Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:18 pm

1. For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon also, Marcion's predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the ninth bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way, now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing from the assembly of the brethren.

2. These words are found in the third book of the work Against Heresies. And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning Cerdon: A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in the episcopal succession from the apostles, taught that the God proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; and the former was just, but the latter good. Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless blasphemies.

3. The same Irenæus unfolds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable abyss of Valentinus' errors in regard to matter, and reveals his wickedness, secret and hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.
4. And in addition to these men he says that there was also another that lived in that age, Marcus by name, who was remarkably skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations and their abominable mysteries in the following words:

5. For some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the following words: Into the name of the unknown father of the universe, into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon Jesus. Others repeat Hebrew names in order the better to confound those who are being initiated.

6. But Hyginus having died at the close of the fourth year of his episcopate, Pius succeeded him in the government of the church of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus was appointed pastor, after Eumenes had filled the office thirteen years in all. And Marcus having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by Celadion in the government of the church of Alexandria.


πρὸς τούτοις καὶ ἄλλον τινά, Μάρκος αὐτῷ ὄνομα, κατ' αὐτοὺς γενέσθαι λέγει, μαγικῆς κυβείας ἐμπειρότατον, γράφει δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀτελέστους αὐτῶν τελετὰς μυσεράς τε μυσταγωγίας ἐκφαίνων αὐτοῖς δὴ τούτοις τοῖς γράμμασιν· 4.11.5 «οἳ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν νυμφῶνα κατασκευάζουσιν καὶ μυσταγωγίαν ἐπιτελοῦσιν μετ' ἐπιρρήσεών τινων τοῖς τελουμένοις καὶ πνευματικὸν γάμον φάσκουσιν εἶναι τὸ ὑπ' αὐτῶν γινόμενον κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἄνω συζυγιῶν, οἳ δὲ ἄγουσιν ἐφ' ὕδωρ καὶ βαπτίζοντες οὕτως ἐπιλέγουσιν «εἰς ὄνομα ἀγνώστου πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων, εἰς ἀλήθειαν μητέρα τῶν πάντων, εἰς τὸν κατελθόντα εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν»· ἄλλοι δὲ Ἑβραϊκὰ ὀνόματα ἐπιλέγουσιν πρὸς τὸ μᾶλλον καταπλήξασθαι τοὺς τελουμένους.» 4.11.6 ἀλλὰ γὰρ μετὰ τέταρτον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἔτος Ὑγίνου τελευτήσαντος, Πίος ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἐγχειρίζεται τὴν λειτουργίαν· κατά γε μὴν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν Μάρκος ἀναδείκνυται ποιμὴν Εὐμένους ἔτη τὰ πάντα δέκα πρὸς τρισὶν ἐκπλήσαντος, τοῦ τε Μάρκου ἐπὶ δέκα ἔτη τῆς λειτουργίας ἀναπαυσαμένου, Κελαδίων τῆς 4.11.7 Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐκκλησίας τὴν λειτουργίαν παραλαμβάνει.
7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus.

8. But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common.

10. To this he adds: And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, which we will give you if you wish to read it.

11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. For he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in the following words.
Could Eusebius have meant that there were two Marcus's? Note: Valentinus and Marcion are specified as 'coming' to Rome. The context is the age of Hyginus c. 136 - 142 CE. Marcus and Valentinus clearly had similar beliefs. But Eusebius intimates that Valentinus was not a native Roman. He came to Rome from somewhere which isn't specified. Marcus the heretic is initially not given a provenance. Could the Marcus mentioned without any provenance could have been left as such in Eusebius or are we meant to understand that he became bishop of Alexandria at the time of Hyginus?

What puzzles me is this:

In Alexandria Marcus was appointed pastor,

κατά γε μὴν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν Μάρκος ἀναδείκνυται ποιμὴν

κατά γε = insofar as, in accordance
μὴν = but
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:05 pm

κατά γε μὴν τὸν παρόντα λόγον τὴν παλινῳδίαν τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς εἰργασμένων τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπισυνάψω τά τε ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοῦ διωγμοῦ
συμβεβηκότα, χρησιμώτατα τυγχάνοντα τοῖς ἐντευξομένοις

But (μὴν) in the present book I will add to what I have given the revocation issued by our persecutors, and those events that occurred at the beginning of the persecution, which will be most profitable to such as shall read them. [Eusebius 8.13.8]
TI. Δοκεῖ μήν (a).

KP. Ἄκουε δή, ὦ Σώκρατες, λόγου μάλα μὲν ἀτόπου, παντάπασί γε μὴν (b) ἀληθοῦς, … (Pl. Ti. 20d)

tim. Of course (μήν) I do.—cri. Let me tell you this story then, Socrates. It’s a very strange one, but (μήν) even so, every word of it is true.
= παντάπασί γε μὴν ἀληθοῦς ‘in all respects true’).
13 ΞΕ. Ἦ χαλεπὸν ἐνδείξασθαι πρᾶγμα ἀναγκαῖον ἄρα γέγονεν, ὡς φαίνεται.

ΝΕ.ΣΩ. Πάντως γε μὴν ῥητέον. (Pl. Plt. 306a)

vis. What it seems we have to deal with, in that case, is certainly a difficult thing to show.—y.soc. Yet (μήν) by all means (πάντως) we do have to discuss it.
19 [vis. Now it seems that there are two routes to be seen stretching out in the direction of the part towards which our argument has hurried, one of them (τὴν μέν) quicker, dividing a small part off against a large one,]

τὴν δέ, ὅπερ ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν ἐλέγομεν ὅτι δεῖ μεσοτομεῖν ὡς μάλιστα, τοῦτ᾿ ἔχουσαν μᾶλλον, μακροτέραν γε μήν (a). ἔξεστιν οὖν ὁποτέραν ἂν βουληθῶμεν, ταύτην πορευθῆναι.

ΝΕ. ΣΩ. Τί δέ; ἀμφοτέρας ἀδύνατον;

ΞΕ. Ἅμα γ᾿, ὦ θαυμαστέ· ἐν μέρει γε μὴν (b) δῆλον ὅτι δυνατόν. (Pl. Plt. 265a–b)

while the other more closely observes the principle we were talking about earlier, that one should cut in the middle as much as possible, but/yet (μήν) is longer. We can go down whichever of the two routes we like.—y.soc. What? Is it impossible to follow both?—vis. By both at once it is, you strange boy; but (μήν) clearly it is possible to take each in turn.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:16 pm

Eusebius has a pattern of defining the Alexandrian bishops according to texts. In Book 2 Peter's Mark is defined as THAT Mark who was the first bishop:
And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. 1 Peter 5:13

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.
In the same book Josephus's reference to Ananus seems to prompt the discussion of Mark's successor Annianus:
21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.

22. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.

23. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrin without his knowledge.

24. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnæus.

25. These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.

Chapter 24.
1. When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria.
In Book Three Eusebius's citation of Hegesippus's account of the Jerusalem Church prompts a list of contemporary bishops in other sees:
Chapter 11.
1. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Chapter 12.
He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.

Chapter 13.
After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months.

Chapter 14.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop.

Chapter 15.
In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.
A little later in the same book another citation of Hegesippus prompts the identification of Cerdon as the next bishop as well as the bishop of Antioch:
Chapter 20. The Relatives of our Saviour.
1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

4. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.

5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

9. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.

10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.

11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.

Chapter 21.
1. After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year he was succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign that Abilius, who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon.

2. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus, who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter.

3. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus.

Chapter 22.
At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.
Book Four begins with a strange statement:
1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria died, and Primus, the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.

2. At that time also Alexander, the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years.

Chapter 2. The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan's Reign.
1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the eighteenth year of Trajan's reign there was another disturbance of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished.

2. For in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene, as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks. The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while Lupus was governor of all Egypt, it developed into a war of no mean magnitude.

3. In the first attack it happened that they were victorious over the Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its districts, under the leadership of Lucuas. Against them the emperor sent Marcius Turbo with a foot and naval force and also with a force of cavalry.

4. He carried on the war against them for a long time and fought many battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only of those of Cyrene, but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of their king Lucuas.

5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius Quintus to clear the province of them. And he having marched against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the Greek historians that have written accounts of those times.
Why not mention the name of the bishop? Eusebius seems to have forgotten. What likely prompts him to begin the fourth book with Alexandria is that Book Three ends with Papias's discussion of the gospel of Mark:
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
Notice also that immediately following the mention of 'Primus the bishop of Alexandria' is more Hegesippus. Hegesippus is the spine of the history of all the early churches.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:33 pm

It would appear to me that Eusebius made up the whole lineage of the Alexandrian church from bits and pieces of:

1. Josephus
2. Hegesippus
3. Irenaeus's treatment of Hegesippus's Roman episcopal list
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

davidmartin
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by davidmartin » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:01 pm

8. But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator
Re: dating of Marcion, could Eusebius be putting words in Justin's mouth here?
Maybe you could read it as Marcion's followers (as it were channelling Marcion) we still around in Justin's day?
Maybe not. It's strange how little is known about him

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:36 pm

It's cited in Irenaeus from memory.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8247
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:38 pm

davidmartin wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:01 pm
8. But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote.

9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator
Re: dating of Marcion, could Eusebius be putting words in Justin's mouth here?
There are some differences between our text of Eusebius and our text of Justin at this point, but not many:

Eusebius, History of the Church 4.11.8-9: 8 But Justin was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote. 9 He speaks as follows: “And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common.” / 8 Μάλιστα δ᾿ ἤκμαζεν ἐπὶ τῶνδε Ἰουστῖνος, ἐν φιλοσόφου σχήματι πρεσβεύων τὸν θεῖον λόγον καὶ τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ἐναγωνιζόμενος συγγράμμασιν· ὃς δὴ καὶ γράψας κατὰ Μαρκίωνος σύγγραμμα, μνημονεύει ὡς καθ᾿ ὃν συνέταττε καιρὸν γνωριζομένου τῷ βίῳ τἀνδρός, φησὶν δὲ οὕτως· 9 «Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶν διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους, ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν· ὃς καὶ κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πέπεικε βλάσφημα λέγειν καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς πατέρα εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἄλλον δέ τινα ὡς ὄντα μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι. καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὡρμημένοι, ὡς ἔφαμεν, Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται, ὃν τρόπον καὶ οὐ κοινῶν ὄντων δογμάτων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὸ ἐπικαλούμενον ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινόν ἐστιν» (= Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 24.5-6).

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 24.5-6: 5 And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. 6 All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. / 5 Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶ διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους, ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν· ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς θεόν, ἄλλον δέ τινα, ὡς ὄντα μείζονα, τὰ μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι. 6 πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι, ὡς ἔφημεν, Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται, ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ οὐ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν αὐτῶν δογμάτων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὸ ἐπικατηγορούμενον ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινὸν ἔχουσιν.

Broken up for comparison and contrast:

E: Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶν διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους, ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν·
J: Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶ διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους, ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν·

E: ὃς καὶ κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πέπεικε βλάσφημα λέγειν
J: ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν

E: καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς πατέρα εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἄλλον δέ τινα ὡς ὄντα μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι.
J: καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς θεόν, ἄλλον δέ τινα, ὡς ὄντα μείζονα, τὰ μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι.

E: καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὡρμημένοι, ὡς ἔφαμεν, Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται,
J: πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι, ὡς ἔφημεν, Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται,

E: ὃν τρόπον καὶ οὐ κοινῶν ὄντων δογμάτων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὸ ἐπικαλούμενον ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινόν ἐστιν.
J: ὃν τρόπον καὶ οἱ οὐ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν αὐτῶν δογμάτων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις τὸ ἐπικατηγορούμενον ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινὸν ἔχουσιν.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:40 pm

What I noticed was that Eusebius has before him:

1. the NT canon
2. Hegesippus
3. Josephus
4. Irenaeus

and from that he cobbled together the Alexandrian episcopal tree. Mark as first bishop was well known (Clement). Annianus might come from Josephus. Cerdo and the second Mark is from Irenaeus. Primus likely just pulled out of the air.

But it is astounding how the "history" or chronology of the early period is entirely built around Hegesippus. Even at Eusebius's time no real history of the early period.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:41 am

So the first question is - was there an actual list of Alexandrian bishops which Eusebius was drawing from to make his Church History for Egypt? I don't think so. I think his basic building blocks again were:

1. Hegesippus and especially its chronology of Jerusalem
2. Irenaeus Book 3.2 and its Roman chronology
3. Josephus for details of what was going on during the Jewish War
4. other documents (i.e. letters from bishops in Alexandria, Antioch, Rome etc)

Why is this significant? First off, it is generally assumed that Irenaeus used Hegesippus's Roman episcopal list. But if that were true why - if Eusebius was already using Hegesippus would he prefer Irenaeus's list in Book Three. I think this is where Alexandria comes in. There is a conscious or unconscious assumption that the heretics from that 'update' of Hegesippus's Roman chronology came from Alexandria. This allows Eusebius to construct an Alexandrian succession list.

If there was no Alexandrian succession list why does Eusebius embark on creating one? Clearly Alexandria was an important see. But also it becomes important for the grounding of Origen - one of the 'stars' of the Church History.

Mark
Anianus
Avilius
Cerdon
Primus
Justus
Mark (otherwise Marcian)

As noted earlier the first Mark was already known to Clement as the founder of the Egyptian Church. Anianus comes immediately after Josephus's account of Ananus in the Jewish War so he likely invented the Alexandrian bishop's name. Ἀβίλιος is an otherwise unknown name. The only other mention I can find is in the Apostolic Constitutions7.46.5:
Της δε Αλεξανδρεων Αννιανος πρωτος υπο Μαρκου του ευαγγελιστου κεχειροτονηται, δευτερος δε Αβιλιος υπο Λουκα και αυτου ευαγγελιστου.

In the [city] of the Alexandrians Annianus was handpicked [as bishop] first by Mark the evangelist, and Avilius second by Luke, who was himself an evangelist.
This is an unusual twist. Whoever invented it seems to have followed the idea that Luke 'corrected' Mark understanding. Are the Apostolic Constitutions older than Eusebius or did the author use Eusebius? The answer seems to be the latter. First Wikipedia:
The work can be dated from 375 to 380 AD. The provenance is usually regarded as Syria, probably Antioch.[2] The author is unknown, even if since James Ussher it was considered to be the same author of the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius, perhaps the 4th-century Eunomian bishop Julian of Cilicia
Second:
Brian Daley has argued that the late-fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (AC) represent an effort, allied with Meletius of Antioch, to steer a middle course between, on one hand, a conception of the Son and the Spirit as foreign to God’s nature and, on the other hand, an erasure of the Son’s and Spirit’s distinction from the Father, seen by many in the fourth-century East as the vice of Nicaea and its defenders. In the service of this project, the AC clung to biblical language and categories traceable to the influence of Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12684
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:45 am

Next on the name Avilius. It seems to have been preserved in many different forms - Ἀϐίλιος, Αἰμίλιος, Ἀμέλιος, Melias, Avilius, Emilius, etc. It seems strangely to have been a Latin name associated with Philo's Flaccus - Aulus Avilius Flaccus. Did Eusebius pick up the name from his entry on Philo? Let's check. Church History 2.5, 2.16 - 18 deals with Philo and his (alleged) relations with the Christians. Abilius appears 3.14. While this isn't next door it does resemble the distance between Cerdo the bishop 3.21 and Cerdo the heretic from Irenaeus 4.10 - 11. If you believe one was possible the other is too. Otherwise it is hard to imagine an early second century Latin bishop of Alexandria. Even the early Roman bishops were foreigners (i.e. not Romans).

Philo wrote a book on Flaccus but Schurer notes that Eusebius avoided preserving the title (and thus name) Flaccus:
According to the statements of Pitra (Analecta sacra, ii. 318 sq.) the titles usual in the printed text Εις Φλακκον and Περι αρετων και πρεσβειας προς Γαιον appear to be also those which prevail in the manuscripts. In Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 105 (ed. Bekker), it is said: Ανεγνωσθη δε αυτου και λογος ου η επιγραφη "Γαιος ψεγομενος" και "Φλακκος η Φλακκων ψεγομενος," εν οις λογοις κ.τ.λ. (therefore two λογοι). So too Eusebius in the Chronicle. Comp. also Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey, ii. 517): εκ των κατα Φλακκου. On the titles mentioned by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History see father on. Only the two books which have come down to us seem to have been extant in the time of Photius. But the beginning of the first and the close of the second show, that they are only portions of a larger whole. For the book adversus Flaccum begins (ii. 517): Δευτερος μετα Σηιανον Φλακκος Αουιλλιος διαδεχεται την κατα των Ιουδαιων επιβουλην. Thus this book was preceded by another, in which the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Sejanus were narrated. The book de legatione ad Cajum moreover ends with the words: Ειρηται μεν ουν κεφαλαιωδεστερον η αιτια της προς απαν το Ιουδαιων εθνος απεχθειας Γαιον λεκτεον δε και την παλινωδιαν [προς Γαιον]. Hence another book must have followed, in which Philo related the παλινωδια, i.e. the turn for the better in the fate of the Jews by the death of Caligula and the edict of toleration of Claudius. Now we know also from a notice in the Chronicle of Eusebius, that the persecutions under Sejanus were related in the second book of this entire work. Consequently we should reckon not less than five books for the whole. And this is confirmed by the decided statement in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, ii. 5. 1: και δη τα κατα Γαιον ουτος Ιουδαιοις συμβαντα πεντε βιβλιοις παραδιδωσι. The brief survey too, given by Eusebius of the contents of this work, agrees exactly with these results. For he says, that Philo here relates, how in the time of Tiberius Sejanus made great exertions in Rome to destroy the whole nation, and that in Judaea Pilate caused great commotion among the Jews, because he desired to undertake something with respect to the temple, which was contrary to their institutions. After the death however of Tiberius, Caius, who then came to the throne, behaved indeed with the greatest arrogance to all, but inflicted most injury on the whole Jewish nation. What is here said respecting Sejanus and Pilate cannot refer to some occasional declarations in the books preserved to us. For these treat only of the time of Caligula. The oppressions however of Sejanus and Pilate must, according to the above intimations of Eusebius, have been related in a separate paragraph, before the events under Caligula. From all that has been said the following must consequently have been the arrangement of the whole work. Book i. contained, it may be presumed, a general introduction. Book ii. related the oppressions in the reign of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome and by Pilate in Judaea. Among the former must undoubtedly be placed the important measure of A.D. 19, by which all Jews were banished from Rome. Among the attempts of Pilate "to undertake something with respect to the temple contrary to Jewish institutions," the setting up of consecrated shields in the palace of Herod, mentioned in the letter of Agrippa, communicated by Philo, cannot at all events be intended; we must rather regard them as the facts recorded by Josephus, viz. that Pilate caused the soldiers to march into Jerusalem with the imperial ensigns and employed the temple-treasure in building an aqueduct. That the former act was also related by Philo is expressly testified by Eusebius. Book iii. is the preserved composition adversus Flaccum, which relates the persecutoin of the Alexandrinian Jews arising from the initiative of the populace of that city in the commencement of Caligula's reign. It had as yet nothing to do with the setting up of the statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue, nor with any edict of Caligula. In Book iv., on the contrary, i.e. in the Legatio ad Cajum, which is preserved, are depicted the sufferings inflicted on the Jews in consequence of the edict of Caligula, that Divine honours should everywhere be paid him. Lastly, the lost Book v. treated of the παλινωδια in the sense stated above.

The statements of Eusebius give rise also to some difficulties with regard to the title of the entire work. According to the passage from the Chronicle quoted above (note 61), the whole work seems to have been designated η πρεσβεια. And Eusebius says also, when giving the contents of the whole work, that all this is written εν η συναγραψε πρεσβεια (H. E. ii. 5. 6). This title is therefore possible, because Philo's account of the embassy to Caligula, of which he was the leader, forms in fact the kernel of the whole. The several books might then have had their special titles, such as Φλακκος or the like (see above, p. 350). Now Eusebius says further, towards the conclusion of his sumary of the contents, that Philo had related a thousand other sufferings, which befell the Jews at Alexandria εν δευτερω συγγραμματι ω επεγραψε "περι αρετων" (H. E. ii. 6. 3). From this it appears to result, that Philo had treated of these events in two works, the title of one being η πρεσβεια, of the other περι αρετων. This inference is however precluded not only by its improbability, but by the circumstances, that Eusebius in his chief catalogue of Philo's writings, H. E. ii. 18, only mentions the latter title. He says, that Philo ironically gave to his work on the ungodly deeds of Caius the title περι αρετων (H. E. ii. 18. 8). No other work referring to these events is mentioned, though the catalogue is in other respects a very complete one. We are thus, I think, constrained to admit, that the δευτερω is the gloss of a transcriber, who could not make the different titles in ii. 5. 6 and ii. 6. 3 harmonize, and that in fact both titles refer to one and the same work.
I should correct the books that were used to invent the Alexandrian succession list:
1. the NT canon
2. Philo
3. Josephus
4. Hegesippus
5. Irenaeus
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply