This had the consequence that, despite the story of the Saošyant’s miraculous conception, there was no divinisation of him, and no betrayal therefore of Zoroaster’s teachings about the part which humanity has to play in the salvation of the world. 43-3)21, upon which there worked the profound Iranian respect for lineage, so that the future Saviour had necessarily to be of the prophet’s own blood. The legend of this great Messianic figure, the cosmic saviour, appears to stem from Zoroaster’s teaching about the one “greater than good” to come after him (Y. 43.16: astvat aš ǝm hyāt “may righteousness be embodied”. Astvat.ǝrǝti will be the Saošyant, the Saviour who will bring about Frašō.kǝrǝti, smiting “daēvas and men” and his name derives from Zoroaster’s words in Y. When Frašō.kǝrǝti is near, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet, giving birth to a son, Astvat.ǝrǝti, “he who embodies righteousness”. The original legend appears to have been that eventually, at the end of “limited time”, a son will be born of the seed of the prophet, which is preserved miraculously in a lake (named in the Avesta Lake Kąsaoya), where it is watched over by 99,999 fravašis of the just. Litwa refers to Mary Boyce’s study and for interest’s sake I will copy a relevant section from one of her books: These sorts of stories were part of the cultural backdrop in the world that produced our gospels. No, Litwa is not saying one story directly derived from the other and he notes significant differences between them. The Magi are Persian figures, so it is interesting that in Matthew we find a story of a virgin birth of a saviour with magi present. So in the case of the virgin birth, Litwa points out that ancient Persians, in their Zoroastrian beliefs, had a similar myth about a future saviour figure. Ancient readers would have accepted them as historical - which is exactly what the authors intended. Such types of events belonged to the “thought world” of that broad culture throughout the Mediterranean and Levant.Īncient authors meant for readers to understand them as part of history, not myth, Litwa insists: the stories were indeed fabricated but their presentation was in the form of historical narrative. Similar fabulous happenings are found in serious works by ancient historians, Litwa claims. Litwa’s theme is that even though the authors of the canonical gospels composed narratives that to moderns are clearly mythical, by ancient standards of historiography such “mythical” episodes were part and parcel of “what happened”. Even though I often disagree with Litwa’s interpretations and conclusions I do find the information he presents and questions raised to be very interesting and informative. This post covers chapters 7 and 8, “Magi and the Star” and “Child in Danger, Child of Wonder”. All Litwa review posts are archived here. David Litwa’s How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |