Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:05 am

The idea in the Gospel of Peter than Jesus was buried in 'the Garden of Joseph' might well be connected to the idea that Jesus - like Adam - was buried in Paradise:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Jw_n7 ... an&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:14 am

Maybe - and this is tentative of course as it just struck me about five minutes ago - the Marcionite tradition understands Jesus (Ishu) as 'Adam' who descends down the mountain from Paradise (cf Ephrem):
But if that boundary was capable of being crossed so that also the Stranger crossed it and came down to us, as they say, and the Souls also rent it asunder and ascended, as they falsely state, then (it follows that) a boundary which could be crossed would not be able to prevent the Maker from going up to the Domain of the Stranger. If, therefore, when he was able to go up he was unwilling to trample down the boundary of his Companion, he is a God who is worthy of praise, since even those things which he (i.e., Marcion) has invented, redound (lit., cry out) to his praise. But if he had the will to go up, and the Stranger above allowed him, let them show us why.... And if the Good (Being) was guarding himself, he was verily afraid lest he (i.e., the Maker) should injure him. And how did he who was afraid in his own Domain, come to the Domain of the Maker to struggle with him? And if he guarded his freedom that there should be no Strife and contention between him and his neighbour, let his Heralds be despised who make him quarrelsome and contentious. 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?
This mountain is elsewhere clearly identified with the 'high mountain' (a traditional Samaritan epithet for Gerizim) of the Transfiguration which Ephrem notes the Marcionites say Moses and the prophets 'guard' and have a special attachment with:
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.

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).

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).
The British Library (after my request) is attempting to do a better job translating Ephrem's section here and elsewhere
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by outhouse » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:34 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:Richard Carrier contends that, in the Life of Adam and Eve, the Greek version of which is sometimes (confusingly) called the Apocalypse (Revelation) of Moses, Adam is buried in the heavens (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8028.shtml, http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282):


Ben.

Its weak pathetic work done for the sole reaching purpose of "context distorting" to help build upon his laughable MJ hypothesis that has no traction what so ever in any credible academic circles.

Grasping at straws is common and its why I quit reading all his work.


Here Adam has one more day before leaving the body. Notice that Adam himself is identified with the part of him that is going to leave his body; it becomes clear in the next passage that this part is his spirit (Adam = spirit; body of Adam = body):

Thank you this is the proper context as you so simply laid out.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by outhouse » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:57 pm

Secret Alias wrote:The idea in the Gospel of Peter than Jesus was buried in 'the Garden of Joseph' might well be connected to the idea that Jesus - like Adam - was buried in Paradise:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Jw_n7 ... an&f=false
Not seeing any connection at all to a burial in paradise.

Everything in your source points to an earthly burial.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:19 pm

Yes there are two separate ideas here which in the Samaritan understanding are somehow related. On the one hand things or people could be on Gerizim, the Gerizim we see with our naked eye. Then, strangely, there is this other mountain - the Givat Olam - which is difficult to explain in English and is only imperfectly rendered as the 'eternal hill.' עולם is rooted in עלם which means (a) 'hidden' (b) a young man and something like 'forever' but more correctly a very long time, far in the distance distance.

The term is difficult to explain and even understand. For instance disputes arose as to how to interpret olam with respect to whether it meant 'eternity' or up to a certain point. In Exodus 21:6 it cannot mean 'forever' but rather 'until the Jubilee' (cf. Palestinian Talmud IV 7b, Kidd 13a etc) or a time far away on the horizon. As such the word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

Yet to even confuse matters further there is a tradition that olam = allem (secret or hidden) =
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The [pronunciation of the Divine] Name of four letters the Sages confide to their disciples once a septennate — others state, twice a septennate. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Reason supports the view that it was once a septennate, for it is written, this is my name for ever [le'olam]22 which is written le'allem.23 Raba thought to lecture upon it at the public sessions. Said a certain old man to him, It is written, le'allem [to be kept secret]. [kidd 71a]
Exodus 3:15 has לְעֹלָ֔ם but it is read as olam. The eternal hill likely originally meant IMO 'the secret hill.' The hidden hill is the full mountain which cannot be perceived by ordinary perception but which Jacob saw at Bethel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 19, 2015 8:53 am

I am not sure how big of a digression this will be seen to be but I have been thinking (and of course speculating wildly) about the Samaritan use of the title 'Everlasting Hill' (sing) for Gerizim in the context of a greater hidden mountain connecting the earth to heaven.

There is a well attested substitution for ayin with alef in the Torah associated with the circle of R Meyer (itself connected with the Sadducees):
In R. Meir's Torah (at Gen 3:16) it was found written, 'Garments of light (ohr): this refers to Adam's garments, which were like a torch [shedding radiance], broad at the bottom and narrow at the top.
There are other examples of this substitution but for the moment let's consider the possibility if it happened with the reference in Deuteronomy to 'the eternal hill' changing it to something like 'entrance way' or 'antechamber' (= אולם).

In the Jewish temple for instance, the antechamber immediately before the curtain which led to the holy of holies was called the Ulam (אולם) - https://books.google.com/books?id=-iS3L ... ce&f=false

Since the term heikhal is Hebrew so too must the term for antechamber. Jastrow notes that ulam is from Biblical Hebrew and goes beyond 'antechamber' to suggest it simply meant 'entrance' http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=26 The Assyrian root אלם. In any event two meanings of ulam - "but, however" and "porch, vestibule, hall, parlor" are accepted by most as deriving from the Akkadian ellamu - "in front of, opposite."

Perhaps for this reason the Dositheans preferred the proscribed impermanent tabernacle to be built on Gerizim as opposed to the physical building that was later placed there and on Jerusalem. The idea seems to be that what is seen in this world is only the promise of the holy of holies in heaven. Substituting a massively impressive building (like Herod's 'Parthenon' architecture would suggest) may well have been taken to argue that the 'true tabernacle' was on earth rather than in heaven.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:04 am

Bernal interestingly further qualifies ellamu as follows - "it meant 'porch' or 'altar in front of a temple.'" I wonder whether this was the original sense of the significance of Gerizim for the earliest Israelites. There was certainly an altar here but it was not 'the holy place' nor could any place on earth be so described. The 'holy place' was in heaven and the earthly altar (even as far back as the desert tabernacle pointed the way to the truth but was not itself 'the truth.' This is certainly Stephen's point in Acts and he is frequently identified as a (Dosithean) Samaritan. There are many similar statements about the Dositheans in Samaritan literature (especially the figure of Sakta) which agree with this POV.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:30 am

And if I may - as one who likes to beyond 'showing how knowledgeable I am' - let's put all of this within the greater question of why Dositheanism and the various heresies associated with it (cf. Hippolytus's Refutations where the Dositheans are made to be the first heresy) were punished by the Imperial government. If you need to see proof of this see my oft cited reference as to what happened to the Samaritans under Commodus.

The question in this narrative from Abu'l Fath is monarchianism. In some way traditional Samaritanism (= Dositheanism) was deemed to be seditious because it didn't acknowledge the authority of the Emperor. How could this be related to the situation on Gerizim?

Well the refusal of Stephen, the Dositheans and early Christians to sanctify a physical building here on earth is clearly coupled in my reconstruction of the physical situation on Gerizim (and in the context of Hebrews generally) with a placing of all holiness in heaven. Where does that leave the Emperor and his cultic association as cosmocrator?

Clearly if you can't build a physical building, can't worship a physical object (= idol) here on earth, the Emperor who is here on earth is not as holy as the god in heaven. He is subordinate to the Almighty rather than a living embodiment of him. This must have been the issue at the heart of Arianism (= Alexandrian Christianity). By saying the Father is better than the Son it effectively precludes ALL terrestrial things with equality with heavenly things. In short, the Emperor is not 'Almighty' (or at least that is how it was seen in Imperial circles).

That is why we see the concept of 'cosmocrator' or 'Lord of the world' creep in to the Jewish liturgy at this exact time. R Judah ha Nasi was a collaborator. Judaism sold out but the Samaritans did not.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12400
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jul 19, 2015 2:22 pm

The concept of a mountain which reaches the height of heaven where Paradise lies in association with Marcionism appears in Against Marcion 2.10's discussion of Ezekiel 28:
... nor placed with a cherub upon God's holy mountain, that is to say, in the heights of heaven
The author seems to disagree with the Marcionite interpretation of the passage.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Richard Carrier and the burial in heaven.

Post by outhouse » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:00 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
The author seems to disagree with the Marcionite interpretation of the passage.

One has to define heaven in context to these people, and then provide a reason for the context of people from a different culture and time also held said belief.


I don't deny any cases of burial in heaven as were talking about ancient peoples wide and varied imagination. Its the perversion of this imagination out of context that gets many in trouble searching out hypothesis that just don't fly no matter how hard they cram circles into square holes.

Whats worse is they think they have a victory when a small circle passes through large square holes self defined.

Post Reply