Origen's John [Part Two]

Why is it left up to me to defend the sanctity and the authenticity of the Alexandrian tradition? I have had the misfortune of talking to all kinds of different people – even purported ‘Christians’ – who turn up their nose at St. Mark. They claim that this is ‘just another of those ‘saint stories’ that were made up in the early Church.’

I wonder why it is though that Europeans generally accept the story about Peter coming to Rome to get crucified upside down by Agrippa in the time of Nero, but ridicule the claims about St. Mark.

I happen to believe that both stories are rooted in history. I say this, not because I have any vested interest in the truth of either Episcopal tradition. Both traditions are so strange in many ways that I find it difficult to completely write them off.

They both are the furthest thing from the Acts of the Apostles. A five year old could see the motive(s) behind the creation of this document. But I won’t get into that here.

Let’s go back to the basic question of whether a man with two names – ‘Mark’ and ‘John’ – came to Alexandria almost immediately after the Passion of Christ (I know there are even bigger idiots who deny that there was a historical Passion but I am unable to argue against ALL the fools that develop theories in this field). This is the Alexandrian position.

The ‘debunkers’ of Christianity will argue that it is impossible to PROVE that a ‘St. Mark’ actually visited Alexandria c. 38 CE spreading the word of Christianity for the first time among the Jewish populace of Alexandria.

Oh, did someone say that there is ‘geographical evidence’ that suggests that Mark visited JEWS in Alexandria? Of course, the Church of St. Mark is located in the Boucolia, which in turn is exactly where Philo and other sources tell us that Jews were living in the first century.
Those who debunk Christianity of course will argue that later sources merely developed the idea of his historic visit to the Boucolia based on independent knowledge of where Jews lived in the period.

Perhaps, but we now have to admit at least that there is more to this ‘myth’ that just a silly fable that fourth century writers made up.

Indeed the fact that the Letter to Theodore also makes reference to a ‘church in Alexandria’ which Mark visited makes it even less of a ‘fable’ (or at least a fable that was already in existence from the earliest period of our having any knowledge of an ‘Alexandrian Church.’
One could in fact argue by the same line of reasoning that there was no such a thing as ‘Alexandrian Christianity’ before the time of Clement or perhaps even ‘How Alexandrian was Clement really’ (a really paper I came just came across).

Yet again by the same logic one could make the case that that there was no Roman Church either before Irenaeus. Who testifies to the existence of Christian Rome? What evidence is there really?

Polycarp’s visit to Rome? Ignatius’ visit to Rome? I think they were one and the same visit. But our source again is Irenaeus. Irenaeus is also our source for the claims about a ‘Clement of Rome’ too.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the idea that Peter was brought to Rome to face ‘downward crucifixion’ at the hands of Agrippa has some basis in historical truth. I just so happen to believe that the story of St. Mark, ROOTED IN AN EVEN EARLIER PERIOD also has a basis in fact.
Indeed if we reference Clement’s To Theodore again, it is worth noting that ‘Mark’ leaves Rome just after Peter is - as we know from other sources – killed by ‘Agrippa.’ Sounds like the start of a book …