Zorastrian Burial reference in the NT (?)

[Stuart]

I was reading an article in the Guardian (what else does one do these work from home days) that talked about about the Zoroastrian community in India (Parsi) and touched upon the traditional burial practices (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... t-religion). That they had a tower of silence where bodies would be left for vultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence). This is an ancient practice of leaving the bodies for the vultures was commented about by Herodotus in the 5th century BC.

This immediately got me to thinking of the passages in Matthew and Luke below:

Matthew 24.28	Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will be gathered together.	ὅπου ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί.
Luke 17:37	Where the body is, there also the eagles will be gathered.	ὅπου τὸ σῶμα, ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται.

Matthew uses "corpse" (πτῶμα) making it pretty clear we are talking about the dead body. Luke uses "body" (σῶμα) telling us this is probably metaphorical, but it does look drawn from known practice. Some translations into English render the Greek "eagle" as "vulture", since the passage seems to be about the decomposition of the lifeless body. Further eagles do not congregate, but vultures and buzzards do. Quite possibly the Griffon Vulture is meant, who is native of the region, and they vaguely resembles the eagle.

We also see the association of Eagles with Vultures and Buzzards can be found in Leviticus 11:13 prohibitions against eating certain birds

These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
(LXX: τὸν ἀετὸν καὶ τὸν γρύπα καὶ τὸν ἁλιαίετον)

This is replicated in Deuteronomy 14:12

But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,(LXX: τὸν ἀετὸν καὶ τὸν γρύπα καὶ τὸν ἁλιαίετον)

But we know Jews, Greeks, Egyptians and Romans were not in the practice of leaving their dead out for scavenger birds. But this was the very practice of the Zoroastrians. This does seem like it could be a reference to their burial practice.

Mind you the choosing to say eagle (ἀετοί) instead of vulture (γρύπα) may also be choice to refer to the Romans (a dig as it were), since their legions carried an eagle (Latin, aquila) standard. But that seems contextually far less likely than the funerary practice of the Persians.

This is all my thinking aloud. I am wondering if anyone knows more about this, and could enlighten me. The above is what it looks like to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

Pliny seems to classify vultures in the category of eagles:

Pliny, Natural History 10.3: 3 .... The haliaetus is not a species of itself, but is an eagle of mixed breed; hence their produce are of the species known as the ossifrage, from which again is produced the smaller vulture; while this in its turn produces the large vulture, which, however, is quite barren. .... / 3 .... Haliaeti suum genus non habent, sed ex diverso aquilarum coitu nascuntur. id quidem, quod ex his natum est, in ossifragis genus habet, e quibus vultures minores progenerantur et ex his magni, qui omnino non generant. ....

I think the meaning of the trope of vultures gathering around a corpse is probably just the ancient one captured in the title of George R. R. Martin's fourth Song of Ice and Fire book, A Feast for Crows. For example:

Deuteronomy 28.25-26: 25 “The Lord shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 Your dead will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.”

Ezekiel 39.17-20: 17 “As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord God, ‘Speak to every kind of bird and to every beast of the field, “Assemble and come, gather from every side to My sacrifice which I am going to sacrifice for you, as a great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel, that you may eat flesh and drink blood. 18 You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, as though they were rams, lambs, goats and bulls, all of them fatlings of Bashan. 19 So you will eat fat until you are glutted, and drink blood until you are drunk, from My sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. 20 You will be glutted at My table with horses and charioteers, with mighty men and all the men of war,” declares the Lord God.

It is the grim fate of the loser of a battle, thus serving as a warning in advance.

Mind you the choosing to say eagle (ἀετοί) instead of vulture (γρύπα) may also be choice to refer to the Romans (a dig as it were), since their legions carried an eagle (Latin, aquila) standard. But that seems contextually far less likely than the funerary practice of the Persians.

If a vulture can be classified as an eagle, then the trope itself is strong enough to carry the rest of the details along, and the choice of "eagle" could easily be doing double duty: both "bird" and "Rome."

[Stuart]

I think it's forcing a square peg in a round hole to use a war context -- you need specially tinted glasses to see that. Christianity is full of the dead flesh and living spirit material; Contextually I think that fits better.

Matthew comes directly after the false Christ "lo look here, lo look there" sort. One can sort of decipher them:

Then if any one says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it.
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Lo, I have told you beforehand.

If you stop here and analyze you can drop anyone in here. But I think if you look at the Acts of the Apostles and various apocryphal acts, we are given many examples of healing, of making people fly, using sacred names, causing earthquakes, stopping lions from eating people, and on and on. These tales seem much like those of the Irish and Saint Patrick, or the tales of Saint Anthony in the desert (the 4th century monk). None involve armies or war. So we need to check the context further.

Matthew then in 24.26 in fact helps us here, with Jesus giving two examples of false prophets.

So, if they say to you, 'Lo, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out;
if they say, 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

The first one is very obvious, John the baptizer or John the apostle / John the evangelist. Whatever the legends all seem to overlap. But the passage takes us back to Matthew 11:7-8 and Luke 17:24-25 where Jesus admonishes the crowds for going out to see John. (Robert Price counts this as part of the evidence of a rival Christ cult around John; I'm less certain, instead seeing John as a rival patron saint from another sect.) The second one we are in the Gnostic inner chambers, a theology of God's house derived I think from Jacob's ladder story, the very one referenced in John 14:2-3 -- but that's neither here nor there. The language suggests a Gnostic inner chamber for the select.

It is after these examples that we get the lighting analogy of the coming of the son of man, i.e., 2nd coming at the end times. Attached to this is the saying about the corpse being left for the vultures. The context suggests to me the author is telling the readers not to have faith in the flesh, or a fleshly coming of Christ but a spirit. There is no military aspect to this at all, nothing I can see in the context.

Luke/Marcion is more convoluted, as the story of Lot's wife is thrown in. But if we focus on 17:22-24, connecting back to 17:30 then 17:37 ignoring the digression it's clearer. The lightening is like the coming of the son of man, when he is revealed. His disciple ask where, and he tells them, typical great teacher style, where it is not; that is the body which is being devoured by the birds.

Again I don't see the military connection. Instead I see the same lumping together of Eagles and Vultures as if the same bird.

[Secret Alias]

a nesher is both an eagle and a vulture.

[Secret Alias]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaret ... -1.5247567

[Stuart]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaret ... -1.5247567

The Nesher is the Griffon Vulture I was referring to. Same bird. But thanks.

While it's range does reach into Palestine, it's primary habitat is Anatolia to Northern India and up to Afghanistan and also Greece. Curiously there is a big gap in their range in Eastern Turkey (no reason I can think off). They are also in Spain.

I think this is exactly the "eagle" referred to in both Leviticus/Deuteronomy and the Matthew/Luke passage. This does suggest a burial practice and not a war context.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think it's forcing a square peg in a round hole to use a war context -- you need specially tinted glasses to see that.

I have them, having grown upon on stories like that of David and Goliath:

1 Samuel 17.44: 44 The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.”

Or here is an instance which is an even better parallel to the saying at hand:

Job 39.26-30:

26 “Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars,
Stretching his wings toward the south?
27 Is it at your command that the eagle [נָשֶׁר, ἀετός] mounts up
And makes his nest on high?
28 On the cliff he dwells and lodges,
Upon the rocky crag, an inaccessible place.
29 From there he spies out food;
His eyes see it from afar.
30 His young ones also suck up blood;
And where the slain [חֲלָלִים, τεθνεῶτες] are, there is he.”

Where the slain are, there is the eagle. The Hebrew term used for "the slain" here is to be contrasted with those who have met a more peaceful death:

Numbers 19.18: 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the furnishings and on the persons who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain [בֶחָלָל, τοῦ τεθνηκότος] or the dead one or the grave.

The Greek term can go either way. But is the meaning of Job 39.30b in any doubt, even in a context of natural history rather than of armed violence resulting in slayings? No context necessary; the motif can speak for itself.

But if we focus on 17:22-24, connecting back to 17:30 then 17:37 ignoring the digression it's clearer.

If you similarly ignore Matthew 24.23-27 as a digression (which it clearly is, the only issue being whether it includes verse 28 or not), then you get our verse as a bridge from verse 21 to verse 29, the theme being the greatest tribulation ever experienced by humankind, into which a violent theme would fit admirably, for, after all, what are the people running away from during this tribulation?

Matthew comes directly after the false Christ "lo look here, lo look there" sort.

....

Luke/Marcion is more convoluted, as the story of Lot's wife is thrown in.

Yes, Matthew and Luke drop this saying into somewhat different contexts. Had Matthew used Luke's context, the saying would have come right after Matthew 24.41; had Luke used Matthew's context, the saying would have come right after Luke 17.24. Instead we get Mathew 24.28 and Luke 17.37.

But Luke, unlike Matthew, is at pains to separate the so called "second coming" of Christ from anything to do with the war with Rome, so he mystifies the saying, just like so many modern commentators do.

[Secret Alias]

You might be interested in the early rabbinic interpretation of this Genesis 15

So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”

10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.

= resurrection.

[Ben C. Smith]

You might be interested in the early rabbinic interpretation of this Genesis 15

So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”

10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.

= resurrection.

The rabbis were quite keen to find the theme of resurrection in the Pentateuch. It was sort of a parlor game to them.

[Secret Alias]

I think the Sadducees (the doubters) said three things not mentioned in the Torah 1. the messiah, 2. the resurrection and I forget the third.