Christianized Persia

[Leo Caesius]

Very interesting idea, Leo. Thing is, Iran is more likely to become Nestorian than Monophysite. Do the Armenians call Mary "Mother of God" and have crucifixes with Christ on them? The Nestorians never did; when some Anglicans came to visit them 200-odd years ago, they thought they found a colony of Protestants.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you saying that Iranians are more likely to become Nestorians because they're like Protestants?

Armenians do have "cross-stones" (khachkars), basically heavily engraved slabs of rock that feature stylized depictions of the cross, which in Armenia resembles the old Mesopotamian "Tree of Life" more than anything else, but they do not have "crucifixes" or icons of any other sort. I'm sure Rafi can explain this better than I, but the Armenians belong so clearly in the Iranian cultural orbit that I can't see any reason why what's good for the Armenians is not good for the Iranians. One might even make the argument that the Armenians were, in fact, the first "Iranian" people to become Christian. The Nestorians, on the other hand, may have found refuge in the Iranian empire but are not necessarily Iranian. The ones who survive today are quite proud of their Aramaic heritage.

The Armenian Apostolic Church refers to Mary as the Mother of God, but the distinction between "Mother of God" and "Mother of Christ" is theological, not cultural, and is not likely to encourage or deter converts. Even today, most Orthodox lay people (particularly in the Middle East) are not overly concerned with theology; their only familiarity with the Bible is through the liturgy and they're content to leave theological discussions to the fathers.

 

[Leo Caesius]

At any rate, my point was that an Iranian Christianity would be culturally similar in many ways to Armenian Christianity. They'd probably become iconoclasts for a while, like the Armenians, but if any culture can be said to have an aesthetic sensibility, it is the Iranian culture, and they'd likely find reasons to ignore prohibitions against graven imagery. This also means the preservation of the awful Pahlavi language, as there's ample evidence that Iranian Christians used it, and not Syriac, particularly in India. With any luck, they'll innovate some dots or import the Greek vowels (like the Syrians did) to allow for a greater degree of precision in recording scripture.

The Iranians, who are cultural chauvinists, will inevitably find some way to rehabilitate Zarathustra, perhaps in the same way that the Jesuits appropriated Confucius until 1704; after all, Zarathustra was the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. The Bundahišn (the text I'm translating right now) tells us that Zarathustra placed some of his seed in a lake, Lake Kansaoya, and that with the passing of each millennium, virgins would come to be impregnated with Zarathustra's seed while bathing in this lake. There were three such virgins, each one of whom miraculously gave birth to a savior. The final savior will be the one who ushers in the final conflict and drives the Lie from the world.

In fact, it's very likely that Iranian Christianity would just be Zoroastrianism with a thin Christian veneer. In many ways, Zarathustra prefigures Christ. When he was still in his mother's womb, a light shined forth illuminating the whole world (much like the Star of Bethlehem; the same is said of Muhammad's birth as well). From the moment he was born, Ahriman ordered his worldly agents to attempt to kill him. As a child he is said to have disputed with the priests. There are many other interesting parallels.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Are you saying that Iranians are more likely to become Nestorians because they're like Protestants?

Armenians do have "cross-stones" (khachkars), basically heavily engraved slabs of rock that feature stylized depictions of the cross, which in Armenia resembles the old Mesopotamian "Tree of Life" more than anything else, but they do not have "crucifixes" or icons of any other sort. I'm sure Rafi can explain this better than I, but the Armenians belong so clearly in the Iranian cultural orbit that I can't see any reason why what's good for the Armenians is not good for the Iranians. One might even make the argument that the Armenians were, in fact, the first "Iranian" people to become Christian. The Nestorians, on the other hand, may have found refuge in the Iranian empire but are not necessarily Iranian. The ones who survive today are quite proud of their Aramaic heritage.

The Armenian Apostolic Church refers to Mary as the Mother of God, but the distinction between "Mother of God" and "Mother of Christ" is theological, not cultural, and is not likely to encourage or deter converts. Even today, most Orthodox lay people (particularly in the Middle East) are not overly concerned with theology; their only familiarity with the Bible is through the liturgy and they're content to leave theological discussions to the fathers.

I wasn't saying the Persians were Protestants; I was describing the Nestorian use of the empty Cross and how they didn't call Mary "Mother of God," only "Mother of Christ." Since the Persians are more likely to become Nestorian than Monophysite, was wondering how their non-use of "Mother of God" would affect their relationship with the other churches.

Good call on the Armenians being an "Iranian" people who accepted Christianity. Since the Nestorians were more akin to the Syrians than Persians, their influence might be less, though they were (I think) the dominant sort of Christianity in the Persian Empire.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Good call on the Armenians being an "Iranian" people who accepted Christianity. Since the Nestorians were more akin to the Syrians than Persians, their influence might be less, though they were (I think) the dominant sort of Christianity in the Persian Empire.

I follow you now. You aren't saying that the Iranians are likely to become Nestorian because they don't use crucifixes and the title theotokos, you're saying that the Iranians are likely to go Nestorian because Nestorian Christianity was largely accepted in the Iranian empire, and that these intrinsic Nestorian beliefs might lead to theological conflicts with the Armenians. I gotcha.

While the Nestorians were given a lot of leeway in Iran, at least until Kerdir came around, they receive the most attention largely because of their political significance. There were Iranians who belonged to other branches of Christianity; the Thomas Christians, in India, were probably of Iranian origin because when they first appeared in India they left a number of inscriptions and graffiti in Pahlavi (which is the liturgical language of the Zoroastrians and not otherwise associated with any other religion). They don't appear to have adopted Syriac until later, and when they did, they adopted the Western (Jacobite) form of Syriac rather than the Nestorian one. They are monophysites. I suspect the bulk of them probably ended up in India at the same time as the Parsi community - at the time of the Islamic conquest. The Nestorians enjoyed quite a high status within the Islamic community, so perhaps there was less pressure for them to flee to India than the other Iranian religious minorities. I can't say for sure.

Come to think of it, I find it rather odd that all of the Nestorians in Iran are "Assyrians". I don't think that there are any properly "Iranian" Nestorians left (perhaps they all converted?) but I could be wrong.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Thomas Christians are Monophysite? In The Church of the East: A New History, they're counted as part of the Nestorian/"Church of the East" group.

Hmm...

What might a good POD for the Christianization of Persia be? The only one I can really think of is perhaps Shirin, the Christian wife of Khosrau the Victorious, converts him and he proceeds to lavish imperial favor on the Nestorian Church (as well as turn on the Zoroastrian establishment if need be), but a "top-down" imposition of Christianity might not work.

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

[MerryPrankster]

I follow you now. You aren't saying that the Iranians are likely to become Nestorian because they don't use crucifixes and the title theotokos, you're saying that the Iranians are likely to go Nestorian because Nestorian Christianity was largely accepted in the Iranian empire, and that these intrinsic Nestorian beliefs might lead to theological conflicts with the Armenians. I gotcha.

While the Nestorians were given a lot of leeway in Iran, at least until Kerdir came around, they receive the most attention largely because of their political significance. There were Iranians who belonged to other branches of Christianity; the Thomas Christians, in India, were probably of Iranian origin because when they first appeared in India they left a number of inscriptions and graffiti in Pahlavi (which is the liturgical language of the Zoroastrians and not otherwise associated with any other religion). They don't appear to have adopted Syriac until later, and when they did, they adopted the Western (Jacobite) form of Syriac rather than the Nestorian one. They are monophysites. I suspect the bulk of them probably ended up in India at the same time as the Parsi community - at the time of the Islamic conquest. The Nestorians enjoyed quite a high status within the Islamic community, so perhaps there was less pressure for them to flee to India than the other Iranian religious minorities. I can't say for sure.

Come to think of it, I find it rather odd that all of the Nestorians in Iran are "Assyrians". I don't think that there are any properly "Iranian" Nestorians left (perhaps they all converted?) but I could be wrong.

Not only will they lead to theological conflicts with the Armenians, they'd lead to theological conflicts with the Byzantines. I can imagine the more anti-Nestorian bishops of the Empire having mass apoplexy when they find out that the dastardly Persian enemy has become Nestorian-Christian. Perhaps less Armenia-Byzantine disagreement over religion (and thus less political strife); Monophysitism was a reaction to Nestorianism?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Not only will they lead to theological conflicts with the Armenians, they'd lead to theological conflicts with the Byzantines. I can imagine the more anti-Nestorian bishops of the Empire having mass apoplexy when they find out that the dastardly Persian enemy has become Nestorian-Christian. Perhaps less Armenia-Byzantine disagreement over religion (and thus less political strife); Monophysitism was a reaction to Nestorianism?

Did I say that? It was, initially, but I don't remember posting it.

The monophysites first split off from Constantinople in the late 420s when Nestor was patriarch (as you know, he held that Christ had two natures but that Mary was not the Mother of God because she was the mother of the human nature alone). Then the Council of Ephesus banned Nestor in AD 431 (largely for his opposition to Mary's title) and Nestor fled to Persia. Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon came down on the issue of the two natures against the single nature of Christ and banned the Monophysites, even though they agreed with them on the issue of Mary's title. So that's how these groups arose, initially.

 

[Leo Caesius]

The Thomas Christians are Monophysite? In The Church of the East: A New History, they're counted as part of the Nestorian/"Church of the East" group.

There are Nestorian Christians in the Malabar coast region (I've met their Metropolitan, Mar Aprem), but they're a minority. Most of the indigenous Christians in India are Syrian Orthodox, and they're "Thomas Christians" as well. The inscription at Thomas' shrine on Mt. St. Thomas in Madras is in Pahlavi (7th century, which is rather late, I'll grant you, but still earlier than the Syriac evidence).

 

[MerryPrankster]

Did I say that? It was, initially, but I don't remember posting it.

The monophysites first split off from Constantinople in the late 420s when Nestor was patriarch (as you know, he held that Christ had two natures but that Mary was not the Mother of God because she was the mother of the human nature alone). Then the Council of Ephesus banned Nestor in AD 431 (largely for his opposition to Mary's title) and Nestor fled to Persia. Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon came down on the issue of the two natures against the single nature of Christ and banned the Monophysites, even though they agreed with them on the issue of Mary's title. So that's how these groups arose, initially.

What I'm trying to say is that if Persia goes Nestorian, the Monophysite Armenians and Athanasian Byzantines will retain religious rivalries. Instead of being pagans, the Persians will now be heretics. The Byzantines will have a little more in common with the Armenians in TTL ("Mother of God," crucifixes, etc), and so perhaps there's less religious strife between the two. This could affect geopolitics.

 

[Leo Caesius]

What I'm trying to say is that if Persia goes Nestorian, the Monophysite Armenians and Athanasian Byzantines will retain religious rivalries. Instead of being pagans, the Persians will now be heretics. The Byzantines will have a little more in common with the Armenians in TTL ("Mother of God," crucifixes, etc), and so perhaps there's less religious strife between the two. This could affect geopolitics.

It could, although I might humbly suggest that the Persians and the Byzantines could also form a "Two-Natures" Coalition to crush the scourge of monophysitism once and for all. I'm not sure which of the two heresies was more heinous to the Byzantines. If the Nestorians seized control of a major state like Sassanian Iran, you can bet that their doctrines would become more reputable, almost immediately. On the other hand, Nestor's followers, considering him to the true patriarch of Constantinople, might want to wage war on Byzantium just to put one of their own in power. It's hard to say.

As I said earlier, Armenians don't allow crucifixes or any other kind of icon.

 

[MerryPrankster]

It could, although I might humbly suggest that the Persians and the Byzantines could also form a "Two-Natures" Coalition to crush the scourge of monophysitism once and for all. I'm not sure which of the two heresies was more heinous to the Byzantines. If the Nestorians seized control of a major state like Sassanian Iran, you can bet that their doctrines would become more reputable, almost immediately. On the other hand, Nestor's followers, considering him to the true patriarch of Constantinople, might want to wage war on Byzantium just to put one of their own in power. It's hard to say.

As I said earlier, Armenians don't allow crucifixes or any other kind of icon.

They don't? Oops.

A "two natures coalition"? That'd be interesting, especially if a cunning Byzantine Emperor decides to take advantage of a newly-converted and still hyper-enthusiastic Persian Shah. Oftentimes, though, politics trumps religion--Francis I, "First son of the Church," allied to the Ottoman Empire. Persia and Byzantium still have the geopolitical reasons they fought over before.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I just had an idea. If Persia becomes Christian, will they emphasize the Three Wise Men who visited Jesus?

A lot of people believe that they were Persian astrologers who observed the star and connected it with a Messianic prophecy in Numbers. I also saw a program once that said the star was actually an alignment of Jupiter and several other planets/stars. Jupiter was associated with kingship in astrology, while another one of the bodies was associated with the Jews. The "message of the star" was: "A great (possibly divine) king is born in Judea."

Since they came to Bethlehem and worshipped Him, I imagine Persians were the first Gentile Christians. The Persian Church might be very proud of that.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I just had an idea. If Persia becomes Christian, will they emphasize the Three Wise Men who visited Jesus?

A lot of people believe that they were Persian astrologers who observed the star and connected it with a Messianic prophecy in Numbers. I also saw a program once that said the star was actually an alignment of Jupiter and several other planets/stars. Jupiter was associated with kingship in astrology, while another one of the bodies was associated with the Jews. The "message of the star" was: "A great (possibly divine) king is born in Judea."

Well, as I mentioned earlier, they were Magi, the religious caste / hereditary priesthood of Zoroastrian Iran, and they were probably looking for the saoshyant (savior born of a virgin mother, as fortold by Zarathustra).

When the Sassanians captured the city of Bethlehem (614 CE), they spared the Church of the Nativity because of it featured a depiction of the Three Magi - Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar - who were decked out in traditional Iranian costume. In fact, I have the image of the Three Magi opposite me on my wall:

This one is from the Basilica of San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna. The good folks at Wikipedia have unfortunately cut off the Hand of God, floating in space before the Three Magi.

Jupiter is identified with Ohrmazd (Ahura Mazda, the head of the Zoroastrian pantheon) in the Sassanian astrological texts. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the tale of Zoroaster's birth prefigures Christ's in many ways, as does the Iranian concept of the Saoshyant.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Ah. Thanks Leo.

I didn't mean to not notice your earlier comment.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Ah. Thanks Leo.

I didn't mean to not notice your earlier comment.

No problem. I just wanted to direct you to the other ways that Zoroastrianism and Christianity were compatible without rambling on for another half-screen (which, as I'm sure you've noticed, I have a marked tendency to do).

Your observation, that Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar might be the patron saints of a Christianized Persia, is rather interesting. Do you know how they're viewed among Persian Christians today? I'm completely unaware of how they are treated outside of my own Episcopalian upbringing and the mosaics I saw in Ravenna.

 

[Aussey]

Anglican Church of Persia

After Anne Boelynn dies giving birth to Princess Elizabeth, King Henry, now a devout Anglican, marries Persian Princess, Nessereen. She givenamed Edward Abdul. Persians, tired of being ruled by Rome, reform, and form the Anglican Church of Persia, with Shah Abdullaraman as Supreme Governor of the Eastern Anglicans, splitting power with King Henry VIII.

Sounds good, huh?

 

[Tom_B]

Perhaps the Persian branch of Christianity will equate Zarathustra with Melchizedek as per the Epistles to the Hebrews as a "Son of God' making him a precursor figure to Jesus Christ.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Perhaps the Persian branch of Christianity will equate Zarathustra with Melchizedek as per the Epistles to the Hebrews as a "Son of God' making him a precursor figure to Jesus Christ.

That's a very interesting idea there.

 

[Count Dearborn]

Do you think that the Basilicas/temples would have a Cross & an Adaran Fire?
Would the new member be baptisted in the blood and entrails of a bull?
Titles:
Magi-Bishop, Magi-Abbot, Cardinal-Magi

 

[MerryPrankster]

Do you think that the Basilicas/temples would have a Cross & an Adaran Fire?
Would the new member be baptisted in the blood and entrails of a bull?
Titles:
Magi-Bishop, Magi-Abbot, Cardinal-Magi

Well, the fire imagery could be useful...John the Baptist said that Jesus "would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire" and the imagery of fire is often associated with the Holy Spirit ("tongues of fire").

I doubt the blood/entrails of a bull though. Water baptism is specifically mentioned by Christ and friends.

I think the clergy would be called Magi collectively. Perhaps elements of the Zoroastrian priestly system would be incorporated into any hierarchy the Persian Christians would have.

Very good ideas there.