Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

You seem to be hung up on the idea, however, "Paradise " = "Gerizim", which doesn't even make sense.

This thing about being 'hung up' on the Samaritans is fascinating. So someone or someones wrote the Tetra/Penta/Hexateuch. Our forefathers assumed the text was 'Jewish' because only Jews survived in large enough numbers to mingle among Europeans as second or third class abused citizens. So BECAUSE God or fortune or providence 'set up' things so our or at least some of our ancestors 'met' these Jews and prejudiced Western civilization to this idea that Jews 'wrote' the books of the Bible anyone who looks at things from a more sophisticated POV is 'hung up' on those ideas. It's not like changing restaurants from McDonalds to Shake Shack. So people who eat at Shake Shack are 'hung up' better quality meat, more sophisticate cuisine.

Maybe the ideas are just better.

Where the fuck is Paradise? "Oh it doesn't matter. It's some 'myth' the writers stole from another ancient culture." Maybe. But I don't see a comprehensive answer emerging from our Jewish sources. The Samaritans have a very simple solution which happens to - as I have demonstrated - agree with Philo.

Paradise isn't on the earth. Why does Genesis seem to imply it was? Well the Samaritans understand that Creation took place on the top of Gerizim "Bethel" because it is the house of God. How is the mountain the house of God? Well the mountain was once much taller than it appears now. Buchanon

In 1957, while participating in an archaeological excavation in Shechem, at the base of Mount Gerizim, a Samaritan told me that Gerizim was the tallest mountain in the world, I pointed to Mount Ebal just across the valley. The Samaritan could see that Mount Ebal was higher. Nevertheless, he responded that Gerizim was the tallest mountain “spiritually.” By spiritual he meant by doctrinal definition. https://books.google.com/books?id=3W9LA ... AF6BAgHEAI

The Samaritan understanding of Paradise being the missing "top" part of mount Gerizim which ascended into the heavens is at least as old as Jesus so Petermann, Samaria, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie, Vol. XIII. pp. 359–391.

According to Petermann, who derived much of his information from a Samaritan high-priest, the Samaritans now believe what they probably believed in the days of Christ, that the top of Mount Gerizim was the seat of paradise, that from its dust Adam was formed, that from this holy mountain the rains descend to fertilize the earth. They still point out on that mountain the spot where Adam built his first altar, where Seth did the same, where the ark rested after the flood—for they identify Gerizim with Mount Ararat—,where Noah erected an altar after the flood, where Abraham offered Isaac, and where Jacob slept and saw the ladder which reached to heaven. All these and other important events they locate on the highest plateau of Gerizim

just as the influence of Samaritanism extended among the Jews but never vice versa.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xr2dw ... ow&f=false

One of the most common epithets for Gerizim, that of the 'high mountain' appears in Qumran material the Prayer of Joseph, the phrase “and making for themselves a high place upon a high mountain” (line 12) is appropriate for Mount Gerizim, whose height is 800 meters above sea level, and rises 350 meters above the city of Shechem. Also the Testament of Levi https://books.google.com/books?id=hGcwA ... AF6BAgMEAI

The Garden of Eden is clearly not on Mt Gerizim or anywhere near it. Whether Eden is a pardes is irrelevant and really doesn't have anything to do with the Samaritans. If anything, the fact that Eden is not anywhere near Gerizim works against your case.

Of course Eden is modeled on the Babylonian/Persian gardens. So what? You seem to think this is some big revelation, but it is not.

Eden is on Gerizim. The place where Adam and Even were expelled to was not near Gerizim. Genesis 1-11 has nothing to do with Gerizim.

Maybe Gerizim was also depicted as having a pardes on top of it, but that has nothing to do with Eden. There is a lack of association between Genesis 1-11 and anything to do with Gerizim or really anything about the rest of the Pentateuch. The fact that "pardes" or "paradise" or "gardens" are mentioned in other sources, in addition to Genesis 1-11 does not in any way mean that teh same people who wrote the other texts also wrote Genesis 1-11.

If anything, the fact that Eden is not anywhere near Gerizim works against your case

.

American. Where is Eden?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:09 pm

This thing about being 'hung up' on the Samaritans is fascinating. So someone or someones wrote the Tetra/Penta/Hexateuch. Our forefathers assumed the text was 'Jewish' because only Jews survived in large enough numbers to mingle among Europeans as second or third class abused citizens. So BECAUSE God or fortune or providence 'set up' things so our or at least some of our ancestors 'met' these Jews and prejudiced Western civilization to this idea that Jews 'wrote' the books of the Bible anyone who looks at things from a more sophisticated POV is 'hung up' on those ideas. . . .

Maybe the ideas are just better.

. . . But I don't see a comprehensive answer emerging from our Jewish sources. The Samaritans have a very simple solution . . .

. . . Well the Samaritans understand . . .

just as the influence of Samaritanism extended among the Jews but never vice versa.

. . . .

From the amount of time you spend here advancing your tribute to the Israelite Samaritan dogmas* and deploring any suggestion that "Jews" had any part at all as (or with) the original parents of the foundational Pentateuch, I do wonder about your accusation that someone here was "spending every waking hour trying to destroy a religion"** ---

When launching that accusation were you really projecting your own obsession with suppressing your Jewish (and American) heritage and replacing it with a promotion of Israelite Samaritans?

What you are posting here is no different from any other fundie trolling their own religious beliefs/hang-ups/obsessions/identity/tribute at every opportunity they can create. You fail to comprehend the posts of others and simply use them as springboards to launch another "tribute" to Israelite Samaritan religious dogmas and/or a denigration of Jews and Americans.

(* even dogmas have their scholars, like the Mormons and SDAs)
** that accusation was curiously in the context of what some might interpret as a desperate effort to prove one had "a life")

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:53 pm I've already explained the situation. The Samaritans believe in the reverse of the Heavenly Jerusalem. The top of the mountain the part with the palace and pardes is in heaven. The Marcionites believed in this. How do you are argue with what people believe?

Are the ancients wrong for believing that the first humans lived to be almost 1000 years old?

1. It's bullshit. People never lived to almost a thousand.
2. The text says that.

In the same way the Samaritan reading seems to fit the text. Reality is another question. Tops of mountains don't go into the sky. But neither does a city come down from the sky.

There we have it. At some point it was bound to come out. Your intellectual approach is belief-based, interpreting the biblical text filtered by centuries-later Samaritan beliefs rather than analyzing the text itself.

In my experience of many years, bolstered by my reading in psychology, I have found there are two basic cognitive approaches, knowledge-based and belief-based.

Knowledge-based cognition starts out with facts and evidence, builds a model, argument or theory that arises out of that evidence, and as appropriate infers reasoned conclusions. This is the approach used in science. It is very learning-friendly and introspectively critical, since it always seeks to improve its understanding of the world by seeking out new facts and information, testing its models, theories and arguments, challenging its own conclusions to see if they hold up, and making appropriate adjustments accordingly. It considers it a win if it learns something new, improves its model, or refines or rethinks its conclusions. It seeks out the criticism of informed peers, since the correction of its arguments or conclusions means a better objective grasp of the world. The intellectual expense of constant self-examination and occasional revision of conclusions is seen as worth the outcome of improved understanding.

Belief-based cognition starts out with a set of beliefs from a “trusted” source that is imposed on the world. These beliefs are in effect a set of pre-determined conclusions to which acceptable facts and arguments must conform. This approach considers it a win if the beliefs survive an encounter with the world. As such it is inherently conservative and opposed to learning. Certain conclusions are perceived as virtuous and others as dangerous, regardless of evidence, so that simple conversation becomes a test or struggle between good and evil. Belief systems typically form a closed protective echo chamber in which the believer’s “truths” are extolled and dangerous new facts and evidence are excluded or demonized. Cognitive biases create a filter that allows the believer to ignore new information and reject helpful critiques to reasoning. Rather than engaging in genuine interaction, communication with others outside the echo chamber becomes an intellectual exercise in which belief-friendly facts and belief-supporting traditional scripts or arguments are repeated while alternate dangerous facts or analysis are ignored or vigorously opposed. Psychologists say this approach has the advantage of less mental energy expenditure, since one’s grasp of the world never has to undergo the effort and pain of intellectual revision. There is also a certain pride or psychological pay-off involved in a belief-based refusal to entertain—much less be persuaded by—new ideas or evidence. Sustaining their beliefs in the face of dangerous facts perceived as hostile to their belief system is experienced as a sort of psychological, intellectual or spiritual triumph. This is the basic proselytizing polemical approach seen in many religious cults that try to convert others to their belief system.

What is interesting to me is that belief-based cognition uses the rational faculty in its surface presentation, although reason is used to defend existing beliefs rather than learn something new and interesting. We have all probably been exposed to pseudo-scientific presentations of creationism, young world geologic revisionism, anti-evolution, biblical archaeology and so forth that pose as rational and scientific but where all rational energies are used in the service of a faith-based belief system. I admit even I get taken in temporarily by the apparent reasonability of true believers who are able to put together a fully rational line of argument, but only in support of their belief-based construction of the world. But once I discover a person has a belief-based cognition, and is thus impervious to evidence and argument, I find it wise to move on, no harm done. Some people gain comfort from their beliefs, and who am I to change them?

I find Samaritan Studies fascinating and the role of the Samaritans in the creation of the Hexateuch a highly fruitful line of inquiry, but I am amused by the fact that I was drawn into this particular conversation. I have met quite a few Jewish and Christian true believers in my time—as well as respected Jewish, Christian/NT, and Islamic scholars and academics—but I had never met a full-on Samaritan true believer before. So this is the view from inside modern religious Samaritanism! Interesting and entertaining.

interpreting the biblical text filtered by centuries-later Samaritan beliefs rather than analyzing the text itself.

But the parallels between the Samaritan beliefs and Philo have already been demonstrated and have been recognized as such by many who have taken the time to study these matters. https://philpapers.org/rec/BROASP-2

You can't just ignore evidence because it's inconvenient.

It is generally accepted that the Samaritan and Jewish interpretation of the Bible is 'related.' This would explain why the Sadducees and Samaritans are often confused in the rabbinic literature. Samaritans had 'Sadducees.' They must have had mostly similar sacrificial practices (as they were regulated by the same book) and similar priesthoods. The Samaritans kept a priesthood. The Jews did not. As such the likelihood on the surface at least is that the Samaritan cultus was closer to the original than a group of 'rabbis' basically inventing a new religion and a new role for 'rabbis' in the religion hence the disgust of Karaites and later traditions toward the 'rabbanites.'

As you are a creative person which you are and I love that about you, you still have to be fair. The Jews went from a priesthood to a 'separatist' sect to the rabbinate. Three stages of degeneration from the original understanding of the Pentateuch. The rabbinic literature tells stories of the first rabbis not even knowing what to do when Passover falls on a Sabbath (Bavli Pesahim 6:1). As such they didn't preserve the original liturgical traditions. They no longer follow sabbatical years, perform any required sacrifices etc. The Samaritans even superficially more closely resemble the original cultus. They have a priesthood, sacrifice, follow Sabbatical years and only adhere to the Torah. The idea that they are 'completely off' with regards to the beliefs of their ancestors is silly given that ancient - not recent - reporting confirms they always acknowledged and guarded the sanctity of Gerizim.

It is generally recognized in the study of Samaritanism (from Boid) that the beliefs of the Samaritans generally - but not always - agree with the Sadducees and Karaites - against the rabbanites. There is evidence that Jewish synagogues from the early period face Gerizim. Hippolytus mentions Jewish Sadducees who venerated Gerizim. Qumran evidence. The likelihood is that Gerizim was the original holy mountain, the house of God. I don't care. I don't venerate the god or mountain of the Samaritans. I just say it like it is. It is inconvenient for your theory but nevertheless true.

The Jews have traditions. The Christians have traditions. But the Samaritans have and maintain practice. The rabbanites invented a Jewish tradition which was more reaction to Christianity than anything else. There was a Jewish priesthood. It was basically indistinguishable from the Samaritan priesthood. The Jewish priesthood went back to a covenant on or near Gerizim (the Dositheans observed facing the mountain not on the mountain). Hence Hippolytus's statement that the Sadducees and Samaritans are indistiguishable.

And then there is the issue of the Samaritan high priesthood lineage.

The High Priesthood remained in the Pinhas family for 112 generations. It usually passed from father to son. In this way it provided leaders for the Israelite Samaritan community until 1624 CE. From time to time, the High Priesthood passed to a brother or uncle if there was no direct successor.

The High Priests from the family of Pinhas were called Rabbans. Members of this family who were not High Priests, but considered wise and devout, were also accorded the title Rabban.

Another branch of the Pinhas family were priests in Damascus. Twice, in the 12th and 13th centuries, the High Priests of Damascus went to Nablus (Shechem) to head the Israelite Samaritan People, since there was no successor there.


High Priests of Damascus
In the years following the 8th century CE a Samaritan Community settled in Damascus. Here also, the High Priesthood passed from father to son, in the Pinhas family. Usually, the Priests of Damascus and their families lived in a designated neighbourhood near the other Israelite families. The High Priests of Damascus came under the jurisdiction of the High Priest in Nablus. The latter was Head of all the Samaritan People.

The lineage of the 112 Samaritan High Priests, leaders of the Israelites and the Israelite Samaritans, includes two of the High Priests of Damascus, Itamar ben Amram and Yusef ben Azzi.

Samaritans (and collectors) assign high value to Pentateuch manuscripts scribed by High Priests of the Pinhas family. They are known as Pinhasieh (plural: Pinhasias).

The High Priests of the family of Pinhas struggled to maintain the priesthood and the community until the beginning of the 17th century CE. They had to deal with a family reduced in numbers, and a decline in the overall number of Israelite Samaritans.
Back to Contents

Last Pinhas High Priest
In 1624 CE Shalmaiah ben Pinhas ben Eleazar, the last High Priest of the family of Pinhas died. He had held the office for 11 years, and left only one daughter. Mystery surrounded Shalmiah’s death: while on his way from Nablus to visit the Samaritans of Gaza, he simply disappeared. One tradition says that the Almighty took him. The poet and writer Marchiv ben Jacob solved the mystery in one of his many letters to Europe in the 17th century, writing: “the last Rabban died in our time”.

House of ‘Abtah
high priestshigh priestsRaising the Torah at Shavuot
Another Aaronic line, descendants of Itamar ben Aaron, the brother of Eleazar, assisted the Pinhas family High Priests throughout history. They helped the High Priests to direct the religious life and rituals of the Samaritans. They also helped translate the Hebrew Pentateuch into Aramaic. Aramaic had become the lingua franca of the region. At that time it was spoken by the majority of the Israelite People. Because of this special duty, they were called ‘Abtah, which means ‘Translator’ (Arabic: Haftawi).

Priest Abed Ela ben Shalma, a sage of the Samaritan tradition, was the forefather of the current priestly families. He was born and active in Damascus, before moving to Nablus to serve the high priests. Abed was a great poet, translator and religious teacher. In Damascus they knew him as “President of the House of Abtah”

Where do you propose the idea of Gerizim as house of God was 'introduced' at a 'late period'? The Samaritans were worshipping idols and then along came a medieval sage 'proposing' or 'inventing' Gerizim as the house of God? Clearly the Samaritans always thought Gerizim was holy. They always thought Gerizim was the 'house of God.' Clearly the Samaritans always thought that the pardes where Adam was placed was always on Gerizim. The house of God was the palace (palatinus) which stood in front of the pardes. They always thought Jacob saw God descend from a ladder at Gerizim. God is clearly coming from 'his house,' the house with the pardes. It's not complicated. Jews inherited similar ideas.

And maybe I am stupid but I would assume that with your theory Philo must be pretty close to the 'original' Pentateuch and the original exegesis of the Pentateuch. If that's the case, would the great number of parallels between the Samaritans and Philo demonstrate that they are - according to your understanding of 'the truth' - closer to 'the truth' that the rabbinic tradition which is VERY UNLIKELY Philo.

There are similarities between Philo and the Samaritans with respect to mezuzah practices https://books.google.com/books?id=Q70Fm ... ls&f=false mystical exegesis of the Pentateuch https://books.google.com/books?id=VI8cE ... es&f=false

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:53 pm I've already explained the situation. The Samaritans believe in the reverse of the Heavenly Jerusalem. The top of the mountain the part with the palace and pardes is in heaven. The Marcionites believed in this. How do you are argue with what people believe?

So, you mean like... Mount Olympus... So, you agree that this is another likely point of Hellenistic influence on the original meaning of the text then?

Come on. My mother in law died. I am an American. I have lived in the vulgar piece of shit community for 15 years. I've become vulgarized. Fine. But I feel sometimes when I am dealing with you I have make explicit things that are obvious. Not that you're playing dumb. But you really don't get the interconnection between the arguments. Let me start from the beginning.

1. I like Gmirkin. He's creative. But what bothers me is that he's kind of creative when it comes to arguing on behalf of his theory and then semi-retarded when it comes to seeing certain implications of his theory (as I understand it). Case in point. He's like liberal when it comes to his theory and 'conservative' or unimaginative when it comes to Jewish history. So when I say the garden near Eden is a pardes he's like "oh the Hebrew text says just 'garden.'" And I am like "but the LXX says 'paradise.'" There's fucking crickets. Why is he silent. Because he's smart enough to connect the dots. If he's arguing the text was made in Alexandria then Philo's LXX knows what the text says and the Hebrew text that comes to us from Jewish sources is an aberration. It's a pardes. The word was in the text. That's on top of the shape of the irrigation (fourfold) and the animals in the garden, a king living there etc.
2. if it's acknowledged that its a pardes then the house of God epithet is settled. A pardes has a palace. That's why Gerizim is called a 'palatinus' in Aramaic by Jews. But if you're just going to play this Ukrainian war fighting for inches just to save a theory that's dishonesty for me.

If it's a pardes, and the pardes is on or was on Gerizim then the house of God epithet is self-explanatory. But with you I know I am going to need to spend 100 hours on each little detail.