Which Mark in Alexandria ?

[andrewcriddle]

In an earlier thread I suggested that the early church in Egypt distinguished John Mark the companion of Paul and Barnabas from Mark the author of the 2nd Gospel.

When investigating the tradition of Mark preaching in Alexandria, the question arises as to which Mark was originally meant. The earliest solid example of this claim, the chronicle of Eusebius, Mark the evangelist, Peter's interpreter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria. is definitely referring to Mark the author of the 2nd Gospel who may or may not be intended to be identified with John Mark. (The Mark in the Mar Saba letter, for those who accept it as authentic, is clearly referring to the same Mark, the Gospel writer.) Eusebius' account in the Church History is more detailed but again clearly refers to Mark the Gospel writer. The slightly later Martyrdom of Mark is not totally unambiguous, but it's repeated references to its Mark as Evangelist makes it pretty clear that the author of the 2nd Gospel is intended.

However, the early 5th century Acts of Barnabas has a Mark who ends up preaching in Alexandria who is very clearly John Mark and is clearly not Mark the kinsman of Barnabas. (John Mark in this account was previously a servant of a pagan god and hence presumably a gentile. ) John Mark is unlikely here to be Mark the Evangelist and interpreter of Peter, There is no mention of the 2nd Gospel or of Peter and John Mark travels to Alexandria from Cyprus immediately after the Martyrdom of Barnabas.

On the one hand, the Acts of Barnabas is a 5th century fiction intended to defend the status of the church in Cyprus. On the other hand, it would not have been a plausible fiction if there was an ancient established tradition that Mark the Gospel writer was the Mark who preached in Alexandria. It was inevitable that a claim that the church in Alexandria was founded by Mark would become a claim that Mark the Gospel writer founded the Alexandrian church. This claim both gives the Alexandrian church status (as the Evangelical see) and links it to the church at Rome. The obscure John Mark, seen as a separate person from Mark the Evangelist is a much less interesting founder.

The most likely solution is that we find in the Acts of Barnabas the only surviving example of the original form of the tradition about Mark and Alexandria. The Mark involved is John Mark who travels to Egypt after working with Barnabas in Cyprus.

Andrew Criddle

[Ulan]

On the one hand, the Acts of Barnabas is a 5th century fiction intended to defend the status of the church in Cyprus. On the other hand, it would not have been a plausible fiction if there was an ancient established tradition that Mark the Gospel writer was the Mark who preached in Alexandria.

I think you place too much confidence into logic when it's about the emergence of legends like this. I was just investigating some legends regarding Pontius Pilatus, and there's a town in Germany that hardly anyone knows today, but which had a somewhat more illustrious role in the earlier Middle Ages (as the location of many Imperial court assemblies), Forchheim. For many centuries, it had been marketing itself as birthplace of Pilate, complete with a bit of family history for him, his court and later his birth home to look at, a stone in the city wall saying „Forchhemii natus est Pontius ille Pilatus,/Teutonicae gentis, crucifixor omnipotentis“...
This lasted well into the 19th century, and they only let go of this nonsense in the 20th, after it was clear the town was founded sometime in the 7th or 8th century. You can find similar stories connected with many other places in Europe.

I would put 5th century already into the "anything goes" category.

[Secret Alias]

Still, it is interesting to note that at the very least the author of Acts of Barnabas didn't know anything about the evangelist Mark or at least enough about him to stop his efforts to adopt John Mark as Mark. I am more intrigued about the senator Marcellus who appears in both the Acts of Peter and Hegemonius's Acts of Archelaus. While on the surface Marcellus is not Mark the connection with Peter in the Acts of Peter is interesting. Also Hegemonius seems to imply that he was an early benefactor supporter of the Church. The legend must be quite early. Not exactly 'Mark' but close and tantalizingly close to Marcion - at least in terms of a subform of Marcus.

[andrewcriddle]

On the one hand, the Acts of Barnabas is a 5th century fiction intended to defend the status of the church in Cyprus. On the other hand, it would not have been a plausible fiction if there was an ancient established tradition that Mark the Gospel writer was the Mark who preached in Alexandria.

I think you place too much confidence into logic when it's about the emergence of legends like this. I was just investigating some legends regarding Pontius Pilatus, and there's a town in Germany that hardly anyone knows today, but which had a somewhat more illustrious role in the earlier Middle Ages (as the location of many Imperial court assemblies), Forchheim. For many centuries, it had been marketing itself as birthplace of Pilate, complete with a bit of family history for him, his court and later his birth home to look at, a stone in the city wall saying „Forchhemii natus est Pontius ille Pilatus,/Teutonicae gentis, crucifixor omnipotentis“...
This lasted well into the 19th century, and they only let go of this nonsense in the 20th, after it was clear the town was founded sometime in the 7th or 8th century. You can find similar stories connected with many other places in Europe.

I would put 5th century already into the "anything goes" category.

I agree that the Acts of Barnabas is a dodgy source. (It is probably loosely based on a late 4th century source no longer surviving but that is still pretty late.)
One issue is that if you accept that John Mark and Mark the interpreter of Peter were originally seen as different people, then John Mark last heard of in Cyprus in the company of Barnabas, (who himself has early links to Alexandria e.g. the pseudo-Clementine homilies) , is a more likely candidate as missionary to Alexandria than Mark the companion of Peter in Rome.

Andrew Criddle

[Ulan]

Still, it is interesting to note that at the very least the author of Acts of Barnabas didn't know anything about the evangelist Mark or at least enough about him to stop his efforts to adopt John Mark as Mark.

Given that the author of Acts had no qualms switching the personalities of Peter and Paul in order to paint his image of a harmonious early church, I wouldn't put it beyond authors to just twist things in their favor. This view generally gels with what the editor of the first orthodox New Testament had to do with regard to planting subtle hints about how everything is interconnected, according to Trobisch's ideas.

I am more intrigued about the senator Marcellus who appears in both the Acts of Peter and Hegemonius's Acts of Archelaus. While on the surface Marcellus is not Mark the connection with Peter in the Acts of Peter is interesting. Also Hegemonius seems to imply that he was an early benefactor supporter of the Church. The legend must be quite early. Not exactly 'Mark' but close and tantalizingly close to Marcion - at least in terms of a subform of Marcus.

I know that possibilities like this are really teasing. Unfortunately, there's no real way to nail them down.

[Ulan]

I agree that the Acts of Barnabas is a dodgy source. (It is probably loosely based on a late 4th century source no longer surviving but that is still pretty late.)
One issue is that if you accept that John Mark and Mark the interpreter of Peter were originally seen as different people, then John Mark last heard of in Cyprus in the company of Barnabas, (who himself has early links to Alexandria e.g. the pseudo-Clementine homilies) , is a more likely candidate as missionary to Alexandria than Mark the companion of Peter in Rome.

I certainly have no issues with this idea. I consider Acts as highly suspicious as far as its historical reliability goes, which means I don't really give too much credence to all these subtle cross references that made it into the NT, let alone other texts.

[Secret Alias]

True. I wonder if it is possible that Hegemonius or a later editor makes the connection with the Marcellus the Senator from the Acts of Peter. In the Acts of Peter, Marcellus, the senator, is described as having ministered to the orphans and widowed of Rome and shown opening his house to strangers and the poor (8, 55, 3-5). Later, after Peter has driven Simon from his house, Later, after Peter has driven Simon from his house, Marcellus gathers the widows and elderly in his home and gives each a gold piece. In another scene, Marcellus, Peter, and the other Christians minister to the widows, offering them refreshment and a place to stay. Peter also asks the wealthy mother of the risen senator to give money to the widows. The necessity to care for and support the have-nots is a theme repeatedly returned to in the Acts of Peter.

And in Hegemonius:

And truly the estimate of this deed made a magnificent addition to the repute of the other noble actions of Marcellus; for through that whole territory the fame of the piety of Marcellus spread so grandly, that large numbers of men belonging to various cities were inflamed with the intensest desire to see and become acquainted with the man, and most especially those persons who had not had occasion to bear penury before — to all of whom this remarkable man, following the example of a Marcellus of old, furnished aid most indulgently, so that they all declared that there was no one of more illustrious piety than this man. Yea, all the widows, too, who were believers in the Lord had recourse to him, while the imbecile also could reckon on obtaining at his hand most certain help to meet their circumstances; and the orphaned, in like manner, were all supported by him, so that his house was declared to be the hospice for the stranger and the indigent. And above all this, he retained in a remarkable and singular measure his devotion to the faith, building up his own heart upon the rock that shall not be moved.

I don't think that the parallel between the two Marcelli is coincidence or the result of a later editor. I tend to think that somehow Marcellus = Marcion though I admit I can't provide a compelling argument for it. Just a hunch I guess.