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

[Thomas]

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

Not really an argument, though ...

The purpose in citing the article ... was to show the Greek historian Theopompus (380 BC - 315 BC) attributed the resurrection to Persians with a variety of sources.

I'm not disputing Zoroastrian influence. Rather, I'm suggesting that external sources of mystical and eschatological speculation fed into the mix. This does not mean doctrines were received wholesale, and those which were went under a process of redaction to fit the pre-existing schema.

So by the time of Christ we have different views, such as those of the Sadducees who denied resurrection, and the Pharisees who didn't. Scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls argues that resurrection was not central to early Judaism nor that its appeal was universal. Resurrection remained an emerging and appealing belief—yet one that still remained somewhat peripheral among the religious concerns of this particular community.

I think it's generally agreed the Persians believed in a resurrection. What type of resurrection seems questionable, however – as to whether the dead body arises, whether in a new body, a spiritual body ... it may refer to a spiritual rather than material body, or some transcendent form.

The article goes on: "It is possible that these authors reinterpret Theopompus. Surviving details in Theopompus' testimonies have also been criticized as misunderstandings of Zoroastrianism."

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.

Indeed, but the allusion does not necessarily infer the wholesale incorporation of Zoroastrian belief.

The scholar Alan F Segal argues, as do others, that this narrative was not about physical resurrection as later interpreted, but intended as a metaphor for national rebirth after the exile.

Another scholar, Michael V Fox in "The Rhetoric of Ezekiel's Vision of the Valley of the Bones" states:
"The rhetorical use made of this image assumes that the audience regards corporeal resurrection as basically absurd. Ezekiel shares the attitude of the psalmist of Psalm 88:11-12 who asks, "Will you perform a miracle for the dead? Will the Shades rise and praise you? Will your mercy be told in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction?" The assumed answer is no, of course not. Ezekiel shows the dead rising, but not because he believes that actual corpses will do so. Rather he depicts the extreme case of unpredictable salvation in order to enable the people to expect a salvation that though unlikely is yet less radical, the return of the nation from exile.

"Yet he does show the dead rising, and it seems likely that this vision contributed to the formulation of the later doctrine of corporeal resurrection. It would be a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 7 to see there a concept of individual resurrection, but that misinterpretation would be rooted in Ezekiel's own rhetoric... Ezekiel does this for rhetorical, not theological, purposes. The resurrection that he is really interested in is not from actual death but from figurative death. Yet his image does offer a new perspective on the life-death polarity, one in which death is not seen as final.

"It is in fact not clear just what the doctrine of corporeal resurrection owes to Ezekiel 37. Daniel 12:2-3 does not reflect Ezekiel's language, but the undoubted dependency of other parts of the visions in Daniel on Ezekiel makes it likely that Ezekiel's vision is in the background here too. Somewhat surprisingly the rabbis did not use Ezekiel 37 as a major proof text for their resurrection belief.

The simplest explanation is ...

... most likely to be wrong, as the situation is anything but simple. Were it do, it would be dine and dusted by scholars a long time ago.

Post-Persian influence is as clear as day in my opinion

I don't dispute that.

 

[Thomas]

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.

I think these two, in their particularities, were unique to Christianity.

 

[Ahanu]

I'm not disputing Zoroastrian influence.

Okay. Then there is no argument.

Rather, I'm suggesting that external sources of mystical and eschatological speculation fed into the mix.

Okay.

This does not mean doctrines were received wholesale, and those which were went under a process of redaction to fit the pre-existing schema.

So by the time of Christ we have different views, such as those of the Sadducees who denied resurrection, and the Pharisees who didn't. Scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls argues that resurrection was not central to early Judaism nor that its appeal was universal.

It was definitely growing in appeal (e.g., Book of Enoch, 2 Maccabees), and it was as one expert put it . . . "already taking a firm hold as a core belief among at least certain groups of Jews." The DSS might not explicitly focus on resurrection as a central tenet, but the mention in 4Q521 shows some within that community were definitely engaging with the concept and linking it to the messianic age. The mention of "revive the dead" in 4Q521 is particularly striking. It directly connects the concept of resurrection with Isaiah 61, which Jesus references in his response to John the Baptist (Matthew 11.4-5, Luke 7.22). Other manuscripts explicitly mention resurrection too.

"Yet, if we take the Dead Sea Scrolls as belonging to a library held by the Essenes, nothing about resurrection surfaced in the specific literature composed by the members of this sect.

Even so, two non-biblical Hebrew texts, Messianic Apocalypse and Pseudo-Ezekiel, found among the Scrolls do speak explicitly of resurrection of the Dead.[12] Their presence in the Qumran library, together with six copies of the book of Daniel, shows that the sectarians were cognizant of the belief about resurrection of the dead and were interested in reading and studying works that elaborated this notion.

The unambiguous references to resurrection in the two Dead Sea Scroll documents attest to the growing popularity of this notion in the late Second Temple period."

Indeed, but the allusion does not necessarily infer the wholesale incorporation of Zoroastrian belief.

I agree.

The scholar Alan F Segal argues, as do others, that this narrative was not about physical resurrection as later interpreted, but intended as a metaphor for national rebirth after the exile.

Again, I pointed out that the text is mostly read metaphorically in post #110. No point in rehashing @RJM's point. This resurrection imagery in Ezekiel was still influenced by Zoroastrian "exposure" practices. It was where the imagery came from.

But just for fun . . .

"Yet he does show the dead rising, and it seems likely that this vision contributed to the formulation of the later doctrine of corporeal resurrection."

What did early Christians believe?

Justin Martyr read it quite differently than those that read it metaphorically today:

"For the prophets have foretold two of his arrivals. One which has already been… and the second … when he will raise the bodies of all humans who have ever existed. The righteous he will clothe with immortality, while he will send the wicked, bearing eternal sensory perception with the evil demons into the eternal fire…. For this has been spoken through the prophet Ezekiel: “Joint will be placed next to joint and bone next to bone” and “flesh will grow again.” (1 Apol. 52.3–6)

Irenaeus did too. He quoted Ezekiel as proof of the resurrection of the flesh in Against Heresies. He omitted verse 11 (which states it's an allegory for national restoration).

And Ezekiel speaks as follows: "And the hand of the LORD came upon me, and the LORD led me forth in the Spirit, and set me down in the midst of the plain, and this place was full of bones. And He caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were many upon the surface of the plain very dry. And He said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live ? And I said, Lord, Thou who hast made them dost know. And He said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and thou shalt say to them, Ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD to these bones, Behold, I will cause the spirit of life to come upon you, and I will lay sinews upon you, and bring up flesh again upon you, and I will stretch skin upon you, and will put my Spirit into you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. And I prophesied as the Lord had commanded me. And it came to pass, when I was prophesying, that, behold, an earthquake, and the bones were drawn together, each one to its own articulation: and I beheld, and, lo, the sinews and flesh were produced upon them, and the skins rose upon them round about, but there was no breath in them. And He said unto me, Prophesy to the breath, son of man, and say to the breath, These things saith the LORD, Come from the four winds (spiritibus), and breathe upon these dead, that they may live. So I prophesied as the Lord had commanded me, and the breath entered into them; and they did live, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great gathering."(10) And again he says, "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will set your graves open, and cause you to come out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall open your sepulchres, that I may bring my people again out of the sepulchres: and I will put my Spirit into you, and ye shall live; and I will place you in your land, and ye shall know that I am the LORD. I have said, and I will do, saith the LORD."

Tertullian, on the other hand, included verse 11 with no trouble whatsoever while upholding physical resurrection:

". . . by this very fact that the reappearance of the Jewish state is figured by the re-embodiment and reanimation of bones, there is proof that this also will take place with bones; for it would not be possible for a parable to be devised from bones unless the same thing were also going to take place with bones."

It should be noted that both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter likely used Pseudo-Ezekiel traditions found in the DSS. Perhaps this is shaping their views? In fact, it could be argued that Matthew used Ezekiel when he wrote: “The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (27.52). Compare it with Ezekiel 37.12: “I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves."

 

[Ahanu]

Tertullian, on the other hand, included verse 11 with no trouble whatsoever while upholding physical resurrection:

". . . by this very fact that the reappearance of the Jewish state is figured by the re-embodiment and reanimation of bones, there is proof that this also will take place with bones; for it would not be possible for a parable to be devised from bones unless the same thing were also going to take place with bones."

@Thomas, there are modern scholars that take up a similar argument.

I also found that the Catholic Encyclopedia argued along these lines: "Though Ezechiel's vision of the resurrection of the dry bones refers directly to the restoration of Israel, such a figure would be hardly Israel, such a figure would be hardly intelligible except by readers familiar with the belief in a literal resurrection (Ezekiel 37)."

 

[Ahanu]

Back to Jean-Marc Lepain. I personally find his work insightful, mainly because he acknowledges he traveled to Iran himself just before the Iranian Revolution, visited Shaykhi communities, translated their writings, and added his own thoughts about Baha'i topics.

"When I found myself in Iran in 1977 and 1978, I had occasion to frequent Shaykhi communities at some length. At the request of Dr. Bahmayar, I translated a little book of Shaykh Ibrahimi, the last Shaykh who issued from the lineage of Karim Khan-i-Kirmani, entitled “Nazar bar qarn-i-bistum” (View of the Twentieth Century). I was thus able to experience firsthand that there is no longer much separating the modern Shaykhis from orthodox Shi'is."

 

[RJM]

... such a figure would be hardly intelligible except by readers familiar with the belief in a literal resurrection (Ezekiel 37)."

I don't see why not? Ezekiel describes all kinds of strange visions that could hardly have been familiar to his readers?

 

[Ahanu]

I don't see why not? Ezekiel describes all kinds of strange visions that could hardly have been familiar to his readers?

If you would like to start another thread about Ezekiel 37 in the Christian forum, I am all for it.

 

[Thomas]

But just for fun . . . What did early Christians believe?

Jesus was preaching a resurrection, from the question of the Sadducees (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 20), who didn't believe it.

Also we have comments in John (cf John 5) and Martha's response in John 11:23-27 "Jesus saith to her: Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith to him: I know that he shall rise again, in the resurrection at the last day Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this? She saith to him: Yea, Lord, I have believed that thou art Christ the Son of the living God, who art come into this world."

Justin Martyr read it quite differently than those that read it metaphorically today

Indeed, but Justin and others weren't as versed in the history of the Hebrew Scriptures as we are today.

To be sure, the early Christians believed in the resurrection because of Jesus, not because of anything in the Hebrew Scriptures, this was just material to argue biblical continuity.

In fact, it could be argued that Matthew used Ezekiel when he wrote: “The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (27.52). Compare it with Ezekiel 37.12: “I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves."

Could be, or could be that there was an outburst of phenomena around the time of the Passion ...

 

[Thomas]

@Thomas, there are modern scholars that take up a similar argument.
I also found that the Catholic Encyclopedia argued along these lines: "Though Ezechiel's vision of the resurrection of the dry bones refers directly to the restoration of Israel, such a figure would be hardly Israel, such a figure would be hardly intelligible except by readers familiar with the belief in a literal resurrection (Ezekiel 37)."

I think the encyclopedia's probably wrong, because the dates don't match for a widespread belief in literal resurrection in Ezekiel's day – the article is well over 100 years old, there's been a lot of scholarship since then ...

 

[Thomas]

There's quite an in-depth article on the question of resurrection in Ezekiel 37 here.

I post the conclusion, which I think probably has it right. The article examines the Ezekiel of the Hebrew Scriptures, the pseudo-Ezekiel found in the DSS at Qumran (c200 BCE), and 'Targum Ezekiel' which also dates to earliest 350BCE but probably somewhat later. It was finally redacted about the 10th century CE.

"The few but crucial differences between the mt and the two extra-biblical texts indicate that there had been a paradigm shift sometime between the writing of Ezekiel and the later two texts. The time-line of judgment and its consequence in terms of punishment or resurrection of the righteous is always ambiguously stated in Ezekiel MT. The apocalyptic eschatology with its concept of judgment and resurrection of the righteous individual after death which is evident in Ps Ez and the Targum only became evident several centuries after the writing of the book of Ezekiel."

"Ps-Ez is the earliest witness to the interpretation of Ezek 37:1-14 as expressing the concept of resurrection in concrete terms as a reward for individual piety. In contradiction to the possible physical restoration of the earthly Temple which some saw as depicted by Ezekiel, the Targum avoids the anthropomorphism in the description of the Merkebah throne in Ezek 43, and makes subtle intimations that the successful replication in the future of the celestial abode of God is meant in a metaphorical sense. Both Ps-Ez and the Targum portray the connection of the Merkebah throne with judgment and eschatological resurrection; these two texts could only have gained clarity in this regard via later developments. This paradigm shift may well have been potentially under the surface of the Ezekiel text, but to interpret MT Ezekiel as expressing a hope or belief in actual physical resurrection would be a travesty of the wide-ranging and open-ended fruitfulness of the spirit in which the book of Ezekiel was written."
(bold emphasis mine)

 

[RJM]

to interpret MT Ezekiel as expressing a hope or belief in actual physical resurrection would be a travesty

Bingo, imo

Physical resurrection is definitely not the take away point from the passage?

 

[Aupmanyav]

For me, the resurrection is chemical. Each molecule of my body going to a new place. I am from billions, I will return to billions.

 

[RJM]

The Book of Ezekiel is full of strange visions

And when I looked, there were four wheels by the cherubim, one wheel by one cherub and another wheel by each other cherub; the wheels appeared to have the colour of a beryl stone. As for their appearance, all four looked alike—as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went toward any of their four directions; they did not turn aside when they went ... And their whole body, with their back, their hands, their wings, and the wheels that the four had, were full of eyes all around. As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing, “Wheel.”

Ezekiel 10

 

[Aupmanyav]

Must have been using some strong one.

 

[RJM]

Ezekiel prophesied by visions, whereas Jeremiah prophesied by physical demonstrations:

Thus says the Lord: “Go and get a potter’s earthen flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests. And go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the Potsherd Gate; and proclaim there the words that I will tell you … Then you shall break the flask in the sight of the men who go with you, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot be made whole again …
Jeremiah 19:1-2,10-11

 

[Ahanu]

Well, I was trying to get back on topic. @RJM and @Thomas, click here if you would like to continue talking about Ezekiel 37. I created a thread there.

 

[RJM]

Well, I was trying to get back on topic.

I'm no longer clear what that is? I believe it is you who brought Ezekiel into the thread?

 

[Ahanu]

I'm no longer clear what that is?

Next time I will begin with points 1 and 2.

1. It looks like where we start our approach differs dramatically. Classical metaphysics begins with God and a descent through the hierarchy of Being. Baha'u'llah's approach works the other way around: "It is because one begins by defining the nature of man that one can thereafter ascend the degrees of the hierarchy of Being."

"While classical metaphysics begin with God to descend thereafter through the degrees of the hierarchy of Being, from the world of essences to that of individuals, the question which is found at the heart of the philosophy of Baha’u’llah is an inquest upon the nature of man. It is because one begins by defining the nature of man that one can thereafter ascend the degrees of the hierarchy of Being. This explains that the philosophy of Ideas or of Forms appropriate to Platonism or Aristotelianism is replaced by a philosophy of values. It is in the function of the meaning which is given to human life that one can define the finality of the physical reality of the universe."

More on the reasoning behind this thinking here:

"For Baha’u’llah, there are two complementary ways of apprehending the world: the one rational and scientific which exists from our exteriority, and the other intuitive and mystical which exists from our interiority. But, in order to take this second path, man must first explore and understand his interiority. Furthermore, in that which concerns God and the spiritual worlds in general, the way of interiority alone exists. This is why Baha’u’llah, after the knowledge of self, assigns as finality to human existence “to know and love God”. He affirms that this is not only the finality of all human existence but that it is also the finality of all creation, for it is impossible to conceive of a divine creation without a consciousness which knows his Creator. This is what we have called “the anthropic principle” of Baha’u’llah. This principle overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored. It is this principle which explains that the reality of the universe appears to be structured in its functioning by a law of intelligibility which the universe shares with the human spirit. It is this principle which also implicates the necessity of a noetic and epistemological link between the creature and the Creator which is at the source of the Baha’i hermeneutic. From that also follows that Being cannot be at the center of the metaphysic, and even of the ontology, of Baha’u’llah."

2. "Being is no longer at the center of metaphysics" in Baha'i thought.

"The principle which is the resume of the anthropology of Baha’u’llah, and which constitutes the key to the vault of his teaching is contained in the affirmation that the nature of man is spiritual. The fundamental philosophical problem which this principle poses consists then in understanding what the word “spiritual” signifies. We can say that this question is the object of the metaphysic of Baha’u’llah, for the concept of the spiritual refers to a world of transcendental values, intermediary values between God and His creation, the existence of which one must explain. Now we understand why the metaphysic of Baha’u’llah is not presented according to the mode to which the classical systems have habituated us. Being is no longer at the center of metaphysics; it is replaced by the spirit and the consciousness."

 

[Ahanu]

Para 1
It looks like where we start our approach differs dramatically. Classical metaphysics begins with God and a descent through the hierarchy of Being. Baha'u'llah's approach works the other way around: "It is because one begins by defining the nature of man that one can thereafter ascend the degrees of the hierarchy of Being."
What added benefit (if any) is achieved by 'reinventing the wheel' as it were, from the ground up, in regard to an existing top down methodology? Where's the need?

Better to start with the human being. By starting with human potential, we can then explore existence and our relationship with the divine. This avoids blind adherence to unproven beliefs (e.g., demonic possession, one-time miracles).

@Thomas said:
This ... “the anthropic principle” ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored.
OK – then the principle needs to be explained.

The Bab already initiated the path in this direction, starting with the human being:

"Know that the gnosis of God in this world can never be disclosed, save through the gnosis of the Manifestation of Reality."

 

[Thomas]

Better to start with the human being.

I rather disagree ... it seems to me the intellect can speculate on the nature of the Divine (as, for example, Aquinas' Five Ways), but clearly no unarguable proof exists, and hence belief in God is a question of faith. Speculation is the best the unaided intellect can hope for – hence Revelation.

By starting with human potential, we can then explore existence and our relationship with the divine.

But not with any certainty.

This avoids blind adherence to unproven beliefs (e.g., demonic possession, one-time miracles).

Clearly not the case ... or rather, an opinion based on assumption.

@Thomas said:
This ... “the anthropic principle” ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored.
OK – then the principle needs to be explained.

Not my words ... if you could point to why this 'principle' overturns 'all philosophy', when it is itself the expression of a philosophy ...

The Bab already initiated the path in this direction, starting with the human being:
"Know that the gnosis of God in this world can never be disclosed, save through the gnosis of the Manifestation of Reality."

Does this not regard the 'Manifestation of Reality' – Revelation – as axiomatic and therefore a priori to the discussion of the nature of human potential?

If not based on Revelation, then it's one idea among many, as the various non-theist solutions regard the material universe as the Manifestation of Reality and have no need of Gods or Messengers ...