EGYPT
352
EGYPT
Eusebius, viz. that, according to Clement of Alexan-
dria, Mark had come to Rome with St. Peter (probably
after Agrippa's death in 44), and that, according to
Papias, after Peter's death (probably 64), Mark had
written there the Gospel that bears his name (see Har-
nack, "Chronologie", I, 1, pp. 652-3). This latter
point is confirmed by Irenaeus, op. cit., Ill, i, 2: "Post
vero horum [Petri et Pauli] excessum, Marcus, dis-
cipulus et intcrpres Petri, et ipse qua a Petro nuntiata
erant per scripta nobis tradidit."
Other chronological traditions, often mere varia- tions of those just related, concerning the apostolate and death of St. Mark, have been handed down mostly by the Oriental compilers of chronicles. They are strongly legendary and often conflict with one another and with the Eusebian traditions. In more than one instance they seem to have originated from a misun- derstanding of Eusebius'stext, of which we know there was a Coptic translation, or from an effort to harmon- ize or supplement the traditions reported (but not confirmed) by that writer. Until these Oriental sources have been critically edited and their chronol- ogy brought out of its chaotic state, it is impossible to make use of them to any considerable extent. It seems, however, certain (1) that St. Mark died a mar- tyr, though the constant tradition that his martyrdom was on Easter Day and on the 24th or 25th of April seems to be worthless, seeing that from the year 45 to the end of the first century Easter never fell on either of those dates; (2) that, having temporarily left Egypt to go (or to return) to the Pentapolis, St. Mark had appointed Anianus his successor several years prior to his own death. Severus of Nesteraweh, a bishop of the ninth century, says that it was seven years before his martyrtlom. It is remarkable that Eusebius, while stating that Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the eighth year of Nero (a.d. 62-3), does not mention Mark's death (as in the case of St. Peter). Prolaably he had found no tradition on that point. The fact, however, that he gives Anianus as the first Bishop of Alexandria shows that, in his mind, the two events were not contemporaneous. For if Anianus had taken possession of the see on St. Mark's death he would have been the second, and not the first, bishop. There is some reason to suspect the correctness of the traditions transmitted by Julius Africanus through Eusebius. The round number of ten bishops for a period of which we otherwise know nothing, the fact that in every case the pontificate consisted of complete years only without extra months and days, the further fact that we find in that short list two pontificates of ten years, two of eleven, two of twelve, two of thirteen, which seems to indicate that the other two originally were fourteen years each — all this might suggest that the list of Julius Africanus is to some extent at least artificial, and based on a uniform number of twelve years for each pontificate, giving a sum total of one hundred and twenty years for the list. One might surmise that the list was originally supposed to start from St. Mark's death, and that later on the enthrone- ment of Anianus was taken as its beginning, his pon- tificate being, as a consequence, increased by from four to eight years. Nor is it, perhaps, entirely fortuitous that the different recensions of the "Chronicon" of Eusebius (the Armenian recension, for instance) count so very near 144 years (12 X 12) from St. Mark's arrival in Egypt to Demetrius. It would not be difficult to find other instances of clironologies of predocumentary times thus artificially rounded out on the basis of the numbers ten and twelve.
We liavc, perhaps, a relic of an entirely different tradition in a remark to be found in the "Chronicon ( )ricnlidc " of I'clrr Ibn Rahib, namely, that after the pontificate of AMHus there was a vacancy of three years, owing to the destruction of the Temple of Jeru- salctn under Titus. If we had not the list of Julius Africanus, such a statement might not seem devoid of
plausibility. As we have seen before, the first Chris-
tian community of Alexandria consisted chiefly of
Jews, and we should naturally suppose that its first
pastors were chosen from among the Jews. At any
rate they were regarded as Jews by the Government.
Now it is known that, after the destruction of the
Temple of Jerusalem, Vespasian adopted measures of
extreme rigour against the Jewish population of
Egypt, lest they should try to make their temple of
Leontopolis the national centre of their race, and thus
defeat his very purpose in wiping out of existence the
Temple of Jerusalem. It was not until a. d. 73, when
this obnoxious temple was, in its turn, destroyed, that
the persecution ceased, and the Jews were restored to
their former privilege of free worship. Supposing that
the predecessor of Abilius died A. d. 70, it would ap-
pear likely enough that the see should have remained
vacant during the time of the persecution.
3. Nature of Early Episcopate. — There is much discus- sion as to the nature of the early episcopate of Egypt. Tradition seems to point to a collective episcopate con- sisting of twelve presbyters with a bishop at their head. St. Jerome, in a letter to Evangelus (P. L., XXII, 1194), insisting on the dignity of the priesthood, says: " At Alexandria, from the time of St. Mark the Evan- gelist to that of the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius [middle of the third century] the presbyters of Alex- andria used to call bishop one they elected from among themselves and raised to a higher standing, just as the army makes an emperor, or the deacons call archdea- con, one from their own body whom they know to be of active habits." This is confirmed by: (1) A passage of a letter of Severus of Antioch, written from Egypt between 518 and 538. Speaking of a certain Isaias who adduced an ancient canon to prove the validity of his episcopal ordination although performed by a single bishop, Severus says: "It was also customary for the bishop of the city famous for the orthodoxy of its faith, the city of the Alexandrines, to be appointed by priests. Later, however, in agreement with a canon which obtained everywhere, the sacramental institution of their bishop took place by the hands of the bishops." (2) A passage of the annals of Euty- chius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria who flourished in the early decades of the tenth century: "St. Mark along with Ananias [Anianus] made twelve priests to be with the patriarch; so that when this should be wanting they might elect one out of the twelve priests and the remaining eleven should lay their hands upon his head and bless him and appoint him patriarch; and should after this choose a man of note and make him priest with them in the place of the one who had been made patriarch from among the twelve priests, in such sort that they should always be twelve. This custom, that the priests of Alexandria should appoint the patriarch from the twelve priests, did not come to an end till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria, one of the three hundred and eighteen [the Fathers of Niciea] who forbade the presbyters [in the future] to appoint the patriarch, but decreed that on the death of the patriarch the bishops should convene and appoint the patriarch, and he furthermore decreed that on the death of the patriarch they should elect a man of note from whichsoever place, from among those twelve priests or not . . . and appoint him" (tr. from the Arabic text ed. Cheikho, in "Corpus Script. Chridt. Orientalium; Scriptores Arabici", Ser. Illa, torn. VI, 95, 96). Finally, we read in the apophthegrns oi the Egyptian monk Pcemen (Butler, "Lausiac History of Pailadius") that certain heretics came to Poemen and began to scoff at the Archbishop of Alexandria as having ordination (xfipoTovlai') from priests. The old man did not answer, but he said to the brothers: " Prepare the table, make them eat, and dismiss them in pe.aee." It is generally supposed that the heretics in question were Arians and really intended to make Pcvmen believe that the then Archbishop of Alexandria had been
