Ariadne and the Labyrinth

I know there are lots of people (or at least some people) reading this blog putting together bits and pieces of my argument but not seeing the big picture.  Let me try to put it together for them.

I have rediscovered the throne of St. Mark in Alexandria.  It has been on display with the purported body of the Evangelist which was stolen from Alexandria in 828 CE.  I have written an academic paper arguing that the throne likely was brought over along with the other relics of St. Mark.

No scholar has ever doubted the Egyptian provenance of the throne.

While Grabar dated the throne to the sixth century he did so by assuming that the corona was original.  Italian scholars since Grabar have noted the clean break between the corona and the rest of object.  They have argued that someone sawed through the top piece of the throne, re-carved what ever was there originally and established the image of the four evangelists (two on the front, two on the back) which now appear there).

If we imagine the piece WITHOUT the re-carved evangelists the throne doesn't even appear to be a Christian relic. It could even originally have been a Jewish relic.

I discovered the throne while I was working on a thesis that Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of Israel was the original historical figure behind St. Mark.

I don't have a problem with that hypothesis.  I don't know if it could ever be proved.  I think it has a lot going for it.  But it isn't necessary to limit the significance of the throne to events in first century Alexandria.

My academic paper argued that this throne was used as the Episcopal throne of Alexandria since the third century.  I argued that this throne was at the heart of the Passio Petri Sancti narrative where Peter the seventeenth patriarch of Alexandria is killed in the environs of the Martyrium of St. Mark.

The narrative begins with the idea that Peter I has been away for some time from Alexandria and in his stead Meletius has taken over the traditional seat of authority in the Church of St. Mark.

For some reason which is never explained Peter I cannot or will not sit in the traditional seat of the Alexandrian Patriarchs.  Instead he breaks with tradition and sits in front of the throne which causes the faithful to rebel against his authority.  They even interrupt services in the church to demand that he sit down in the chair.  Again, for reasons which are never explained he cannot carry out their request.

Eventually on November 25th, 311 Peter was killed and stuffed into the throne and the congregation joyfully carries on with the service.  The Latin version of the text claims that Meletius was among the armed men who kill Peter.

I cannot help but think that some kind of power struggle was going on in the Church of St. Mark at the time.  All that is clear is that in less than two years Alexander would emerge as Patriarch of Alexandria.  The Arian historian Philostorgius claims that Arius actually won the election but decided to allow Alexander to take the position anyway.

Whatever the case one can read Philostorgius to support the idea that there was an Imperial conspiracy to establish Alexander on the throne and thereby re-engineer a compromise faith which would eventually govern the whole Empire.  It is interesting to note that Arius is still said to have been presbyter of the Church of St Mark in the Boucolia, by now a no man's land just beyond the walls of the city of Alexandria.

It is by no means a stretch of the imagination to claim that the orthodox controlled the Greek population WITHIN the walls of Alexandria and perhaps a number of other Greek cities spread throughout Egypt but the Arians maintained control of the Church of St Mark and much of the population outside of these cities.  One can infer from the letter of Athanasius, Alexander's orthodox successor, that he also never actually gained control of the traditional center of Egyptian Christianity and its throne.

Among the most common methods of discrediting the Arians was to accuse them of Origenism or following the teachings of Origen.  It is worth noting that Athanasius makes clear that the Arians claimed Dionysius as a witness for their views.  Vivian also makes a convincing argument that ALL the Patriarchs of Alexandria before and including Peter I could be argued to be Origenists in some form.

I take this idea to mean that Arianism likely was an expression of native Alexandrian belief.  I have always argued that whatever tradition existed in Alexandria BEFORE Irenaeus and the Commodian period had to learn to adapt itself to the new canon emerging from Rome.  It would seem that Origen's brilliance was in allowing Alexandrians to employ the 'authorized canon' and still (secretly) maintain many of their original (heretical) beliefs.

The Passio Petri Sancti makes reference to the idea that congregation knew that ALL Patriarchs previous to Peter I sat in the same throne of St. Mark.  It would stand to reason then that if Secchi and my arguments for connecting the Cattedra di San Marco to the Episcopal throne in that document are accepted then the throne has to be dated to at least three or four generations before Peter or the reign of Heraclas, the first Patriarch to assume the title 'Papa.'

Of course I can't help but think that the throne is even earlier than this date.  The problem of course is that we don't have any firm information about the period prior to Heraclas.

The point however is that I believe that there is an inscription on the backrest of the throne which argues for the idea that the throne was understood to transform the occupant into a man-God, by uniting his soul with Jesus.

We have already come across this idea in the writings of the tenth century Coptic Patriarch Severus of Al'Ashmunein who says that there was a mystery associated with the throne of St. Mark was the Virgin Mary continually establishing 'incarnations' of Christ into the world. It is tempting to see a few references in Irenaeus as allusions to the same idea such as:

There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube [AH i.7.1]

And again:

Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube [AH iii.11.3]

And again and perhaps most interestingly:

The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan, because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: for, as I have already observed, it is the practice of these men to say that there was one Christ, who was produced by (the) Only-begotten [Aram yahid], for the confirmation of the Fullness; but that another, the Saviour, was sent [forth] for the glorification of the Father ... the dispensational one, and whom they represent as having suffered, who also bore [in himself] Christ, that Saviour who returned into the Pleroma. I judge it necessary therefore to take into account the entire mind of the apostles regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, and to show that not only did they never hold any such opinions regarding Him; but, still further, that they announced through the Holy Spirit, that those who should teach such doctrines were agents of Satan, sent forth for the purpose of overturning the faith of some, and drawing them away from life. [AH iii.16.1]

I can't help but feel that the idea of two figures being present in the gospel - 'Jesus' and 'Christ' - is being reinforced in a number of different ways throughout the writings of Irenaeus but always in relation to a secret Gospel of Mark [AH iii.11.7]

I will write up a post arguing that if we understand Jesus and Mark to be referenced as the Savior and the dispensational Christ respectively we can also see an allusion something like the 'naked man with naked man' reference throughout including:

It certainly was in the power of the apostles to declare that Christ went down upon Jesus, or that the so-called superior Saviour upon the dispensational one, or he who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge; but they neither knew nor said anything of the kind: for, had they known it, they would have also certainly stated it. But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely,] that the Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared by Isaiah, "And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him," as I have already said. [ibid iii.17.1]

More to follow ...