Bahai scholarship of all scripture

[InvestigateTruth]

I learned about the Bahai theology from Bahai's in this very forum. Prior to that my knowledge was superficial at best. Maybe even less. The Bahai's have their own methodology of calling things "scholarship" and the question of this thread is on that particular idea.

Summing things up, the Bahai's believe that all religions practically are based on God and manifestations of God. Major religions that I know of can be spoken of like Christianity where Jesus was a manifestation of God, while Krishna who has varying concepts in Hinduism was a manifestation of God, and the Buddha was a manifestation of God, and fundamentally anyone could be named a manifestation of God. Finally comes the Bab or the door, and Bahaullah who is a manifestation of God, then Abdul Baha the son, and Effendi who is the grandson where whatever divinity or the authority is "inherited".

When exploring the so called "Bahai scholarship" one would immediately note that they do not value Christian scholarship, Buddhist scholarship or Islamic Scholarship though they claim they believe all of those are valid religions, and they are all part of the same pool. Generally scholarship in the Christian bucket is deemed a naturalistic approach where the scripture is taken through a scrutiny of many variations of criticism. It's fantastic. Islamic Scholarship has a very similar approach since time immemorial though most are unaware. Buddhist scholarship is based predominantly on the Tipitaka, Jathaka, and the so called "Dharma Sangayana". I do not have much knowledge in Hinduism so maybe HIndus could collaborate and give me some knowledge.

Bahai scholarship has practically no regard for any of this but their own theology and "scholarship" is in my opinion built around building a platform for their theology. Thus it seems like any kind of scholarship will be dismissed based on their website and their theology. Due to several discussions my opinion is that there is no scholarship at all because no scholarship truly takes any criticism into account. There is no scholarship applied to the Bible or the Quran. Or even the Tipitaka. Things are randomly picked up for convenience and its called "scholarship" based on their foundation mainly quoting Effendi.

I am not speaking of theology and divine belief, just scholarship of scripture.

Christians disagree with Muslims because the Qur'an says "Ma kathaluhoo, wa ma salaboohoo" which means "they did not kill him, nor was he crucified". But the Bahai scholarship is not really scholarship at all, but a theological faith propagation that says "Jesus' body was killed, but not his spirit" while the Quran does not say that. Imposition.

The Bible clearly says he was crucified. And this creates a huge divide between Christians and Muslims. But note, that we are discussing scholarship. Bible scholars deem that Jesus was definitely crucified by the Romans due to sedition, and is a very probable occurrence. The bahai's claim he was crucified but not his spirit or some divine Jesus nature was not. Yet they claim he came already as Bahaullah. Done and dusted.

What do the Christians and the Jews think about their so called "scholarship"?

Thanks for contributing. This is just a foundation.

The Bahai approach is, whatever is Not explicitly mentioned or whatever details are not mentioned in Bahai Scriptures, the Bahais are encouraged to do their own investigation and make their own conclusions. And in doing so, the Bahais certainly can and would look into the scholarly works of other Faiths as well.
But for the example you gave regarding Jesus crucifixion, it is explained in Bahai scriptures. So, as a Bahai believer, we would just accept it as it is explained in Bahai scriptures.
There are also, some scholarly works on Bahai scriptures and its history done by people who are not Bahais.
I for one, have used them sometimes.

 

[sun rise]

I have a side comment. While reading this thread I started wondering about the use of the word "scholarship" and whether or not it was being used correctly by all posters.

Scholarly method - Wikipedia is my source; scholarly_method is used to disambiguate scholarship which is about financial support for worthy students.

That article discusses dialectical reasoning, historical analysis, the empirical method and the scientific method all under the umbrella of scholarship.

The comments here are focused quite a bit on bias or the lack thereof in applying these tools rather than analyzing the reasoning used to resolve contradictions in scriptures and their history.

 

[Truthseeker]

I learned about the Bahai theology from Bahai's in this very forum. Prior to that my knowledge was superficial at best. Maybe even less. The Bahai's have their own methodology of calling things "scholarship" and the question of this thread is on that particular idea.

Summing things up, the Bahai's believe that all religions practically are based on God and manifestations of God. Major religions that I know of can be spoken of like Christianity where Jesus was a manifestation of God, while Krishna who has varying concepts in Hinduism was a manifestation of God, and the Buddha was a manifestation of God, and fundamentally anyone could be named a manifestation of God. Finally comes the Bab or the door, and Bahaullah who is a manifestation of God, then Abdul Baha the son, and Effendi who is the grandson where whatever divinity or the authority is "inherited".

When exploring the so called "Bahai scholarship" one would immediately note that they do not value Christian scholarship, Buddhist scholarship or Islamic Scholarship though they claim they believe all of those are valid religions, and they are all part of the same pool. Generally scholarship in the Christian bucket is deemed a naturalistic approach where the scripture is taken through a scrutiny of many variations of criticism. It's fantastic. Islamic Scholarship has a very similar approach since time immemorial though most are unaware. Buddhist scholarship is based predominantly on the Tipitaka, Jathaka, and the so called "Dharma Sangayana". I do not have much knowledge in Hinduism so maybe HIndus could collaborate and give me some knowledge.

Bahai scholarship has practically no regard for any of this but their own theology and "scholarship" is in my opinion built around building a platform for their theology. Thus it seems like any kind of scholarship will be dismissed based on their website and their theology. Due to several discussions my opinion is that there is no scholarship at all because no scholarship truly takes any criticism into account. There is no scholarship applied to the Bible or the Quran. Or even the Tipitaka. Things are randomly picked up for convenience and its called "scholarship" based on their foundation mainly quoting Effendi.

I am not speaking of theology and divine belief, just scholarship of scripture.

Christians disagree with Muslims because the Qur'an says "Ma kathaluhoo, wa ma salaboohoo" which means "they did not kill him, nor was he crucified". But the Bahai scholarship is not really scholarship at all, but a theological faith propagation that says "Jesus' body was killed, but not his spirit" while the Quran does not say that. Imposition.

The Bible clearly says he was crucified. And this creates a huge divide between Christians and Muslims. But note, that we are discussing scholarship. Bible scholars deem that Jesus was definitely crucified by the Romans due to sedition, and is a very probable occurrence. The bahai's claim he was crucified but not his spirit or some divine Jesus nature was not. Yet they claim he came already as Bahaullah. Done and dusted.

What do the Christians and the Jews think about their so called "scholarship"?

Thanks for contributing. This is just a foundation.

The only scholarship you have specifically noted is something said by Shoghi Effendi. That is not Baha'i scholarship. Shoghi Effendi is someone we believe was empowered to interpret scripture and what he said here was no doubt based also on what was said before by our central figures. Of course you don't recognize what they all say as necessarily valid. If you did you would be a Baha'i. Let us respect that we have our differences.

i have taken Wilmette Institute courses with scholars of all religions. What they say is their own opinion, which Baha'is are free to disagree with, but I respect them.

There are specific People we recognize officially as Manifestations of God. Those are based on people like Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, which we recognize as empowered to say that. They are not scholars, as I said before. This is not about scholarship at all. If you disagree with them, that's fine with me.

 

[Truthseeker]

They say the true text has been corrupted? With saying that the Bible isn't fully God's word, it allows for the Bible to be cherry picked I think.

It is God's word in our view. No one has corrupted it. In our view, there are obvious differences for instance in the specific wording in the utterances of Jesus Christ in the four Gospels, but the basic message is clear.

The Old Testament histories are unreliable, and may be allegorical in many cases. There are differences also in the historical references in the New Testament, but those fundamentally do not matter.

The Bible is reliable guidance for Jews and Christians on how to live their lives. That's the bottom line.

 

[Truthseeker]

If that's the case - and I'd appreciate hearing input from more of our Baha'i members on whether that is the case - then I don't really see what I as a Jew could say about it all.

I've taken a course on the Tanakh or Old Testament of at least one has a degree in the original Hebrew of the Bible. There are not a great deal of scholars like that, our scholars tend to concentrate more on the New Testament and especially the Qur'an since the Qur'an is something Baha'is should especially endeavor to understand since Qur'anic terminology is there in the Writings of Baha'u'llah. Also since I live in a Christian country that explains why scholarship would be more concentrated on that subject in English than Jewish subjects.

 

[Truthseeker]

I can vouch to one fact. Not a single Bahai will have a comprehensive knowledge in Jewish scholarship. I don't for sure, so I dont mean that in a derogatory manner.

As I've noted to Harel, there are Baha'i scholars that have expansive knowledge of the Tanakh, though Christian and Qur'anic scholarship is more common. I know you're not being derogatory with this thread.

 

[firedragon]

The only scholarship you have specifically noted is something said by Shoghi Effendi. That is not Baha'i scholarship. Shoghi Effendi is someone we believe was empowered to interpret scripture and what he said here was no doubt based also on what was said before by our central figures. Of course you don't recognize what they all say as necessarily valid. If you did you would be a Baha'i. Let us respect that we have our differences.

i have taken Wilmette Institute courses with scholars of all religions. What they say is their own opinion, which Baha'is are free to disagree with, but I respect them.

There are specific People we recognize officially as Manifestations of God. Those are based on people like Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi, which we recognize as empowered to say that. They are not scholars, as I said before. This is not about scholarship at all. If you disagree with them, that's fine with me.

There is a new thing if I am not largely mistaken in Bahai websites they call Bahai scholarship. It was shared by the Bahai's themselves in this very forum.

I dont consider that scholarship at all. They are faith statements.

 

[firedragon]

As I've noted to Harel, there are Baha'i scholars that have expansive knowledge of the Tanakh, though Christian and Qur'anic scholarship is more common. I know you're not being derogatory with this thread.

Im sorry Truthseeker. I do not consider that scholarship. I know that there are notable and educated Bahai's like Moojen. Im sorry if I am writing his name wrong. And of course Juan Cole is probably one of the most known Bahai scholars. I dont know what political disputes you have with him but this guy is seriously notable.

When I say Bahai scholarship I am not referring to Bahai's who are scholars. I am speaking of Bahai scholarship as referred to by Bahai's. Do you understand the difference? As an example, there are atheists who are scholars of Islam. Like Donner. Highly educated scholar of the Qur'an but he is an atheist. His application of scholarship is not "atheist". It is simply scholarship. There is nothing called atheistic scholarship. Or at least not in the academic world.

There is a thing called Christian scholarship. This is a reference for Christians who are scholars of the Bible though. It is not a very much used frame of reference but it is also common. For example Metzger. He is a true scholar of the New Testament.

But this so called "Bahai Scholarship" is not really scholarship. It is affirming faith.

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

I have a side comment. While reading this thread I started wondering about the use of the word "scholarship" and whether or not it was being used correctly by all posters.

Scholarly method - Wikipedia is my source; scholarly_method is used to disambiguate scholarship which is about financial support for worthy students.

That article discusses dialectical reasoning, historical analysis, the empirical method and the scientific method all under the umbrella of scholarship.

The comments here are focused quite a bit on bias or the lack thereof in applying these tools rather than analyzing the reasoning used to resolve contradictions in scriptures and their history.

Go to a Bahai website. Read up on what they call Bahai scholarship.

This is not actually my discovery. It was shared by a Bahai gentleman in this very forum. And when I read the website, it was calling it by the exact name. "Bahai scholarship". The first page I read was called Bahai scholarship of the New Testament.

It was not scholarship. It was imposition of faith upon the New Testament text. Some may get offended but there was absolutely no scholarship of the Bible whatsoever.

 

[Truthseeker]

I would agree. As an example I greatly enjoy studying early Christianity and seeing how its views changed overtime to form the general orthodoxy that most churches in some way follow to this day. On more than one occasion I have read Christian scholars who would misrepresent the old testament and modern Jewish scholarship to make it appear that Jesus is foretold. Now you can believe that Jesus is being foretold in the Torah if you want but I think I would have to disagree with you.
I don't think Bias is a problem with just one group of scholars from one religion. Bias is everywhere.

Scholars should do what they can to be as unbiased as possible. In every religion, there are different degrees of bias among scholars. It is impossible to be completely unbiased one way way or another. There are some Christian, Jewish, and Baha'i scholars who have gone too far towards skepticism in my view. The modern world encourages skepticism. They are some who are biased in the other direction.

 

[firedragon]

The Bahai approach is, whatever is Not explicitly mentioned or whatever details are not mentioned in Bahai Scriptures, the Bahais are encouraged to do their own investigation and make their own conclusions. And in doing so, the Bahais certainly can and would look into the scholarly works of other Faiths as well.
But for the example you gave regarding Jesus crucifixion, it is explained in Bahai scriptures. So, as a Bahai believer, we would just accept it as it is explained in Bahai scriptures.
There are also, some scholarly works on Bahai scriptures and its history done by people who are not Bahais.
I for one, have used them sometimes.

I would like to read up on "Bahai Scholarship". Can you quote me some Bahai scholars who have analysed Bahai scripture in their original language, done some kind of form criticism or literary studies on the original language? Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Scholars should do what they can to be as unbiased as possible. In every religion, there are different degrees of bias among scholars. It is impossible to be completely unbiased one way way or another. There are some Christian, Jewish, and Baha'i scholars who have gone too far towards skepticism in my view. The modern world encourages skepticism. They are some who are biased in the other direction.

Can you explain what you mean by Bahai scholarship on the New Testament? What is it clearly? What is the book one could read? Why do you call it scholarship?

 

[Truthseeker]

Im sorry Truthseeker. I do not consider that scholarship. I know that there are notable and educated Bahai's like Moojen. Im sorry if I am writing his name wrong. And of course Juan Cole is probably one of the most known Bahai scholars. I dont know what political disputes you have with him but this guy is seriously notable.

No one is completely unbiased as a scholar. That's impossible in my view. I can't say myself how much each scholar is biased without my own bias being involved. That's all I'll say. I don't desire to debate about the bias of Moojan Momen or Juan Cole. They are each scholars, though.

 

[Truthseeker]

It was not scholarship. It was imposition of faith upon the New Testament text. Some may get offended but there was absolutely no scholarship of the Bible whatsoever.

Of course the Baha'i scholars will interpret the New Testament with their belief in the Baha'i Revelation in mind. What else do you expect? No one can be unbiased completely about the Baha'i revelation in the first place, but they are doing the best they can, I hope. I try to be unbiased myself.

 

[firedragon]

No one is completely unbiased as a scholar. That's impossible in my view. I can't say myself how much each scholar is biased without my own bias being involved. That's all I'll say. I don't desire to debate about the bias of Moojan Momen or Juan Cole. They are each scholars, though.

See, we are all bias. But that's not the question. You missed the whole point.

Thanks for reminding me the name of Moojan. I mean that by the way.

You should try and understand what scholarship means. It is not proselytisation.

 

[firedragon]

Of course the Baha'i scholars will interpret the New Testament with their belief in the Baha'i Revelation in mind. What else do you expect? No one can be unbiased completely about the Baha'i revelation in the first place, but they are doing the best they can, I hope. I try to be unbiased myself.

Thats not scholarship. Thats something else. Scholarship is not just "Interpretation based on my prevailing beliefs".

You have proven the point of the OP. What your Bahai websites call scholarship is exactly that. Trying its best to prove their existing theology picking up the Bible as they please. That is not scholarship.

Some people do that. Christian apologists, Muslim apologists, both do that with the Bible. they might even pretend that's scholarship. But its not. That is imposition.

Bahai scholarship is not scholarship. Its just a namesake. Do not get offended but do some true research.

 

[Truthseeker]

Can you explain what you mean by Bahai scholarship on the New Testament? What is it clearly? What is the book one could read? Why do you call it scholarship?

You want scholarship to be defined precisely? I can't do that, I don't think. I can say it is an examination of scripture making an effort not to be biased. I know more about Islamic scholarly books. There is a book by Moojan Momen on Shi'i Islam that is not written with a Baha'i audience in mind that I have read part of. "An Introduction To Shi'i Islam".

 

[Truthseeker]

You have proven the point of the OP. What your Bahai websites call scholarship is exactly that. Trying its best to prove their existing theology picking up the Bible as they please. That is not scholarship.

That is not what I call Baha'i scholarship. "Picking up the Bible as they please". Your own bias is showing. Baha'is can interpret the Bible as they want to. They are not hamstrung by some requirement to please the Universal House of Justice. There is no heresy in the usual sense in the Baha'i Faith. No one can be kicked out of the Baha'i Faith by having "mistaken" understandings.

 

[Truthseeker]

You should try and understand what scholarship means. It is not proselytisation.

No, it is not. I agree with you.

 

[Truthseeker]

This is not actually my discovery. It was shared by a Bahai gentleman in this very forum. And when I read the website, it was calling it by the exact name. "Bahai scholarship". The first page I read was called Bahai scholarship of the New Testament.

It was not scholarship. It was imposition of faith upon the New Testament text. Some may get offended but there was absolutely no scholarship of the Bible whatsoever.

I don't know what site you are talking about, or what you read there. But either you read there with your own bias, or the site was off-base.