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

[Secret Alias]

Or Gerizim and Ebal could be Tulul Abu Al-Ala'iq.

[rgprice]

Intriguing.

[Secret Alias]

I find it fascinating because I never felt that Marcionism got a fair shake from scholars. Most of the initial studies were German and Protestant Germans at that so they have taken Marcion as a forerunner of Luther or at least some kind of "protesting" reformer. Then the next layer is those who study Patristic literature. They see it as a kind of adjunct to a commentary on Luke which Tertullian's Against Marcion was. But then you have Jacob of Serug and Irenaeus, Origen and the rest talking about a descent into Judea rather than Galilee and these two groups are like "WTF. Anyway let's ignore this and stay in our silos."

Also my friend and teacher Rory Boid has always made me aware of the Dositheans, Samaritans who were especially numerous in Alexandria who in turn were identified as the original heresy according to at least one ancient "heresiologist" and the Pseudo-Clementines. The Dositheans were likened to "Jews" by the Samaritans. It had something to do with their denial of the "Shechem Gerizim." Could there have been an original "Gerizim and Ebal" that was near Jericho https://www.thetorah.com/article/where- ... ng-address the place the Tetrateuch ends.



The idea of John baptizing near Jericho is also part of the understanding. Christ even here "descends" from heaven into the Jordan. There's something here. I just don't know what.

I am not sure that the ancient narrative would have necessarily had the Israelites stop here if the purpose was to go to the ultimate destination of Shechem. Maybe it was. But there could have been another earlier tradition that they set up twelve stones here and this was being imitated by the gospel writer. Already tradition has the temptation out here in the wilderness. I just wonder whether Marcionism/Christianity took this "other tradition" to refute both the Gerizim and Jerusalem cults as "fake." I just haven't considered it before. But it would explain why Marcion's gospel began at this "other Gerizim."

[rgprice]

Well, I have long suspected that so-called Gnosticism and Marcionism were rooted in reasonable interpretations of some form of Semitic traditions that pre-date the Pentateuch, along the lines of Margaret Barker's The Great Angel. This seems to add to that possibility. But Marcion was surely not a Samaritan nor preaching Sarmatianism. So, in my mind, this points to a Semitic tradition that pre-dates the Pentateuch, which carried over into what became known as "Gnostic" teachings.

Now it seems to me that many so-called Gnostic groups were attempting to reconcile polytheistic Semitic religion with Judaism/Sarmatianism. They understood that El was the Highest God, who had a consort or wife and that Yahweh was one of the sons of the Highest God. According to the "Gnostics", the Jews/Samaritans had been deceived by Yahweh, who had lied to Moses and convinced Moses that he was the only God, when in fact he was but just a lesser son of God.

Thus, "Gnosticism" is a blend of Judaism/Sarmatianism that draws on older Semitic traditions that pre-date the Jewish/Samaritan scriptures, while also taking the Jewish/Samaritan scriptures to be authentic. They were seen as authentic works of prophets of Yahweh, who was a lying god.

So my point is, that if what you are saying has any merit, then it may point to a "common tradition" that pre-dates the Pentateuch and which persisted among Semitic circles outside of "orthodox" Judaism and Sarmatianism. Of course there is a lot of speculation here, but it is very intersting.

[Secret Alias]

I think that Ephrem's Book One of Against Marcion has something of this. Notice the progression from

And if they say that the sole reason that Isu said concerning |xxxix John 'Blessed is he, if he is not offended in me,' 26 was in order that he might show that he did not communicate (lit. deliver over) to him that other (utterance) which he said concerning him, that he was not a reed—why did he say it ? But if the sole reason of his saying it was in order to show that John was true in his teaching, then he did not send to Isu, and Isu himself made him (i.e. the Evangelist) a liar who recorded that John sent to him, when (in reality) John did not send to him. And if what he said is true, namely that he sent to him, then is not John true ? And if Isu had wished to send to him (saying) 'I am He,' would he not have been going astray after him ? But he said 'Blessed is he if he is not offended in me.' Whom then do they call a stumbling-block ? Is it not he who turned back from (being) with him ? John therefore was one who believed in Isu, and on that account Isu sent (saying) 'Blessed is he if he remains steadfast and is not offended in me.' Or can it be that by means of the beatitude he actually wished to deceive John ? And was [P. 87.] John deceived or not ? If he was not deceived, then the bribe of the Stranger was lost. And did not the Stranger know that his bribe would not be accepted by John ? And if he knew, why did he allow his bribe to be lost, that is to say, the bribe of that praise of his ?

But concerning Moses and Elijah who were found on the mountain in company with Isu, what do they (i.e. the Marcionites) say that they were doing in his presence ? But they say that they were guardians there. And what. pray, were they guarding, since there was nothing on the mountain ? And if there had been anything on it, the Maker would have had the Cherub and the point of the sword with which to surround the mountain.27 And if because Isu was a stranger to Him (i.e. to the Maker) they were guarding the mountain for Him, then, as between the mountain and the sanctuary, which of them was greater 28 to the Maker, that He should cease to guard His city and |lx His sanctuary and send them (i.e. Moses and Elijah) to guard a mountain in which there was nothing ? If He did not set forth [P.88.] some symbol there for us, let them tell us what such persons as Moses and Elijah were doing there. And if they say, 'You are asking us concerning your own (affairs) also,' then leave that (question) of ours as to what they were doing, and tell us (?) your own (opinion), namely on what account Isu went up thither. Was it in order to fight that he went up thither ? . . . did he make war against the Maker or . . . ? . . .

* * * * * * *

[l. 38.] These [two, why] were they sent ? For the Maker had myriads [l. 46.] of angels, if to make war [He desired] ... Or were they with [P. 89.] him to say to him (i.e. to Isu) : "If thou art really buying, in order to buy mankind,29 what is the price of mankind ? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy -two from the [flock] 30 of another ? . . . 31 Or can it be that thou art taking mankind [l. 12.] hence ? And art thou not, lo, he that said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them ? 32 Why then didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to [1. 27.] buy ?]"... If again they returned and said to him "[As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, if thou didst take them beforehand, nothing hinders (?) : this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why ?—was this mountain also really required for thee ? And if it is required for thee, give |lxi the price of it, seeing thou hast gone up ; and if it is not intended by thee to buy the mountain, get down off it; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing ? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." If such words were [P. 90.] put forward (lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase ... it would not be right for a good Being to injure, [l. 14.] much less those whom he had not yet even purchased ! And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness, He would surely, not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain ? And did Isu say to the Maker, 'Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price ' ? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent ?'

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) ? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him ? Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose, ... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . [P.93.] against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' 33 [for] He had sent only two against them.

[1.10.] But [if] they say, ' If . . . is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him ? How] could two men [overcome] three ? [Were they just] two men — and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead — to fight [a God] ! Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come ? So that if He had come, He would have been killed ! Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either |lxiii the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him ? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] 34 after men, why was he [lo,] unable to [P. 94.] create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples ? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu) ? And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it ? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is [P. 95.] not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker ?

For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think that in order that mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on that account the voice was coming to them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow the opinion which they had concerning Isu. But if even the voice |lxiv which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto).

For if there had been a battle, the Maker would not have remained silent, He who even when there was another God did not [P. 96.] refrain from (saying) 'I am God and there is none beside.' And if when there were idols, whose nature showed (lit. answered) that they were not gods, He was proclaiming 'I am He and there is none beside,' (can we suppose that) in a case when a God was warring against a God the Creator went into a hiding-place, that the creation might go astray after the Stranger ? For if in connection with idols He had been silent, (yet) here it would be right for Him to cry out. How much more when He was not silent even towards dead idols ! But seeing that the questions relating to a war have, as in a (real) war, overcome and silenced the question of purchase, now that the tale about a war has come to an end, let us turn to the question of purchase. Explain to us then, What is the purchase which the Stranger made, and from whom did He purchase it ? And, moreover, by means of what did He purchase it ? And that thing by means of which he purchased that which He purchased, of what nature was it ? Was that which He gave of the nature of the aforesaid Good Being, or did He really create (something) and give (it) ? And was not that which the Stranger created fairer than that which the Maker created for Himself ? And if that which He (i.e. the Stranger) created for Himself was fairer, why did He [P. 97] sell unadvisedly and become a laughing-stock ? And if that which He gave was something smaller, the weakness of the Stranger was seen in His creative action. And how was the wise Just Being persuaded to give to the Stranger something great in return [P.98. 17] for something small ? . . . Was it . . . bodies that are from HULE that he bought, or souls ? And if it was souls, |lxv then why [did he not buy] the bodies ? . . . they say that [l. 32.] because the souls had been polluted (lit. had become turbid) He came to purify them. But if those souls were not polluted, then did not the Stranger who purchased them make a. mistake about them ? And even if the souls were polluted, on which account he came to buy them, [was he not alien to their nature ?]

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * * [P. 99.]

And if they should say that 'He purifies the nature of [l. 8.] the Souls' . . . because 'a fire is kindled in mine anger and [l. 19.] it will burn unto the lowest Sheol.' 35 If He is a nature from whom fire is kindled and it then consumes Him in His turn, (in the case of) everything else which is found to belong to that nature fire will therefore be kindled from it and will then consume it in its turn. For if thou bringest some of the water of the sea into a royal city bitterness is (still) in it. And so too. the souls which (come) from the Maker are polluted as the source (lit. root) from which those souls came is polluted. For it is unlikely that they will say that the fruits are changed when the root of the fruits is not changed. And if they say that that root [P. 100.] also is changed, then how did He (i.e. the Stranger) not exert Himself in the case of the root as in the case of the fruits, that the perfect goodness of the Stranger might be proclaimed ? But the Apostle says,36 'Eve shall live on account of her children' : then the Maker will have lived on account of the souls which (came) from Him. Or did the Maker not wish to live thus ? And how did the souls which (came) from Him consent to live ? But if the nature of the souls is the same, their will also is the |lxvi same. And if their will is different, their nature also is strange, and they are not from the Maker. And let them tell us whence are those souls ; for it is probable that they are not from the Maker. For He would not sell them (if they were really His), because He would not hate His own nature and love a nature which was not His own. " And if He was selling His nature for something which was not akin to His nature, there is a great kinship between Him and the Stranger, for lo ! one affection is found in both of them ; and moreover one will belongs to both [P. 101.] of them, namely that the Just One should love the nature of the Stranger and sell some of His possessions to Him, and that the Stranger should love the nature of the Just One and purchase from Him. And it will also be (considered) that that nature of the Just One, which is bought as being something precious, surpasses (the other) ; for if the nature of the Just One were not more excellent than that of the Stranger, the Stranger would not have actually purchased it. But what did the Stranger give to those whom He purchased ? And if He gave them a kingdom, can it be that He gave them one greater than that of Elijah and Enoch ? And why then did He not bring with Him some of His good things hither also ? Or (was it) because our domain is not worthy of them, (and) did He on that account not even introduce them into our domain ? In that case they are greater than the aforesaid Isu, inasmuch as our domain is worthy of Isu and unworthy of His (i.e. the Stranger's) good things. And if (it was) in order that they might not be denied, then he (i.e. Isu) was denied when he entered our domain. . . .

[MrMacSon]

I suspect so-called Gnosticisms arose out of, or, as they were developing and evolving, were shaped by Platonist interpretations of Judaism, Samarianism/ Samaritanism +/- [other] Semitism.