A Question from a Regular Reader

Question: I have been re-reading The Real Messiah for the third time, and following your blog. I have a question, which I am certain not to be the first person to ask it. Please consider that I ask my question as a layman, not as an academic, so I am open to a straight answer.

Your book and various sources have Marcus Agrippa living into the 90's CE. I have been re-reading The Real Messiah for the third time, and following your blog. I have a question, which I am certain not to be the first person to ask it. Please consider that I ask my question as a layman, not as an academic, so I am open to a straight answer. The history of the Coptic Church gy Pope Shenouda III states clearly that St. Mark died on April 25, 62 CE after having been dragged through the streets of Alexandria.

I have not done much sourcing yet, but the "official" Coptic version as it is known today seems to derive from Eusebius, who of course was the official [Roman] "catholic" historian. I have read how the Roman Church effectively 'took over' the church in Alexandria by or about 300 CE. Do you think that the early records from Alexandria were thus 'doctored' to make it appear that Marcus Agrippa and St. Mark could not possibly have been the same person? Or that the records of Alexandria were simply replaced with the official story as dictated by Rome?

We have a list of the patriarchs of Alexandria, with years of accession, with St. Mark as patriarch until 68 CE, succeeded by Anianus, etc. Do you think that this list has been falsified? If St. Mark/Marcus Agrippa actually lived into the early 90's, could the first two or three patriarchs following St. Mark been fabricated? Perhaps the personages are correct, but the dates of their accession have been "adjusted" to fit an earlier chronology? Is the story about St. Mark's death real history, or religious history? A factual event, but also placed at an earlier date?

I don't mean to take up your time, but I am curious to know how you have resolved this apparent contradiction for yourself.

Answer: I don't think that anyone outside the most pious Copt who believes that any of the dates for the Patriarchs of Alexandria are anything other than a general guess.  But let me answer the points in order:

1. "The history of the Coptic Church gy Pope Shenouda III states clearly that St. Mark died on April 25, 62 CE after having been dragged through the streets of Alexandria."  

Yes, all of that's true but as I demonstrate in my article for the Journal of Coptic Studies the story of the martyrdom of St. Mark in the Boucolia can't be dated much earlier than the end of the fourth century.  This is important because it suggests - as I note in my article - that the events surrounding the martyrdom of the 'last' Patriarch of Alexandria - Peter I (c. 300 CE) became confounded with St. Mark himself.  

If you read the Passio Petri Sancti tradition there is a clear attempt by the editors to blur the distinction between Mark and Peter I.  Both martyrdom traditions developed in the same period (c. 390 CE).  The Passio continually references the martyrdom of St. Mark, both men die in similar ways, in the same place and most importantly there are no witnesses for the details of St. Mark's death in the Boucolia before the Passio.

It is worth noting that (a) Michael the Syrian identifies Mark's body as being buried in Paneas and (b) the Letter to Theodore does not reference the death or the burial of St. Mark in Alexandria.  

The bottom line is that I have demonstrated that the body which is now taken to be St. Mark's in Venice (and which presumably was the same one stolen from his church in Alexandria in 828 CE) is that of a fourth century Alexandrian Patriarch.  We actually have a description of an Italian noble who saw the body and the evidence seems to suggest that he is Peter I rather than St. Mark.  

2. "Do you think that the early records from Alexandria were thus 'doctored' to make it appear that Marcus Agrippa and St. Mark could not possibly have been the same person? Or that the records of Alexandria were simply replaced with the official story as dictated by Rome?"

I see things in a very different way. The first two Patriarchs can be viewed as just the splitting up of the Greek and Jewish names of Marcus Agrippa.

Mark (43–68)

Anianus = John (68–82)

The Patriarchs which follow seem to be little more than a confused assembly of prominent Alexandrian figures:

Avilius = Sabellius noted heretical boogieman

Cerdo = heretic associated with Marcion

Primus = 'first' i.e. Mark

Justus = the secretary of Marcus Agrippa. I note the similarities between the two figures in my book.

Eumenes is probably an actual person. Might even have been the unnamed Patriarch referenced in Hadrian's Letter to Servianus - "And after a lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes (q.v.) succeeded in the sixth place to the presidency of the community of the Alexandrians" [H.E.IV.5.5].

Markianos or Mark (the tradition is unclear). Could be the historical figure associated with the 'Marcion' who visited Rome in the middle of the second century.

Celadion = 

Agrippinus =

As you might know I think that Demetrius election was imposed on the Alexandrian community and Clement and Origen likely represented crypto-Patriarchs or Patriarchs in exile.  The only reason that the 'Origenist' Patriarchs that followed were likely only allowed to flourish because of the fact that Rome was losing control of Alexandria.

The situation in Alexandria regarding their 'remembrance' of who Mark was is no different than what we find among the Samaritans.  If you hit someone over the head long enough they will lose consciousness and even forget their own identity.