The Marcionite Gospel Began at Adumim (= the place of those of Adam/the Red Ones)

[Secret Alias]

Apparently there is a long (recent) history of identifying Palestine as Eden https://books.google.com/books?id=ubJDL ... ea&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Said R. Hoshaya in the name of Rav : Adam's trunk came from Babylon, his head from Eretz Israel and his limbs from the other countries.

The tradition that Adam was buried in Jerusalem is as old as Origen (who identifies Jewish sources for it) and the earliest surviving Jewish tradition identifies Hebron as his burial place. The point again is clearly that Eden must have been 'within walking or traveling distance' https://books.google.com/books?id=iWzXD ... 22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=CgzLa ... am&f=false The Samaritans had their own tradition, namely that Adam was buried at Mount Gerizim (J. MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans [London, 1964], 375)

[Secret Alias]

Neusner argues (correctly I thin) that the Pentateuch was developed around the Garden of Eden/Land of Israel parallel:

Sages read the Pentateuch as the account of two successive and partly-parallel “histories,” the first of Adam and Eve in Eden, the second of Israel in the Land of Israel. Adam came to Eden, Israel came to the Land. Eden was perfect when Adam got there, the Land when Israel crossed the Jordan. Adam lost Eden, and Israel lost the Land. But there the parallel histories come to a parting of the ways. Eden never regained Eden but remained in the realm of death. Israel bears within its power the possibility of regaining Eden, in eternal possession of life forever. The paradigm that joins Man and Israel is expressed in so many words in the following language:

A. R.Abbahu in the name of R.Yosé” bar Haninah: “It is written, ‘But they [Israel] are like a man [Adam], they have transgressed
the covenant” (Hos. 6:7).
B. “‘They are like a man,’ specifically, like the first man. [We shall now compare the story of the first man in Eden with the story of
Israel in its land.]
C. “‘In the case of the first man, I brought him into the garden of Eden, I commanded him, he violated my commandment, I judged him to be sent away and driven out, but I mourned for him, saying “How…”’ [which begins the book of Lamentations, hence stands for a lament, but which, as we just saw, also is written with the consonants that also yield, ‘Where are you’].
D. “‘I brought him into the garden of Eden,’ as it is written, ‘And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden’ (Gen. 2:15).
E. “‘I commanded him,’ as it is written, ‘And the Lord God commanded…’ (Gen. 2:16).
F. “‘And he violated my commandment,’ as it is written, ‘Did you eat from the tree concerning which I commanded you’ (Gen. 3:11).
G. “‘I judged him to be sent away,’ as it is written, “And the Lord God sent him from the garden of Eden’ (Gen. 3:23).
H. “‘And I judged him to be driven out.’ ‘And he drove out the man’ (Gen. 3:24).
I. “‘But I mourned for him, saying, “How…”.’ ‘And he said to him, “Where are you”’ (Gen. 3:9), and the word for ‘where are you’ is written, ‘How….’
J. “‘So too in the case of his descendants, [God continues to speak,] I brought them into the Land of Israel, I commanded them, they
violated my commandment, I judged them to be sent out and driven away but I mourned for them, saying, “How….”’
K. “‘I brought them into the Land of Israel.’ ‘And I brought you into the land of Carmel’ (Jer. 2:7).
L. “‘I commanded them.’ ‘And you, command the children of Israel’ (Ex. 27:20). ‘Command the children of Israel’ (Lev. 24:2).
M. “‘They violated my commandment.’ ‘And all Israel have violated your Torah’ (Dan. 9:11).
N. “‘I judged them to be sent out.’ ‘Send them away, out of my sight and let them go forth’ (Jer 15:1).
O. “‘…and driven away.’ ‘From my house I shall drive them’ (Hos. 9:15).
P. “‘But I mourned for them, saying, “How….”’ ‘How has the city sat solitary, that was full of people’ (Lam. 1:1).” Genesis Rabbah XIX:IX.2

Israel and Man suffered exile. But, from the perspective of the Pentateuch, Israel not only lost the Land but recovered it. Rabbinic Judaism recapitulates the Pentateuch’s story of how Israel got the Land, lost it, but would recover and hold it by reason of adherence to the Torah. The original reading of the Israel’s existence as exile and return derives from the Pentateuch, composed in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. and in response to the exile to Babylonia and the return to Zion. So the experience selected as normative for Israel and addressed by the authorship of the document is that of exile and restoration. In our own day, we may well regard the priority assigned to exile and return as normal, not merely normative, in light of the fulfillment of Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel. But as now, so then, not everyone participated in the selected paradigm.

Diverse experiences have been sorted out, various persons have
been chosen, and the whole has been worked into a system by those
who selected history out of events, exemplary models out of inchoate
masses of persons. I say “selected,” because no Jews after 586 actually
experienced what in the aggregate Scripture says happened. None of
THE PENTATEUCHAL STAGE
8
them both went into exile and then came back to Jerusalem. So, to
begin with, Scripture does not record a particular person’s experience—history
in any conventional sense. More to the point, if it is
not autobiographical, writing for society at large the personal insight
of a singular figure, it also is not an account of the whole Israelite
nation’s story. The reason is that the original exile encompassed mainly
the political classes of Jerusalem and some useful populations
alongside. Many Jews in the Judea of 586 never left. And, as is well
known, a great many of those who ended up in Babylonia stayed
there. Only a minority went back to Jerusalem. Consequently, the
story of exile and return to Zion encompasses what happened to
only a few families, who identified themselves as the family of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their genealogy as the history of
Israel. Had those families that stayed and those that never came back
written the Torah they would have told an altogether different tale as
normative and paradigmatic.
The experience of the few that formed the paradigm for Israel
beyond the restoration taught the lessons of alienation as normative.
Let me state the lessons people claimed to learn out of the events
they had chosen for their history: the life of the group is uncertain,
subject to conditions and stipulations. Nothing is set and given, all
things a gift: land and life itself. But what actually did happen in that
uncertain world—exile but then restoration—marked the group as
special, different, select. There were other ways of seeing things, and
the Pentateuchal picture was no more compelling than any other.
Those Jews who did not go into exile, and those who did not “come
home” had no reason to take the view of matters that characterized
the authorship of the Pentateuch. The life of the group need not
have appeared more uncertain, more subject to contingency and
stipulation, than the life of any other group. The land did not require
the vision that imparted to it the enchantment, the personality, that,
in Scripture, it received: “The land will vomit you out as it did those
who were here before you.” And the adventitious circumstance of
Iranian imperial policy—a political happenstance—did not have to
be recast into a providential return. So nothing in the system of
Scripture—exile for reason, return as redemption—followed
necessarily and logically. Everything was invented: interpreted.
That experience of the uncertainty of the life of the group in the
century or so from the destruction of the First Temple of Jerusalem
by the Babylonians in 586 to the building of the Second Temple of
Jerusalem by the Jews, with Persian permission and sponsorship
returned from exile, formed the paradigm. With the promulgation
9
THE PENTATEUCHAL STAGE
of the “Torah of Moses” under the sponsorship of Ezra, the Persians’
viceroy, at circa 450 BCE, all future Israels would then refer to that
formative experience. They would contemplate that experience as it
had been set down and preserved as the norm for Israel in the mythic
terms of that “original” Israel, the Israel not of Genesis and Sinai
and the end at the moment of entry into the promised land, but the
“Israel” of the families that recorded as the rule and the norm the
story of both the exile and the return. In that minority genealogy,
that story of exile and return, alienation and remission, we discern
the recurrent pattern. It is one that is imposed on the received stories
of pre-exilic Israel and adumbrated time and again in the Five Books
of Moses and addressed by the framers of that document in their
work over all. In the Pentateuch, enjoying privileged status, we find
that paradigmatic statement in which every Judaism, from then to
now, found its structure and deep syntax of social existence, the
grammar of its intelligible message.
To recapitulate then, what is the foundation laid by the Pentateuch
for the Judaism put forth in the Mishnah and Talmuds by the sages?
Beginning with the creation of the world, the Pentateuch records the
making of man and woman, the fall of humanity through
disobedience, the flood that wiped out nearly all of humanity except
for Noah, progenitor of all humanity, and the decline of humanity
from Noah to Abraham. But that is then the turning point: the rise
of humanity through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob also called Israel, the
twelve sons of Jacob, to exile in Egypt and ultimately, Sinai. There,
the Scriptural narrative continues, God revealed the Torah to Moses,
and that revelation contained the terms of the covenant that God
then made with Israel, the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The
book of Genesis narrates the story of creation and then of the
beginnings of the family that Israel would always constitute, the
children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The book of Exodus presents
the story of the slavery of the children of Israel in Egypt and how
God redeemed them from Egyptian bondage and brought them to
Sinai, there to make a covenant, or contract, with them by which they
would accept the Torah and carry out its rules. The book of Leviticus
portrayed the founding of the priests’ service of God through the
sacrifice of the produce of the holy land to which God would bring
Israel, specifying the rules and regulations to govern the kingdom of
priests and the holy people. The book of Numbers provided an
account of the wandering in the wilderness. The book of
Deuteronomy then presented a reprise of the story, a long sermon
by Moses looking back on the history of Israel from the beginnings
THE PENTATEUCHAL STAGE
10
through the point of entry into the promised land, followed by a
restatement of the rules of the covenant, or contract, between Israel
and God. And, throughout, the narrative carries the warning: Israel
can lose the Land, as Adam and Eve lost Eden, by disobedience to
God’s commandments.
From the perspective of 586, everyone who encountered the
Pentateuch knew precisely what was at stake. Israel’s history then
formed the story of how, because of its conduct on the land, its
disobedience to the Torah, its willful exercise of free will to rebel
against God, rather than to “love the Lord your God with all your
heart, your heart, soul, and might,” Israel lost its land, first in the
north, then in the south—and that despite the prophets’ persistent
warnings. From the exile in Babylonia, the authorship of the Torah
recast Israel’s history into the story of the conditional existence of
the people, their existence measured in their possession of the land
upon the stipulation of God’s favor. Everything depended on carrying
out a contract: do this, get that, do not do this, do not get that—and
nothing formed a given, beyond all stipulation. Since the formative
pattern imposed that perpetual, self-conscious uncertainty, treating
the life of the group as conditional and discontinuous, sages
responded to that question with the answer of the dual Torah. Theirs
was by no means the sole Judaism to respond to the Pentateuch’s
message. Looking back on Scripture and its message, the framers of
other Judaic religious systems have ordinarily treated as special, subject
to conditions and therefore uncertain what (in their view) other groups
enjoyed as unconditional and simply given. The reason the paradigm
renewed itself is clear: this particular view of matters generated
expectations that could not be met, hence created resentment. It then
provided comfort and the hope that made it possible to cope with
that resentment. Promising what could not be delivered, then
providing solace for the consequent disappointment, the system
precipitated in succeeding ages the very conditions necessary for its
own replication

https://books.google.com/books?id=mZ2EA ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

I am also intrigued by this statement in Clement's Pedagogue:

For if He made water wine at the marriage, He did not give permission to get drunk. He gave life to the watery element of the meaning of the law, filling with His blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world; supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of the old law and of the new word, in order to the fulfilment of the predestined time (Paed 2.29.2)

What is so interesting about this statement is that (1) the Lukan Good Samaritan narrative references Jesus "went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine" and (2) we know that the marriage at Cana is always understood to be the 'first miracle' of Jesus. Unless there is an underlying 'poetic' association with everything Jesus does with Adam the fact that neither the bride or bridegroom isn't identified in the marriage at Cana it might stand to reason that Adam was the bride or bridgegroom of the marriage.