1. the original Evangelium was written by Mark for a Church based in Alexandria
2. that the function of the Evangelium was to introduce an earthly throne, built after the image of heavenly merkavah
3. that this throne had the function of uniting Jesus to whoever sat on its seat
4. that the enthronement was an imitation of something that Mark (who was also called John) was originally understood to have 'accomplished' shortly after the Passion
5. that the function of Christianity was the establishment of 'God-men' through the example of this line of Patriarchal God-men.
It was never enough for me to just 'attack' or 'defend' what people have learned to identify as 'Christianity.' What we have learned to identify as 'Christianity' is just what Irenaeus and a subsequent line of Roman prelates WANTED US to think Christianity always was.
The one way that I could break the hold that the inherited assumptions about the origins of Christianity is if I could find the fabled replica of the Jewish temple that was built in Alexandria during the time of Onias. Why is this so important? It would be ten times more explosive that proving the Mar Saba document was authentic.
Because really, when you get down to it, even if Morton Smith's discovery was legitimized - the world will spend the next two centuries arguing over what it means and never come to any conclusive results. It's just such an ambiguous text. I never understood why it is so controversial in the first place. It's just plain weird and even with all my best efforts to identify a Patristic CONTEXT for the letter at best it just demonstrates how unreliable all of inherited information from the Church Fathers really is.
The rediscovery of the Jewish temple of Alexandria would be like an atomic bomb compared to that firecracker.
I have always mistrusted the writings of Josephus. I have always suspected that whatever text that the real disgraced Jewish turncoat of history wrote after the end of the Jewish War that this original material was systematically EXPANDED and 'Christianized' to the point it was almost unrecognizable AND THEN it was finally redacted back to something almost believable by Eusebius.
The rediscovery of the Jewish temple of Alexandria would demonstrate what a crock the existing material ascribed to Josephus really is with its strangely inconsistent reports of the same temple being 'really located' in Leontopolis, Egypt.
The rediscovery of the Jewish temple of Alexandria would not only demonstrate that the rabbinic reports are often more reliable that the pseudepigraphal historical texts of the Church but moreover it would finally explain why Clement, Origen and the 'Origenist' Patriarchs that continued until Arius and the Arian bishops of Alexandria are ALWAYS identified as falling into 'Jewish error.'
I am absolutely positive the fact that the Church - or sometimes later identified as 'the martyrium' - of St. Mark was located in what was the Jewish quarter in first century Alexandria. It was Birger Pearson who led me to see the significance of this connection. The fact that there was some kind of Jewish 'house of God' (Philo never explicitly calls it a 'temple' or a 'synagogue') within close proximity of what would later be the physical location of the Church of St. Mark has always been pregnant with possibilities for me.
The point is that I find it impossible to believe that the Jews could have ever built a 'house of God' or a temple anywhere in the Boucolia owing to the presence of graves which dotted the landscape of the land just beyond the eastern walls of Alexandria.
This is why I am so convinced that IF SUCH A TEMPLE DID INDEED EXIST IN ALEXANDRIA as the rabbinic tradition claims THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT IN THE SEA. It is the only way that a Jewish holy site could have been built in - what was clearly - polluted land.
Some might argue that the temple could have been built in another section of Alexandria. I think Philo's testimony in Flaccus and An Embassy to Gaius clearly rules that out. The central religious building in Alexandrian Jewish life was built close enough to the royal palace in the northeastern most part of the main city of Alexandria that (a) the governor could 'keep' an eye on his Jewish subjects from his 'perch' high above them and (b) that the Jews who gathered outside of that physical structure of the holy place in 38 CE could hear the clopping of the horses of the party arresting Flaccus.
When Severus of Al'Ashmunein reports that in a later period of Coptic history that St. Mark "and had found means to build a church in a place called the Cattle-pasture (Boucolou), near the sea, beside a rock from which stone is hewn" [Hist. Patriarchs I.2] I can't help but see there is some lost allusion to an original 'self-serving' Alexandrian gospel interpretation.
The business about 'a rock from which stone is hewn' is clearly to WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED TO CALL (under Rome influence) Matt 16:18 "That thou art petros, and upon this petra I will build my church."
As I have noted many times in this post neither the Greek nor the Aramaic play on words here could possibly mistake the etymology of 'Peter' as anything other than a small stone. The name does not mean or have any connection to the 'messianic Rock' predicted in the Jewish writings.
I have consistently argued instead for the REALLY origins of the name Peter from the Aramaic pitur which, I have argued is consistently reflected in Patristic associations of Simon as 'the interpreter' of the Gospel.
In any event, I suppose naturally that the Roman Church developed an original Alexandrian interpretation of the passage apply the passage to Mark rather than Peter. To this end, Mark who was 'little' (i.e. the kefa) which came from the rock on which the Church of Alexandria was built.
The idea that Mark was consistently identified as 'the little one' or a 'thing which was little' in various gospel passages is supported by Severus of Al'Ashmunein. The reason why Severus eventually identifies the Church as being located BESIDE a rock rather than ON the rock as in Matt 16:18 and Matt 7:24 - 27 is because the Church of St. Mark was later built BESIDE the original location.
Indeed I have already connected the passage with Mark through the interpretation offered by Archelaus in the Acts of Archelaus. It is also noteworthy that Origen consistently EXPANDS the interpretation of who is this rock in his Commentary on Matthew beyond Peter "for a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them [1 Corinthians 10:4] and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God." [Comm Matt 10]
My guess is that Origen and the Alexandrian tradition identified Mark as identifying himself as John the brother of James throughout the narrative. So it is that Origen goes out of his way to connect 'John' with the rock through out the section:
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? [ibid]
And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, [1 Corinthians 10:4] that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. [ibid.14]
But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail ... but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock [Matthew 7:24] is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it. [ibid]
Now, if you attend to the saying, Many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able, [Luke 13:24] you will understand that this refers to those who boast that they are of the church, but live weakly and contrary to the word. Of those, then, who seek to enter in, those who are not able to enter will not be able to do so, because the gates of Hades prevail against them; but in the case of those against whom the gates of Hades will not prevail, those seeking to enter in will be strong, being able to do all things, in Christ Jesus, who strengthens them. [Philippians 4:13] And in like manner each one of those who are the authors of any evil opinion has become the architect of a certain gate of Hades; but those who co-operate with the teaching of the architect of such things are servants and stewards, who are the bond-servants of the evil doctrine which goes to build up impiety. And though the gates of Hades are many and almost innumerable, no gate of Hades will prevail against the rock or against the church which Christ builds upon it. [ibid]
But consider how great power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ ... [W]hen those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, You are Peter [Matthew 16:18] and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred ... in like manner, no Peter, whoever he may be; and if any one who is not a Peter, and does not possess the things here spoken of, imagines as a Peter that he will so bind on earth that the things bound are bound in heaven, and will so loose on earth that the things loosed are loosed in heaven, he is puffed up, not understanding the meaning of the Scriptures, and, being puffed up, has fallen into the ruin of the devil. [ibid]
I could go on and on with Origen's interpretation of this passage but it is clear to me at least that he is subtly attempting to posit A RIVAL INTERPRETATION of what is in our canon - Matt 16:18. According to Origen, 'Peter' means interpreter and the role of 'interpreter' is connected with other Episcopal Sees other than Rome. As noted I would argue that Origen is also privy to a tradition where John the son of Salome was also named Mark.
The problem that has always puzzled me is where the hell is this rock? There is nothing resembling 'the rock upon which waves crashed' anywhere on the eastern shore of Alexandria. This even though Origen and Severus' interpretation depends on something like this being present in the waters offshore.
"They [the Jews] came out of Syria, and inhabited near the tempestuous sea, and were in the neighborhood of the dashing of the waves." [Against Apion ii.4]
I can't help shake the feeling that some 'rock' was artificially or naturally protruding out of the waters which caused the impression of 'tempestuous seas' as the 'waves dashed' against it.
The photos you see here are of the modern beach. The building in the foreground is the Casino Chatby (not a place of gambling but a cafe) which is built on the foundation of the thirteenth century Church of St. Mark.
