's Flaccus, the nature question now before us is whether the same synagogue mentioned in the last text might have been rededicated as not just a Christian church but THE ONLY Christian church in all of Egypt.
Again, it is impossible to prove and I should throw out there one fact which would argue AGAINST the idea that the massive synagogue managed to survive into the second century.
There was a massive revolt throughout Egypt and north Africa. The assumption of many scholars is that nothing from before the revolt could have survived into the period after the revolt. They point to the statement of Eusebius that Hadrian 'rebuilt Alexandria ruined by the Jews.' The Chronicle of Jerome reads "Hadrian restored Alexandria, which had been sacked by the Romans, from public funds."
At first glance these reports seem to suggest that the Jewish synagogue in the Boucolia couldn't have survived the destruction. Yet we are forgetting one important thing. The synagogue would have been located OUTSIDE the walls of the city. All our reports suggest that it was the Romans who finally settled the revolt. They came by ship and unloaded soldiers and horse and as Jerome suggests, laid siege to cities like Alexandria.
It would have only natural for the Jews, who used to live principally OUTSIDE the city walls to have taken shelter against the impending Roman assault by taking refuge within the same fortifications.
Now IF the synagogue continued to function as a Jewish house of worship it would certainly NOT have survived the revolt. The Greeks of the city would certainly have razed it to the ground as retribution for Jewish assaults on pagan buildings in the city.
However IF the synagogue was rededicated to the Christianity of St. Mark BEFORE the revolt then a whole different set of possibilities arises.
Our historical sources indicate that Jews from Cyrenaica came over to Egypt to continue the destruction they wrought in their native land. What would have happened when these Jews alongside native Alexandrian Jews came upon this former synagogue now re-dedicated to Christ? It is impossible to say, but my guess is that they wouldn't have destroyed the building but rather take it over again and turn it back to its original function as a Jewish house of worship.
Of course we don't know anything about what happened before, during or after the revolt. Yet one piece of evidence is decisive I think that suggests that the original synagogue was still a functioning place of worship in the early second century. Rabbi Judah b Ilai, a Galilean who flourished in the early second century, is cited as praising the greatness of this structure - "whoever has not seen the double stoa of Alexandria has never in his life seen the glory of Israel. It is a kind of large basilica, a stoa within a stoa, holding at times, twice the number of those who left Egypt."
There can be no doubt that Judah b Ilai was connected somehow to the Alexandrian tradition. He seems to have a great deal of information also about the Septuagint, the temple of Onias and other things. While it is certainly possible that the Jewish building did not survive the revolt of the Trajanic period, it is also possible that it did.
Yet before we get into all of that I hope the reader allows me to go off on a little tangent and use Judah b Ilai to ask an even more shocking question - could the 'double stoa' of Alexandria have been the survival of the replica temple established by Onias at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period?
Of course the surviving texts of Josephus says no - that building was established near modern Cairo. Yet this never made any sense to me. The logical place for that building would have been exactly where R. Judah b Ilai says it is - just outside the city of Alexandria. After all this is where most of the Jewish (and Samaritan) population was living at the turn of the common era.
Once again, all of scholarship naturally takes for granted the fact that because our existing texts of Josephus say that the replica temple was established at Leontopolis (Cairo). Yet the entire rabbinic tradition and the medieval chroniclers ALL agree that the building was actually located in Alexandria.
This isn't the first time that I have taken on the establishment. The entire basis to my Real Messiah was the fact that the rabbinic tradition PROPERLY remembered that there was only one Marcus Julius Agrippa rather than two as the texts of Josephus maintain.
why do I think that Josephus consistently gets it wrong? The answer is simple - I think that a Christian editor (or editors) 'corrected' the obvious connections between St. Mark and Marcus Julius Agrippa.
In the case of the location of the Jewish temple of Egypt this is taken one step further. If I am right than the ONE CHURCH in all of Egypt for its first three hundred years had its special significance because it was the re-dedicated temple of Judaism.
This would also explain all of Clement's statements about the high priest and the function of the temple AS A PRECURSOR for the establishment of the Christian church.
Oh, and I will give my readers one clue of what is coming in my next post. Just as we saw in R. Judah b Ilai's account the specific term 'synagogue' is never applied to this structure. If you look carefully at Philo's Flaccus, there are five references to 'synagogues' in the text. The massive building that is at the center of the revolt is never once identified as a 'synagogue.'
Hmmmm ....
Why Imagination Is Underrated in Scholarship
I wish scholars could simply get out their caves and realize that whatever it is that they are working on it is only ONE PIECE in the over all puzzle to make sense of the development of earliest Christianity. Let me give a personal example. When I was fifteen I honestly thought that pleasing a woman in bed was 'all there was' to making a woman happy. Seriously.
Of course I took the task of womanizing very seriously, indeed more seriously than anything else in my life before or since. And now that I am a million years old I laugh at my ignorance. I can't think of anything that is in fact LESS important for a successful marriage. Now that my father is dead I have learned all about my mother's dissatisfaction with my father. They were married for over fifty years. I am sure when I die my wife will tell my son how horrible it was to be stuck with me. Yet my wife and I have been together for what seems like an eternity.
The point is that the reason I had such stupid ideas in my head when I was eighteen was because I WAS EIGHTEEN. I can't even imagine what it must have been like having all that virility running through my system. If I was to ever cheat on my wife it would be impossible for me to claim that I was in the throws of 'uncontrolled passion' because I have no longer have any passion. I have attained perfect apatheia (most likely as a result of prolonged exhaustion and overwork).
What I am trying to get at is the fact that I think that most scholars have a similar naivety when it comes to their own research. I always imagine the universities to be something like a beehive with all these little workers plodding away at their little projects. The problem is of course that there is very little synthesizing going on or it if it is it always starts with those moronic inherited presuppositions that we took over from our ignorant ancestors.
That's why I have always liked the work of Birger Pearson so much. The first time I ever came across his name was with his involvement in the translation of the so-called Testimony of Truth, in my opinion one of the most important work in the whole Nag Hammadi corpus.
I know it sounds stupid but when I take the time to admit in his introduction to the James M Robinson collection that text MIGHT ALSO HAVE been called 'aletheias logos' I just became a big fan and read everything ever written by him. I thought to myself, this is how a good scholar goes about his work considering all possibilities.
Of course many of my loyal readers will inevitably point out that Pearson eventually came down on the side of the forgery proposition. This is supposed to mean, I guess, that 'I shouldn't like him' or something.
The point of this post though is to say that I think that scholars make too big a deal about being right all the time. Seriously. The reality is that EVERYONE OF US is wrong about SO MANY THINGS that we have written about. If there was to be a big discovery of some secret cache of Biblical manuscripts and Patristic writings, I think ALL OF ACADEMIA would be utterly embarrassed.
Just look at how many scholars took Carlson at his word that he was employing the highest quality images to determine that there was a 'forger's tremor' present. Yes, Birger Pearson was one of those scholars but the point is that when faced with the evidence he told me yes, the mistake raises serious questions about Carlson's conclusion.
Compare that to emails I saw from Larry Hurtado and Craig Evans and you see what a great man Pearson is.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even the best scholar in the field is probably right only fifty percent of the time AT BEST. I think von Campenhausen's first instinct regarding the parallels between the Pastoral Letters and the Letter of Polycarp was the correct analysis (he subsequently changed his mind). In my opinion Pearson's first instincts about the Mar Saba document were correct. I also think that the document which is called the Testimony of Truth was actually called aletheias logos and was known to Celsus of Rome.
I might be wrong on about half of these suppositions but that should in no way impact how I am regarded as a scholar.
Most of us in the field are completely wrong about everything we write.
So what makes someone like Pearson better than ninety five percent of the rest of the scholars that are out there? I think that he asks the right questions. This is the whole point of scholarship in my mind. The reason why you want to read every book that Pearson ever wrote, or David Trobisch or Tjitze Baarda or Robert McQueen Grant is NOT ONLY that they have an unparalleled familiarity with the primary sources in the field BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY that they have a critical mind, that they ask the right questions and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL that they have a good imagination.
Seriously.
There is all this information out there. Yes, you need a good memory to recall all the details but it takes imagination above all else to see the parallels and the connections BETWEEN the material.
I just cited Pearson's work on the location of the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia in a previous post. Do you know how many idiotic scholars couldn't even agree about the location of the #$#^^ church? It is amazing. This is not imagination but simply being able to read what is written on the page of the Acts of Mark and comparing them to the Passio Petri Sancti.
But what makes Pearson such a great scholar is that he HINTS at something - which will be subject of my next post. Namely that there is a FURTHER parallel which others might not have noticed because they were unable to see that the location of the Church of St. Mark is consistent between the accounts of the death of Mark and Peter the seventeenth patriarch.
What confirms Pearson at the upper echelons of academics is that he correctly opens the possibility that the Church of St. Mark is located in the very place where Philo identifies as the location of a massive synagogue which severed the Jewish community in the region. Pearson writes:
One site mentioned in the Acts of Mark "the so-called Angeloi" where the mob tried to burn [the evangelist's] body. If there was such a place, it can be assumed that it was located near Boukolou. But the Bollandist editors of the Acts of Mark are likely correct in their suggestion that the Greek text is corrupt at this point. The text reads, in both recensions - the corruption goes back to a common source used by both - eis tous kaloumenous aggelous. The reading suggestion by the editors is eis tous aigialous (to the seashore). I tentatively suggest instead eis tous aigialous the plural form (which essentially means the same) corresponding more closely to the plural occurring in the corrupted text of the Acts of Mark. The corruption in the transmission of the text would have taken place under the influence of the name given to a sixth century church in Alexandria, the Angelion, and probably under the influence of the reference in the text to the worship of Sarapis. The mistake would have had to be made by someone who was ignorant of the geography of fourth century Alexandria. The Angelion church, dedicated to John the Baptist, was built on the site of the great Serapeum (sacked by a mob led by Theophilus in 391) in the Rhakotis district of Alexandria, in the southwest part of the city.
The place name Angeloi having disappeared from our text, we read instead that the mob ignited a fire 'on the beaches' near Boukolou and there attempted to burn the martyr's body. By coincidence the same phrase eis (tous) aigialous occurs in an important passage in an important passage in Philo's treatise Against Flaccus in the context of a report on a vicious pogrom perpetrated by the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews of Alexandria in 37 - 38 CE. The passage in Philo is also of great interest because it incidentally gives us information on the centers of Jewish population in the city during the first century:
The city has five quarters named after the first five letters of the alphabet, two of them are called Jewish because most of the Jews inhabit them, though in the rest there are not a few Jews scattered about. So then what did they do? From the four letters they ejected the Jews and drove them to herd in a very small part of one. The Jews were so numerous that out over the beaches [eis aigialous], dunghills and tombs, robbed of their belongings [Against Flaccus 55-6]
I suggest that the quarter in which the Alexandrian Jews were gathered was in the eastern part of the city, that is, the mainly Jewish quarter in antiquity where the Jews first settled during the Ptolemaic period. This area is described by Josephus as follows: 'By a sea, without a harbour, close beside the spot where the waves break on the beach,' Alexandria's 'finest residential quarter,' located 'near the palaces' (Josephus Against Apion, 2,33 - 36). The beach in question corresponds to modern Shatby Beach, just east of the promontory Silsileh (ancient Lochias).
I suggest further, that the beach(es) referred to by Philo and by the Acts of Mark are the very same location. That is to say, the place referred to in the fourth century as Boukolou, then situated outside the city, was in the first century the very heart of the most prominent Jewish neighborhood in Alexandria, which Josephus describes in such glowing terms. The topographical reference in the Acts of Mark reflects, in my judgement, a continuity of tradition between the first century and the fourth century of Christian activity in that place. Its first century location situates the earliest Christians of Alexandria within the Jewish community of that time, and, in effect, corroborates the intuitive observation of Eusebius regarding the 'apostolic men' of the earliest Christian presence in Alexandria. They 'were it appears, of Hebrew origin, and thus still preserved most of the ancient customs in a strictly Jewish manner' (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.17.2). The earliest Christians of Alexandria were thus an integral part of the larger Jewish community there. [Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt pp 108 - 110]
Pearson's judgement represents the limits of what we can say with any degree of certainty regarding the development of Alexandrian Christianity out of Alexandrian Judaism. I will attempt to go one step further - namely that the massive synagogue mentioned by Philo might well have been taken over by the first Christians and developed into what is known to have been the first and only Church in Egypt for the first three centuries of the religion.
Of course I took the task of womanizing very seriously, indeed more seriously than anything else in my life before or since. And now that I am a million years old I laugh at my ignorance. I can't think of anything that is in fact LESS important for a successful marriage. Now that my father is dead I have learned all about my mother's dissatisfaction with my father. They were married for over fifty years. I am sure when I die my wife will tell my son how horrible it was to be stuck with me. Yet my wife and I have been together for what seems like an eternity.
The point is that the reason I had such stupid ideas in my head when I was eighteen was because I WAS EIGHTEEN. I can't even imagine what it must have been like having all that virility running through my system. If I was to ever cheat on my wife it would be impossible for me to claim that I was in the throws of 'uncontrolled passion' because I have no longer have any passion. I have attained perfect apatheia (most likely as a result of prolonged exhaustion and overwork).
What I am trying to get at is the fact that I think that most scholars have a similar naivety when it comes to their own research. I always imagine the universities to be something like a beehive with all these little workers plodding away at their little projects. The problem is of course that there is very little synthesizing going on or it if it is it always starts with those moronic inherited presuppositions that we took over from our ignorant ancestors.
That's why I have always liked the work of Birger Pearson so much. The first time I ever came across his name was with his involvement in the translation of the so-called Testimony of Truth, in my opinion one of the most important work in the whole Nag Hammadi corpus.
I know it sounds stupid but when I take the time to admit in his introduction to the James M Robinson collection that text MIGHT ALSO HAVE been called 'aletheias logos' I just became a big fan and read everything ever written by him. I thought to myself, this is how a good scholar goes about his work considering all possibilities.
Of course many of my loyal readers will inevitably point out that Pearson eventually came down on the side of the forgery proposition. This is supposed to mean, I guess, that 'I shouldn't like him' or something.
The point of this post though is to say that I think that scholars make too big a deal about being right all the time. Seriously. The reality is that EVERYONE OF US is wrong about SO MANY THINGS that we have written about. If there was to be a big discovery of some secret cache of Biblical manuscripts and Patristic writings, I think ALL OF ACADEMIA would be utterly embarrassed.
Just look at how many scholars took Carlson at his word that he was employing the highest quality images to determine that there was a 'forger's tremor' present. Yes, Birger Pearson was one of those scholars but the point is that when faced with the evidence he told me yes, the mistake raises serious questions about Carlson's conclusion.
Compare that to emails I saw from Larry Hurtado and Craig Evans and you see what a great man Pearson is.
I guess what I am trying to say is that even the best scholar in the field is probably right only fifty percent of the time AT BEST. I think von Campenhausen's first instinct regarding the parallels between the Pastoral Letters and the Letter of Polycarp was the correct analysis (he subsequently changed his mind). In my opinion Pearson's first instincts about the Mar Saba document were correct. I also think that the document which is called the Testimony of Truth was actually called aletheias logos and was known to Celsus of Rome.
I might be wrong on about half of these suppositions but that should in no way impact how I am regarded as a scholar.
Most of us in the field are completely wrong about everything we write.
So what makes someone like Pearson better than ninety five percent of the rest of the scholars that are out there? I think that he asks the right questions. This is the whole point of scholarship in my mind. The reason why you want to read every book that Pearson ever wrote, or David Trobisch or Tjitze Baarda or Robert McQueen Grant is NOT ONLY that they have an unparalleled familiarity with the primary sources in the field BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY that they have a critical mind, that they ask the right questions and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL that they have a good imagination.
Seriously.
There is all this information out there. Yes, you need a good memory to recall all the details but it takes imagination above all else to see the parallels and the connections BETWEEN the material.
I just cited Pearson's work on the location of the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia in a previous post. Do you know how many idiotic scholars couldn't even agree about the location of the #$#^^ church? It is amazing. This is not imagination but simply being able to read what is written on the page of the Acts of Mark and comparing them to the Passio Petri Sancti.
But what makes Pearson such a great scholar is that he HINTS at something - which will be subject of my next post. Namely that there is a FURTHER parallel which others might not have noticed because they were unable to see that the location of the Church of St. Mark is consistent between the accounts of the death of Mark and Peter the seventeenth patriarch.
What confirms Pearson at the upper echelons of academics is that he correctly opens the possibility that the Church of St. Mark is located in the very place where Philo identifies as the location of a massive synagogue which severed the Jewish community in the region. Pearson writes:
One site mentioned in the Acts of Mark "the so-called Angeloi" where the mob tried to burn [the evangelist's] body. If there was such a place, it can be assumed that it was located near Boukolou. But the Bollandist editors of the Acts of Mark are likely correct in their suggestion that the Greek text is corrupt at this point. The text reads, in both recensions - the corruption goes back to a common source used by both - eis tous kaloumenous aggelous. The reading suggestion by the editors is eis tous aigialous (to the seashore). I tentatively suggest instead eis tous aigialous the plural form (which essentially means the same) corresponding more closely to the plural occurring in the corrupted text of the Acts of Mark. The corruption in the transmission of the text would have taken place under the influence of the name given to a sixth century church in Alexandria, the Angelion, and probably under the influence of the reference in the text to the worship of Sarapis. The mistake would have had to be made by someone who was ignorant of the geography of fourth century Alexandria. The Angelion church, dedicated to John the Baptist, was built on the site of the great Serapeum (sacked by a mob led by Theophilus in 391) in the Rhakotis district of Alexandria, in the southwest part of the city.
The place name Angeloi having disappeared from our text, we read instead that the mob ignited a fire 'on the beaches' near Boukolou and there attempted to burn the martyr's body. By coincidence the same phrase eis (tous) aigialous occurs in an important passage in an important passage in Philo's treatise Against Flaccus in the context of a report on a vicious pogrom perpetrated by the Alexandrian Greeks against the Jews of Alexandria in 37 - 38 CE. The passage in Philo is also of great interest because it incidentally gives us information on the centers of Jewish population in the city during the first century:
The city has five quarters named after the first five letters of the alphabet, two of them are called Jewish because most of the Jews inhabit them, though in the rest there are not a few Jews scattered about. So then what did they do? From the four letters they ejected the Jews and drove them to herd in a very small part of one. The Jews were so numerous that out over the beaches [eis aigialous], dunghills and tombs, robbed of their belongings [Against Flaccus 55-6]
I suggest that the quarter in which the Alexandrian Jews were gathered was in the eastern part of the city, that is, the mainly Jewish quarter in antiquity where the Jews first settled during the Ptolemaic period. This area is described by Josephus as follows: 'By a sea, without a harbour, close beside the spot where the waves break on the beach,' Alexandria's 'finest residential quarter,' located 'near the palaces' (Josephus Against Apion, 2,33 - 36). The beach in question corresponds to modern Shatby Beach, just east of the promontory Silsileh (ancient Lochias).
I suggest further, that the beach(es) referred to by Philo and by the Acts of Mark are the very same location. That is to say, the place referred to in the fourth century as Boukolou, then situated outside the city, was in the first century the very heart of the most prominent Jewish neighborhood in Alexandria, which Josephus describes in such glowing terms. The topographical reference in the Acts of Mark reflects, in my judgement, a continuity of tradition between the first century and the fourth century of Christian activity in that place. Its first century location situates the earliest Christians of Alexandria within the Jewish community of that time, and, in effect, corroborates the intuitive observation of Eusebius regarding the 'apostolic men' of the earliest Christian presence in Alexandria. They 'were it appears, of Hebrew origin, and thus still preserved most of the ancient customs in a strictly Jewish manner' (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.17.2). The earliest Christians of Alexandria were thus an integral part of the larger Jewish community there. [Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt pp 108 - 110]
Pearson's judgement represents the limits of what we can say with any degree of certainty regarding the development of Alexandrian Christianity out of Alexandrian Judaism. I will attempt to go one step further - namely that the massive synagogue mentioned by Philo might well have been taken over by the first Christians and developed into what is known to have been the first and only Church in Egypt for the first three centuries of the religion.
Jesus' Final Passover Was the Last Supper really a Seder?
Original Story From Slate - The Last Supper has long been a source of academic controversy and half-baked speculation. From the Council of Trent to The Da Vinci Code, church officials, scholars, and conspiracy theorists have parsed depictions of Jesus' last meal for answers to questions sacred (the nature of transubstantiation) and profane (increasing portion size). Among these denominational debates and pop hypotheses, one rather rudimentary question continues to vex scholars: Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?
At first glance, the Last Supper bears more than a passing resemblance to the traditional Passover meal. In most depictions, Jesus (a practicing, if somewhat rebellious, Jew) and his 12 disciples are reclining. They say prayers, they drink wine, and they break bread—all hallmarks of a Passover celebration. Symbolically, Jesus' martyrdom the next day dovetails perfectly with the symbol of the Passover lamb, which ancient Jews sacrificed to commemorate their redemption from slavery in Egypt. Thus, Jesus becomes (as in John 1:29) the sacrificial "Lamb of God." The Passover-Last Supper connection reaches all the way to present-day practices of Christianity. In his highly influential book The Shape of the Liturgy, Gregory Dix traces a straight line between the structure of the Eucharist and that of the Passover meal. In this view, the blood and body of Christ are linked directly to the Passover wine and matzo. A closer look at the Gospels, however, reveals a number of discrepancies.
The books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke all describe the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. Matthew 26:17, for example, addresses the debate about where to hold the meal: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" Mark, Matt, and Luke, however, are notoriously unreliable. Written in the early days of the church as evangelical tools, they focus more on the sayings of Jesus, not on the precise details of his life. The usually more dependable (at least in terms of biographical information) John places the Last Supper on the day before Passover. In John 18:28, the dastardly Jews who hand Jesus over to Pontius Pilate refrain from entering the impure palace as "they wanted to be able to eat the Passover."
How do scholars square these two apparently contradictory accounts? Some throw out Mark, Matt, and Luke entirely. Jonathan Klawans suggests in the Biblical Archeology Review that while the Last Supper may be "characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal": While reclining is unique to Passover, all Jewish meals traditionally begin with blessings over wine and bread. Along these same lines, W.D. Davies' The Sermon on the Mount argues that the Last Supper-Passover connection was created in part by early Christians who wanted to connect Jesus' martyrdom to the redemption of the Jews from Egypt. Meanwhile, Oxford professor E.P. Sanders places the Last Supper within the context of the Passover celebration but dodges the larger question of whether it was a Passover Seder. Still others assert that there is no contradiction at all between the events of the Last Supper as shared by John and his less reliable disciple-friends. According to this theory, put forth in the 1960s by French biblical scholar Annie Jaubert and cited in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus and his disciples were adhering to the calendar of the rebellious Pharisee sect, which celebrated the start of Passover a day earlier than the rest of the Jews.
Regardless of whether you choose to believe Mark or John, Sanders or Jaubert, one thing is clear: Jesus and his disciples were not eating gefilte fish and hiding the afikomen. The Passover customs Jews know today developed over the course of many centuries, incorporating Hellenistic banquet traditions, Aramaic folk songs, and rabbinic commentary. The Haggadah, a sort of Seder how-to guide, was developed after the destruction of the second temple and standardized by the end of the 10th century. The foods many American Jews associate with Passover—gefilte fish, brisket, and matzo-ball soup—come from an Eastern European context. Most likely, Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb they had sacrificed earlier that day.
Central to the story of Jesus' life and his death, the Last Supper is of vital importance to all those who wish to better understand and follow the religion he founded. While scholars continue to disagree about the details of the Last Supper, many American Christians have taken to celebrating Seders during Holy Week as a way of connecting to the roots of their religion. This practice is facilitated by Web sites such as ChristianSeder.com and Christian Haggadahs like Come to the Table: A Catholic Passover Seder for Holy Week and A Christian Observance of Passover: The Haggadah. Speaking to a reporter for the Arkansas Catholic, Cackie Upchurch, director of the Little Rock Scripture Study, said her church's Seder "really connects us with our Jewish brothers and sisters and to the roots of our faith. It brings to life the fundamental pattern of all of scripture which is captivity, freedom and covenant." Using traditionally Jewish symbols and songs, these Christian Seders highlight the decidedly non-Jewish stories of Jesus' martyrdom and the second coming he alludes to in Mark 26:29.
We may never know whether the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. One can only hope, however, that all this religious intermingling will one day pave the way for Jewish Easter egg hunts.
At first glance, the Last Supper bears more than a passing resemblance to the traditional Passover meal. In most depictions, Jesus (a practicing, if somewhat rebellious, Jew) and his 12 disciples are reclining. They say prayers, they drink wine, and they break bread—all hallmarks of a Passover celebration. Symbolically, Jesus' martyrdom the next day dovetails perfectly with the symbol of the Passover lamb, which ancient Jews sacrificed to commemorate their redemption from slavery in Egypt. Thus, Jesus becomes (as in John 1:29) the sacrificial "Lamb of God." The Passover-Last Supper connection reaches all the way to present-day practices of Christianity. In his highly influential book The Shape of the Liturgy, Gregory Dix traces a straight line between the structure of the Eucharist and that of the Passover meal. In this view, the blood and body of Christ are linked directly to the Passover wine and matzo. A closer look at the Gospels, however, reveals a number of discrepancies.
The books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke all describe the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. Matthew 26:17, for example, addresses the debate about where to hold the meal: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" Mark, Matt, and Luke, however, are notoriously unreliable. Written in the early days of the church as evangelical tools, they focus more on the sayings of Jesus, not on the precise details of his life. The usually more dependable (at least in terms of biographical information) John places the Last Supper on the day before Passover. In John 18:28, the dastardly Jews who hand Jesus over to Pontius Pilate refrain from entering the impure palace as "they wanted to be able to eat the Passover."
How do scholars square these two apparently contradictory accounts? Some throw out Mark, Matt, and Luke entirely. Jonathan Klawans suggests in the Biblical Archeology Review that while the Last Supper may be "characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal": While reclining is unique to Passover, all Jewish meals traditionally begin with blessings over wine and bread. Along these same lines, W.D. Davies' The Sermon on the Mount argues that the Last Supper-Passover connection was created in part by early Christians who wanted to connect Jesus' martyrdom to the redemption of the Jews from Egypt. Meanwhile, Oxford professor E.P. Sanders places the Last Supper within the context of the Passover celebration but dodges the larger question of whether it was a Passover Seder. Still others assert that there is no contradiction at all between the events of the Last Supper as shared by John and his less reliable disciple-friends. According to this theory, put forth in the 1960s by French biblical scholar Annie Jaubert and cited in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus and his disciples were adhering to the calendar of the rebellious Pharisee sect, which celebrated the start of Passover a day earlier than the rest of the Jews.
Regardless of whether you choose to believe Mark or John, Sanders or Jaubert, one thing is clear: Jesus and his disciples were not eating gefilte fish and hiding the afikomen. The Passover customs Jews know today developed over the course of many centuries, incorporating Hellenistic banquet traditions, Aramaic folk songs, and rabbinic commentary. The Haggadah, a sort of Seder how-to guide, was developed after the destruction of the second temple and standardized by the end of the 10th century. The foods many American Jews associate with Passover—gefilte fish, brisket, and matzo-ball soup—come from an Eastern European context. Most likely, Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb they had sacrificed earlier that day.
Central to the story of Jesus' life and his death, the Last Supper is of vital importance to all those who wish to better understand and follow the religion he founded. While scholars continue to disagree about the details of the Last Supper, many American Christians have taken to celebrating Seders during Holy Week as a way of connecting to the roots of their religion. This practice is facilitated by Web sites such as ChristianSeder.com and Christian Haggadahs like Come to the Table: A Catholic Passover Seder for Holy Week and A Christian Observance of Passover: The Haggadah. Speaking to a reporter for the Arkansas Catholic, Cackie Upchurch, director of the Little Rock Scripture Study, said her church's Seder "really connects us with our Jewish brothers and sisters and to the roots of our faith. It brings to life the fundamental pattern of all of scripture which is captivity, freedom and covenant." Using traditionally Jewish symbols and songs, these Christian Seders highlight the decidedly non-Jewish stories of Jesus' martyrdom and the second coming he alludes to in Mark 26:29.
We may never know whether the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. One can only hope, however, that all this religious intermingling will one day pave the way for Jewish Easter egg hunts.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Birger Pearson on the Location of the Martyrium of St. Mark in the Region of Alexandria Called Ta Boukolou
All of my interest in the Church of St. Mark was ignited by Birger Pearson, a man who is without a doubt one of the greatest scholars of this generation. The book that started me on my journey was his Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt. He notes that there is great confusion over the location of this place called 'the Boucolia' in English:There can be no doubt as to its location. According to the account in the Acts of Mark “in the eastern district” (10) “beside the sea, beneath the cliffs” (5) But since some confusion was introduced by Jorge Juan Fernadez Sangrador it is useful to take up his arguments in light of the evidence
A description of Sangrador’s argument follows:
Sangrador acknowledges that the Martyrium of St. Mark was located in the northeastern section of the city but argues that the earliest seat of the Alexandrian community, the area of Boukolou was located in the Rhakotis district in the southeastern section, near the ancient Serapeum.
Pearson disposes of Sangrador’s arguments based on the reference to ‘herdsmen’ noting that:
Strabo’s reference to herdsmen is of no use, however for Strabo mentions boukoloi in connection with other areas of Alexandria and the Delta as well.
Pearson then emphasizes once again that the Acts of Mark identifies the martyrium of St. Mark as the Church in the Boucolia. Then he moves on to the Passio Petri Sancti and concludes:
The topographical references in this account matches those of the Acts of Mark with additional amplifications. Ta boukolou, where the Martyrium of Mark was located is specified as a suburban area, but also near the sea. There are also tombs in that area. The tombs in question are clearly those now known as the Shatby Necropolis (fourth-third centuries BCE) part of the eastern necropolis that had been covered over during the city’s eastward expansion and no longer in use by the first century … There can be no doubt as to the location as to the area our texts refer to as to boukolou. By the fourth century, after massive destructions suffered by the city in the second and third centuries, this area was a suburb, located well outside the city. It could very well have been used for cow pastures (if that is what ta boukolou means). The cliffs referred to in the Acts of Mark are probably one of the hillocks that rose inland from the seacoast east of the city in the area around Shatby, long since obliterated by the cutting and filling associated with the construction projects in the modern city of Alexandria but known from old maps.
I should say that Tzalas came to the same conclusions as Birger Pearson albeit without reference to Pearson’s work.
A Curious Passage in the Life of Anthony Which Suggests that the Great Monk Used to Hold Communion With Heretics
And he was altogether wonderful in faith and religious, for he never held communion with the Meletian schismatics, knowing their wickedness and apostacy from the beginning; nor had he friendly dealings with the Manichæans or any other heretics; or, if he had, only as far as advice that they should change to piety. For he thought and asserted that intercourse with these was harmful and destructive to the soul. In the same manner also he loathed the heresy of the Arians, and exhorted all neither to approach them nor to hold their erroneous belief. [Life of Anthony 68]
All we have to do is remember that Athanasius was the author of this pseudo-history. The very fact that he references communions with the Manichaeans is extremely important. Anthony's association with the heretics must have been well known. Athanasius and Anthony might have shared mutual hatred of the Arians.
All we have to do is remember that Athanasius was the author of this pseudo-history. The very fact that he references communions with the Manichaeans is extremely important. Anthony's association with the heretics must have been well known. Athanasius and Anthony might have shared mutual hatred of the Arians.
I Have Been Receiving Emails Praising My Interview at Aeon Byte
Thanks for all the kudos who listened to my talk with Miguel Conner. It has to be acknowledged that the one thing I could always do was talk. Lazy, stupid, useless all these all aptly describe my character but so too loquacious and ultimately 'interesting' and entertaining. Even when people I respect like Birger Pearson point out (in many cases accurately) the flaws in my book, I nevertheless get the confession 'it is nevertheless interesting' which always makes me smile.
I don't know know if everything I write about is one hundred percent accurate. But I am also certain that most of what else is also out there in the marketplace of ideas in early Christianity is even less carefully thought out. The realization that 'being interesting' was my greatest asset led me to create and maintain this blog so actively.
My whole purpose here is to encourage people to get out of familiar presuppositions. It's like a verbose twenty minute acid trip in scholarship.
As I see it there are so many groups of people working very diligently in various specialized fields of research that what is needed is someone to start the process of 'synthesizing' all of what has already been developed by these 'little cliques' (if you live among 'regular folks' in the United States you pronounce the last word 'clicks' apparently).
My first book was a naive attempt at doing exactly that. I had an idea that couldn't possibly be proved - i.e. identifying the real identity of St. Mark of history.
Why write such a book? Because I thought it mattered. Because the idea of Jesus being both God who falls from the sky to begin the gospel AND the awaited messiah of Israel always prevented me from engaging in any meaningful way with traditional scholars (this is why there are so few Jews doing any research into Christianity - the presuppositions of everyone in the field are completely illogical).
So now I wrote my first book. I have staked out a position. I am identified as holding the doctrine that the mysteries of Alexandrian Christianity were about St. Mark establishing a man-god in the Episcopal throne in his Church in the Boucolia. I think Clement knew and believed in these mysteries. I think Origen and all the Origenist 'Popes' who came after him (i.e. Hieraclas to Peter I) all knew and believed in these mysteries.
The reason why they 'bought into the system' was that the mysteries of were the foundation of their 'special place' in the community. They were man-gods - the equal to angels - because they underwent successful 'initiation' into his mysteries. They thought themselves superior to 'regular humans' and even Caesar because they were a 'reformed' human prototype.
And yes I think castration was a necessary part in this 'transformative' experience.
While it is difficult to PROVE that what I propose to be the true mysteries of the Alexandrian community ARE in fact 'the true mysteries' as practiced in the late second to early fourth centuries, nevertheless it has to be noted that my ideas basically line up with what has been written in other studies . I just happen to go one step beyond mere 'regurgitation of the texts' and dare to speculate about how the whole system 'functioned' in the 'real work.'
And then there is my throne. The throne of St. Mark which is in Venice provides a tangible context for all these ideas. Soon there will also be Harry Tzalas' discovery of pieces of the old church of St. Mark which housed the relic.
I also want to stress to my readers that just like the gospel and the writings of the New Testament, the same object was interpreted in different ways in different ages. The original 'pure gnosis' associated with the throne was viewed as something inherently heretical by the outside world in the late second century onward. Then in the late third century, the Roman government developed efforts to infiltrate Alexandria with its Roman doctrine and complete the effort which was initiated (unsuccessfully) during Demetrius' initial foray into the Church.
At the very least further research will try and 'fit' the sacred object within the sacred mysteries in ways I have not been able to complete owing to my limited abilities. I am just 'interesting' remember. I only hope to 'interest' people in my discoveries. In a future age, I hope that they will bear even greater fruit than I was able to grow in this present age.
I don't know know if everything I write about is one hundred percent accurate. But I am also certain that most of what else is also out there in the marketplace of ideas in early Christianity is even less carefully thought out. The realization that 'being interesting' was my greatest asset led me to create and maintain this blog so actively.
My whole purpose here is to encourage people to get out of familiar presuppositions. It's like a verbose twenty minute acid trip in scholarship.
As I see it there are so many groups of people working very diligently in various specialized fields of research that what is needed is someone to start the process of 'synthesizing' all of what has already been developed by these 'little cliques' (if you live among 'regular folks' in the United States you pronounce the last word 'clicks' apparently).
My first book was a naive attempt at doing exactly that. I had an idea that couldn't possibly be proved - i.e. identifying the real identity of St. Mark of history.
Why write such a book? Because I thought it mattered. Because the idea of Jesus being both God who falls from the sky to begin the gospel AND the awaited messiah of Israel always prevented me from engaging in any meaningful way with traditional scholars (this is why there are so few Jews doing any research into Christianity - the presuppositions of everyone in the field are completely illogical).
So now I wrote my first book. I have staked out a position. I am identified as holding the doctrine that the mysteries of Alexandrian Christianity were about St. Mark establishing a man-god in the Episcopal throne in his Church in the Boucolia. I think Clement knew and believed in these mysteries. I think Origen and all the Origenist 'Popes' who came after him (i.e. Hieraclas to Peter I) all knew and believed in these mysteries.
The reason why they 'bought into the system' was that the mysteries of were the foundation of their 'special place' in the community. They were man-gods - the equal to angels - because they underwent successful 'initiation' into his mysteries. They thought themselves superior to 'regular humans' and even Caesar because they were a 'reformed' human prototype.
And yes I think castration was a necessary part in this 'transformative' experience.
While it is difficult to PROVE that what I propose to be the true mysteries of the Alexandrian community ARE in fact 'the true mysteries' as practiced in the late second to early fourth centuries, nevertheless it has to be noted that my ideas basically line up with what has been written in other studies . I just happen to go one step beyond mere 'regurgitation of the texts' and dare to speculate about how the whole system 'functioned' in the 'real work.'
And then there is my throne. The throne of St. Mark which is in Venice provides a tangible context for all these ideas. Soon there will also be Harry Tzalas' discovery of pieces of the old church of St. Mark which housed the relic.
I also want to stress to my readers that just like the gospel and the writings of the New Testament, the same object was interpreted in different ways in different ages. The original 'pure gnosis' associated with the throne was viewed as something inherently heretical by the outside world in the late second century onward. Then in the late third century, the Roman government developed efforts to infiltrate Alexandria with its Roman doctrine and complete the effort which was initiated (unsuccessfully) during Demetrius' initial foray into the Church.
At the very least further research will try and 'fit' the sacred object within the sacred mysteries in ways I have not been able to complete owing to my limited abilities. I am just 'interesting' remember. I only hope to 'interest' people in my discoveries. In a future age, I hope that they will bear even greater fruit than I was able to grow in this present age.
Imad Boles Finds a Thread Which Connects Eight Centuries of Christian History at the Church of St. Mark
Imad Boles is the President of the British Coptic Association and he and I have been developing a theory that the loss of the relics of St. Mark (and in particular the Patriarchal throne) led to the revolts against the Muslim rulers of Egypt. The conversation going on at Roger Pearse's site is highly interesting (at least to me, partly because he begins by giving me a compliment). Here is the latest post which I thought my be interesting to my readers:
Thank you. I find your writings very interesting and enlightening. Thank you also for alerting me to the important work of Harry Tzalas. I didn’t know about him before. His work seems very interesting, and I do hope that he is successful.
The cause of the Bashmurite Revolt of 831/2 AD is mentioned in the History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria (HOPCCA). Yoa’anis (John) II who wrote the part that deals with the revolt says, after the mentioning of the chaos that seized Egypt during the reign of Al-Amin and Al-Mamun and led to the neglect of agriculture and the ruin of the countryside, :
“Satan did not cease to stir up wars and murder. Two men at that time were overseers of taxes, one of whom was named Ahmad son of Al-Asbat, and the other Ibrahîm son of Tamîm. These two men, in spite of the troubles from which the people were suffering, persisted in demanding the taxes without mercy, and men were increasingly and incalculably distressed. Their greatest trouble arose from the extortion practised by the two overseers of taxes; for what they could not pay was required of them. After this the merciful God by his righteous judgment sent down a great dearth upon Egypt, so that wheat reached the price of one dinar for five waibahs. Many of the women and infants and young people, and of the old and the middle-aged, died of starvation, in fact of the whole population a countless number, through the severity of the famine. And the overseer of taxes was doing harm to the people in every place. And most of the Bashmurite Christians were severely chastised, like the Israelites; so that at last they even sold their own children to pay their taxes, because they were greatly distressed. For they were tied to the mills and beaten, so that they should work the mills like cattle. And their tormentor was a man named Ghaith. So, after long and wearisome days, death put an end to their sufferings.
But afterward the Bashmurites, seeing that they had no means of escape, and at the same time that no troops could enter their country on account of the abundance of marshes which it contained, and because none was acquainted with the roads except themselves, began to rebel and to refuse to pay the taxes. And they came to an agreement and plotted together over this matter.” (1)
But afterward the Bashmurites, seeing that they had no means of escape, and at the same time that no troops could enter their country on account of the abundance of marshes which it contained, and because none was acquainted with the roads except themselves, began to rebel and to refuse to pay the taxes. And they came to an agreement and plotted together over this matter.” (1)
Your theory about the cause of 831/2 Coptic revolts in the marshes of Bashmur in the eastern coast of the Nile Delta is also interesting. Bucolia, at the eastern side of Alexandria is said in some Coptic traditions where St Mark was martyred (2). The same word “Bucolia” is also given to the Bashmur (3). I don’t know the nexus between the two geographical locations [the first at Alexandria, and the other between Lake Burullus (which is located east of Rosetta/Rashid) and Damietta (4)], but it is certainly interesting. It is interesting also to note that the History of the Patriarchs mentions in the Live of St. Mark (Part 1, Chapter 2) that the Christians of Alexandria built a church (their first church) “in a place called the Cattle-pasture, near the sea, beside a rock from which stone is hewn.”(5) B. Evetts footnotes “the Cattle-pasture” with the Greek equivalent “Τὰ Βουκόλου, Bucolia” (6). That place (the cattle-yard; the cattle-shed) was where St. Mark was tortured and martyred. The Bashmur in the eastern coast of the Delta is known to be an area of buffalo-herding. It is possible that the similarity in names between the two geographical areas have led to the Bashmurite Revolt of 831/2 AD being connected to the robbing of St Mark’s body by the Arabs from Alexandria (where it was kept in his church built at Bucalia), and its later selling to the Venetians.
But, as the Arabs say, “Allah knows more”!
————
(1) History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria (IV): Mennas I to Joseph (849): Arabic text edited, translated, and annotated by B. Evetts; pp. 486-7 [Find it here]
(2) See A Description, Geographical, Historical, and Topographical, of the Various Countries of the Globe by Josiah Conder (1830): Volume 1, Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia; page p. 209 [Find it here]
(3) Ibid; page 248 [Find it here]
(4) See here
(5) See here
(6) The Arabic of Severus of Ashmunin, the translator of this part of the History of the Patriarchs, is مرعى البهائم which literally mean the animals-pasture.
(1) History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria (IV): Mennas I to Joseph (849): Arabic text edited, translated, and annotated by B. Evetts; pp. 486-7 [Find it here]
(2) See A Description, Geographical, Historical, and Topographical, of the Various Countries of the Globe by Josiah Conder (1830): Volume 1, Egypt, Nubia, and Abyssinia; page p. 209 [Find it here]
(3) Ibid; page 248 [Find it here]
(4) See here
(5) See here
(6) The Arabic of Severus of Ashmunin, the translator of this part of the History of the Patriarchs, is مرعى البهائم which literally mean the animals-pasture.
Ancient Door to Afterlife Discovered in Egypt
Ancient Door to Afterlife Discovered in Egypt - Original story here CAIRO (AFP) – A large red granite false door from the tomb of an ancient queen's powerful vizier has been discovered in Luxor, Egypt's culture minister said on Monday.
The carved stone door -- which ancient Egyptians believed was the threshold to the afterlife -- was unearthed near the Karnak Temple in Luxor and belongs to the tomb of User, a powerful advisor to the 18th dynasty Queen Hatshepsut, Faruk Hosni said in a statement.
The door, 1.75 metres (5.7 feet) high and 50 cm (19 inches) thick, is engraved with religious texts and various titles used by User, including mayor of the city, vizier and prince, antiquities chief Zahi Hawass was quoted as saying.
"The newly discovered door was reused during the Roman period. It was removed from the tomb of User and used in the wall of a Roman structure," said Mansur Boraik, who headed the excavation mission.
Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt between 1479 BC and 1458 BC, was the longest reigning female pharaoh.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Irenaeus Triumphed Through Might Not Right
Tertullian often picks up on these arguments (Hippolytus often doesn't because he eventually represented a break from the Episcopal order!). Yet it was Irenaeus who started this idiotic way of arguing that became the hallmark of later Fathers. Yet the later fathers just pointed in the general direction of Irenaeus and the texts he edited (the Ignatian corpus etc) to prove these unproven suggestions.
The bottom line is that Irenaeus never proves that there was an unbroken succession of Patriarchs in ANY city let alone Rome. The only city that he goes into any detail about its illustrious 'apostolic past' is Rome and even then his 'argument' is little more than a list of names with an occasional 'here is a text that he wrote.'
Yet as historians of course we tend to think backwards. Irenaeus goes through two whole books of his Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called before he bothers to draw what amounts to being the barest of sketches of the history of the Roman Church.
Of course, the real problem with the writings of Irenaeus is that this stupid list that appears in Refutation Book III Chapter 3 is the most extensive 'argument' that Irenaeus ever bothers to establish. Most of the time, the ideas just come out of his head and by the time they hit the page they are 'official orthodoxy.'
The example of the establishment of the fourfold canon is the most obvious. He can't marshal a list of authorities who used the quaternion because they don't exist.
Yet even if we accept the idea that Book III is full of some of the worst, most inconclusive arguments in the history of ideas, it becomes all the more amazing again that the two books which precede the establishment of this 'show and tell' book don't even have anything resembling a historical framework.
Just think about how the first book of the Refutation begins (the one with the list of stupid heretics). Irenaeus writes a book to 'refute' and 'overthrow' these traditions which - by their very nature - must have been older than the composition of the book. However Irenaeus DOESN'T EVEN FEEL COMPELLED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS TRADITION IS OLDER THAN THE 'FALSE GNOSTICS' until five or ten years later.
Why the hesitation? Maybe it is because it would have seemed downright laughable to suggest that what he calls 'orthodoxy' is any older than what he sets forth on the page.
And that's another problem. Irenaeus again doesn't set out what 'truth' is until later in the five books in the series. Again we NOW read Book One as if it ALWAYS stood together with the other four books that were written later in Irenaeus' life. Yet the reality is that there was a time when the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called was JUST Book One (or a portion of what is now in the surviving book).
It is simply amazing that 'orthodoxy' begins 'on the attack' against pre-existent traditions without having to offer up any proof as to what 'the truth' really is.
The opening words of the book begin with a statement that because "certain men have set the truth aside" he must rescue that truth. Yet he never actually defines 'the truth' anywhere in the book.
It is simply amazing to me how the text of Irenaeus begins with a 'problem' (i.e. the things that the heretics 'did' to the truth) without actually defining what it looked like before the alleged 'corruption.' The work simply begins:
Certain persons reject the truth and introduce novel falsehoods, and 'endless genealogies' which says the apostle 'minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith.' [1 Tim 1:4]
Isn't that the strangest opening words possible? For one, the letter which purports to come from the apostle certainly was never written by him but is a Catholic forgery undoubtedly written by either Polycarp or - more than likely - Irenaeus himself. His opponents did not recognize these 'Pastoral letters.' They couldn't have had much of a prior existence to Irenaeus' tampering with the writings of previous authorities. And yet AMAZINGLY Irenaeus' whole argument about what the truth ISN'T is based on a lie!
Of course Irenaeus doesn't see it that way. According to him it's the 'false gnostics' who have done all the falsifying and counterfeiting. He immediately goes on to say:
With the specious arguments that they have villainously hammered together, they mislead the minds of the simple and take them captive, by tampering with the oracles of the Lord and becoming bad expositors of things that have been said well.
Clearly Irenaeus is specifically referencing differences in the scriptures that the 'false gnostics' and the Catholics shared in common. I also get the sense that Irenaeus is emphasizing that the Catholic texts lack the 'ambiguity' (or are 'less mysterious') than those employed by their enemies. Yet we already know from Clement's Letter to Theodore that the heretics argued that the Evangelist added "hierophantic teaching of the Lord ... to the stories already written ... [and] certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils."
The reader already knows that it is my understanding that these 'added sayings' lead to the inner sanctum of the Church of St. Mark (i.e. the room which the rest of the members of the church could not see directly save for shadows which flickered on the same curtain until they received baptism and other 'preparatory rituals').
Of course Irenaeus frames these mysteries as things which 'corrupted' the truth of the original documents and so frames the ideas of To Theodore in an entirely negative light. He immediately goes on to say:
And they destroy many by leading them away, with pretended knowledge, from him who framed and ordered this whole creation, as though they had something higher and greater to display than the God who has made heaven, earth and everything in them. In a plausible fashion they win the innocent, with rhetoric, to the habit of inquiry. But they destroy them without plausibility by making their attitude blasphemous and impious toward the Demiurge, when they have no ability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Or as the same passage is preserved in the surviving Latin text:
They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.
Clearly Irenaeus is attacking the Alexandrian mystery religion which existed long before anything approaching his mythical Roman episcopal tradition ever got off the ground in Italy.
And we should see quite clearly that Irenaeus is not talking about a random collection of 'gnostic heretics' as we like to imagine them - i.e. hippies smoking weed and dreaming up silly nonsense. This is an organized system of religion with a veil separating the masses from those of the inner sanctum for he immediately goes on to say that:
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) truer than the truth itself.
This last phrase - 'truer than the truth' - has an eerie resemblance to Clement's attack against the rival Gospel according to Mark which existed in communities outside Alexandria. Namely that:
even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
Of course Irenaeus goes on to attack the Valentinians (who ultimately come from Alexandria) because he references that he "met some and understood what they think." He is clearly referencing his rival, Florinus, who witnessed Polycarp's REAL teachings and undoubtedly claimed that Polycarp was 'Valentinian' (or perhaps 'Valentinus' himself).
Our entire understanding of the origins of Christianity are founded on the arguments of Irenaeus and the truth is again, there is little 'rational argument' on any of the pages of Irenaeus' work. If anything the material proceeds in away that is utterly illogical and counter-intuitive.
Of course you don't have to make sense when you have the Emperor backing your reforms ...
Bucur on the 'Vision of God in Anthropomorphic Form' at the Heart of the Gnostic Mysteries of Clement's Alexandria
.jpg)
In any event here are Bucur's comments that I thought worthy of transcribing:
According to Clement, "the gnostic tradition according to the canons of truth" comprises, first, an account of the world's coming into being, beginning with "the prophetically uttered Genesis" followed by an ascent to the subject matter of theology (epi to theologikon eidos)."
Bucur and other writers rightly see parallels here with traditional methods of Jewish mystical speculation. Not only is Genesis always the starting points of these discussions but they end with a vision of God as an anthropomorphic being enthroned on the heavenly chariot. In what follows Bucur attempts to identify the term theologikon eidos with Ezekiel's vision:
As for the theologikon eidos, Stromateis 1.28.176 explains it as a matter of visionary contemplation, epopteia, the highest part of philosophy according to Plato and Aristotle. Indeed epopteia, a term whose roots lie in the language of the Eleusinian mysteries, has come to designate since Plutarch, the highest part of both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Clement does the same by equating it with Plato's 'dialectics' and Aristotle's metaphysics. Rizzerio is certainly correct to conclude that "epopteia represents for Clement the highest knowledge that a human being can obtain, corresponding to that very vision of God, accessible only to a few, without thereby growing into a non-rational (arazionale) mystical knowledge."
Yet eidos also happens to be a term used in several LXX renderings of visionary texts. In Gen. 32.31 - 32 eidos theou is used in connection with God's anthropomorphic appearance as warrior who wrestled Jacob; in Num. 12.8 Moses sees the glory of God en eidei; finally in Ezek 1.26 the anthropomorphic 'glory of God' on the chariot throne is referred to as homoioma hos eidos anthropou. Moreover we know that the Jews and the Christians of the Greek Diaspora were fond of drawing a connection between Ezekiel 1.26 and the Platonic theory of forms (e.g. eidos anthropou in Parm 130C). Perhaps Clement intended to suggest, in the subtle manner characteristic of the Stromateis that 'the subject matter of theology' is both Plato's 'vision of truly great mysteries' and the Biblical notion of God's anthropomorphic appearance on the divine chariot-throne.[p. 332 - 333]
I would actually take matters one step further. Bucur has only limited himself to thinking in terms of literary references (all scholars inevitably do). The reality was that the Alexandrian tradition ALWAYS initiated its catechumen by exposing them to the image of St. Mark's representative (i.e. the Patriarch of Alexandria) sitting on the divine chariot-throne as they reenacted the crossing of the Red Sea during their baptism as the seventh day went out into the eighth (the Ogdoad).
This is what Clement means when he writes in the Letter to Theodore:
to the stories already written [the evangelist Mark] added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
The 'truth hidden by seven veils' is the episcopal throne I have discovered in Venice as it rested in the inner sanctum (which in old churches was separated from the main church by a veil or curtains). This throne was plundered from Alexandria in 828 CE (and which I have tracked down eyewitnesses to its presence in the Church of St. Mark dating to the third century CE). I think Bucur has revealed the basis to the gnostic mysteries of Alexandria without even knowing it.
Remember 'gnostic' in its original Platonic context (certainly known to Clement) means "the ideal king, the only man capable of knowing God, who would therefore act as the mediator between God and man; he would be, in effect, the Nous [the divine intellect] of his subjects, in whom he would restore their lost contact with the heavenly world from which he came." Once again, as I have said time and again - Clement understood the Patriarch and the line of Patriarchs which preceded him to the 'gnostics' of the Alexandrian community.
The Beginnings of a Second Article on the Throne of St. Mark
Well, I was just talking about writing a second book when out of the blue, Imad Boles, President of the British Coptic Association, gave me the inspiration for completing the concept that I started with my first academic article - i.e. broadening our understanding of the Venetian plunder of the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia to include (a) the throne of St. Mark and (b) the body of Athanasius.
In other words, the Venetians didn't just take the body of St. Mark and a few minor relics. There is good reason why tradition holds that TWO ships were used to take away all the booty.
It is because of Boles' comments at Roger Pearson's site that I think I could tentatively make the case that EVEN THOUGH the theft isn't mentioned in the histories of Eutychius or Severus (both of whom lived relatively close to the time of the plunder) the silence MIGHT be attributed to the catastrophic effect that the loss of these relics had on the community.
You see Dioscorus helped clarify that in the original Arabic of Eutychius the Coptic group which revolt immediately after 828 CE (the year of the plunder of the Church of St. Mark) were called Bima:
Eutychius in his Annals (written in Arabic) calls them البيما او اهل البيما, which could be translated “the Bima or the people of the Bima”. He says the word name البيما/Bima comes from a Coptic word that means “ نسل الاربعين “ , i.e. “the descendants of the forty”. The Latin translation (1658) renders the translation: “quadraginia virorum progenies”. St Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (which is absolutely important in this history) calls the them Biamaye as Bat Ye’or in her The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam spells it. It may be that Biamaye is the Syriac form of the Arabic Bima/Pima.
It was then I wondered whether the 'people of the Bima' might be an Arabic translation of the Coptic βῆμα - or a reference to the Coptic devotion to the throne that was stolen in 828 CE. Boles acknowledges that my suggestion might be a very viable possibility:
The English-Bohairic Dictionary by the Shenouda the Archimandrite Society gives the following meaning for bema: “(Gk); m. Step, pace; raised place or tribune, tribunal of a magistrate.” This might have been preserved in Arabic as you suggested.
In other words, Eutychius quite possibly DOES reference the loss of the throne but DELIBERATELY obscures its meaning. Those of the Bima are in fact 'those of the throne' - i.e. the Copts who were so incensed with the circumstances of the plunder of the sacred relics associated with their Patriarch St. Mark that they rose up in rebellion.
I would even go so far as to tentatively suggest that the events of 828 CE represented the most important turning point in the history of Christianity in Egypt. After the loss of the relics and the subsequent revolts of the Copts, sealed the fate of the community for the next millenium and beyond.
I think I could develop a case that the throne of St. Mark and its theft in 828 CE can be determined to have had a major effect on the history of the Coptic tradition. The question of why it is never mentioned in the history of the period can begun to be corrected with subsequent research.
In other words, the Venetians didn't just take the body of St. Mark and a few minor relics. There is good reason why tradition holds that TWO ships were used to take away all the booty.
It is because of Boles' comments at Roger Pearson's site that I think I could tentatively make the case that EVEN THOUGH the theft isn't mentioned in the histories of Eutychius or Severus (both of whom lived relatively close to the time of the plunder) the silence MIGHT be attributed to the catastrophic effect that the loss of these relics had on the community.
You see Dioscorus helped clarify that in the original Arabic of Eutychius the Coptic group which revolt immediately after 828 CE (the year of the plunder of the Church of St. Mark) were called Bima:
Eutychius in his Annals (written in Arabic) calls them البيما او اهل البيما, which could be translated “the Bima or the people of the Bima”. He says the word name البيما/Bima comes from a Coptic word that means “ نسل الاربعين “ , i.e. “the descendants of the forty”. The Latin translation (1658) renders the translation: “quadraginia virorum progenies”. St Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (which is absolutely important in this history) calls the them Biamaye as Bat Ye’or in her The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam spells it. It may be that Biamaye is the Syriac form of the Arabic Bima/Pima.
It was then I wondered whether the 'people of the Bima' might be an Arabic translation of the Coptic βῆμα - or a reference to the Coptic devotion to the throne that was stolen in 828 CE. Boles acknowledges that my suggestion might be a very viable possibility:
The English-Bohairic Dictionary by the Shenouda the Archimandrite Society gives the following meaning for bema: “(Gk); m. Step, pace; raised place or tribune, tribunal of a magistrate.” This might have been preserved in Arabic as you suggested.
In other words, Eutychius quite possibly DOES reference the loss of the throne but DELIBERATELY obscures its meaning. Those of the Bima are in fact 'those of the throne' - i.e. the Copts who were so incensed with the circumstances of the plunder of the sacred relics associated with their Patriarch St. Mark that they rose up in rebellion.
I would even go so far as to tentatively suggest that the events of 828 CE represented the most important turning point in the history of Christianity in Egypt. After the loss of the relics and the subsequent revolts of the Copts, sealed the fate of the community for the next millenium and beyond.
I think I could develop a case that the throne of St. Mark and its theft in 828 CE can be determined to have had a major effect on the history of the Coptic tradition. The question of why it is never mentioned in the history of the period can begun to be corrected with subsequent research.
What Made the Gospel Great
Mark had all the tools that I have - a pen, some paper. But somehow his book ended up being counterfeit and duplicated a billion times and my book will end up failing to make an impact.
I know the dimwit way of looking at this is to say that Mark succeeded because he had the Holy Spirit assisting him. But as a Jew I can't walk into a deli and stop myself from considering the mechanics of their success (or failure).
So what made Mark such a successful writer? The pious look at the problem and say 'it was because he was writing about Jesus the Son of God.' But there must have been other people who witnessed the ministry of Jesus and they'd be lucky to write something with the depth of the Cat in the Hat.
Come on people, this is the twenty first century. Knowledge isn't a 'thing' which passes through the air from one person to another like a salami sandwich.
The reason the Gospel was great was because of the greatness of its original author, Mark. Even seeing the glory of God doesn't mean that you are going to a write the bestseller of all time let alone a great spiritual book.
You have to be a messiah in your own right.
I am sorry people but Jesus was God to the Alexandrians. That's why they always ended up emphasizing his one divine nature. Now, no one can deny that EVEN the great Alexandrian tradition had to pick up the bullshit of the other false traditions around it. But when I see Jesus and the disciple that he loved standing side by side, I see the Angel of the Presence and a young Moses. After all the messiah above all else was supposed to be 'like Moses' and Mark simply is 'more like Moses' than Jesus.
I think that's what the original Alexandrian also saw when they read their gospel.
Why do I think this? Because that's the sense I get from the Letter to Theodore that AUTHENTIC letter which has never been properly understood by anyone before me.
Just listen to what the damn document says, without getting distracted by all the modern controversies. Here's is the critical section on Mark's gospel writing:
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
And now let me break it down line by line. First we hear:
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's accomplishments
As I have noted many times before at this post the implication here is that there was some kind of text written before the Gospel according to Mark which was strictly a document testifying to the things Jesus did during his ministry. Clement specifically distinguishes this text written for Peter or with Peter from the original Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark because this first 'acts of Jesus' did not 'declare all of the things Jesus did' nor 'yet hint at the secret ones' and the material was chosen based on what was 'thought to be most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed.'
Clement's point is that nothing about this work really has 'Mark' injected into the text. It's all about Jesus and written for someone else.
Then Clement starts to talk about 'Mark's gospel' and you can immediately see that this text is truly written with the heart, soul and blood of the Alexandrian Patriarch. All it took was for Peter to die and then:
Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.
Everyone looks at this passage and focus on the 'gnostic' interest. But let's keep things real for a moment. The real subject for Clement is that this divine knowledge came through Mark. It was his greatness that made the text greater than the other stupid text that was just a collection of things Jesus did:
Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.
I have always argued that Irenaeus knows something of these claims of a superior disciple. He notes in the Refutation and Overthow of Knowledge Falsely So Called things like:
they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables [AH ii.26.2]
and again:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. [ibid iii.1.1]
Yet Clement clearly does know of a figure named Mark, not counted by the Catholics among the 'apostles' who was so great that he made the gospel written for the disciples better. We are told that:
he did not yet divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils.
I don't see how this description of Mark's gospel writing efforts confirms that it was greatness that made the gospel great. And notice again that the 'new and improved gospel' directs people to St. Mark's church and St. Mark's throne in Alexandria. How can the 'secrets' that he adds be thought of pertaining to Jesus and not Mark himself?
God, this people are so blind! What did Jesus have to do with Alexandria? And yet the gospel leads its hearers to the veils which surround the inner sanctum of his own church. The 'secrets' that Mark adds to his text, my friends, is about his own greatness and his continuation of the glory of Jesus exactly as the Patriarchs of Alexandria claimed that Mark had passed on this Christ-soul to them.
The people that have the knowledge of how the Coptic tradition envisions its patriarchy are too cautious (and unimaginative) to connect this understanding to the description of the gospel itself leading to a mystery about the very tradition which Mark establishes at Alexandria. Yet if you read the early Coptic fathers there is ALWAYS an effort to read gospel passages as if they were prophesying the establishment of the throne of St. Mark.
So we hear Clement conclude:
Thus, in sum, [Mark] prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
Yet notice my friends, it's not Jesus or the Holy Spirit that is preparing these things but the man Mark himself. The same Mark who wrote the gospel also established the mystical system in Alexandria which the gospel secretly points its readers.
And what is at the heart of this Alexandrian Church? This:
.jpg)
A throne which says that Mark sat as God the Father surrounded by the Seraphim in the inner sanctum of his Church. Will anyone ever be able to see this except for me? I don't know but the possibilities don't seem good.
What we need is more scholars of Christianity who aren't Christians. Then the world will be able to understand what made the Gospel great ...
St. Mark himself, as the Coptic hymn says:
O Mark the Apostle,
and the Evangelist,
the witness to the passion
of the Only-Begotten God.
You have come and enlightened us
through your gospel,
and taught us the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You brought us out of the darkness
into the true light,
and nourished us with the Bread of Life
that came down from heaven.
Amen, my friends, Amen.
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."