Origen's John [Part Two]

So we have established that I think that ‘Mark’ and ‘Peter’ are real people who – beneath all the layers of later embellishments – can be ultimately connected to real historical events. To this end, I argue that ‘Christianity’ – whatever that was – was already in existence within a very short time of the Passion of Christ (which again is a theological ‘interpretation’ based on another historical event).

I don’t see how any of what I am saying here is at all controversial. Does anyone with a critical mind believe that EVERYTHING about the gospel or the legends of early Christianity is one hundred percent true? I’m sure there are kooks like this out there, but we shouldn’t pay too much attention to them.

I am saying that we have to be selective about what we allow to be used to help us reconstruct the origins of Christianity. Maybe there are other people out there who can present a better argument for what is ‘real’ in this tradition than me. Nevertheless we should not allow ourselves as scholars to fall victim to the extremist arguments on either side (i.e. that Christianity is ‘all true’ or ‘all lies’). I happen to think the latter is only a historical reaction to the fervor associated with the former position.

In any event, given that I chose to take only a little of the legends associated with Mark and Peter, I hope at least some of my readers will share my ‘taste’ for what is good and bad in early Christianity. As far as I can see the basic paradigm emerging as follows:

1. Jesus and at least one of his disciples, the one that he loved, participated in the Passion (see Irenaeus AH iii.11.7)
2. the Passion forms the heart of the gospel which was first laid down as a historical document by Mark
3. Mark is identified by the Alexandrians as ‘the beholder of the Passion’ whose narrative was developed from personal contact with the ministry of Jesus

It would be nice if the internal evidence in Mark suggested that the gospel was written immediately after his witness of the Passion. Most scholars, however, fix the authorship of the original gospel of Mark around the time of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem (70 CE).

It has always seemed uncanny to me that the Letter to Theodore assigns a date very close to this period (‘hoaxers’ will of course say that this parallel is attributable to a twentieth century author being responsible for the composition of the text. Nevertheless I see no evidence that proves that the Mar Saba document isn’t authentic. At the very least we have to take note of the parallel between ancient source and modern studies of the Gospel according to Mark.

The piece of evidence however that tips the scales in favor of this formulation is Irenaeus’ repeated mention of a group of heretics – implicitly from Alexandria – who say that their knowledge is based on a tradition or text which was developed AFTER the Peter and the disciples established their understanding of the truth about Jesus.

I can’t believe that a modern forger would have taken note of the subtleties of Irenaeus’ arguments and modeled to Theodore after what is written in the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called.

To this end I think we are safe to add to our understanding by saying that:

1. an account of the Lord’s accomplishments in the name of Peter was established BEFORE the Gospel of Mark.
2. this ‘gospel’ or kerygma was attributed to Simon Peter at Rome at least by later writers
3. the Gospel according to Mark was by contrast associated with the ‘more perfect knowledge’ of Alexandrians

It would be very easy for us to turn around and say that this ‘account of the Lord’s doing’ which Clement mentions is our canonical Mark.  Most scholars interpret the text that way, but I am not sure.