Tradition relates, that in Italy Mary Magdalene visited the Emperor Tiberias
(14-37 AD) and proclaimed to him about Christ's Resurrection. According to
tradition, she took him an egg as a symbol of the Resurrection, a symbol of
new life with the words: "Christ is Risen!" Then she told Tiberias that, in
his Province of Judea, Jesus the Nazarene, a holy man, a maker of miracles,
powerful before God and all mankind, was executed on the instigation of the
Jewish High-Priests and the sentence affirmed by the procurator Pontius
Pilate. Tiberias responded that no one could rise from the dead, anymore
than the egg she held could turn red. Miraculously, the egg immediately
began to turn red as testimony to her words. Then, and by her urging,
Tiberias had Pilate removed from Jerusalem to Gaul, where he later suffered
a horrible sickness and an agonizing death.
From comments you make later evidently you find some of this stuff quitereliable historically. I'm quite well informed regarding documents within two centuries of Jesus' death, but am not so knowledgeable of later material. I'm assuming this tradition came about at least three hundred years after Jesus. Can you tell me the source of this tradition? The tradition obviously assumes the later orthodox belief in Jesus' physical resurrection, which makes me quite skeptical to begin with. Furthermore, the Mary that 'Abdu'l-Baha describes would never have preached what is described here. 'Abdu'l-Baha says:
When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, the disciples who witnessed His crucifixion were disturbed and shaken. Even Peter, one of the greatest of His followers, denied Him thrice. Mary Magdalene brought them together and confirmed their faith, saying, "Why are ye doubting? Why have ye feared? O thou Peter! Why didst thou deny Him? For Christ was not crucified. The reality of Christ is ever-living, everlasting, eternal. For that divine reality there is no beginning, no ending, and, therefore, there can be no death. At most, only the body of Jesus has suffered death."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, Page: 395)
The idea of a resurrection would be meaningless to someone who would speak such words. As she says, Jesus didn't die, and is eternal. There has to be death to be resurrection. This is precisely the way the Qur'an treats the subject. The Qur'an in one place explicitly acknowledges the death of Jesus, as Mary does here. Aside from that, what it says is the same as what Mary said. The piece you mention said, "when many did not believe that Christ is risen, she repeated to them what she had said to the Apostles on the radiant morning of the Resurrection: "I have seen the Lord!" With this preaching she made the rounds of all Italy." In what 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions there is nothing about seeing Jesus. She does not confirm the faith of the disciples by reporting that she saw Jesus. Anyway, if Jesus didn't die in the sense that is the most important (His spirit), which is what the Qur'an is there referring to, any concept of resurrectin is meaningless. Hence, the Qur'an does not mention the resurrection of Jesus, a major Christian teaching, and implictly denies any personal resurrection. 'Abdu'l-Baha employs a different tack, however, affirming that Jesus was resurrected, but then giving an explanation which, while related to Jesus, is not a resurrection of Jesus in any literal sense. Neither Jesus' body or spirit was resurrected. Jesus was not literally dead in the two or three days prior to His resurrection, as if He had an immortal soul it had to be alive during that time. Nothing came alive related to Jesus at the time of His resurrection. His resurrection is even treated as something that couldn't be easily pinpointed time-wise. In one place He speaks of what happened two or three days after (to the disciples), and in another speaks of what had happened after three days. IMO, this is because the reestablishment of faith happened over the course of a day, and one couldn't easily point to a moment and say that at that moment the resurrection had happened. It is debatable, and not particularly important, and the point was just that after three days it had certainly happened. Anyway, 'Abdu'l-Baha finds a way to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, doing so by allegorically redefining it, finding some way that we can say that "Jesus" (actually meaning His Cause) was risen. So by redefining terms we can in some way affirm normative Christian belief. For whatever reason, Muhammad (or God) chose to be less inclusive. To give another example, in the Qur'an the Trinity is flat out rejected. There is no attempt to say that the Trinity is in some sense true, as 'Abdu'l-Baha says. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Trinity is not at all the Christian Trinity, and indeed its composition isn't necessariy the same. To Christians the members of the Trinity are the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. To Baha'is it is the Father, the Manifestation for the age, and the Holy Ghost. On this understanding, Jesus was a member of the Trinity until 1400 years ago. Baha'u'llah is currently a member of the Baha'i Trinity, as He is the Manifestation of God for this age. As another example, the Qur'an rejects the idea that Jesus is the Son of God, and *never* attempts to say that in some sense He is a son of God. It doesn't deny that in some sense He might be, but does not try to affirm the idea in some way like in the Baha'i Faith. The one possible exception to the rule is that Noah's Ark is said to not have happened in the Baha'i Faith, whereas the Qur'an seems to be assuming its literal historicity. How would one prove that Muhammad never meant readers to believe that He was affirming that Noah's Ark literally happened? It's spoken of no differently to the Virgin Birth, which Baha'is take as historical. My guess is that Muhammad needed a story that His contemporaries would know, and which would prove a spiritual principle. Noah's Ark is a good one, and I don't think He would seen there as being any reason to point out that the story never happened. Similarly, in the Iqan Baha'u'llah is using stories accepted by Haji Mirza Siyyid Muhammad to prove His point. From what He wrote about Noah's Ark, how would we ever know He thought the events He mentioned never really happened (which would be the case if Shoghi Efffendi said so, right?). IMO, endorsing anything as historical is not what Baha'u'llah is about in the Iqan. He may or may not think the stories He mentions are historical.
The Qur'an does in one place say that Jesus will be raised up, however it is clear that the general resurrection is spoken of. Indeed, the same chapter says that John the Baptist will be raised up. Whoever heard about a resurrection of John the Baptist in Christianity?
Getting back to the issue, Tiberias' affirmation that no one could rise from the dead obviously refers to a physical raising. Obviously Mary never believed in a physical raising. This affirmation wouldn't prove that Mary had spoken of a physical raising, but given that she allegedly told Tiberias that Jesus was a "maker of miracles," why wouldn't that be what this late tradition is speaking of? Besides, Jesus apparently didn't do much in the way of miracles in the Baha'i view. Of course, that is not to be confused with historical analysis. I thought Mary was supposed to be the most switched on follower of Jesus spiritually in the Baha'i view, which makes me doubt that she went around trying to convert people by telling them about miracles. Miracles don't count as proof for Baha'is, and certainly shouldn't for Tiberias, who hadn't witnessed it, and was apparently hearing about these things for the first time. Maybe it's just me, but the story about the egg turning red really bodes poor for historicity in my book. Nothing of that sort happened in the early Baha'i Revelation, and I hardly think God tries to prove the validity of His Prophets to deniers through such means. Notice that in this tradition the miracle has such an effect on Tiberius that he has Pontius Pilate removed (obviously because of His role in the execution of Jesus, as just mentioned) at Mary's urging. This is laughable historically, and I'm sure as a historian you don't believe this part yourself. Pilate was actually removed due to a complaint from the Samaritans caused by a massacre of his. Far from Mary Magdalene having any role in Pilate's removal, the council of the Samaritans complained to Vitellius about Pilate's harsh treatment. Pilate was ordered to Rome. What happened to Pilate in Rome is unknown. These are all basic facts such as can be found in the encyclopedia.com article. I don't know any historians who are certain as to how Pilate died, with suicide and execution possibilities. I wouldn't be inclined to buy the "horrible sickness" and "agonizing death" details in the above tradition, which are great propaganda for Christianity, all found in a story that has the erroneous story of a Christian causing Pilate's termination. And, of course, there is the miracle in the story itself, miracle stories often being invented in antiquity. The Acts of Peter, a second century work, has a miracle contest between Peter and a heretic, and Peter resurrects a fish. Regarding the idea that Pilate died in Gaul, I haven't heard that before.
From this, the miracle of Mary Magdalene, the custom to give each other
paschal eggs on the day of the Luminous Resurrection of Christ spread among
Christians over all the world. On one ancient hand-written Greek ustav,
written on parchment, kept in the monastery library of Saint Athanasias near
Thessalonika (Solunea), is an established prayer read on the day of Holy
Pascha (Easter) for the blessing of eggs and cheese, in which it is
indicated, that the Hegumen (Abbot) in passing out the blessed eggs says to
the brethren: "Thus have we received from the holy fathers, who preserved
this custom from the very time of the holy apostles, wherefore the holy
equal-unto-the-apostles Mary Magdalene first showed believers the example of
this joyful offering."
Well I wouldn't buy the idea that the custom was that ancient. The orthodox certainly would have genuinely believed that the apostles did things the same, just as these same people in the time mentioned would have believed that the apostles taught that Jesus physically rose from the dead. I'm not sure when the custom is first mentioned, though probably not much earlier, if at all.
Mary Magdalene continued her preaching in Italy and in the city of Rome itself. Evidently, the Apostle Paul has precisely her in view in Romans 16:6, where together with other ascetics of evangelic preaching he mentions Mary (Mariam), who as he expresses "has done much for us." Evidently, she extensively served the Church, being exposed to dangers, and sharing with the Apostles the labours of preaching.
I've speculated about Romans 16:6 myself, though it doesn't seem evident to me that Paul must have been referring to Mary Magdalene.
According to Church tradition, she remained in Rome until the arrival of the
Apostle Paul, and for two more years still, following his departure from
Rome after the first court judgment upon him. From Rome, Saint Mary
Magdalene, already bent with age, moved to Ephesus where unceasingly
laboured the holy Apostle John, who with her wrote the first 20 Chapters of
his Gospel (John 1-9, John 10-20). There the saint finished her earthly life
and was buried." http://www.thenazareneway.com/mary_magdalene.htm
That is interesting about the idea that Mary wrote the Gospel of John, minus chapter 21, with him. Though I hadn't seen this stated before, I have seen it argued that Mary was the source of the Gospel of John and was, in an earlier version of the Gospel, the beloved disciple. See http://www.beloveddisciple.org/ The tradition that Mary and John wrote together is contradicted by all the earliest Church Fathers who wrote on the authorship of the Gospel and attributed it to John. I somehow doubt they forgot to mention Mary, while believing all along that she wrote with him. That in all I've read about the Gospel of John I've never heard about this tradition makes me think that it is very late.
I'm not sure how > reliable these traditions are, however.
Why assume they aren't?
Well, bear in mind I'm assuming the traditions were first mentioned at least two hundred years after the death of Jesus. When something is first mentioned that late I'm inclined to be skeptical. The degree of skepticism sort of depends on what is being told. Is it something that should have been mentioned earlier, and are there any particular documents that can be cited in which it might have been mentioned? Further, does this story contradict any earlier testimony? I've applied such criteria earlier, and it hasn't always spoken well for what is mentioned. Furthermore, was Saint Clement a martyr? Such was first claimed something like 300 years after Jesus, which makes me doubt that such was the case. Then two hundred years later or so an amazing story of his death crops up, with a rather amazing miracle in it that would have been mentioned much earlier had the story been known. So I guess it's just my belief that fiction can come about at a late date quite easily.
The idea that John and Mary lived > together in Ephesus could easily be fiction.
So could the entire Acts of the Apostles or the Four Gospels for that matter!
I think this is comparing apples with oranges. My skepticism about this Ephesus tradition was based on the assumption that the story was first told two hundred or more after the death of Jesus. Furthermore, I gave a theory as to how the belief that Mary went to Ephesus could have erroneously came about. If the story is late, as I think, and one can easily explain its creation, my skepticism is logical. I suspect your comment is more coming from your belief that the story is early, and then imposing that on my mind, as Acts and the Gospels come way earlier than when I said I thought the tradition about Mary came about. My skepticism of the latter, for the reasons I've stated, should hardly cast doubt on the New Testament writings you speak of.
I > I guess I'm a bit of a skeptic regarding 'Abdu'l-Baha and history.
Well, He didn't usually just make things up. ;-}
No, and I stated that. My belief was that either some source told of Mary preaching in Rome or that 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying this on based on His innate knowledge. I mean, I'm guessing that some source of His time had the edict of Cyrus at 536 BC, which is the date He gives in SAQ, but which differs from that normally given.
Let me respond on the martyr issue later. I need to sleep.
David
_________________________________________________________________ Gaming galore at http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming !
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
