The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Thomas]

@Thomas, see Reddit for an excerpt here:

Thanks for that. As I read it, it rather weakens your claim that the Christians borrowed physical resurrection from the Zoroastrians.

"Thus, even scholars such as Boyce, who strongly assert Zoroastrian influence, are inevitably struck by the extent to which Jews reinterpreted and developed very different conceptions than those expressed in classic Zoroastrian sources.

This feature of Jewish adaptation illustrates the difficulties involved in citing "direct" influences, even in the favorable comparisons ... The Hellenization of Zoroastrian traditions may also have distorted any presumed Jewish reception of their eschatology. If Judaism reinterpreted Zoroastrian contributions, it probably did so in dialogue with other kinds of non-Zoroastrian traditions ...

Rather than seeking a "direct" influence, it seems more useful to consider the larger contextual features of encounter between Zoroastrian eschatology and early Jewish thought... "it may have been as part of this oriental anti Hellenistic reaction that the Jews came—if they did—to find Iranian conceptions useful for the expression of their own religion.”

In this sense, Persian influence may have made it plausible for Judaism to reinterpret the imagery of earlier prophetic texts in a more literalizing way, even as the Hellenistic empire made it imperative to do so."

As I said, a melting pot ... a lot of 'may haves' but as the text implies, if there is cross-over, its a dialogue with one tradition that enables another to refine its own perspective in light of what it already believes, rather than believing in something new, adopted from an extrinsic source.

And, of course, the followers of Jesus had no concept of physical resurrection with regard to Jesus Himself until after the event, as it were, as even John, the most insightful among them, points out that the empty tomb was something of an epiphany with regard to how they understood Jesus, despite His prior prophetic utterances and intimations – and Paul did a lot of work to unpack what the resurrection meant, which is not at all part of the Zoroastrian belief system.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Indeed .... doersn't mean we read them correctly, though, does it?

The chance that we read them correctly is almost zero.

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God.

I am not of that category, thus I use explanations that I see come from God given Messengers and their appointed holy men of God.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I use explanations that I see come from God given Messengers and their appointed holy men of God.

To be clear then, is this 'official' Baha'i doctrine, or is it your own take?

The Son Jesus, in the bosom of the Father Baha'u'llah, has declared God unto us.

 

[RJM]

2: From the literal pov, God has no 'form' therefore He cannot be 'seen', but when, in Exodus 3 for example, Moses sees a burning bush on Mount Horeb, he looks and wonders, "And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (v2) but then: "... God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I" (v4) "... I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." (v6) – so what opens as a burning bush, then a an angel, then – as far as Moses is concerned – God Himself, so Moses 'sees' in the sense that the phenomena is a divine disclosure, and this evidence refutes the statement that "there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation"

I think Baha'u'llah taught that it was he himself as the Christ (reflection) who spoke to Moses from the burning bush?

 

[Ahanu]

Thanks for that. As I read it, it rather weakens your claim that the Christians borrowed physical resurrection from the Zoroastrians.

@Thomas, the author was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary, which has its own theological agenda (much like the majority of the world of biblical scholarship). He is currently a professor at Gustavus. This college "is a church-related, residential liberal arts college firmly rooted in its Swedish and Lutheran heritage," so I am not surprised his conclusions don't rock the boat here. Elledge's affiliation with a Lutheran college and training at Princeton Theological Seminary might lead to an unconscious bias towards emphasizing Christian distinctiveness and downplaying influence.

"Thus, even scholars such as Boyce, who strongly assert Zoroastrian influence, are inevitably struck by the extent to which Jews reinterpreted and developed very different conceptions than those expressed in classic Zoroastrian sources.

This is a weak argument. The "different conceptions" in their final form miss the point. The question is if the initial idea of physical resurrection might have come from Zoroastrianism.

 

[Thomas]

... the author was educated at Princeton Theological Seminary ... might lead to an unconscious bias ...

Or it might not. I don't know enough about the author to say, I wouldn't write him off on an assumption of bias.

This is a weak argument.

How is it weak? None of the scholars cited in the article support the argument uneqivocally.

The "different conceptions" in their final form miss the point. The question is if the initial idea of physical resurrection might have come from Zoroastrianism.

Or from the Resurrection itself, and comparing the two, the argument in support of a Zoroastrian influence is really very, very weak ...

 

[Thomas]

By way of balance, let me add this.

David Bentley Hart, in his translation of the New Testament, offers a 'subversively literal' translation, to bring out something of the world in which the text was written. Notable are his versions of texts like Mark 3:22 "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince (archon) of the devils (daimonion) casteth he out devils (daimonion)"

John 12:31 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince (archon) prince of this world be cast out."

1 Corinthians 2:6 "Howbeit we speak wisdom (sophia) among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes (archon) of this world, that come to nought"

Throughout, Hart transliterates the word, giving us translations like "the Archon of the demons" or "the Archon of this cosmos" for example: Ephesians 6.12 "Because we are wrestling not against blood and flesh, but against the Archons, against the Powers, against the Cosmic Rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the celestial places."

He comments in his footnotes:
"[T]he reference is not to earthly rulers but to celestial spirits or angelic beings governing the nations, in whom most of the peoples of late antiquity believed in one form or another, and who were quite prominent in Jewish apocalyptic tradition (influenced by Persian thought) ... (These texts are) full of associations with the complicated angelology and demonology of late antique Judaism and Christianity, dependent to a large degree on such intertestamental texts as 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees." (emphasis mine)

Here it's in the context of angelology, which is a huge subject, and crosses many boundaries and traditions (so heavily influenced by astronomy), but I think one can safely acknowledge that Paul's vision of the salvation of humanity and our incorporation into the Body of Christ is new.

Interesting is looking at Zoroastrianism, the possibly underlying root of Hinduism and the Vedas.

 

[Ahanu]

Or it might not. I don't know enough about the author to say, I wouldn't write him off on an assumption of bias.

Well, he has a job to keep, @Thomas.

How is it weak? None of the scholars cited in the article support the argument uneqivocally.

The purpose in citing the article wasn't to support the overall argument. Rather, the original purpose was to show the Greek historian Theopompus (380 BC - 315 BC) attributed the resurrection to Persians with a variety of sources. This is important to point out for two reasons, especially after considering the response from Ehrman. In writing his article, he is obviously unaware of it since he said:

"It turns out we don’t actually know much about Zoroastrianism during the period we are interested in (say, 200 BCE to 200 CE). That’s because we have lousy sources of information. I first discovered this by reading one of the most learned discussions of the afterlife in Jewish and Christian traditions, by Dutch historian Jan Bremmer (his book: The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife [New York: Routledge, 2002]).

Bremmer points out that our oldest manuscript of the Zoroastrian texts in question, the Avestas, dates from 1288 CE, and all the surviving manuscripts appear to go back to a copy that had been produced in the 9th or 10th century CE. Since the Zoroastrian tradition was living and constantly changing over time, there is no assurance that the teachings of the later Avestan manuscripts were ancient. Moreover, there is only one reference in all the oldest forms of the Avestan writings to the glories of a later life, and this reference doesn’t say anything about a future day of judgment (as in Jewish apocalyptic thought)."

Greek sources put this argument to rest in regard to bodily resurrection. It also adds weight to the idea that bodily resurrection originated with Zoroastrians instead of the other way around. Strange that any explicit reference to bodily resurrection isn't mentioned in Jewish literature until we get to post-exilic Judaism.

Ezekiel's captivity in a Zoroastrian-influenced culture allowed him to introduce novel resurrection imagery into Jewish literature, as Bernhard Lang rightly observed. What inspired Ezekiel's imagery? To be more precise, it was the way Zoroastrians buried their dead. Here's how Lang describes their burial practices:

"The naked body is laid in the open under the sun, which makes a path of light to draw the soul upwards. By exposure to birds and beasts the flesh is quickly destroyed. Later, the clean bones are either collected into an ossuary or simply left on the funeral ground, depending on the means of a community."

It is easy for us to see the source of Ezekiel's imagery for the valley of dry bones. He was no doubt aware of Zoroastrian practices and beliefs to include this novel imagery in Jewish literature for the very first time.

The simplest explanation is that Jews borrowed the idea from Zoroastrian contacts, and then went on developing it from there. Post-Persian influence is as clear as day in my opinion - just as the Cambridge History of Iran concludes:

"Gradually many of Zoroaster's fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgement, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one Supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaemenian empire."

 

[RJM]

Well, he has a job to keep, @Thomas.



The purpose in citing the article wasn't to support the overall argument. Rather, the original purpose was to show the Greek historian Theopompus (380 BC - 315 BC) attributed the resurrection to Persians with a variety of sources. This is important to point out for two reasons, especially after considering the response from Ehrman. In writing his article, he is obviously unaware of it since he said:

"It turns out we don’t actually know much about Zoroastrianism during the period we are interested in (say, 200 BCE to 200 CE). That’s because we have lousy sources of information. I first discovered this by reading one of the most learned discussions of the afterlife in Jewish and Christian traditions, by Dutch historian Jan Bremmer (his book: The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife [New York: Routledge, 2002]).

Bremmer points out that our oldest manuscript of the Zoroastrian texts in question, the Avestas, dates from 1288 CE, and all the surviving manuscripts appear to go back to a copy that had been produced in the 9th or 10th century CE. Since the Zoroastrian tradition was living and constantly changing over time, there is no assurance that the teachings of the later Avestan manuscripts were ancient. Moreover, there is only one reference in all the oldest forms of the Avestan writings to the glories of a later life, and this reference doesn’t say anything about a future day of judgment (as in Jewish apocalyptic thought)."

Greek sources put this argument to rest in regard to bodily resurrection. It also adds weight to the idea that bodily resurrection originated with Zoroastrians instead of the other way around. Strange that any explicit reference to bodily resurrection isn't mentioned in Jewish literature until we get to post-exilic Judaism.

Ezekiel's captivity in a Zoroastrian-influenced culture allowed him to introduce novel resurrection imagery into Jewish literature, as Bernhard Lang rightly observed. What inspired Ezekiel's imagery? To be more precise, it was the way Zoroastrians buried their dead. Here's how Lang describes their burial practices:

"The naked body is laid in the open under the sun, which makes a path of light to draw the soul upwards. By exposure to birds and beasts the flesh is quickly destroyed. Later, the clean bones are either collected into an ossuary or simply left on the funeral ground, depending on the means of a community."

It is easy for us to see the source of Ezekiel's imagery for the valley of dry bones. He was no doubt aware of Zoroastrian practices and beliefs to include this novel imagery in Jewish literature for the very first time.

The simplest explanation is that Jews borrowed the idea from Zoroastrian contacts, and then went on developing it from there. Post-Persian influence is as clear as day in my opinion - just as the Cambridge History of Iran concludes:

Or the simplest explanation for the Resurrection of the Christ is that it actually happened?

@Ahanu do you dismiss the Resurrection at base, without any possibility that it actually occurred? So everything else is looking for how to explain it away

 

[RJM]

@Ahanu

Do you regard the Quran as inerrant?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, if you take Bahai explanation. Same for Jewish, Zoroastrian, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist scriptures.
Since Jews understand their scriptures wrongly, Zoroastrians understand their scriptures wrongly, Christians understand their scriptures wrongly, Hindus understand their scriptures wrongly and Buddhists understand their scriptures wrongly.

 

[RJM]

The Resurrection is not something that evolved in later Christianity. It was there from the very start. Together with the Eucharist it was central from the earliest times.

"... the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death. Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John ..."
Bart Ehrman's Blog

 

[Ahanu]

Or the simplest explanation for the Resurrection of the Christ is that it actually happened?

I'm not specifically talking about the resurrection of Christ. I'm just talking about the idea of bodily resurrection in general within Judaism.

@Ahanu do you dismiss the Resurrection at base, without any possibility that it actually occurred? So everything else is looking for how to explain it away

Not sure how this discussion has anything to do with Christ's resurrection.

 

[RJM]

I'm not specifically talking about the resurrection of Christ. I'm just talking about the idea of bodily resurrection in general within Judaism.

Is it a significant theme within Judaism?

Ezekiel's captivity in a Zoroastrian-influenced culture allowed him to introduce novel resurrection imagery into Jewish literature, as Bernhard Lang rightly observed. What inspired Ezekiel's imagery? To be more precise, it was the way Zoroastrians buried their dead. Here's how Lang describes their burial practices:

Ezekiel is talking about the restoration of Israel as a nation, not about individual bodily resurrection?

 

[Ahanu]

Is it a significant theme within Judaism?

During certain periods. Better to speak of Judaisms.

Ezekiel is talking about the restoration of Israel as a nation, not about individual bodily resurrection?

I pointed this out in post #110. That's why I used the word imagery. That's where the seed was planted.

 

[Ahanu]

@Ahanu

Do you regard the Quran as inerrant?

I fail to see how this relates to the conversation here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To be more precise, it was the way Zoroastrians buried their dead. Here's how Lang describes their burial practices:

"The naked body is laid in the open under the sun, which makes a path of light to draw the soul upwards. By exposure to birds and beasts the flesh is quickly destroyed. Later, the clean bones are either collected into an ossuary or simply left on the funeral ground, depending on the means of a community."

BTW, buried is not the correct word, it is exposure. With Hindus, it is cremation. Burial was not considered wrong by ancient Indo-Aryans. It is mentioned in RigVeda.

 

[RJM]

I fail to see how this relates to the conversation here.

No need to answer, then.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No need to answer, then.

I can't answer for him, but I can answer for myself.

The Arabic script can vary due to 'dialect', but I have no reason to believe that any meaning has changed
since it was revealed.
..so I believe that 'the meaning' is inerrant .. but that relies on knowledge of classical Arabic.

BTW .. how farest thou this day?

 

[Ahanu]

BTW, buried is not the correct word, it is exposure. With Hindus, it is cremation. Burial was not considered wrong by ancient Indo-Aryans. It is mentioned in RigVeda.

Thanks. I wasn't sure about how to express it.