I had ignored my blog for some time. We are after all in the closing years of a declining world civilization. No one reads, let alone reads the blog of a "nobody" like myself. So what was the point of continuing to post a journal of pseudo-scholarship? Instead I spent almost ten years engaging with other writers and thinkers on these subjects at a notable discussion board. I can't deny that I continue to be very thankful for the experience. I learned a lot, to be honest, about the limits of things - whether it be the extent to which things can be known in the field of early Christianity or, more importantly, about myself.
The boy who is pictured as the "face" of this blog is now "all grown up." He has grown up beautifully and my job as parent has mostly come to an end (outside of financial assistance and the occasion "life lesson" which is usually a precursor to requests for more final assistance). Whatever the case my boy and I had an interesting journey. Without sounding too narcissistic, I again learned a lot about myself and more important perhaps, my parents. As cliche as it sounds (it's only a cliche because its true) I appreciate what my parents (and even my ancestors and all humans go through) as they complete the cycle of life.
Now on to the completion of this blog. In case I haven't mentioned it enough "I figured it all out." I think I know what happened at the beginning of Christianity (maybe not the "very, very beginning of Christianity" - I tried and failed at that a long time ago). But at the very least I think I uncovered what the written gospel was originally about. I believe I have finally untangled the early politics of Christianity - the Rome versus Alexandria dynamic which certainly dominated the beginning of its existence as an appendage of the collapsing Roman Empire. And that is what I think helps make a case for its relevance as we live through the implosion of another historical period.
There is a story in Socrates Scholasticus about the Council of Nicaea where Constantine invites all the bishops to Nicaea and waits for them to be seated and then seats himself in what is described as a "little throne." Why a "little throne?" Less than twenty years earlier Peter of Alexandria left his "office" of bishop at Lake Mareotis, outside of Alexandria, to visit the Martyrium of St Mark in a region called the Cow Pasture (Boukolia) beyond the eastern walls of the city. The crowd demands he seat himself in what was apparently a similar "small throne." He refuses, and the incident - if we read between the lines - figured in to his murder, likely by the very same crowd.
Leaving aside the profound significance of this symbolism and the unfathomable ancient political environment of that long ago time, a few years later, Peter's successor Alexander, saw a young Athanasius playing outside of his office at Lake Mareotis by the shore (for some reason I remember the story as if he was playing football but memory plays tricks on us all). What was it about this young Athanasius that made him a suitable candidate for the throne of St Mark at the Cow Pasture? Athanasius is even described by his supporters as "short and ugly." In short, Christianity was ruled by a "small throne" which demanded certain physical qualities of its rulers.
Arius while "tall" was abnormally thin and ascetic. It must have been torture for him to sit through the long "mystery" service (a term used of the Alexandrian priesthood even in contemporary records) but he managed to pull it off. For whatever reason Peter didn't want to endure the grueling experience. Maybe he was too fat (the seat was only about 45 - 50 inches wide and only 30 inches off the ground). Perhaps that could be raised with "risers" as we see in its presentation in Venice today (such an arrangement is hinted in the Acts of Peter of Alexandria). The point here is that this little throne has since made its way from Alexandria to Venice along with the purported bodies of Mark himself and Athanasius of all people (it would be interesting to see how short this skeleton really is).
I have come to the conclusion that our histories of Nicaea (all written or edited after Theodosius's definition of what "Nicene" meant in 381 CE) don't tell the full story. There was an Arian version of the triumph of Alexandrian - that is "African" - Christianity at Nicaea that long since disappeared. That story is very interesting in and of its self. But I believe that the later histories obscure that Alexander of Alexandria went on to become the bishop of New Rome at Constantine's re-organization of Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century CE. The "victory" of Nicaea was certainly a temporary "loss" for Rome as Sylvester of Rome deliberately avoided attending. But it was a double-edged sword for Alexandria.
On the one hand its rituals went on to define the new order - the central small throne used undoubtedly for "contemplation" of the mysteries of the gospel (in a way that paralleled pagan "idolatry"), the mystery religion aspect itself and initially the very doctrines of Christianity. Roman "Sabellianism" eventually won out or more clear imposed itself on the "inheritance" theme of a cosmic Son who was to "take over the new age" from the Father (this was especially poignant in 139 CE when a new Sothic cycle was being announced. Whatever the case may be, I hope you like the new layout of my blog. I plan on doing more "podcast" style announcements (given the low intelligence of the current generation). No one reads or at least they don't read "high brow shit" like these topics. Maybe I can make things more interesting with my scintillating personality. Maybe not. We will see. Thank you.
I shut down the comments ten years ago and can't figure how to turn them back on. If you have something to share (it's always nice to hear from real people) stephan.h.huller@gmail.com.
