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."