On the Origin of the Dositheans

I ask:

Did you ever think that the Dosithean concepts you envisage here may have been connected to a ban on standing or holding religious services on Gerizim?

Boid's answer:

Yes, I think this is not just likely, but certain, because of the concluding phrase of the whole passage about Sakta: “But he never went up Mt. Gerizim in his life”. From the context, what is meant is that he never went up the Mountain on the occasion of one of the Festivals or on the Day of Atonement. His reason was logical: “He said there was no Holiness in the Time of Error”. The holiness meant here is the higher degree of ritual purity required of the Priests if they are to eat the meat of the sacrifices of the Sanctuary, or are to officiate in the Sanctuary (kodesh קדש which is a step beyond tohorah .(טהרה [The Passover MUST be performed outside the holy part (in the technical sense) of the Sanctuary, so it was not affected for other Samaritans by the ending of the sacrifial service]. The view that the sacrificial sevice could not be carried out was shared by everyone else, but Sakta was remorselessly consistent, and denied the validity of the requirement of a special prayer service on the Mountain. “He declared the Festivals profane”. NOT NOT NOT “He made a substitute for the Festivals”. Presumably there was a special prayer service, but not on the Mountain. All this is the same as the practice and theory of Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism to this day. Judaism has discontinued the Passover sacrifice as well. The argument is that it must be performed in the outer courts of the Temple, in a state of purity (tohorah) not holiness (kodesh). This is impossible. For the Samaritans, the outermost courts of the Sanctuary are the ground on the Mountain. As Sakta denied the intrinsic sacredness of the Mountain, saying it was dependent on the presence of the Tabernacle, he must have denied the legitimacy of the Passover sacrifice as well. “He said Mt. Gerizim was a mountain like any other mountain, so praying facing the Mountain was no better than praying facing a graveyard”. His constant waiting for the reappearance of the Sanctuary is much the same as the practice of the Mourners of Zion אבלי ציון who merged with the Karaites when the Karaites moved to Jerusalem two generations after ‘Anan ben David, or one generation after their founding. (‘Anan himself was not a Karaite. The Karaites say they could only be so named one or two generations later. It could be argued that they only took on this name on moving to Jerusalem and merging with the Mourners of Zion).

The significance of the suggestion by the disciples to make booths is not known. The most I can suggest is this. It is said that the reason for making a booth for each, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, would be that they could then stay on the mountain. Presumably what is meant is that there would be a re-enactment of the period of forty days when Moses was on Mt. Sinai, not needing to eat or drink. The implication of the words is that the disciples wanted to stay there with Jesus and Moses and Elijah not needing to eat or drink, and actually asked for this to be granted. This would be a step beyond the level of the Elders, who could not follow Moses up the mountain. The Elders only saw the inferior theophany, the figure on the throne on a sapphire base, the God of Israel. “They saw the God of Israel. They ate and drank”. The disciples want much more. They want to become LITTLE CHRISTS. I think Jesus tells them it is not the time and this is not to be the way.

A connection somehow with Sukkot is possible. The Samaritan Tabernacle was occulted at Sukkot, so it might have been expected to reappear then.