I care about the things no one cares about, I think about the things no one thinks about.
When most people think about the injustices leveled against the African continent, few bring up the plundering of Christianity. The very idea that Christianity could have originated in Africa seems to be an absurdity. Jesus, as we all know, was a Jew, and the Gospel, which is the story of Jesus the Jew is set in Galilee and Judea, not Africa.
The theory seems to be off to a bad start already.
But there is a puzzling moment where St Mark, hereafter referenced as simply "Mark," introduces Simon of Cyrene (Cyrene in north Africa) who carried Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21). Mark is often the source of passages in Matthew and the other gospels. But this narratives where Mark specifically turns to a private group of individuals in his immediate community and says "this guy (Simon) is known to us" i.e. he was the "father" of some people known to the Christian community Mark founded. Because we are essentially culturally biased in favor we read the passage in a twisted Roman way, viz. Simon was an African who was passing through Jerusalem at the time of the Passion and who was also somehow known to the Roman community for whom Mark wrote around 50 or 60 CE.
But this is, as I have already noted, a twisted explanation. The simpler explanation is that Simon was known to Mark’s audience because Mark established Christianity in Africa. Mark, after all, is the apostle of Africa. Part of his official "domain," as it were, was Cyrene, to this day.
Of course and might be argued that this association between Mark and Cyrene was only established because of Mark 15:21, but that doesn't take away from the greater implausibility of this "Simon" from Africa making his way from Africa to Jerusalem and then having two family members known to a Roman audience. The "Mark was apostle of Africa at the time of the gospel's composition" explanation for the passage is the simpler and more plausible one. It's only our latent European cultural (if not now also racial) bias which makes this seem "the more far fetched" of the two.
The idea that Mark in establishing the Gospel of the Lord is writing or bringing the message of Jesus to Africa specifically is attested in many, many early witnesses. It forms the backbone of our official "History of the Church" written by Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century. But more importantly perhaps Eusebius, writing from Caesarea in Palestine, clearly draws from an earlier Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, for this "Mark as apostle to Africa" narrative.
Here's where things get complicated.
While organized religion presents its believers with the notion that their traditions are the unadulterated "truth" and we have learned to accept them as such, our version of "Church History" has a clear and specific Roman slant. The very claim that Rome was the proper home for Christianity was one of many such competing ideas and ideologies. I have come to the conclusion that there was another tradition, which can be argued to have actually "won out" at Nicaea (the place where we are supposed to have received our "Nicene Creed"). Without getting into all the complexities and nuances, I believe the Roman tradition can actually be argued to have originally lost out at Constantine's conference at Nicaea and a strong case can be made that Alexandria, and by implication Africa, seemed to have gotten the last word on its historical rival Rome. Sylvester, the bishop of Rome didn't even travel to the conference.
Again, without getting lost in all the intricacies, I believe Constantine organized Nicaea to headquarter the seat of Christianity behind the safety and surety of his impregnable "New Rome," Constantinople. Sylvester didn't want to cede any of the authority of "Old Rome," so he stayed home. But I believe Constantine anticipated this move long in advance and worked with willing members of the Alexandrian Church to bring essentially their traditions to his new capital.
These are of course revolutionary ideas. They can't be justified in the fine print of a discussion of St Mark's historical relationship with Africa. Nevertheless the fact that so many early Fathers identify Rome and Alexandria as the places Mark wrote and preached his gospel can't be coincidence. Look carefully at Eusebius’s ambiguous wording about where Mark's gospel was actually composed - it almost seems like he built the ambiguity into his narrative. Mark was almost written on the way between Mark's journey from Rome to Alexandria.
Again, these are complex matters. But it is worth noting that our traditional approach of assuming Eusebius simply "wrote what he wrote because it was the truth" is not the case. There were two communities who laid claim to the Gospel of the Lord, identified as "by Mark." The Alexandrian tradition read the Gospel of Mark as if it was written privately for an African audience.
We know this not merely because of Simon of Cyrene, but also because of Basilides who was another early African Christian who happened to be from Alexandria. If we assume again that Mark’s apostolic relationship with Alexandria was just as real as Peter’s with Rome, his Church in Africa not only knew the sons of Simon, but the reason Mark referenced Simon in his gospel in the first place. Basilides, undoubtedly belonging to the very community Mark privately made reference to regarding Simon, says that in that in Alexandria there was a tradition that Jesus and Simon traded places before the crucifixion. This crazy sounding belief or some derived form of it, is now the basis to the interpretation of the gospel in one form or another for somewhere approaching a billion Muslims.
Originally it was undoubtedly the belief of the African Church of Mark through its widely influential representative Basilides. This doesn't mean that Eusebius laying down the official history of a Church rooted or partially rooted in Alexandria shared the same ideas as Basilides. The point here is above all else is that traditions develop organically. There was a Christian apostolic tradition in Alexandria since the first century. It didn't stay consistent any more than the tradition at Rome.
Thus when Morton Smith found a letter of Clement of Alexandria at the monastic library of Mar Saba near Bethlehem it was a representative of Roman Christianity, the Jesuit Quentin Quesnell who not surprisingly spearheaded the attack against it. Perceived "homosexuality" was part of what "bothered" the world about the discovery, but inevitably lurking in the background is the notion of Clement belonging to a Christian world order that wasn't rooted in Rome and by implication Europe, and by contrast Alexandria and Egypt.
"That would make a Church Father into a heretic." But these are the exact same arguments Athanasius makes against Arius, the representative of Mark's authority in the world when he appealed to a line of Alexandrian Fathers as the basis for his ideas against the supposed orthodoxy of Rome. "That's would make," replies Athanasius, "that would make them all heretics."
Is that really so crazy to consider in 2025? Every orthodoxy is someone else's heresy. Arius did appeal to the Alexandrian line of Popes who were buried at his church in Alexandria. Arius was their and Mark's representative. Is it really that outlandish to suggest that Alexandria and Rome, Mark and Peter didn't always walk in lockstep with one another? Those who say Morton Smith's discovery would would have you believe so.
There are always two sides to a coin. In this case Alexandria and Rome. The critics of the Mar Saba discovery would say the coin of orthodoxy had "Rome" on both sides or didn't have "sides" at all.
When Eusebius wrote his Church History he not only allowed for Clement's claims that Mark came and introduced a gospel there, he did so undoubtedly drawing on parallel traditions from Clement’s Hypotyposes. In other words, we can't prove that Eusebius read the Letter to Theodore but he certainly drew upon other texts that Clement wrote which witness similar ideas. That Clement held Mark as a figure of such significance was unknown to Morton Smith. As a Protestant he had little interest in the lives of saints. But this is exactly where Smith diverged from Clement and it led Smith to demonstrate he couldn't have forged the manuscript.
Mark's gospel is the only gospel Eusebius spends a great deal of time elaborating its origins. This is because Eusebius belonged to Arius's tradition of Mark and I have argued elsewhere that signs exist to witnesses of a specifically "Arian" edition of the Church History written by Eusebius down to the succession of Constantine’s sons after his death. Our editions of his Church History represent a specifically altered edition which redacted all overt mention of what was in fact the historical triumph of "Arian" - that is Alexandria - at Nicaea. These redactions were made in the Theodosian period aimed at assisting an alteration to the very definition of "Nicene."
Again these are all outside the present focus. It is enough to say that Clement’s role in establishing Arian notions of apostolic orthodoxy in the pre-Theodosian age of "Nicaea" is epitomized by the specific invocation of his name and his "apostolic list" from the Hypotyposeis in an Arian codex in Latin. Mark's position as one of the Twelve here is critical for following the historical thread that gets obscured by our inherent Roman and European bias. Let's spend a few moments tracing the development of the Apostolic Lists from Clement’s Hypotyposeis.
Eusebius's Use of Clement to Establish Orthodoxy
The hypothesis that many later apocryphal apostolic catalogues derive from a lost ur-list in Clement of Alexandria’s Hypotyposes finds support in both content and testimony. Clement’s Hypotyposes (fifth book) is explicitly cited by Eusebius and by the Chronicon Paschale as a source for apostolic traditions. For example, Eusebius (Church History 1.12) records that Clement taught Cephas (Simon) was one of the Seventy disciples, distinct from Peter, and that Matthias (who later replaced Judas) was “deemed worthy of the same calling with the seventy”. These points – Cephas as a separate disciple and Matthias bridging the Twelve and the Seventy – match details in later lists. Likewise, Clement’s Hypotyposes apparently included figures like Barnabas and Sosthenes among the Seventy. Thus an “original” inventory of apostles and disciples attributed to Clement is attested in patristic sources, and this inventory recurs (often verbatim) in many subsequent catalogues.
Shared Structure and Names in List Traditions
The Greek apocryphal lists (Anonymus I and II, Pseudo-Hippolytus of Thebes, and Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre) display remarkable overlap with Clement’s (through Eusebius) inventory. Pseudo-Hippolytus’ On the Apostles and Disciples (4th–5th century) explicitly calls out Matthias as “one of the seventy” in the Twelve, echoing Clement’s remark. It also lists Cephas and Sosthenes among the disciples (as items 51–52 in the Seventy), exactly as Clement’s source does. Many of the same names – Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Amplias, Carpus, Aristarchus, Philemon, Jason, Sosipater, Tertius, Erastus, Quartus, etc. – appear in both Pseudo-Hippolytus and in later compilations (such as Dorotheus) in similar order. For instance, both Pseudo-Hippolytus and the Dorotheus lists mention Epaphroditus, Carpus, Aristarchus, Clement, Onesiphorus, Tychicus, and Philemon (items 54–61 in Pseudo-Hippolytus) just as the Dorotheus compilation does. The repetition of these names and sequences across traditions strongly suggests a common source.
In the Dorotheus of Tyre tradition (widely transmitted in Greek and Latin), nearly the same roster appears. For example, Dorotheus names Clement (as bishop of Rome or Sardinia) and Onesiphorus, and groups Apollos, Tychicus, Aristarchus etc., many of whom appear in Clement of Rome’s circle. Likewise, the Latin “Paris–Marcianus” apostolic catalogues (12th–13th century), which list apostles’ burial places, preserve Clementine content: they list Mark in Alexandria and “the eunuch of Queen Candace, one of the Seventy” being in Arabia – explicitly citing “Clement… in the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis”. In sum, the same core characters – often with the same legends (e.g. Matthias in the Twelve; Mark’s Alexandrian martyrdom) – recur in each tradition, linking back to Clement’s lost outline.
Clement’s Hypotyposes uniquely frames the Twelve and Seventy as two linked groups patterned on Moses (the Twelve tribes and Seventy elders). This is evident in Clement’s note that Matthias was among the Seventy before joining the Twelve. Later lists inherit this linkage: several explicitly describe Matthias as the “thirteenth apostle” or “one of the seventy who filled the vacant place”. Clement also appears to have seen figures like Mark (and Luke) in the broader circle of disciples. Though Clement’s own fragments mostly survive via Eusebius, one Latin tradition of apostolic burial sites (found in Paris 9562 and Marcianus 21) attests Clement as authority for Mark’s mission to Alexandria and even for the Ethiopian eunuch among the Seventy. The Pseudo-Hippolytus list likewise honors Mark “the evangelist” (bishop of Alexandria) and Luke among the Seventy, consistent with Clement’s Alexandrian view of Mark. In short, Clement’s Hypotyposes appears to have envisioned an expanded apostolic college (beyond the Twelve) that included these figures, and this framework is carried over into later lists.
Conversely, Clement’s own theology forbade counting Cephas as a second Peter (per his Stromata 4.15–16), which matches the later detail that “Cephas” in the lists is not Peter but a distinct disciple. Clement furthermore tied the Twelve to the Seventy by Moses typology (as seen in Clementine Recognitions/Homilies elsewhere). Thus the thematic and theological motifs – expanded collegiality of apostles, typological schemes, missionary discipleship – introduced or implied by Clement align with the way later catalogues present their lists.
Manuscript Evidence and Attributions
Manuscript traditions often explicitly attribute these lists to Clement or hint at their origin. The Chronicon Paschale (7th century) outright cites Clement’s Hypotyposes as its source for the names of apostles and disciples. Similarly, Medieval codices like Paris lat. 9562 and Marc. lat. 21 tag an abbreviated apostolic itinerary to “the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis” by Clement. Even the Anonymus I/II lists of the Apostles (two anonymous Greek compendia) annotate certain entries with phrases like “as Clement testifies in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes” (e.g. for Cephas/Sosthenes) – directly pointing back to Clement’s account. Such attributions reinforce the idea that later scribes viewed Clement’s lost work as the archetypal source.
By contrast, the Pseudo-Dorotheus tradition does not cite Clement, and indeed in Dorotheus’ list Cephas is omitted (unlike in Clement’s tradition). This suggests some development or corruption in transmission. Nevertheless, where Clement is named (Chronicon, Latin catalogues, Anonymus codices), the overlap of detail is striking. Notably, scholars have long noticed these parallels: Lipsius and Zahn argued that fragments of Clement’s Hypotyposes survive embedded in later Church Order material, while later editors like Theodor Schermann compiled the Dorotheus and related legends (often noting their Clementine echoes).
Modern analysis recognizes the pattern: one can plausibly reconstruct a “Clementine” ur-list behind these sources. Even if every element cannot be shown to originate with Clement (as Lipsius cautioned, a later redaction may have attached Clement’s name to an inherited catalogue), the coherent cluster of shared names, and the fact that Clement’s own work is repeatedly invoked, argues strongly for a direct lineage. In short, the apocryphal apostolic catalogues (Anonymus I/II, Pseudo-Hippolytus, Dorotheus, Latin lists) carry forward the structure and content of a prototype list known from Clement’s Hypotyposes.
In summary, the evolution of early Christian apostolic lists points back to Clement of Alexandria’s lost Hypotyposes as a foundational source. Patristic testimony (Eusebius, Chronicon) and manuscript annotations repeatedly link Clement’s fifth book to these lists. Across geographically diverse traditions (Greek pseudo-apostolic acts, Western catalogues), one finds the same constellation of apostles and disciples – Matthias, Cephas, Sosthenes, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, etc. – arrayed much as Clement’s list portrayed them. Clement’s distinctive framing (the typology of Twelve and Seventy, and inclusion of certain figures) is reflected in the way later lists are organized. While scholars acknowledge that scribes in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages sometimes attributed materials to “Clement” for authority, the textual affinities suggest more than coincidence. The surviving evidence therefore supports the scholarly argument that these apocryphal apostolic catalogues descend, in large part, from the traditions preserved in Clement’s Hypotyposes.
