Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I have wondered if the name 'Mark' was really referring to Marc Antony, and hence the connection to Alexandria. He was Julius Caesar's right hand man throughout the military campaigns and into the dictatorship. This reference would be the same as the naming of Fortress Antonia (which is interestingly confused by the Jews and everyone else as being the Temple Mount) for Antony.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The first is that, per Carotta, Courtney, and Oder at least, an early proto-Mark was formed out of decades old garrison paeans (as perhaps a play) to Julius Caesar...
FWIW, I agree with Carotta and Courtney, that such a text probably existed. Perhaps the lost history of Gaius Asinius Pollio served this purpose, as Carotta suggested.

If Chrestianity dates back at least to the time of Mark Antony and Cleopatra (as per Bartram) and if its central deity was Julius Caesar, then it makes sense that the liturgical or theatrical basis would date back to that time. Mark Antony would have been the Flaven Dialis (High Priest) of Caesar's imperial cult, and thus a very likely candidate to be the 'producer' and 'director' of the Gospel play, even if he was not the author of the text.

But if this document ever existed, surely it would have been fundamentally different from the Gospel of Mark as we know it today? Presumably, it would have been easy to identify that this document was written about Julius Caesar the Roman Emperor, with no possible confusion that some itinerant Jewish peasant was the main protagonist.

Mark is said to have founded the church in Alexandria and the Platonic conception of 'Christ' comes from Philo.... My guess is Alexandrian evangelism led to the establishment of 'Chrestianity' ...
Charles, would you say that Stephan Huller's book "The Real Messiah" is compatible with what you're saying here? I've posted some relevant remarks on the forum in the Cleo-to-Christ thread.

It seems to me that Oder's hypothesis also fits into this general category, if the Flavians can be viewed as tightly allied with the Alexandrians and Herodians. From Oder's website:

In The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text, Danila Oder proposes that “Mark” was a playwright in Rome in 90–95 CE. He wrote a play in which his Judean congregation’s heavenly Jesus comes to earth on a mission to die, then return to the heavens. Satan, the heavenly antagonist, tries but fails to prevent Jesus from carrying out his mission.

and...

It is speculative to identify Flavia as Mark’s patron, but her participation is consistent with a scene of the play: the anointing at Bethany. There, Jesus promises the anointing woman eternal fame, an anomaly in the world of the play. (The woman never appears onstage again!) But in the world of the audience, the promise of eternal fame fits as flattery of Flavia: she played the role and anointed the Jesus actor onstage. She was then applauded by the congregation for her donations to them.
Leaving aside the admittedly speculative identification with Flavia Domatilla, Oder is placing the original Mark into an Alexandrian Jewish milieu, albeit much later than the one proposed by Huller. At a minimum, the protagonist messiah figure in Oder's hypothesis is Jewish, and not a Roman Emperor.

Oder thinks that Hermes was an influence on the text, but not necessarily a central aspect, as discussed in this blog post at her site.

I don't see why both documents (a Roman sourced 'Gospel of Mark Antony' and an Alexandrian / Flavian sourced 'Gospel of Marcus Agrippa') couldn't have been among the texts feeding into our Gospel of Mark.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Secondly, we have the possibility that everything is 'late' and/or 'intermediate' dated, with no dependence on such as a proto-Mark or a post-70's Josephan/Flavian construction ala Atwill.
Price's arguments in the video don't seem especially convincing to me. Unless I'm missing something, his primary argument is based on the failure of the parousia (second coming of Jesus in power and glory) and the justifications and excuses for it, as found in Mark. But it seems to me that if there had been some sort of messianic cult in Judea in the decades leading up to the conquest of Judea by Vespasian and Titus, then it would have been seen as a failed prophecy by the devout immediately after the fall of the Temple. Thus, there would have needed to be an apologetic text explaining the failure during that time. So I can't see how Price can cite this a reason for a very late date for Gospel of Mark.

Price doesn't mention Atwill's argument that GMark really does ironically complete the 2nd coming by identifying Jesus with Titus, and thus neatly tying the scenario into the events of this Jewish War as also described by Josephus.

Where is there anything in the Gospel of Mark that would be anachronistic to this time period, and that would require a later dating, such as to the Bar Kochba revolt, or to Marcion and his church? I don't see anything in Mark that needs to be interpreted as referring specifically to these later historical times, or indicating any knowledge of them whatsoever.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
It is only in the later centuries, per Bartram's thesis of a preliminary Chrestian period, that it makes sense for the new Anno Domini system to be introduced.
For Nicholas de Vere (and his "family"), it probably would have made sense for a "Scythian" (Dionysius Exiguus) to create a new "system".
By the way, AD 1 was supposed to be the approximate birth year of Izates bar Monobaz, and also First Pope Saint Peter, but of course the actual Lord in that year was Emperor Augustus.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
If Chrestianity dates back at least to the time of Mark Antony and Cleopatra (as per Bartram) and if its central deity was Julius Caesar, then it makes sense that the liturgical or theatrical basis would date back to that time. Mark Antony would have been the Flaven [or Flamen -rs] Dialis (High Priest) of Caesar's imperial cult, and thus a very likely candidate to be the 'producer' and 'director' of the Gospel play, even if he was not the author of the text.

But if this document ever existed, surely it would have been fundamentally different from the Gospel of Mark as we know it today? Presumably, it would have been easy to identify that this document was written about Julius Caesar the Roman Emperor, with no possible confusion that some itinerant Jewish peasant was the main protagonist.
Well, as a proto-Mark would the original camp 'play' suffice, or would you count only the first 'Chrestian' leaning redaction as qualifying? Certainly the original only refers to Julius and his campaign, his clemency, and (fake) populist regard for the poor.

I can see several layers of redactions being made until we get to something approaching GMark. After all, we know the gospels had many redactions over time.
I don't see why both documents (a Roman sourced 'Gospel of Mark Antony' and an Alexandrian / Flavian sourced 'Gospel of Marcus Agrippa') couldn't have been among the texts feeding into our Gospel of Mark.
Price's arguments in the video don't seem especially convincing to me. Unless I'm missing something, his primary argument is based on the failure of the parousia (second coming of Jesus in power and glory) and the justifications and excuses for it, as found in Mark. But it seems to me that if there had been some sort of messianic cult in Judea in the decades leading up to the conquest of Judea by Vespasian and Titus, then it would have been seen as a failed prophecy by the devout immediately after the fall of the Temple. Thus, there would have needed to be an apologetic text explaining the failure during that time. So I can't see how Price can cite this a reason for a very late date for Gospel of Mark.
I was just testing you Jerry. :rolleyes: I should redact that point into the post.

If there had been a 'true believing' messianic cult, and I think there was, then perhaps such is the reason for keeping either gMark and possibly the other 3 under mystery wraps for a sufficient time (for X generations). By doing so they could keep the dissent of those who had the most credibility to know from arising and saying: "Some Jesus of Nazareth said what!!!?"

Now I just got another Machiavellian idea. Suppose the Chrestians sponsored the rise of the Gnostic sects with the cast of Jesus, Mary, and the disciples, so that these names would be floating in the minds for decades. When the canonic gospels are unleashed, there is already a basis for their acceptance.
Price doesn't mention Atwill's argument that GMark really does ironically complete the 2nd coming by identifying Jesus with Titus, and thus neatly tying the scenario into the events of this Jewish War as also described by Josephus.
Yes. I suspect that Price, being only so recent to the Atwill concept still has the memory inertia problem? He's long used to dealing with this issue from the mainstream arguments.
Where is there anything in the Gospel of Mark that would be anachronistic to this time period, and that would require a later dating, such as to the Bar Kochba revolt, or to Marcion and his church? I don't see anything in Mark that needs to be interpreted as referring specifically to these later historical times, or indicating any knowledge of them whatsoever.
I wonder if there is any graphical timeline way to present this to make anachronisms and such stand out? My head was spinning through much of this discussion.
 

Charles Watkins

Active Member
Charles, would you say that Stephan Huller's book "The Real Messiah" is compatible with what you're saying here? I've posted some relevant remarks on the forum in the Cleo-to-Christ thread.
Yes, I do like Huller's ideas on this. (Also Carotta's.) I'd say Agrippa makes a better candidate for Messiah than Titus, especially if this started out as a Caesar cult. Mark could be a way of advancing that. Remember that Huller has Mark actually appearing the gospel. He also goes into Alexandria becoming the cult center for Mark early on.

I'm just getting into TWO MARKS, but it appears she is saying the play and the gospel were written by the same Mark. But who was that? If there were originally a Caesar play, could it have been morphed into Mark's play? Was Caesar's tropaeum prop from the play adapted to become the cross of Jesus? I imagine the text version went through a series of revisions and was doctored both in Alexandria and Rome. There may have been an intermediate 'Gnostic' version, including some mysteries that were later taken out. Some of the material in Matthew and Luke may have come from the lost drafts.

So who would produce and perform such a play? Must be someone who recognized the enduring popularity of the Caesar story, but who wanted to replace Caesar as the protagonist and build a new cult around Jesus. Man-god to God-man. A new Imperial religion, but why built around a Jewish rebel? Wouldn't Caesar be easier to sell? How would repackaged Judaism be expected to appeal to Romans? All I can figure is that If you are trying to centralize power in a God-King, then monotheism would be a stop on the way.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Here below is part 1 and 2 of a 4 part series of the Dark Ages by Waldemar Januszczak. It is interesting to watch in light of what is discussed on this thread regarding symbology and architecture. Januszczak also made the interesting documentary called The Michelangelo Code discussing the apocalyptic nature of the Francicans and the Sistine Chapel. See https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/dueling-michelangelo-codes.2009/

He brings up the SATOR/ROTAS Square and relates it to early 'Christianity', while I would assert that it is more properly consistent with esoteric 'Chrestianity'. Same for the images of anchors and fish. As well, early images of Jesus show him as effeminate, for me evoking Akhenaton.

Part 1:

Part 2 discusses the variant Christian nature of the Arrian Goths, Vandals, and the nature of the Huns.


Part 3 is on Islam in this same period, and I'm not sure what Part 4 is about yet.
This Sunday Alan Green will be discussing, among other things, some revelations prompted by the SATOR Square which I have discussed several times before. For more: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?search/15074/&q=SATOR&o=date

811
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
This Sunday Alan Green will be discussing, among other things, some revelations prompted by the SATOR Square which I have discussed several times before.
Thank You, Richard, Charles N. Pope has informed me that he is busy right now, trying to finish up his new Persia book by the end of September, and will not be active again until October.
 
Top