THE GOSPEL OF ME - FOUND AGAIN!

p. 13

[the Catholics] even identify me as “the antichrist”– Coming to terms with Marcus Julius Agrippa is a rude awakening for most Christians who like to think of the “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” (same thing in Aramaic malkootha d’shemay) as an abstract theological concept. Marcus was king of a territory almost the size of the whole province of Syria (Arab al-Shem). Traditional Jewish messianic thought utlizes the term “kingdom of heaven” as a real world concept i.e. that Jews must struggle to establish a kingdom on earth (cf T.B. Berachoth, 10b). The same idea is present in Samaritan messianic thought as well as Marcionite theology. Similarly Marcus Agrippa is identified in several sources as the Jewish mashiach (Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel etc.) as well as the messianic “world ruler” (Numbers 24:17) who is revealed with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Slavonic Josephus B. J. 6:5:4. Indeed it is not at all difficult to see that as a result of this understanding of Agrippa as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectation in his age that there is a consistent attack against “Marcus” for representing nothing short of the “antichrist” i.e. the Jewish messiah which is supposed by Gentile Christians to be the antithesis of (Roman) Catholic Christian teaching – an understanding no doubt encouraged by Caesar. Marcus is identified by Irenaeus as the “precursor of the antichrist” AFG 13:1 in the same way that Tertullian 3:8 says that the “abortive Marcionites, [are the ones] whom the Apostle John designated as antichrists, when they denied that Christ was come in the flesh Now, the more firmly the antichrist Marcion had seized this assumption, the more prepared was he, of course, to reject the bodily substance of Christ”; see also Irenaeus AFG 3:3:4 . Book III where Marqion’s original claims to be the Christ are rejected by Polycarp and he is identified instead as “the firstborn of Satan.” It should be clear that many of the features of this “anti-Christ” is only that of the original Jewish expectation turned around as a negative identification. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Ephraim attack the Marqionites on the one hand for “insulting” the authority of the Creator while they paradoxically accuse them of being “too Jewish” on the other. Indeed when we look closely at the clearest descriptions of what the earliest Catholic understanding of the “antichrist” was it appears to be a reflection of the historic reign of Marcus Julius Agrippa in Syria. For we read that. (1) The “other” Christ was named Marcus (i.e. Agrippa) and was considered a veritable Antichrist (i.e. Marqion). (2) The “other” Christ, like the figure of the apostle Mark, will have the lion as his symbol. See Irenaeus: “the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him,” and Hippolytus: “Now as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of his royalty and glory, in the same way have the scriptures also beforehand spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion. Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb, so he too in like manner will appear as a lamb without; within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision [i.e., the Jewish race], and he will come in the same manner. . . . The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem" (The Antichrist 6 [CE 200]) and again “"[W]e find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deuteronomy 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion’s whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring” (ibid., 14). (3) The “other” Christ suppressed all previous expressions of messianism before his advent, i.e., the tradition of Simon “Peter.” See Tertullian’s statement that “Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution makes even martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates.” (4) The “other” Christ will not only present himself as the “Christian messiah” (i.e., Jesus reborn), but very much a messiah in keeping with the traditions of the Jews. See Hippolytus: "Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews" (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [CE 217]). (5) The “other” Christ is a conquering military figure. See the various reports in the Church Fathers regarding Marcion’s Christ as a “man of war” as per the Jewish expectation; but also Cyprian of Carthage "If they [the heretics] desire peace, let them lay aside their arms. If they make atonement, why do they threaten? Or if they threaten, let them know that they are not feared by God’s priests. For even Antichrist, when he shall begin to come, will not enter into the Church [even though] he threatens; neither shall we yield to his arms and violence, [though] he declares that he will destroy us if we resist" (Letters 69[70]:3 [CE 253]). (6) The “other” Christ will be a king of Syria (like Marcus Julius Agrippa), as we read in Lactancius "[A] king shall arise out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil, together with himself. . . . But that king will not only be most disgraceful in himself, but he will also be a prophet of lies, and he will constitute and call himself God, and will order himself to be worshipped as the Son of God, and power will be given to him to do signs and wonders, by the sight of which he may entice men to adore him. He will command fire to come down from heaven and the sun to stand and leave his course, and an image to speak, and these things shall be done at his word. . . . Then he will attempt to destroy the temple of God and persecute the righteous people" (Divine Institutes 7:17 [CE 307]). (7) The “other” Christ (like Mark, as we still see in Alexandria) will found a separate apostolic order as in Cyprian of Carthage "[B]oth baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results that with them [heretics and schismatics] all things are futile and false, that nothing which they have done ought to be approved by us. . . . Wherefore we who are with the Lord and maintain the unity of the Lord, and according to his condescension administer his priesthood in the Church, should repudiate and reject and regard as profane whatever his adversaries and the antichrists do; and to those who, coming about of error and wickedness, acknowledge the true faith of the one Church, we should give the truth both of unity and faith, by means of all the sacraments of divine grace" (ibid., 54[69]:19). (8) The “other” Christ will “oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God is established as the temple of God showing himself that he is God.” [2 Thess 3,4] This is exactly what we have shown Marqion and Agrippa were accused of. (9) The “other” Christ will appear like Jesus – i.e., physically meek/weak– as in Cyril of Jerusalem: “at first he shall feign mildness—as if he were a learned and discreet person—and sobriety and loving kindness" (Catechetical Lectures 15:12 [CE 350]). He will be received by the Jews later: “having beguiled the Jews by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit, until they believe he is the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all manner of wicked deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness, as if to outdo all the unjust and impious men who have gone before him. He shall display against all men, and especially against us Christians, a spirit that is murderous and most cruel, merciless and wily." (ibid.). It all adds up to a most startling revelation: if we were to go back in time and return to late first-century CE “kingdom of Syria,” we would find a King Mark enthroned over a malkootha d’shamay, who appeared exactly in the form that we imagine Jesus. The basic formula is very reminiscent of Muslim attitudes toward Jesus’ relationship to Mohammed.

my kingdom of God and my election as the messiah of Jesus - Marcion as the messiah of Christianity With what evidence would you [Marqion] have Christ vindicated? Shall it come from the examples, or from the prophecies, of the Creator? You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons … you should learn that Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife … Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have spoken: "The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle." [Tertullian Against Marcion 4:20] So then those people will come, saying I am Christ. You will receive them. You [the followers of Marqion] have received one exactly like them. For this one too has come in his own name [i.e. little Marcus]. What then of the fact that there is still to come the real owner of the names, the Christ and Jesus of the Creator? Shall you reject him? [ibid 4:39] When to these [two gods] are added their own Christs, one who has appeared under Tiberius, another promised by [its] inventor Marqion [ibid 1:16] So then [my] Christ [Jesus], our most patient Lord, has through all these years borne with a perversion of the preaching about himself, until, if you please, Marqion should come to his rescue. [ibid 1:20] no mention was ever made of a second god or a second Christ until little Marcus's offence came in [ibid 3:1] As corrector apparently of a gospel which from the times of Tiberius to those of Antoninus had suffered subversion, Marqion comes to light, first and alone, after Christ had waited for him all that time, repenting of having been in a hurry to send forth apostles without Marqion to protect them [ibid 4:5] I request you, my reader, always to bear in mind this undertaking, this statement of my case, and begin to be aware that Christ belongs either to Marqion or the Creator. [ibid 4:6] So then if the Christ of Marqion too were reported to be of human birth, in that case he also would be eligible for joint possession of the title, and there would be two sons of man, as there would be two named Christ and Jesus. [ibid 4:10] Also I wonder how one can talk about a lamp never being hidden, who through all those long ages had hidden himself, a greater and more essential light: and how he can promise that all things secret shall be made manifest, when he is all the while keeping his god in darkness, waiting I suppose for Marqion to be born. [ibid 4:19] If Christ belongs to you [Marqion] you will not find him more powerful than these servants of the Creator. [i.e. Moses, Joshua] [ibid 4:20] Salvation also comes to the house of Zacchaeus. How did he earn it? Was it that even he believed that Christ was come from Marqion? [ibid 4:37] So then, having affirmed that with desire he had desired to eat the passover, his own Passover it would not have been right for God to desire anything not his own—the bread which he took, and divided among his disciples, he made into his body, saying This is my body, that is [Marqion said] the figure of my body [i.e. his person] [ibid 4:40] [see Harnack (Marcion, p. 144, note 2)who “attributes this explanation to Marcion, and credits him with a figurative interpretation of the dominical words.”]

the province of Syria, the land I formerly ruled for over half a century - On Marcus Agrippa’s rule in the kingdom of Syria during the Flavian period see Photius Bibliotecha on Justus of Tiberias “[Justus] begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian.”

Emperor Hadrian and I actually got along quite amicably – there is of course no historical record of any meeting between Hadrian and Agrippa. Nevertheless Hadrian’s attitude towards Christianity is generally well known Scriptores Historiae Augusti: Quadrigae Tyrannorum--Firmus, Saturninus, Proculus et Bonosus [attributed to Flavius Vopiscus of Syracuse], Chapter 7.6-8.10 translated by David Magie But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon, which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians. From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. I granted it every favor, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe [i.e. by incubating the eggs in dung-heaps]. I am sending you over some cups, changing color and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely."

p. 14

[Julius Ursus] Servianus – brother in law of Hadrian and originally the man who was supposed to be his heir and herished hopes of the succession for his own youthful grandson, Fuscus Salinator, Hadrian had them both put to death.

before he was even made the governor under Trajan - Aelius Spartianus: The Life of Hadria 4 the fifth day before the Ides of August, while he was governor of Syria, he learned of his adoption by Trajan, and he later gave orders to celebrate this day as the anniversary of his adoption.

extended banishment in the Pontic Islands – there are two standard understandings in our inherited Catholic tradition namely that (a) “little Mark” came from “Pontus” and “John” was banished to an originally unnamed island later identified as Patmos by Domitian. The actual place where most Claudian officials seem to have been exiled was “the Pontic Isles” off of Rome i.e. Julia the mother of Gaius, Agrippina the mother of Nero. For more of the corruption which is admitted to the claim that “Marcion came from Pontus” cf. Tertullian AM 1:1

[Mark] liv[ing] past a hundred years of age - There are of course no definitive dates for any of the Marks of the ancient Middle East other than the date of Marcus Agrippa’s birth year – either 27 or 28 A.D. From here we are entirely on our own. There is certainly a group of reports that claim that Agrippa “was killed” at the beginning of the first Jewish War (Vengeance of the Savior, various Medieval rabbinic traditions etc.) The problem with these reports is that they can be demonstrated to have been based on a theological interpretation of the messianic prophesies of Daniel 9:24 – 27 where the Hebrew karath is taken to mean “killed” rather than “cut off” or “castrated” which is certainly another interpretation of the same passage. The Coptic tradition appears to support the early death of Marcus the evangelist but there are discrepancies here. First the location of Alexandria seems forced and his immediate successor being named a variant of “John” his other Coptic name – i.e. Ananios seems suspicious (Hananyah = “John” = Johanan). Samaritan tradition indicates that Marcus was followed by a similar figure named (ha)Ninus. After all the first Catholic representative in Alexandria doesn’t appear until the very end of the second century with Clement’s conversion by the foreign missionary Pantanaeus. The city was definitely in the hands of heretics and the Marqionites even had an epistle to the Alexandrians (Muratorian Canon) which was likely renamed as to the first letter to the Corinthians of our later canon. On the “suspicious” nature of the Alexandrian list of patriarchs five out of six of the list after the reign of Marcus can be connected to the person of Agrippa. The list includes Mark Ananios (i.e. John) Kerdo (heretic Aram. Herod?), Primos (i.e. Mark “the first” pope, Justus (Mark’s disloyal secretary who set up his own sect), Hymeneus (heretic) Mark or Marcianus (i.e. Marcion) Keladiou and Agripinnios (“little Agrippa). We arrive now at the beginning of the Catholic presence in Alexandria. Josephus’ reference to Agrippa seems artificial and at times indicates Agrippa is alive or dead. Photius’ summary of the work of Agrippa’s disgraced secretary Justus has an ambiguous reference to a “he” who died at the beginning of the second century A.D. but the reference is clearly to Justus the subject of the passage and not Agrippa. There are a number of references to Agrippa’s who had a prominent role in the Church and Judaism but it must be confessed that with the turn of the second century the trail for Agrippa dries up. Far more intriguing are the statements regarding a withered (and disgraced) elder of the Church named “little Mark” i.e. Marcion who shares many of Agrippa’s theological views (see Talmud ‘Abodah Zarah 55a). Clement indicates that Marcion was converted early in the apostolic age Stromata 7:17 “And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.” The idea of Marcion being an old man in the Hadrianic period is interesting because it is bracketed by the reference that he was converted before Simon Magus heard Peter’s preaching. If Marcus Agrippa could be identified as the “little Marcus” of the Church Fathers (and thus the Agrippa “Castor” who attacked the heretic Basilides in the name of orthodoxy in the time of Hadrian) then another statement of the Church Father’s this time Tertullian could be used to establish Marcion as a centigenarian in the age of Antoninus. We read in Against Marcion 1:19 that “In the fifteenth year of Tiberius … Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the spirit of saving health [according to Marcion] I cared not to inquire, indeed, in what particular year of the elder Antoninus. He who had so gracious a purpose did rather, like a doglike spirit exhale this health or salvation, which Marcion teaches from his Pontus. Of this teacher there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion. Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case, that he who came to light for the first time in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in that of Tiberius; in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not revealed by Christ (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius).”

I was then almost ninety – Marcus Julius Agrippa was born c. 28 A.D. Hadrian came to power c. 117 A.D.

[the Jews] “troubled” by Trajan’s foray into Parthia – at the end of the Emperor Trajan’s career he made a bold effort against Parthia which almost succeeded at toppling the rival of Rome if it were not for a Jewish revolt which was put down by Quietus.

All problems in our lives come down to the Jews – while this sounds today like an “anti-Semitic” declaration it definitely captures the sentiment not only of earliest Marcionite thought but indeed of the contemporary world after the Bar Kochba revolt cf. Tacitus the Histories 5:5 “Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity. The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth way be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others. Proselytes to Jewry adopt the same practices, and the very first lesson they learn is to despise the gods, shed all feelings of patriotism, and consider parents, children and brothers as readily expendable. However, the Jews see to it that their numbers increase.” If Marcus = Marcion = the “little Mark” in the gospel then Marcus lived to over one hundred and ten years of age and possibly one hundred and twenty “like Moses.” The Samaritans who repeatedly infer that Marcus is their messianic returning Moses identify that this figure would be/was one hundred and ten.

[the Jews] born out of an Egyptian revolt – cf. Origen Against Celsus 4: 31 – 43

p. 15

[the Jews] still call me their Christ to this very day – it is one of the oddest things about late rabbinic and early medieval Judaism where on the one hand “Agrippa” is identified as one who conspired with the Romans to establish a new religion for Jews and on the other that he always is the messiah of Daniel 9:24 – 27 – the only prophetic author to use the term. Many Christian writers berate the Jews for their denial of Jesus and the raising up of Agrippa as their mashiach. cf Biggest Lie

The Jews called me their messiah, the Samaritans hailed me as their Moses and the Galileans called me their Jesus - On the Jewish identification of Marcus Julius Agrippa as the mashiach of Dan 9:24 – 27 Rashi, Nachmanides, Abarbanel among other explicit references – Gaon Saiada, Maimonides and others for implicit references. Also Slavonic Josephus’ reference to the events at the destruction of the temple B. J. VI. v. 4, where in our texts the prophecy of the world-ruler is referred to Vespasian solely. “Some indeed by this understood Herod, but others the crucified wonder-doer Jesus, others again Vespasian.” Samaritan identification of their Marqeh son of Titus as the Ta’eb see my recounting of a meeting with Benny Tsedaka a leader of the Samaritan community when he mentioned that he came across a marginal note in a marginal note in a text of Marqeh in Leningrad where Moses was described as the prophet of favor and Marqeh the prophet of disfavor. Marcus Julius Agrippa was ruler of Galilee for almost fifty years and is compared with Moses in his secretary Justus’ work. Jesus is also apparently the “head” of contemporary Galilean society in Josephus description in Life and Jewish War. On “Paul” as a leader in Galilee see Jerome Commentary on Isaiah 9.

they are no longer allowed to be acknowledged in public - the “cover up” is most obvious when you look at a before and after the reign of Hadrian. Hadrian in his letter to Servianus makes clear that the “patriarch of Tiberias” is revered by the Jews, Samaritans and Christians – even the pagans of Alexandria – as a god. Marcion was influential in this period to the point that Celsus the pagan critic virtually identifies his religion as orthodoxy. The conditions were clearly “right” for the rapid expansion of a Marcionite-like heresy – Jewish customs were forbidden. In Jewish circles the doctrine of two gods seemed to be orthodoxy judging by Elisha ben Abuyah (“the god Yesha son of the Father of Woe!) and his influence. The Samaritan’s acknowledge a “Mark” as their founder and “one like Moses” in this age and earlier yet have no biographical information on him and then suddenly by the end of Hadrian’s reign everything changes – castration is first outlawed for reasons related to the Jewish War. Then suddenly in the reign of Antoninus Pius the almost four generational ban on circumcision is lifted and a Jewish sage name Judah is encouraged to recodify their traditions. The same can be argued for Polycarp (i.e. “Ephraim”) among the Christians and Baba Rabba among the Samaritans. All which seem to cover up the titanic influence of “Mark” in the previous age.

out of fear of the punishment which will inevitably come – compare Origen’s citation of Celsus claims about the Marcionites who “entered into secret associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws” [CC 1:1] and again their deliberate choice of “teaching and practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this to, some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent.” [CC 1:3]

[the] one historical dynasty which did not have serious problems with [the Jews] - The Flavian rulers Vespasian, his oldest son Titus and his other son Domitian (68 – 96 A.D.) all noted for anti-Jewish policies prohibiting the continuation of the laws of Moses.

the architect of their whole Middle East policy - Marcus Agrippa’s influence over the court came as much from his sister Berenice who was Titus’ lover. After conquering the province Titus stayed behind as a kind of vice-regent during his father’s reign. He later became Emperor after Vespasian’s death only to have died suddenly – undoubtedly owing to his brother’s poisoning. One can see Berenice’s influence as a kind of “public relations” officer for Vespasian in the Middle East carefully shaping his image as nothing short of a messianic miracle working figure in various of the historians of the period cf. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius, David Potter, Harvard: 1994. “Vespasian seems to have been a master of the arts of religious subversion. Prophecies were spread throughout the east about the coming of anew monarch from that region, and his eldest son, Titus, made a public visit to Paphos to obtain a similar prediction. Vespasian even healed the sick at Alexandria. But these events may have been less striking to the Roman audience than the sudden turning of a statue of Julius Caesar on the Tiber Island so that it faced east rather than west…The statue's sudden change of direction may have been a subtle reminder to the emperor arranged by Vespasian's friends at Rome…In the context of imperial politics such as those described in the last few paragraphs, the agents of prophetic disruptions were almost certainly to be found among the personal friends of aspiring emperors, and in cases in which civic protests against Rom may be divined behind readily explicable (in human terms) signs of heavenly anger, members of the local aristocracy may have been involved."

allowing them withdraw back to their separatist ways - Antoninus Pius allowed Jews to continue many of their original Mosaic practices after a ban had been in place through most of Hadrian’s rule. The word “Pharisee” comes for the word “to separate.” The Pharisees were virtually wiped out during the seventy years between the two great Jewish revolts.

Not one successful Jewish revolt during [the Flavian period] - The Flavians seemed to have waged relentless war on the Jewish religion especially the appearance of various “messianic pretenders” i.e. challengers to the authority of Marcus Julius Agrippa. Cf. Eusebius History of the Church 3:12 where Hegessipus is said to have related “that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews” The same thing is said about Domitian a little later in chapter 19 “But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. "Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor."

I waged relentless war on the Pharisees - ‘Abodah Zarah 55a as well as many other Talmudic references to the hostility between Agrippa and the Pharisees. See also Josephus consistent portrait of Agrippa as favoring Sadducean high priests over their Pharisaic counterparts. The Sadducees were traditionally closer to the Herodians. Also one should notice the consistent negative attributes that the term “Pharisee” has in the earliest gospels cf. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician Appendix as well as the opening lines of the True Testimony (which I think was written by Mark) cf. “I will speak to those who know to hear not with the ears of the body but with the ears of the mind. For many have sought after the truth and have not been able to find it; because there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the Pharisees and the scribes of the Law. And the leaven is the errant desire of the angels and the demons and the stars. As for the Pharisees and the scribes, it is they who belong to the archons who have authority over them. For no one who is under the Law will be able to look up to the truth, for they will not be able to serve two masters. For the defilement of the Law is manifest.

a universal Semitic religion – it is difficult to come to terms with what the religion of Marcus Agrippa’s kingdom was but a few things are clear from Josephus’ Life about it – (a) his people were not encouraged to circumsize themselves (b) their synagogues had iconography which Josephus and his men felt violated the ten commandments (c) a figure named “Jesus” was at their head as well as many other things which seemed to flout conventional orthodoxy (at least as understood by the Pharisees). Similarly Jerome’s depiction of Marcus Julius Agrippa’s secretary Justus (whom I identify with the Christian Flavius Justinius for reasons too numerous to go into here) as a Samaritan Platonist who wrote commentary on the scriptures seems to be indicative of this “pro-Christianity” at the time.

in my Syrian kingdom - On the size of Agrippa’s vast kingdom see Photius “[Justus] begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian.” On the messianic significance of the messianic kingdom see Maimonides “"The King Moshiach will arise and will fully restore the Kingdom of David to its original esteemed sovereignty; then he will rebuild the Beis Hamikdash and will gather the remnants of Jews in exile." [Hilchos Melachim 11:1]

p. 16

convert law abiding [Roman] citizens … to a watered down form of Judaism - “little Mark” apparently did not apparently direct his religion at the nation but rather only on those people who had been proselytized to Judaism cf Ephraim and Tertullian’s consistent observation that the Marqionite Christ was “the stranger” – i.e. ger – or proselyte. Also Tertullian AM 3:21 However, when you are refuted on the call of the nations, you betake yourself to proselytes. 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? "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 of the nations had its commencement. Bauer in his extensive argument to prove that Marcionitism was actually the state religion of Edessa and thus the only sect allowed to use the name “Christian” (Catholics came later and were called “the sect of Palut”) mentions an intriguing story which gives some flavor to what Marcionite beliefs must have been. We read “Mar Aba, originally a fanatical pagan, during an attempt to cross the Tigris was brought to see the light through a miracle and an ensuing conversation with a Christian ascetic Joseph, whose surname was Moses. He was struck by the strangeness of Joseph's clothing and wishing to know whether Joseph might be an orthodox, a Marcionite or a Jew, he asked "Are you a Jew?" The answer was "Yes." Then comes a second question: "Are you a Christian?" To this comes also an affirmative response. Finally: "Do you worship the Messiah?" Again agreement is expressed. Then Mar Aba becomes enraged and says: "How can you be a Jew, a Christian, and a worshipper of the Messiah all at the same time?" Here the narrator inserts by way of explanation: "Following the local custom he used the word Christian to designate a Marcionite." Joseph himself then gives his irate companion the following explanation: "I am a Jew secretly [cf. Rom. 2.29]; I still pray to the living God . . . and abhor the worship of idols. I am a Christian truly, not as the Marcionites, who falsely call themselves Christians. For Christian is a Greek word, which in Syriac means Messiah-worshipper And if you ask me 'Do you worship the Messiah?', I worship him truly."

which was overtly pro-Roman – Marcus Julius Agrippa is most often described by scholars as a weak “puppet” ruler of Rome. On Agrippa’s loyalty to Rome Josephus, J. W. 2.16.4 [2.345-401].

We celebrated Caesar in our liturgy - On the Marqionites having their own psalms and hymns cf. Muratorian Canon 49. Marqeh son of Titus is the author of most of the Samaritan liturgy especially many of the so-called Defter Hymns. Marcus is identified as having established the hymn of the Copts cf Shenouda Mark the Evangelist p 23 At the ordination of the Patriarchs in Egypt, they repeat, "The seat of St. Mark, the Evangelist, with the true knowledge that he called for in all the universe for the comfort and soul saving." His individual great work, was his Gospel, his Liturgy, and the establishment of the Theological School of Alexandria.”

Titus - On Flavius Titus’ connection with Titus the companion of the apostle see my Biggest Lie. It was my suspicion that Berenice convinced her lover Titus that her weak brother was establishing a cult of him as the messiah and his father Vespasian as the “Father Most High” (the word for “height” in Aramaic was the same as Rome). There was however a double cross where Mark was the “Father” and Titus merely the Son hence the deliberate Samaritan emphasis on their founder as “Marcus son of Titus.” There is also something of Titus in the Metatron tradition of Judaism. During his father’s reign Titus was the co-regent of Vespasian in the troubled eastern Empire. The term in the Pauline epistles for Titus as the shopata – i.e. associate – is actual a heretical term for the lower god popular among the Judeo-Christian heretics (cf. Talmud).

the new heresies - i.e. Roman Catholicism is the “heresy” which came from the Marcionite community.

the world was so secure forty years ago – i.e. before Mark’s banishment by Domitain c. 96 A.D.

“kingdom of God” – in other words that Marcus’ kingdom in Syria was the malkootha d’shemay of the gospel. Syria today is al-Sham very similar to the term for heaven or God in Aramaic shemay.

p. 17

a generation of neglect – i.e. that Marcus was imprisoned in 96 A.D. and released only in 117. He is suggesting that during that twenty year period Jewish heretics infiltrated his religion – a constant refrain from Marcionite treatises cf.

locked up by Domitian - The assumption here being that the Catholic “John” is a recasting of the original person of Mark i.e. Marqion. On early Catholic claims to link Marcion the secretary of John see Eisler the Enigma of the Fourth Gospel.

Judaizing Christians in our midst - On Marcion’s relentless crusade against Jewish elements in his religion cf. Tertullian 5:19 “our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers have introduced all these things out of their own stores, and Marcion has applied them to constitute the fulness of his own god.”

left holding the bag - on Marcion trying to re-establish authority over his churches see Codex Vaticanus Old Prologue to John “Marcion the heretic when he had been rejected by him because he supposed contrary matters was expelled. But he even brought him the writings and letters by John from the brothers who were in Pontus.”

My family – i.e. the house of Herod.