stephan huller

I have a few minutes to write about the various Hebrew expectations regarding the heavenly and earthly tabernacles (as it is after all 'the Letter to the Hebrews'). I don't know if it will make any sense to people but it basically derives my time in school so it is little more than an assembly of notes. I hope this helps explain the concept of the heavenly tabernacle (even though there is some parallel interest in Philo.

First. On the relationship between the anointed priest and the anointed king in Aramaic. The Hebrew words משיח and משוח will both become משיח, definite משיחה, משיחא in Aramaic. The Aramaic word is therefore ambiguous: it can mean either a legitimate King anointed by the High Priest, or it can mean an Anointed High Priest, either in the earthly Tabernacle and of the order of Aaron; or in the heavenly Tabernacle and of the order of Moses; or of the earthly Tabernacle and heavenly Tabernacle together and of the order of Melchizedek.

My teacher Rory Boid was an acknowledged authority on the Samaritans (my friend Benny Tsedaka deeply respects his scholarly work). Boid saw a connection between Hebrews and John chapter 4 especially if the person interpreting the material is aware of Samaritan theological concerns.

When the Samaritan woman recognizes Jesus as an 'anointed one' (the messiah called Christ in the oldest texts) she could not have understood him to be the familiar royal figure of the Jews. The concept does not exist in Samaritanism. She was using the ambiguous Aramaic form in John 4. This is certain because the Samaritans were not waiting for a king.

They were waiting for the reappearance of the earthly Tabernacle newly restored to connection with the heavenly Tabernacle. This was to be brought about, in some lines of thought but not all, by the agency of the Ta’eb. This title is generally taken to mean Restorer, which would not be the expected meaning but is possible. The more obvious grammatical meaning is “the one that has come back”.

It can be argued that what Jesus said was coming and in a sense was already present was the full union of the heavenly Tabernacle and the earthly one, with the earthly Tabernacle now being the worshippers or faithful, not a tent. In a few places Christian theology and some early Jewish theology interpret the Anointed in some of the Psalms as the heavenly Ruler of All, denying by definition any connection with the Davidic line.

Boid spent a lot of his research trying to figure out the nature of the Dosithean sect. He was convinced that there was a strong expectation of the reappearance of the Mosaic Tabernacle. His suggestion was that the Dosithean insistence on the inadequacy of the mountain (Gerizim) without the Tabernacle and the expectation of the appearance of the Tabernacle led to an expectation of the original Mosaic Tabernacle, the Heavenly Tabernacle, of which the earthly Tabernacle is only a copy. One is temporary and only the concern of a certain category of people (the Israel according to the flesh); the other is by definition permanent and the concern of the whole world.

It was his belief that the Epistle to the Hebrews was of Samaritan origin or related to a Samaritan sect (= Dositheans). The doctrine of the Heavenly Tabernacle was quite central to the tradition. But he was also convinced that John 4 witnessed that interest (Jerome says that the woman in the narrative was a Dosithean).

If we break down the conversation in Samaritan terms we can see that Jesus states the obvious, that the Samaritans don’t actually venerate a place, but rather the occulted Sanctuary or Tabernacle that ought to be in the place on Mt. Gerizim, and which gives or gave the place a secondary sanctity. This Tabernacle is obviously invisible.

Then he says the Jews do seem to venerate a place, but actually venerate the building modelled on the Tabernacle, which gives the place a secondary sanctity. It logically follows that the disagreement over the question of the right place is less important than the veneration of the Sanctuary. Both sides agree that the occulted Samaritan tent or tabernacle and the visible Jewish building are only copies at a lower level of the Heavenly Tabernacle (= Exodus 25:9).

Here tavnit, means plan of a building or something akin to the Neoplatonic Eternal Form. Much of early Samaritanism - and Marqe in particular - had a strong Greek philosophical interest.

So Boid's interpretation of John 4 continues, it follows inevitably that the time must come when the question of who used to be right and who used to be wrong won’t matter any more. Both sides, if pressed, would have to admit this. This is what John 4 is about, this is what the Epistle to the Hebrews is about.

So again the Samaritan woman must have understood Jesus to be an anointed High Priest, but High Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses, as opposed to the High Priest of the earthly sanctuary, Aaron and his descendants. (The concept of Moses ministering in the Heavenly Tabernacle can be found plainly in the Torah if you read carefully what is said about the Tent Of Meeting אהל מועד.

She says that the hour is coming, and in a sense is already here, when the true worshippers (i.e. those that know that both sanctuaries are only copies of the Heavenly Tabernacle, as Exodus 25: 9 plainly says, and therefore have no holiness of their own) will worship the Father in spirit and in truth (Truth = Reality in the Neoplatonic sense).

This clarifies the meaning of “spirit”. They will direct their attention to the true original Eternal Form, the Heavenly Tabernacle, (as a vehicle, since God is both knowable and ultimately unknowable) which will be possible as soon as The Salvation comes

The woman responds effectively: “Yes, I already know all that. But it still depends on the coming of the anointed High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, the second and greater Moses [Deuteronomy 17: 15 & 18]. When he comes, he will show us all things [because he will know all that exists, Numbers 12, the first section, specially v. 7 & 8]. Then we will know as we are known [Deuteronomy 24: 10 and see the Targums], directly [Numbers 12: 7, where direct vision is meant], because we will not know indirectly [Numbers 12: 6, the verb of the third clause out of four, “I am made known” in MT, but better “it has (so far) been made known” in the Samaritan text of the Torah], not by hints and not in a mirror [Numbers 12: 6, where the usually translated as image or vision can equally well be read as meaning “mirror”].

So we have Jesus respond effectively by saying: “Quite so. That person must come so as to give you that perception. We both know that]. That person has now come [at last]. It’s me”. So from now on we can stop being concerned about where the earthly tabernacle ought to be. More to the point, the new era has started, the return of the Time of Favour.

How can Jesus embody the sanctity of the tabernacle? The original Heavenly Tabernacle, the pattern of Creation is a Man. Philo says this over and over again. The Son of Man is Adam Kadmon, the pre-existent Man, bearing in the details of the form of his body the pattern of Creation. Jesus is of the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle in the same way that Adam was created after the Logos.

But his equation as embodying all the sanctity of the tabernacle is witnessed in John 1 “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.” The Samaritans understood Jacob to have been standing looking at mount Gerizim when he had this vision. Mount Gerizim was the place where the desert tabernacle eventually rested so the identification of Jesus with the sanctity of the holy place.

stephan huller

Needless to say there is a very strong argument for saying that Hebrews is making manifest points raised in the gospel.

maryhelena

OK - and the first place one finds 'heavenly man' is - Philo. So would that date the Pauline writing (l Cor.15) to Philo? (died around 50 c.e.)

Surely, all one can say in regard to a quote from a specific source is that that source was available at that time. It says nothing about when that source was composed. I really don't think you would like the idea of dating 'Paul' to pre 50 c.e.

Although then again, if "Paul" is a composite figure, like JC, then an early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul' would be able to keep a connection with Philo - and leave open the question of what later historical figure was the 'Paul' of the epistles. A later 'Paul' who took up the torch and turned it's light towards the Gentiles.

---------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon#cite_note-2

aa5874

Philo's reference to the 'heavenly man' and 'earthly man' had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or Paul.

In fact, Philo was making commentary on Creation found in the book of Genesis and the term 'heavenly man' refers to a RACE of Men--not a single man.

Essentially, Philo is claiming God created or fashioned TWO RACES of men--heavenly men and earthly men.
Philo's Allegorical Interpretation 1 The writings of Philo does not corroborate the Pauline writings. Even in the Canon itself NO author corroborated a single Pauline Epistle--the author of Acts acknowledged NO Pauline letters to Churches and actually claimed that it was Paul and his group that delivered Letters of the JERUSALEM Church--See Acts 15.

In Non-Apologetic sources there is ZERO corroboration of any Jesus cult and no mention whatsoever of any new religion where Roman citizens worshiped a character called Jesus as a God that was crucified and raised from the dead before c 70 CE.

Non-Apologetic sources mentioned a crucified character called Jesus worshiped by Christians about 100 years AFTER Philo.

stephan huller

But you see that is another strike against Doherty's claim that Jesus never appeared on earth. The real problem is that people aren't generally aware of this 'tabernacle interest' among the Samaritans. Nevertheless there have been enough knowledgeable people who have put forward the connection between Hebrews and the Samaritan theological interest.

Here is the bottom line. The Samaritans had their temple destroyed a hundred years before the Common Era. The normative tradition continued to sacrifice at the mountain. The Dositheans - perhaps an even older tradition than what became 'normative' among the Samaritans - argued that the earthly tabernacle was no longer sacred. Hence the side by side discussion in Hebrews (i.e. the continuation of sacrifices and the author disapproving). The Samaritans continued to offer sacrifices into the last millennium (i.e. so there is no dating possible for Hebrews if a Samaritan text).

There is no comparable Jewish interest in the heavenly versus earthly tabernacle in the manner manifested in Hebrews. The Dosithean paradigm understood that when the second Moses appears there is no need for an earthly tabernacle because - according to a close reading of Deuteronomy - the tabernacle was set up as a substitute for the occultation of Moses ('the Man of God' as the Samaritans term him).

Thus by reverse logic, the Dosithean position was certainly that with the reappearance of Adam (Kadmion but the Samaritans don't use that term) - i.e. the pattern after which the cosmos and the tabernacle was created - the earthly tabernacle is unnecessary. By further development of logic if Jesus is the heavenly Adamic savior then he would necessarily have had to appear on earth, otherwise the 'heavenly Tabernacle' argument falls down and the original expectation is not fulfilled.

RParvus

Hi Stephan,

I too think the original Paraclete was believed to be Paul and that he was held to be the author of the Fourth Gospel. But there is good reason to think that these beliefs first arose in the Apellean community, not the Valentinian one. Here’s why:

When Apelles abandoned Marcion and his gospel, he turned to the revelations of his prophetess associate Philumena to form his new gospel (the Phaneroseis). Philumena claimed to receive her revelations via a phantasma who appeared to her “… dressed as a boy and sometimes stated he was Christ, sometimes Paul” (Latin Patrology 42, 30, n. 1). Now, when I first read this I thought: “If Philumena thought Christ was speaking to her, what need did she have for Paul too? Isn’t Paul kind of superfluous in that situation?”

But then it occurred to me that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel requires two witnesses (actually one) to support a claim: “If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. But there is another who testifies on my behalf… the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf” (Jn. 5:31 and 37). So my suspicion is that (in Philumena’s mind) Christ spoke to her first in order to vouch for Paul whom he promised to send shortly. The gospel to be written was going to be based on the testimony of Paul (the Beloved Disciple), but in order for it to have authority Christ needed to show up first to vouch for him.

Thus Apelles, who was coming from a Marcionite background where it was believed that Paul wrote a gospel (falsified by false brethren), in effect looked to Philumena’s revelations in order to obtain a gospel from Paul that he could trust; one that had not been tampered with.

So in this scenario the Paraclete sayings were originally spoken by Christ to Philumena. He told her he was going to shortly send another Paraclete who “will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.” But when the proto-orthodox took over and reworked Apelles’ gospel they inserted the Paraclete sayings into the Last Supper’s long discourse. And they altered it in a few places to turn the Paraclete into the Holy Spirit.

If this is correct, it would mean that the older Johannine commentators were right. I think, for example, of Hans Windisch who wrote: “The five Paraclete sayings do not belong in the original text of the farewell discourses. They are alien entities in the course of both dialogues (chaps. 13 – 14, 15 -16)” (“The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel”, p. 3). And: “In his interesting work ‘Le Quatrieme Evangile’ H. Delafosse, like H. Sasse, maintained that the identification of the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit is secondary… No matter what one may think of about the integrity of the Paraclete sayings, it is certain (and at this point I am agreement with Delafosse and Sasse) that the Spirit and the Paraclete are two very different figures.” (“The Spirit-Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel,” pp. 1 and 20)

I find it ironic too that Apelles may have used Philumena in order to obtain a Pauline gospel that had not been tampered with. Yet he likely agreed to let the proto-orthodox tamper with the finished product! I suspect that the Apellean community was short-lived and that Apelles was among those who reconciled with the proto-orthodox in the 150s (“He (Polycarp) it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus, caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics [Valentinus and Marcion] to the church of God… - "Against Heresies," 3,3,4). Irenaeus conveniently omitted all mention of Apelles, Philumena, and Apelleans from his list of heretics.

stephan huller

The Paraclete = Paul concept originated with the Marcionites and the gospel he wrote was understood to be the Marcionite gospel (whatever that was)

stephan huller

And getting back to Doherty's claims about Jesus not appearing on the earth. This simply can't be true. It isn't possible because it contradicts everything we know about Christianity, what it is and what is was supposed to do.

There was always the idea of a heavenly Tabernacle and an earthly Tabernacle. The idea is present in the Pentateuch. But God's presence came to earth to establish a likeness of the heavenly Tabernacle to enlighten Israel and bring them home (i.e. fulfilling the promise made to Abraham about his children being transformed into stars or living in the heavens).

To argue that Jesus never left heaven doesn't solve the original need for an earthly copy of the heavenly tabernacle. If Jesus IS the divine Logos or the figure who takes care of the heavenly altar there is no change in the original equation which required the establishment of an earthly tabernacle. What changed - according to the gospel narrative - is that Adam or his Son came back to earth to establish humanity not according to the likeness of the heavenly Tabernacle but actually bring all the holiness of that sanctuary on earth in human form.

This is Christianity 101 and it doesn't make sense to keep the heavenly situation the same as it was when an earthly tabernacle was necessary. Something had to have changed in order to allow Christianity to abrogate the original covenant or formula established by Moses with a lesser power.

Sheshbazzar

Where?

stephan huller

read previous post: