On the Criminalization of Marcionitism

You know how certain states in the United States keep 'sodomy laws' to effectively make homosexuality illegal? The same thing can be argued to have taken place in antiquity with regards to Marcionitism.

Take a look at Roger Pearse's citation of laws against castration in the reign of Hadrian. He cites that "an out-of-copyright translation of the Pandects, otherwise known as the Digest of Roman Law by Justinian, is actually online here as part of the Corpus Juris Civilis, under the misleading title of 'The Civil Law'. Few people seem to know about this." Pearse looks "at the comments on the Lex Cornelia, in 48.8, which I was discussing earlier in connection with legislation against magic. The law is mainly concerned with assassination and poisonings, and so are the comments. But there were clearly further provisions." The section in question from Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII reads:

(2) The Divine Hadrian also stated the following in a Rescript: “It is forbidden by the Imperial Constitutions that eunuchs should be made, and they provide that persons who are convicted of this crime are liable to the penalty of the Cornelian Law, and that their property shall with good reason be confiscated by the Treasury.

“But with reference to slaves who have made eunuchs, they should be punished capitally, and those who are liable to this public crime and do not appear, shall, even when absent, be sentenced under the Cornelian Law. It is clear that if persons who have suffered this injury demand justice, the Governor of the province should hear those who have lost their virility; for no one has a right to castrate a freeman or a slave, either against his consent or with it, and no one can voluntarily offer himself to be castrated. If anyone should violate my Edict, the physician who performed the operation shall be punished with death, as well as anyone who willingly offered himself for emasculation.”

Pearse adds "All this is interesting, considering that the priests of the state cult of Magna Mater (Cybele) were eunuchs!" and notes that their exists an interesting provision appears further down in 11. Modestinus, Rules, Book VI:

By a Rescript of the Divine Pius, Jews are permitted to circumcise only their own children, and anyone who performs this operation upon persons of a different religion will incur the penalty for castration.

Unfortunately, Pearse - who runs the 'Tertullian Site' - is unaware of the Marcionite connection with castration so he adds "[t]his rescript of Antoninus Pius is second century, so cannot relate to Paul and Christianity; but if a similar attitude was around, it may explain why circumcision was not favoured by gentile converts."

Yet here is where scholars of the New Testament get it wrong. The particular 'brand' of New Testament which reflects 'our' understanding of Christianity WAS ESTABLISHED in this period - i.e. by Polycarp of Smyrna (so Trobisch) and later again perfected by Irenaeus during the reign of Antoninus' 'grandson' Commodus.

As I see it there was an emerging hardening of Imperial attitudes toward Marcionitism from the Bar Khochba revolt onward. The idea that these Imperial actions may have been enacted against Christianity does cross Pearse's mind (of course he will only think in terms of the primacy of the existing form of Christianity). He notes:

Searching further for comments by Ulpian, I find this: 2. Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII. This is in 48.22, concerning associations, but again may relate to Christians.

Anyone who becomes a member of an unlawful association is liable to the same penalty to which those are subject who have been convicted of having seized public places or temples by means of armed men.

Ah but Catholic Christianity did not emerge as a dominant 'brand' of Christianity in this period. Polycarp was a charismatic preacher whose martyrdom c. 161 CE attracted a wide following even attracting the attention of pagan writers like Lucian of Samosata. Nevertheless it only became 'orthodox' during the wicked reign of Commodus thanks to Irenaeus' efforts to consolidate Polycarp's loose knit community.

These laws against castration were certainly directed against Marcionitism in particular. This is the reason we see Marcionitism identified as such a prominent heretical group in Celsus' True Word (dated by Origen to the Antonine period). The Catholic Church was by contrast highly favored in the period. There were no persecutions of its members under Antoninus Pius. None under Marcus Aurelius either (Polycarp was a self-inflicted martyrdom) and certainly none under Commodus - this was the Catholic 'golden age.'

I strongly suspect that there were no Catholic martyrs EVER as I see the Alexandrian tradition - the hated Christianity being butchered in the period - as being of one body with the Catholic Church. I defy anyone to argue against my position. They just like to believe there were Catholic martyrs. Irenaeus' alleged martyr is exemplary in this respect. Indeed 'the Catholic John' as 'never martyr' is the perfect symbol of the tradition. The martyrs were 'the other Christians' whom the Roman authorities wanted to wipe out to 'make way' for Irenaeus' compromise faith.

It really is that simple.