Mark was Bishop of Alexandria c. 136 CE?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:59 am

Some argue that Eusebius used Julius Africanus as a source for his list of Bishops of Alexandria.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
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 10:47 am

It might be. Is there any positive evidence for Africanus developing ANY episcopal lists let alone an Alexandrian list?

Back to my theory. Eusebius is writing a Chronicle and the Church History. In the Chronicle of Jerome:
"Flaccus Avilius, prefect of Egypt, oppresses the Jews with many injuries, with the people of Alexandria consenting and resounding with numerous cries against them: he also pollutes their synagogues with images, statues, and altars and sacrificial victims. Philo declares, in the book called Flaccus, that he was present at all" 204 Olympiad year 2 (Church History doesn't mention Flaccus by name)

"Mark the evangelist, Peter's interpreter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria." 205 Olympiad year 3

No mention of Ananus the high priest (Ananiel yes)

"The first bishop of the church of Alexandria ordained after Mark the Evangelist was Annianus, who presided for twenty two years." 210 Olympiad 2 year

"Abilius is appointed the second bishop of the church of Alexandria, and he presided for thirteen years." 215 Olympiad year 4

"Cerdo presided as the 3rd bishop of the Church of Alexandria, for eleven years" = 219 Olympiad year 1

"The fourth bishop of the church of Alexandria, by name Primus, is ordained, for twelve years." 222 Olympiad year 2

"Justus is appointed as 5th bishop of the church of Alexandria for 11 years." 224 Olympiad year 3

"Eumenes presided as the sixth bishop of the church of Alexandria for 13 years." 227 year 2

228 Olympiad "Basilides the heresiarch lingers in Alexandria, from whom come the Gnostics."

"Marcus is appointed as first gentile bishop at Jerusalem, after the ending of those, who were from the Jews."

No mention of Cerdo or Marcus from Irenaeus


"Marcus receives the 7th episcopate of Alexandria, for 10 years." 230 Olympiad 3 year

235 "After Marcus, Cassianus received the 17th episcopate of Jerusalem, after him the 18th was Publius"
According to this understanding there was a 'Marcus' as bishop of Jerusalem and 'Marcus' a bishop of Alexandria. What if the same bishop originally immediately after the Bar Kochba revolt had jurisdiction over Jerusalem and Alexandria? That might explain why Clement and Origen end up in Palestine. Remember Clement was said to have been a priest and Origen was ordained in this jurisdiction. It was said to break the rules because they were under Demetrius's jurisdiction. But what if Marcus originally was bishop of both Jerusalem and Alexandria.
“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

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle » Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:39 am

We know that Eusebius used the works of Julius Africanus. He tells us (Church History book 6) That Julius Africanus composed a work on Chronology and that he visited the bishop of Alexandria for assistance with this work.
Other works of the same Africanus which have reached us are his five books on Chronology, a work accurately and laboriously prepared. He says in this that he went to Alexandria on account of the great fame of Heraclas, who excelled especially in philosophic studies and other Greek learning, and whose appointment to the bishopric of the church there we have already mentioned.
Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:37 am

Right. But is there evidence that Africanus was obsessed with chronicling lists of bishops like Eusebius. That was my question. Hegesippus's Roman and Jerusalem list seems pretty unique. That's why I assume that Eusebius was built around Hegesippus rather than Africanus. Unless there is evidence that Africanus also used Hegesippus's lists.
“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

perseusomega9
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

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

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:02 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:18 pm
Note: Valentinus and Marcion are specified as 'coming' to Rome.
In the haze of lost memory/history, apologetics, or general obfuscation-is it possible these references to one heretic or another 'coming to Rome' really just a reference to when their writings/belief system made it to Rome and not the person themselves?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am

Here's my first thought - aren't there a lot of people whose name developed from the Latin name Marcus in early Christianity?

1. Mark the apostle/evangelist
2. Marcellus the Senator Acts of Peter (second century literature)
3. Marcelina (Hegesippus) sometimes confused with Marcion
4. Marcion
5. Marcian identified by Serapion with the gospel of Peter
6. Marcus the gnostic in Irenaeus
7. Marcus the bishop of Jerusalem (the first bishop after the bar Kochba revolt and not found in Hegesippus)
8. Marcus the bishop of Alexandria (both Clement and Origen escape to this jurisdiction and I believe the Liber Pontificalis lumps the two bishops together as a kind of 'unit' at this time)
9. Marcia the Christian concubine of Commodus

I am sure I could find more. But at the very least it is odd that a supposedly Jewish or Palestinian religion had so many people with a Latin given name. My query was - could Eusebius have known that Alexandria had heretical roots? Could Marcus in chapter 13 - 21 of Against Heresies have been connected by Eusebius with the bishop of Alexandria.

Notice the priestly functions of Marcus. He's leading the liturgy. The chalice is raised, men and women wanting to 'unite' with him. That's sort of like the symbolism of the Eucharist. Did bishops lead the liturgy in the second century?
“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: 12692
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:29 am

In the haze of lost memory/history, apologetics, or general obfuscation-is it possible these references to one heretic or another 'coming to Rome' really just a reference to when their writings/belief system made it to Rome and not the person themselves?
Could be. Although the Catholic Encyclopedia (I've always tried and failed to determine the author) notes that there is a blur between Marcion and Marcelina in the ancient sources. I wonder whether Polycarp might have been Hegesippus by means of Josephus/Joseph the 'fruitful' bow/son (Gen 49:22). It's the way Irenaeus suddenly introduces Polycarp after the citation of what is ostensibly Hegesippus's Roman list of bishops. It's as if Irenaeus is saying Polycarp's (aforementioned) list is more reliable than those of the heretics.
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ
, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.
It's as if Irenaeus is framing his discussion of apostolic succession based on Hegesippus but identifying Polycarp as the author. Polycarp is who Irenaeus has in mind in the opening sentence "those who were taught by the apostles" as well as after. The parallels with Hegesippus (= Joseph) going to Rome under Anicetus and meeting Marcelina with Polycarp coming to Rome and confronting Marcion should be obvious. Notice no reference to Marcelina here.
“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