Unraveling Orthodox Beliefs: The Markan Tradition

The defenders of orthodoxy present a narrative that demands critical examination. This narrative includes two primary assertions:

1. Mark wrote the first gospel.
2. Mark was insignificant in the history of the Church, a mere gnat on Peter's buttocks.

Yet, historical evidence suggests a more complex relationship between Mark and Peter, and the role of Mark in early Christianity.

The Rivalry Between Mark and Peter

The orthodox narrative often portrays Mark as a subordinate to Peter. However, there is significant evidence to suggest that Mark headed a tradition that rivaled that associated with Peter in Rome. This tradition, centered in Alexandria, viewed Mark as a significant figure, potentially even superior to Peter in some respects. The Alexandrian tradition referred to Mark as the "seer of God," a title that indicates a profound spiritual authority.

The Silence of Roman Tradition

Critics of orthodoxy point out that the Roman tradition, which forms the basis of much of orthodox Christian history, does not acknowledge the superiority of Mark. This omission could be seen as a deliberate act to elevate the authority of Peter and, by extension, the Roman Church. The title of "Pope," which has become synonymous with the Bishop of Rome, is argued to have been appropriated from Peter's legacy, further solidifying Rome's dominance.

Questioning the Legitimacy of Orthodox Claims

The reliability of the orthodox narrative relies heavily on the assertion that the teachings of the "heretics" were unreliable due to their unknown origins. In contrast, the orthodox writings are claimed to have a clear, unbroken chain of transmission from the apostles themselves. This clear lineage is often cited as the primary reason for trusting the orthodox gospels over others, such as those associated with Marcion.

However, modern biblical scholarship has called this narrative into question. The orthodox claim of apostolic succession and the authorship of the gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is now widely regarded as unsubstantiated. This revelation undermines the foundational argument for the legitimacy of the orthodox texts.

The Implications of Modern Scholarship

If the basis for the acceptance of the four canonical gospels is their supposed apostolic authorship, and this claim is now discredited, the legitimacy of these texts is brought into question. This situation is analogous to a criminal case where the key evidence is found to be planted by a corrupt officer—naturally, the case would need to be re-evaluated.

The Markan Tradition's Authority

The assumption that Mark accepted his subordination to Peter is another point of contention. Unlike Paul, who was granted the title of "apostle" despite never having seen Jesus, Mark was not given this title. However, the Alexandrian tradition's reverence for Mark as a "seer of God" suggests a significant spiritual authority that rivals or even surpasses that of Peter.

Conclusion

The defenders of orthodoxy want us to believe a narrative that elevates Peter and Rome while diminishing the significance of Mark and Alexandria. However, historical evidence and modern scholarship challenge this view, suggesting that the Markan tradition held substantial authority and that the orthodox narrative may have been shaped by political and theological motivations rather than historical accuracy. The story of early Christianity is complex and multi-faceted, and it deserves to be examined with a critical and open mind.