Did Marcionites/Monastic Christians Know of "A Christian Gerizim and Ebal" on the Road Between Jericho and Jerusalem?

[Secret Alias]

Some background.

1. the Samaritans thought that Gerizim had a peak that went all the way up to Paradise/heaven.
2. the Marcionite gospel has Jesus descend on to the place that Adam was created on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem

There doesn't seem to be any connection between these two facts but Jerome provides some more curious information to tie everything together:

Even in this order the account is extremely short and general as compared with the detailed history of the campaigns which follow; the first in the south, including the siege and taking of seven cities, and the next in the north, recording the invasion of Galilee and the defeat of the league of six kings of Northern Palestine.

The Book of Joshua itself contains no indication that Mount Ebal was near Shechem, but in Deut. xi. 30 we find the two mountains defined as being "in the champaign (Arabah, generally rendered "desert") over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh." The plain or oak of Moreh, famous in the history of Abraham, is connected with Shechem in the expression, "Unto the place of Shechem, unto the plains of Moreh" (Gen. xi. 6). Josephus, in a more definite manner, places the two mountains at Shechem (Ant. iv. 8. 44), defining the situation of the altar as "not far from the city of Shechem, which is between the two mountains, that of Gerizim, situate on the right hand, and that of Ebal on the left."

Thus there is no reasonable doubt as to the position of these mountains ; yet in the fourth century we find Jerome writing (Ono m. s. V. Gebal) :-

"A mountain in the promised land where, by order of Moses, an altar was built. There are near (juxta) Jericho two mountains close together looking towards one another, one of which is called Gerizim, the other Ebal. Nevertheless, the Samaritans say that these two mountains were near Neapolis (Shechem}, but they err enormously (sed vehementllr errant), for they are some distance apart, nor could· the voices of those blessing and cursing be heard, which is said to have been the case in Scripture."

And again, under the· head Golgol, Jerome makes a note : " Near which the mountains Garizin and Gebal are recorded to have been situate. But Galgal is a place near Jericho. Therefore the Samaritans err who desire to point out the mountains of Garizin and Gebal near Neapolis, when Scripture bears witness that they were near Galgal." It is probable that the two points referred to by Jerome are the prominent peaks now called Tuweil el 'Akabeh and Nuseib 'Aweishtrehc (i.e., "the monument of the tribes"), either side of the road from Jericho to Jerusalem along Wady Kelt. It appears, however, that this was merely a hearsay report, probably obtained by Jerome from Jews who had not forgotten their old animosity to their Samaritan rivals. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/pefq ... 04_182.pdf

For some unknown reason Jerome seems to think that mount Gerizim and Ebal were located here:



Gerizim was a heavenly ladder. Curiously this is also the place that the Marcionites said Jesus descended. Another entry:

No better modern locality for this :has yet been found than Wady Kelt, a ravine which empties-into the Jordan plain opposite Jericho. It is thus described by Lieutenant Conder (Tent-Work, ii, 21)

"Wady Kelt has been thought to be the Brook Cherith, and -the scene seems well fitted for the retreat of the prophet who was fed by the Oreb, whom some suppose To have been Arabs. The whole gorge is wonderfully wild and romantic; it is a deep fissure rent in the mountains, scarcely twenty yards across at the bottom, and full of canes and rank rushes between vertical walls of rock. In its cliffs the caves of early anchorites are hollowed, and the little monastery of St. John of Choseboth is perched above the north bank, under a high, brown precipice. A fine aqueduct from the great spring divides at this latter place into three channels, crossing a magnificent bridge seventy feet high, and. running as total distance of three miles and three quarters, to the place where the gorge debouches into the Jericho plain. On each side the white chalk mountains tower up in fantastic peaks, with long, knife-edged ridges, and hundreds of little conical points, with deep torrent- seams between. All is bare and treeless, as at Mar Saba. The wild pigeon makes its nest in the secret places of the stairs of rock the black grackle suns its golden wings above them; the eagle soars higher still, and over the caves by the deep-pools the African kingfisher flutters; the ibex also still haunts the rocks. Even in autumn the murmuring of water is heard beneath, and the stream was one day swelled by a thunderstorm, in a quarter of an hour, until it became a raging torrent, in some places eight or ten feet deep.

⇒See also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

"The, mouth of the pass is. also remarkable for on either, side is a conical peak of white chalk-one on the south, called the peak of the ascent (Tuweil el 'Akabeh), while that to the north is named Bint Jebeil, daughter of the little mountain, or Nusb 'Aweishireh, monument of the tribes.

"These peaks are again, to all appearance, connected with a Christian tradition. Jerome speaks of Gebal and. Gerizim. as two mountains close together, shown in his day just west of Jericho. In the name Jebeille may perhaps recognise the Gebal of this tradition and in that case the monument of the tribes would be the tradition an altar of Joshua in Eball. If this be so, the southern peak must be the early Christian Gerizim; but the name is apparently lost." (See engraving on opposite page.)https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/C/ch ... ok-of.html

The idea of a "Christian Gerizim" would help explain the Marcionite hostility to the covenant of Israel too. More:

3. The Early Christian Ebal and Gerizim were situate, as I have pointed out in the paper on Samaritan topography, near Jericho. I have proposed the two conical summits north and south of the gorge of Wady Kelt. The northern has traces of ruins upon it, and is called by the curious title Nusb 'Aweishireh, of the meaning of which there is no doubt. Nusb means anything standing erect, a cairn, a column, a mileston"l, or a crag; the other word is the plural of '.Ll.shireh, "a tribe," and the whole may consequently be translated " the monument of the tribes." A tradition on the subject may very easily be collected, as the Abu Nuseir Arabs who inhabit this district are remarkably intelligent; but at first sight one naturally connects the title with the early Christian tradition as to Ebal and Gerizim, which are described as two peaks close together. (See Q. S. April, 1874, p. 74 ) https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/pefq ... 04_167.pdf

[Secret Alias]

On the connection with the beginning of the Marcionite gospel:

https://www.bibleplaces.com/wadiqilt/

The red earth = Adam and Edom.

[Secret Alias]

Apparently Jerome's references are also found in the Samaritan entry in the Panarion of Epiphanius:

2,1 The first difference between them and Jews is that they were given no text of the prophets after Moses but only the Pentateuch, which was given to Israel’s descendants through Moses, at the close of their departure from Egypt. (By “Pentateuch” I mean Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; in Hebrew their names are Bxreshith, Elleh shxmoth, Vayyiqra, Vayidabber and Elleh ha dxvarim.) (2) There are intimations of the resurrection of the dead in these five books, but it is certainly not proclaimed plainly. There also hints in them of God’s only-begotten Son, of the Holy Spirit, and of opposition to idolatry, but as the most obvious doctrine in them the subject of < the > Monarchy is introduced, and in the Monarchy the Trinity is proclaimed spiritually.

2,3 Those who had received the Law were eager to abandon idolatry and learn to know the one God, but had no interest in more precise information. Since they had gone wrong and not clearly understood the whole of the faith and the precise nature of our salvation, they knew nothing
about the resurrection of the dead and do not believe in it.5 And they do not recognize the Holy Spirit, for they did not know about him.

2,4 And yet this sect, which denies the resurrection of the dead but rejects idolatry, (is) idolatrous in itself with knowing it, because the idols of the four nations are hidden in the mountain they libelously call Gerizim. (5) Whoever cares to make an accurate investigation of Mount Gerizim, should be told that the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, are near Jericho— across the Jordan east of Jericho, as Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua the son of Nun tell us.6 (6) They are unwitting idolaters then, because, from wherever they are, they face the mountain for prayer, < thinking > it sacred, if you please! For scripture cannot be telling a lie when it says, “They continued even to this day keeping the Law and worshiping their idols,”7 as we learn in the Fourth Book of Kingdoms. 3,1 But they are refuted in every way with regard to the resurrection of the dead. First from Abel, since his blood conversed with the Lord after he died. But blood is not soul; the soul is in the blood. And God did not say, “The soul crieth unto me,” but, “The blood crieth unto me,”8 proving that there is hope for a resurrection of bodies.

[Secret Alias]

The source is Eusebius:

Here is what Eusebius wrote in his Onomasticon in 325 AD:

Mt. Ebal: "Gaibal (Gebal). Mountain in the Promised Land where Moses commanded an altar to be built (at the command of Moses an alter was built). They say (there are) two neighboring mountains facing each other located at (near) Jericho, one of which (is said) to be Garizin [Gerizim], the other Gaibal [Ebal]. But the Samaritans erroneously point out two others near Neapolis (argue for two mountains near Neapolis but they err greatly) since the great distance of one from the other there shows that they are not able to hear one another when calling out from one (hear the voices calling out in turn blessing or cursing as Scripture records)." (Eusebius, Onomasticon 325 AD)

Mt. Gerizim: "Garizein (Garizin). Mountain where those calling out the blessing (curse) stood. Read the above mentioned Gaibal (Gebal)." (Eusebius, Onomasticon 325 AD)

Gilgal: "Golgol or Galgal. The Scriptures teach this is near Mt. Garisein and Mt.Gaibal. The place of Galgal is in the Jericho region (near Jericho). [Therefore the Samaritans err who would point out Mt.Gairsin and Mt.Gebal near Neapolis which Scripture testifies are near Galgal.]" (Eusebius, Onomasticon 325 AD)

Footnote from Onomasticon : This and the following entry can be treated together. The Onomasticon begins by recording the simple biblical information here. The generally accepted tradition is to follow the Samaritan tradition as given here. The two mountains are on either side of Neapolis (K. 4:28) and are Jebel es-Slamiyeh and Jebel et Tur. The Madaba Map reflects this tradition by having them near Shechem (K. 150:1) called Garizin and Gōbel. The pilgrims also recognize this identity. "At Neapolis is Mt Gazaren where the Samaritans say Abraham brought the sacrifice. And to ascend up to the summit are 300 steps. At the foot of the mountain is located a place by the name of Shechem" (Itin. Bourd. PPT I, 18). Zeno and Justinian built churches on Garizein according to Procopius Buildings V, vii, 5-17. Excavation of this area is going on. But Eusebius and Jerome prefer to follow an anti-Samaritan location. The Madaba map hesitates between the two opinions and so locates Gebal Garizeini near Ierichō [Jericho] (K. 104:25). The use of the LXX names in Ierichō region and the Aramaic in the Neapolis area may signify some preference. Since Josephus and the later Byzantines had the correct tradition, this rabbinic tradition must have developed in the late first and early second centuries. Procopius 905C is also confused: "This is situated at the Eastern part of Ierichō beyond Galgal" and he continues by denying the Samaritan tradition. Yet in 908A he seems to accept the Samaritan location and tradition. The two mountains near Jericho are probably those above Aqaba jabr sometimes called Tyros and Thrax. The Roman road to Jerusalem passed between them. In Interpretation of Hebrew Names "Gebal, ancient abyss or stone building" (87). (Eusebius, Onomasticon 325 AD)

In 542 AD, the Madaba map places the two mountains twice, in two different locations: On the Madaba map, the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim are in two different locations. One is at Shechem (Modern Nabulus) and one near Jericho and Gilgal. This is because the Orthodox Jews had created a new location near Jericho in their longstanding dispute with the Samaritans. Eusebius, Jerome and the creators of the Madaba map were fully aware of the two traditions and chose to represent both on the map.



Herbert Donner comments on this: "The mountains Gerizim and Ebal are represented twice on the Madaba Map: near Jericho and near Neapolis. What has happened here? The problem can be solved on the basis of Eus. On. 64:9-14 where, strangely enough, both mountains are indeed located near Jericho. Eusebius, however, does not fail to add: "The Samaritans show other ones near Neapolis, but they are wrong, for the mountains shown by them are too far from each other, so that it is impossible to hear one´s voice when calling to each other." Although this seems to be entirely intelligible and is confirmed by Deut. 27, the Samaritans were by no means wrong. Eusebius was wrong, and everybody knew it, perhaps he himself included. The Samaritans laid claim to the mountains, considering them to be their own holy mountains. Hostility to the Samaritans forced the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to locate both mountains at another spot, for the Samaritans were not allowed to be right. Eusebius followed the orthodox Jewish tradition. The mosaicist, however, being well informed, preferred a Solomonic solution: he listed the mountains twice, indicating by larger letters that he regarded the location near Nabulus as being correct." (Herbert Donner, The Mosaic Map of Madaba, Kampen 1992, 24.48) https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-a ... ritans.htm

[Secret Alias]

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor in Revue Biblique vol 119:

In the map there is no Salem further out in the plain . At the east end of the plain, however , there is a Mount Ebal , and still further east another Gerizim ; both presented as close to Jericho ( cf. Deut 11:30 ; no doubt a tendentious gloss ) . This location rests on the authority of Eusebius ( backed up by Jerome), who rejects the Samaritan identification “ because they are too far from one another , so that it is not possible to hear speech from one to the other ” .50 Such language » strongly suggests a personal visit.

Apropos of Salem Eusebius wrote , Suchem also Sikima and also Salem . A city of Jacob , now a desert . The place is pointed out in the suburbs of Neapolis , where also Joseph's grave remains and is shown ( Συχέμ η και Σίκιμα ή και Σαλήμ . πόλις Ιακώβ νυν έρημος . δείκνυται δε ο τόπος εν προαστείοις Νέας πόλεως Ιωσήφ , και παράκειται .

Salem city of Sikimon , which is Sychem , as Scripture says ( Salnu tóhis Σικίμων ήτις Συχέμ ώ φησιν ή γραφή ) .51

Epiphanius of Salamis ( d . 404 ) is very similar . After first identifying Jerusalem as the town of Melchizedek king of Salem ( Gen 14:18 ) , he continues ,

But others say that there was another Salem in the plain of the Sichemites , facing a town now called Neapolis ( άλλοι δε έφασαν άλλην τινά Σαλήμ είναι εν τω πεδίω Σικίμων κατάτιικρυ της νυνί Νεαπόλεως ούτω καλουμένης ) .52 The explanation for the confusion evident in Eusebius pushes us back even further. The Hebrew text of Gen 33:18 says," "Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem" but the LXX has ήλθεν Ιακωβ εις Σαλημ πόλιν Eikiuov ' Jacob came to Salem , a city of the Sichemites ' . The reason for the confusion is obvious , and it is understandable that the same town should have been called both one name and the other . It is clear , however , that the interpretation of the MT by the LXX would have been possible only were there a Salem somewhere in the vicinity of Schechem . Eusebius ' reference to the suburbs ( rpokoteLOV ) of Neapolis ' locates Schechem very precisely at Tell Balata , which is on the eastern edge of modern Nablus . Although he must have been aware of the great authority of Eusebius Epiphanius does not fully agree , and places Salem in the suburb ()

[Secret Alias]

On the Madaba mosaic following Jewish tradition not Eusebius:

The basic source here was the Onomasticon of Eusebius of Caesarea (about 260 - 340) which apparently was accompanied by a map, now lost of ancient Judea. Of the 122 Palestinian items after deducting the fragmentary texts the tribal names geographical notations and eleven references references to single buildings (mostly churches) sixty of the remaining ninety one items on the map are mentioned in the Onomasticon. The mosaic artist even follows Eusebius in some of his errors (e.g. Akrabim, Thamma, Anob, Bethsur, et al). On the other hand he ignores Eusebius by shifting the position of a Biblical site (e.g. Gibeon) or using a different form of a name (e.g. Moditha for Modeim) or the placement of Ebal and Gerizim near Jericho following a rabbinical tradition, but adding the Aramaic names (Tur Gobel and Tur Garizin) in their proper places following the Samaritan tradition. The Mosaic Map of Madeba Victor Roland Gold The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1958), p 58

The Copper Scroll at Qumran is said to have been the first witness to the two heaps on the road to Jerusalem as "Ebal and Gerizim" Eschel Exploring the Dead Sea Scrolls: Archaeology and Literature 127

The list of the hiding-places named in the Copper Scroll points to a concentration of treasure in the Judean desert. The scroll mentions four hoards that were hidden near Secacah (Items 20–22, and 24).50 Secacah was the ancient name of Khirbet Qumran.51 The first hoard described in the scroll was hidden in the Valley of Achor, and Item 17 was hidden in the Valley of Achon.52 The Valley of Achor/Achon is to be identified with the valley of Hyrcania west of Qumran.53 Item 35 was hidden ‫“ ביגר של פי צוק הקדרון‬in the heap which is at the edge of the peak of the Qidron.”54 The Qidron is a wadi that empties into the Dead Sea south of Qumran. Item 31 was hidden in Doq.55 Doq was the name of a fortress built in the Hasmonean period above Jericho in Ras Karantal.56 Item 32 was hidden ‫( על פי יציאת המים של הכוזבא‬reading with Luria and Wolters) “above the mouth of the water spring of Kozba.” Kozba is to be identified with the lower portion of Wadi Qelt; the monastery that was built in this wadi in the Byzantine era was called Dir-Kozba.57 Item 57 was hidden ‫“ בהר גריזין תחת המעלהא של השית העליונה‬on Mount Gerizim, below the steps of the upper deep pit.”58 The Mt. Gerizim that is mentioned here is to be identified with one of the mounds near Jericho, as they were identified in rabbinic literature, in the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and in the Madaba map.59 It may be supposed that the author of the Copper Scroll thought that these two mounds were Nuseb el-Auyašira and Tell el-Ἀqaba, the two fortresses that were built on the two sides of Wadi Qelt.60 The Copper Scroll lists five treasures as having been hidden near Kohlit: Item 4 ‫“ בתל של כחלת‬in the mound of Kohlit”; Item 11 ‫“ בברכא שבמזרח כחלת‬in the pond which is in the east of Kohlit”; Item 15 ‫“ בבור הג]דול שבכ[חלת‬in the la[rge] cistern [which is in Ko]hlit”; Item 19 ‫“ בשית המזרחית שבצפון כחלת‬in the eastern deep-pit which is at the north of Kohlit”; and Item 60 ‫“ בשית שבינח בצפון כחלת‬in the deep-pit which is in Yanoah, in the north of Kohlit.”61 Tannaitic sources mentions a type of hyssop from Kohlit called Kohlit hyssop that is similar to desert hyssop.62 This could support an identification of Kohlit as a place near the desert.63 The Babylonian Talmud contains an account of a military campaign of Alexander Jannaeus in which he went to “Kohlit in the desert” and achieved great victories, and a party that he made for the Sages of Israel upon his return.64 During this party, a dispute broke out between the king and the Sages. In Josephus’ account the dispute takes place between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees.65 Without delving into the complicated transmission history of this story in antiquity, and the rabbinic transfer of the identity of the royal protagonist from John Hyrcanus to Alexander Jannaeus, we may observe that the Talmudic story points to the location of Kohlit in the desert.66 If the tradition of drying out the Kohlit region is related to John Hyrcanus, then the location should be sought in the desert of Samaria or the southern hills of Hebron, which John Hyrcanus conquered.67 Additional evidence that a significant portion of the hiding places in the Copper Scroll were in the Judean desert lies in the fact that a considerable number of the treasures are described

48 Ant. 10.145; War 6.387–91. 49 m. Hagiga 3:8, “All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first became unclean they might bring the second instead of them.” 50 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 181–92, 199–204. 51 See ­Eshel, “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62,” 38. 52 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 29–49, 162–68. On the interchange of Achor/Achon, see Josh 7:24–25. 53 ­Eshel, “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62,” 37–38. 54 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 259–62. 55 Lefkovits, ibid., 232–35. 56 Ze’ev Meshel, “The Fortresses Commanding Jericho and their Identification,” in Jericho (ed. Ehud Netzer, Ze’ev Meshel, and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1978), 35–57, at 41–46 (Hebrew). 57 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 236–44. 58 Lefkovits, ibid., 409–12. 59 On the location of Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal near Jericho, see y. Sota 7:3 (21c); b. Sota 33b; Eusebius, Onomasticon, para. 307. See Ezra Z. Melamed, The Onomasticon of Eusebius (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1978), 13 (Hebrew). [See now, Steven R. Notley and Ze’ev Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon: A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 63–64 (reference courtesy Ze’ev Safrai)]. Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal appear twice on the Madaba map: near Jericho, they appear as Ebal and Gerizim and near Shechem as Tur Ebal and Tur Gerizim. See Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Madaba Map: Translation and Commentary,” EI 2 (1953): 143–44 (Hebrew). 60 On the location of the Mt. Gerizim of the Copper Scroll near Jericho, see Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll, 75–76; Luria, The Copper Scroll, 123–24; Hanan ­Eshel, “The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods: The Origins of Samaritanism,” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984), 193–95 (Hebrew). 61 Lefkovits, The Copper Scroll, 73–89, 135–37, 154–56, 179–80, 425–42. 62 Mekh. R. Ishmael Bo, Masekhta de-Pish a 11 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 37); Sifra Mezora 1:16. 63 Though see m. Para 11:7, in which the specific type ‫ אזוב כחלת‬is not juxtaposed with ‫אזוב‬ ‫ ;המדברי‬rather the two are separated by a third sub-type ‫אזוב רומי ‬64 b. Qiddushin 66a. 65 Josephus’ account of the feast in Ant. 14.288–98 places the event in the days of John Hyrcanus. It is interesting that in the Babylonian Talmud tradition Kohlit is associated with a dispute between the Hasmoneans and the Pharisees. On the account of this feast, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 44–56, and the literature cited there; Menahem Stern, Hasmonean Judea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1995), 195–99 (Hebrew). 66 In J. T. Milik’s French translation of Tractate Kelim he followed a version indicating that Kohlit is in the Carmel. See Jόzef T. Milik, “Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes,” RB 66 (1959): 567–75. The important sentence for the identification of the Kahal Spring in Mt. Carmel is incorporated into the prologue to the midrash: ‫ עין כחל בקעה גדולה‬.‫ שנת שלשה אלפים ושלוש מאות ושלושים ואחד ליצירה‬.‫יגנזו אתם בהר הכרמל כי קדש הם‬ ‫ועמוקה מאד ובה מעין מים טובים ועל שם נקראת עין כחל כי שם מזרחו הר גבוה ורם ומשופע מאד ובראשו חצוב‬ .‫ ואומרים כי שם נגנזו כלי המקדש‬.‫שער סתום‬ “They shall conceal them on Mt. Carmel, for they are holy. The year three thousand and three hundred and thirty-one from creation. Kahal Spring (Ἑn-Kahal) is a large and deep valley, in which there is a spring with good water, and the Kahal Spring is named for it. For east of it there is a high and lofty mountain, very steep, and at its peak is carved a hidden gate. And they say that the vessels of the Temple are concealed there.” According to this passage, Tractate Kelim was written in the year 3331 from creation. Following the system of dating that is accepted today, based upon the tannaitic work Seder Ὁlam Rabba (which dates to approximately the second century ce), anno mundi 3331 would be 373 bce. This prologue seems to be a late addition to Tractate Kelim, which is not found in other textual witnesses of the text (Aggadat Bereshit, Bet ha-Midrash, Rav Pe‘alim and others. See above, n.7). Thus, despite this tradition, it is preferable to seek to identify Kohlit in the desert of Samaria or in the southern hills of Hebron, and not near the Carmel. On the identification of the site, see Boaz Zissu, “The identification of the Copper Scroll’s Kahelet at Ein Samiya in the Samarian desert,” PEQ 133 (2001): 145–58. 67 See Dan Barag, “New Evidence of the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus,” INJ 12 ([1992–1993] 1994): 1–12; Gerald Finkielsztejn, “More evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps,” BAIAS 16 (1998): 33–63.

More https://books.google.com/books?id=M6l1B ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

For me the ultimate question is whether the Dositheans subscribed to this notion of "another Gerizim." If this is true then everything falls into place. There are certain features of the Deuteronomic account that favor a holy site on the other side of the river. Why would Moses be located near Jericho if his final destination was Samaritan Gerizim? From the footnotes to my teacher's translation of Abu'l Fath https://www.academia.edu/42197042/THE_F ... N_AD_DINFI:

82:12 – 14. A.F. 155:1 – 2: “My faith is in thee, Lord, and in Dositheus thy servant, and his sons and daughters”. 156:14 – 15: “They said the dead would rise soon, as children of Dositheus the Prophet of God [i.e. the successor of Moses]”; but in ms. A: “They said the dead would soon rise, thanks to Lîbi לוי and his party, the children of Dositheus the Prophet of God”. The verb used here and translated “served” is not applicable to synagogue worship. It is the verb used for the service of the Tabernacle. (It is the verb used by Christians for the offering of the Mass). There is nothing specifically Dosithean in the doctrine of the Tabernacle being occulted in the present era, the Fanuta; or in the expectation of its manifestation in the Time of Favour, the רחותה Ruuta. [The ח is a vowel-letter. The root is רעי with a second infinitive רעותה re’uta in the meaning of “willingness” and so on]. What was distinctive was their logical development of the doctrine into the treatment of the Mountain as only potentially holy at the present time. Compare 161:13-14: “He (Sakta) declared Mt. Gerizim profane, the same as any other mountain; and said anyone praying facing Mt. Gerizim might as well pray facing a grave”. The logical consequence of this view would be to suspend the three pilgrimages at Passover, Pentecost, and Booths till the coming of the Time of Favour. Compare 162:16-163:1: “He (Sakta) discontinued going up the Noble Mountain”; 161:12: “He (Sakta) started making changes to the Festivals”. The Festivals would have been observed, but without the pilgrimage. This is the Jewish reasoning and practice. The meaning must then be that study, worship, and prayer in the Dosithean sacred place on the Balâ†ah Meadow will somehow eventually lead to the manifestation of the Tabernacle on the Mountain. (Balâ†ah is right next to Old Shechem, across the road). Compare 161:7 – 8: “He (Sakta) said ‘Come over to me and see how the Tabernacle appears’. They made him a tent (tKE) in which he started teaching. He said ‘From this tent we will go up to Mt. Gerizim’.”. Epiphanius or his source mentions a roofless stone structure like a theatre standing on the Meadow about two Roman miles down from the later Neapolis. The big tent would have been inside this. (Panarion, LXXX:1). The place was probably identified by them with the place of Jacob’s vision and thus holy in its own right. There is a tradition setting Luzah on the Meadow recorded by Eusebius, Onomastikon, entry “Louza”. This is said to be inside the third milestone from Neapolis, corresponding to the location of the structure reported by Epiphanius as being on the flat ground at about the second milestone. The persistence of such a tradition is seen in the Arabic name of the Meadow ¡UN« Ãd “the Field of the Glory”. For the origin of the name, see the Targums on Gn XXVIII:16-17. Presumably the Dositheans pictured Jacob on the Meadow seeing the angels coming down to the top of the Mountain and going up again. Gn XXVIII:17 must have been interpreted as meaning that this here on the Meadow is the House of God and that on the Mountain is the Gate of Heaven. The current Samaritan tradition sets Luzah on the top of the Mountain and accordingly locates the place of Jacob’s vision there. This tradition is assumed in Jubilees XXVII:19 and 25. Those that set Jacob on the Mountain must have taken the verse to mean this here on the Mountain is the House of God and this here, the same place, is the Gate of Heaven. Arguments could be mounted for both interpretations as being the plain meaning of the verse. There is, however, an important additional expectation in the words quoted by A.F. here. The top of the Mountain must have been regarded by the Dositheans as the location of the Garden or the way to the Garden just above. This is in fact the known Samaritan tradition. It follows that the four rivers that flow out from the Garden even now in the Time of Fanuta must flow from under the Mountain at some level of existence. This too is the known Samaritan tradition. It would follow that the Land of Zawîlah or חוילה Abbilå in Gn II:11, outside the Garden, is the Meadow. (But note the warning against misreading the halachic question of whether or not being on ground on the bottom slope of the Mountain is equivalent to being on the top of the Mountain for certain purposes, confusing this question with remnants of Dositheanism. See my Use, Authority, and Exegesis etc., note 121). The next question is then whether they were just making an analogy, or really were waiting for the manifestation of the occulted Garden. Did they manage to reconcile the two expectations? I think yes, but this is for another study.

[Secret Alias]

Allegro identifies "Gerizim" with Cypros's Fortress:



The Places : Area are apparently linked topographically with Gilgal , which certainly lay near Jericho. A certain Rabbi Eleazar of the second century A.D. affirmed that the Biblical text referred not to the mountains above Shechem but to two artificial mounds called by the same names but erected by the Israelites themselves. This idea took strong root in early Christian circles , and the famous fourth - century mosaic map at Madeba in Trans- Jordan shows Gerizim and Ebal above Elisha's fountain in ancient Jericho . Unfortunately , none of these ancient authorities gives us sufficient information to identify their southern " Gerizim " and " Ebal ” with certainty . A number of suggestions have been made by scholars , how- ever , and one seems particularly well conceived . Behind Jericho , where the great gorge of the Wady Kelt debouches onto the open plain , stand two high mounds , in their final form certainly artificial constructions ( figure 5 ) . They rise on either side of the old Jericho - Jerusalem road and in their position and general aspect are not unlike the true Gerizim and Ebal of the north , although , of course , much smaller ( plate 6 ) . At the foot of the southern hill stands a small ruined blockhouse , known locally as Beit Jubr ( dialectically gubr ) , which is perhaps a recollection of the name Cypros given to the hill itself by Herod the Great . For it seems very probable that the fortified mounds which the first - century Jews of Jericho fastened upon as being the Biblical Gerizim and Ebal were , in fact , the creations of King Herod , part of a series of military posts defending the eastern approaches to Jerusalem .

Above all, for our immediate interest the treasure inventory in the copper scroll (see Chapter One) places one important deposit of the sacred hoard in a hiding-place on Mount Gerizim, which would be highly unlikely if the reference were to the Samaritan sanctuary in central Palestine which by then was almost certainly firmly under Roman control. Following Rabbi Eleazar's clue, we can see exactly what these later traditionalists had in mind. Behind Jericho, where the great gorge of the Wady Kelt debouches on to the open plain, stand two mounds, in their final form almost certainly artificial constructions. They rise on either side of the old Jericho—Jerusalem road, scene of the New Testament 'Good Samaritan' parable, and their position and general aspect, apart from the obvious difference in size, are not dissimilar from those of the true Gerizim and Ebal of the north.

[Secret Alias]

Cypros Fortress was a Herodian building. 270 M above the Dead Sea.

https://archiqoo.com/locations/cypros_fortress.php

The traditional site of the Good Samaritan episode is just a stone's throw away. We have our first evidence that the beginning of the Marcionite gospel took place at a place which would have a "heavenly ascent" and "descent" already associated with it (because this would have been argued to have been the place Jacob saw God come down the staircase.

[Secret Alias]

Of course the difficulty with making Cypros the mountain that Jesus descended down from heaven is that it was occupied - with soldiers.



Perhaps that is the meaning of the statement in Ephrem Third Discourse Against the Teachings:

And if they say that the Maker did not perceive the Stranger, it is unlikely. For how did he not perceive him when he was his neighbour? And if they say that he was far from him, infinitely far, if it was a mountain immeasurable and an endless path, and a vast extent without any limit, then how was that Stranger able to proceed and come down the immeasurable mountain, and (through) a dead region in which there was no living air, and (across) a bitter waste which nothing had ever crossed? And if they make the improbable statement that "the Stranger like a man of war was able to come," well if he came as a man of war--[though he did not come], (take the case of) those weak Souls whom he brought up hence, how were these sickly ones able to travel through all that region which God their Maker and Creator was not able to traverse, as they say?

Jacob of Serug to Maron on Marcion who said:

Our Lord was not born from a woman but rather stole the place of the maker, came down, and appeared first between Jerusalem and Jericho as a human being through a pretence, through illusions and in a likeness, for he did not have a body.