Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

There are two strange facts:

1. the genetic makeup of Jewry is predominantly Italian.
2. the Marcionites seem to have had some connection with the Old Latin tradition before dying out

Is it possible that the Marcionites were 'encouraged' to convert to Judaism in the late second century/early third century?

Some of my reasons for thinking Marcionites might have been made into Jews.

a) the Italians who became Jews must have at one time become proselytes. The Marcionites had some relationship with the Jewish proselytes (cf. Tertullian Against Marcion Book 3 among other texts).
b) Hegemonius depicts a neo-Marcionite community in Harran which venerated Senator Marcellus, the main protagonist in the Acts of Peter (thus demonstrating a relationship with Italian Christianity
c) was Celsus's argument that Christians were really Jewish sectarians made to force Marcionites to convert to rabbinic Judaism? It might sound crazy. Maybe it is crazy. But the constant attempt to link Marcion with Judaism might be to make the case that the Marcionites are subject to Judaism?
d) we don't have the beginning of Celsus's work. But why does he spend so much time and effort connecting "Christians" to Judaism and why so much time on the Marcionites in particular?

Just some thoughts.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

Blackman "Possibly not the whole of the passages catalogued in Group ( 1 ) above need be assigned to the Western text which was the common source of Marcion and the Old Latin . Some of them , though dogmatically harmless , may still be Marcionite alterations , for it is possible that Marcion tampered with the text on stylistic grounds , and not merely in the interests of his peculiar doctrines." https://books.google.com/books?id=luPYA ... 22&f=false

Tertullian "However, when you are refuted on the call of the nations, you betake yourself to proselytes. 4. You ask, who among the nations can turn to the Creator, when those whom the prophet names are proselytes of individually different and private condition? 3392 “Behold,” says Isaiah, “the proselytes shall come unto me through Thee,” showing that they were even proselytes who were to find their way to God through Christ. But nations (Gentiles) also, like ourselves, had likewise their mention (by the prophet) as trusting in Christ. “And in His name,” says he, “shall the Gentiles trust.” Besides, the proselytes whom you substitute for the nations in prophecy, are not in the habit of trusting in Christ’s name, but in the dispensation of Moses, from whom comes their instruction. But it was in the last days that the choice 3393 of the nations had its commencement." https://books.google.com/books?id=7SKXX ... 22&f=false

Footnote "Marcion denied that there was any prophecy of national or Gentile conversion; it was only the conversion of individual proselytes that he held."

Dialogue 8 "Justin: When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and while revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher. Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour. For they possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them. If, then, you have any concern for yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may— since you are not indifferent to the matter — become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated, live a happy life."

Andrew Hayes "Even more intriguing is the fact that Justin wishes that all should desire, like him, “not to fall away (ἀφίστασθαι) from the Saviour's words” (Dial. 8.2). As Skarsaune has noted, this is a puzzling thing for Justin to desire for those who have not yet become “Christians.”88 Three explanations present themselves: a) that Trypho's friends, the proselytes, used to be “Christians” and are now seeking to become “Jews,” b) that Justin is warning them that by becoming “Jews” they will join an apostate an apostate tradition that rejects its true Savior's words, or c) that Justin has Marcionites in mind at this point, and is urging Trypho's friends not to follow their example and join them by rejecting the Christ of god." It seems as though a) is an unlikely explanation because we have no further evidence that would suggest this, and it would be odd for Justin to ask people who have never been “Christians” not to be apostates. Skarsaune favours a version of b) ... The reaction that comes from Trypho and his friends—who are probably proselytes to “Judaism” as discussed in the previous chapter—is not what Justin would have hoped for. Justin’s philosophy is laughable to them. Trypho claims that if Justin had remained a philosopher, a Platonist or some such, then there would have been hope for him: “For, while you adhered to your former school of https://books.google.com/books?id=ZGSjD ... 22&f=false

On Justin's companions being Jewish proselytes "An illustration of the importance of the topic of conversion and continuity can be seen in Graham
Stanton’s argument that Trypho’s friends are probably gentiles seeking to become proselytes to “Judaism.” In Dial. 23.3, at the end of a long discussion about circumcision, Justin admonishes his audience to “remain as you were at birth” (Μείνατε ὡς γεγένησθε). Stanton takes this to mean that Trypho’s companions are gentiles who wish to become proselytes to “Judaism.” Furthermore, the friends are carefully distinguished from Trypho and portrayed as more cynical and less likely to convert. This distinction is set out early and is consistently maintained throughout the Dialogue. Given their sustained hostility to everything Justin says, it is unlikely that they are “Jews” who wish to become “Christians.” Further, given Justin’s lack of acceptance of the physical traditions of “Judaism,” it is unlikely that they see him as a fellow, but less committed, proselyte to god’s ways, a kind of sub-follower. This changes the nature of the debate about the Dialogue. Conversion now must be seen as a central feature, and a known political risk as well as a theological divide between two groups claiming to be Israel. Trypho is courting controversy and criminality in entertaining such people just as much as Justin is in attempting to convert them, and Trypho, into followers of Christ. See Graham Stanton, “Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho: Group Boundaries, ‘Proselytes’ and ‘God-fearers,’” in Stanton and Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance and Intolerance, 265–68.

And again: "
As we have seen, as far as the Greco-Romans are concerned, “Christians,” who are even more atheistic than “Jews,” ought not to be “Christians” in the first place but remain pagans as they were born. Justin is quite up-front about this in Dial. 63.5:
They further show that the Word of God speaks to those who believe in him (who are of one soul and one synagogue and one church) as to a daughter, namely, to the church, which has arisen from and participates in his name (for we are all called Christians). That this is the case and that we are taught to forget our ancestral customs is proclaimed in the following words: “Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear; forget thy people and the house of thy father, and the King shall desire thy beauty: because He is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.135
Justin is saying here that the church of Christ teaches them to “forget old ancestral customs.” This, combined with quoting Psalm 45, may make “Christians” look more like “Jewish” proselytes, and claiming at the same time to be “one church and one synagogue” further confuses matters. In some ways the status of “Christians,” increasingly of gentile composition, is similar to the gentile friends of Trypho who wish to become “Jewish” proselytes; we know Justin and his group do not count themselves as one with these people, though a competitive distinction would also perhaps be too strong, as the terms of distinction vary, even within Justin’s texts, as well as in other secondcentury “Christian” literature. Being a converted people must also have been a reason for persecution, then, and as Justin’s text makes plain by his approach, “Christians” mostly were exactly this, a people who looked to make converts. There are two ways to see the conversion of “Christians” as illegal. First, it would be illegal if they were understood as pagans who have given up the worship of their ancestral gods and become “Christians,” regardless of whether or not “Christians” were considered a kind of “Jew.” Secondly, it would be illegal if they were understood as “Jews” who have given up their ancestral practices and worship of god in favor of a new tradition, as is the perspective of Trypho.

In the eyes of “Jews,” as far as Justin is concerned, “Christian” is a shame name on account of the “Christian” identifying Jesus as the Christ and their interpretation of the Torah in the light of Christ’s own teachings. In the eyes of the Greco-Roman pagans “Christian” also is seen as a shame name, because (according to the logic of Justin’s story) the “Jews” have successfully cast them as a new group outside of the traditions of Israel. However, it is not entirely clear how distinct “Christians” appeared from “Jews” to the Greco-Roman pagans. Both are deemed atheists. “Christians” may be considered a new sect at times, which would be illegal, but as Titus, Trajan, and Pliny make obvious, their status as a new superstition and their relationship to “Judaism” was not certain. This ambiguity seems to be a reflection of an inner-“Jewish” and inner-”Christian” uncertainty about the precise status of what exactly constitutes “Christian.”
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

Harnack on Marcion "I have already proposed the hypothesis that Marcion or his family came out of Judaism; Jewish proselyte status preceded the conversion to Christianity, a step which is not indeed surprising but was rather the rule in the conversionsof the earliest period. A further argument for this view is the fact that he ex- plains the messianic prophecies in the same way as do the Jews. Thus his ^ClmsUamtyjs^bujlt upon a resentment towards Judaism and its religion. For this reason it was possible for him to have an experience very similar to that of Paul, only that it went much further than did the apostle's; the latter only broke with the law and not with the lawgiver and the Old Testament."

Again "But the lawgiver is the God of the Jews. 17 Here again Marcion follows the Old Testament without any objection. After the fall men forgot God completely, but God chose Abraham and his tribe in order to call men back. After he had given the law through Moses to Abraham's descendants, he used this same law to keep the Jewish people to himself and to win to himself those among the other nations who, following after the devil, were wandering in the night of godless-ness and of polytheism. Thus the heathen -although following Romans a natural knowledge of the law is conceded— can return to the Creator-God in no other way than by becoming Jews, i.e., proselytes; for all the promises of earthly blessedness and of a future kingdom of glory on earth apply to the chosen people.(The Creator-God has a fatherly concern only for his people, the Jews, and for others only through the mediation of this people."
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

Liber Pontificalis

Euvaristus, by nationality a Greek of Antioch, son of a Jew named Judah, from the city of Bethlehem, occupied the see 13 years, 7 months and 2 days.

Pius, by nationality an Itahan, son of Rufinus, brother of the shepherd,^ from the city of Aquilegia,^ occupied the see 19 years, 4 months and 21 days. | and 3 days. He was bishop in the time of Antoninus Pius, from the consulship of Clarus and Severus (a.d. 146). He ordained that a heretic coming out from the heresy of the Jews should be received and baptised ; ^ and he made a regulation for the church.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by MrMacSon »

I have yet to delve into this book but it looks relevant to the title of the thread:

Seth Schwartz Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Princeton University Press, 2009


"late in the Roman Empire, the Christianized state played a decisive role in ''re-Judaizing'' the Jews. The state gradually excluded them from society while supporting their leaders and recognizing their local communities. It was thus in Late Antiquity that the synagogue-centered community became prevalent among the Jews, that there re-emerged a distinctively Jewish art and literature--laying the foundations for Judaism as we know it today."


https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B0 ... 35Lu9DidZU
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

For my part I start with:

1. modern Jewry must be descendants of Italian proselytes.
2. what evidence is there of Jewish proselytes (in antiquity or otherwise)?

The answer to 2 leads us to the conclusion the numbers of Italian proselytes must have been established before Antoninus Pius (because this is when the practice of Jewish proselytising was forbidden).

As a result it would seem that we are talking about the body of proselytes who were (a) the targets of Marcionite conversion efforts and (b) those of Justin Martyr and (c) the rules of the Liber Pontificalis and (d) likely the background to Flavius Clemens conversion to Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Do ... f_Clemens)

Bottom line: there seems to be a very large number of Italian Jewish converts in the first century some of whom became Christians.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Irish1975 »

It does seem that there were very many Jewish proselytes in Italy in the Greco-Roman period.

The Beginnings of Jewishness, Shaye J.D. Cohen
The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand

But I am surprised by the claim that modern Jewry as such is descended from Italians of that time. What is the evidence for this?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

Genetics. Every Jew I know thinks they are one of Abraham's descendants. They call converts "ben Avraham" as if this is the case. The overwhelming genetic evidence is an Italian origins (which to be honest makes me quite happy; I'd rather be Italian).
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Could Modern Jewry Be Descendants of ... the Marcionites?

Post by Secret Alias »

There's two ways to look at the problem or situation (after acknowledging the DNA situation with modern Jewry).

1. there were a large body of Jewish converts in Rome c. 90 - 140 CE
2. Celsus seems to go out of his way to portray the Christians as a Jewish heresy and the Jews as an Egyptian heresy

Why (2)? With respect to the Jews:
There is an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men. From which of these ancient and learned nations will the Jews find a concurring opinion?—from the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae? Ancient and learned men have conferred benefits upon their contemporaries by their deeds, and upon posterity by their writings; Linus, Musaeus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the present time.

There have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many cataclysms and many deluges. The flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were comparatively modern and more recent than any others. The Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. So those persons testify who are the most learned of the Egyptians.

Moses having learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity. Circumcision as practiced by the Jews was derived from the Egyptians. Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that. The more impartial interpreters devise a tropical and allegorical signification for the Mosaic history.

The Jews worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their instructor. I will show afterwards how it was through ignorance that the Jews were deceived and led into error. Jesus is the leader of their generation, in so far as they are Christians, and a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians as the son of God. Their converts were deceived; this doctrine is vulgar, and on account of its vulgarity and its want of reasoning power, obtained a hold only over the ignorant. It was, however, not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to adopt his religion; there were amongst them some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.
You might think - the Christians and Jews get the same treatment by Celsus. No.
As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people, and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country, and maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were thus allotted among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes of the superintending powers, while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places. We must observe the laws because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted; because of the superintendents distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among each nation is rightly done.

Let the second party come forward; and I shall ask them whence they come, and whom they regard as the originator of their ancestral customs. They will reply:—No one, because they spring from the same source as the Jews themselves, and derive their instruction and superintendence from no other quarter, and notwithstanding they have revolted from the Jews.

We might adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as follows: ‘For the people of the cities Mares and Apis, who inhabit those parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh, sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the Delta, that there was no community of sentiment between them and the Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’ Such is the narrative of Herodotus. Ammon did not make a worse ambassador of divine things than did the angels of the Jews!

For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz., to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely than any other than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers? their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians. who are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their deceased fathers with fire? on which they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more. Such is the way, then, in which these matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that ‘law’ is the king of all things. It is an obligation incumbent on all men to live according to their country’s customs, in which case they will escape censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages, and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.

If, then, in these respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. ‘For they have a custom,’ he says, ‘of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.’ Those Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe know only of two gods, Jupiter and Bacchus, and worship these alone; and the Arabians also know only of two, viz., Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian deity, and Urania, whose worship is confined to them. And I think that it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappaeus like the Scythians. To the wise it makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians.

Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain from swine’s flesh, for the Egyptians practiced abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God’s favor, or are loved by him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them ‘some region of the blessed,’ for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band, then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end.

It is not probable that the Jews are in great favor with God, or are regarded by him with more affection than others; for we may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they were deemed worthy. The Christians nevertheless maintain that it was the fortune of the people of the Jews in a remarkable degree to enjoy God’s favor, and to be loved by him in a way different from others. So whence came they and who is their leader, and what law proceeded from him?

Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came to men, or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them descended together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are the angels’ tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For the son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone! And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter [Matthew 1:20], and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the new-born child, whose life was in danger, and flee away into Egypt. [Matthew 2:13.] But what need is there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them as well? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater importance than those who preceded him, as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at.

Let him appear to be really an angel; is he the first and only one who came, or did others come on former occasions? And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God and father of him who visited the world, assert that before him certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human race. The Jews accordingly, and these Christians, have the same God. It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great Church admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz., concerning the six days and the seventh, on which day God rested. Relating to the first man, they give the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him as they do.

Let no one suppose that I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the former that the Son came. To the Church belong those of the multitude; there are, moreover, certain Christians termed Sibyllists, believers in the Sibyl. Certain Simonians worship Helene, or Helenus, as their teacher, and are called Helenians; there are, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from Mariamme, and others again from Martha. There are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.
I can't avoiding seeing here that proselytes are meant to stay as Jews according to Celsus. That they shouldn't be allowed to leave the laws of their God. Look especially at the quote from Herodotus.
Post Reply