This is, of course, where we disagree, and where, it seems to be, the singular aspects of any Revelation are played down, until what constitutes actual revelation is generalised to what was before, therefore not a revelation at all ... by following this pattern, every authentic revelation can be explained away and emptied of meaning, their actual metaphysical import remaining occluded and unseen.
God's transcendent reality is not confined to human language (e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Persian) or specific cultural worldviews. Scripture is not identical to God's speech, which is a transcendent reality beyond human language, but rather a human interpretation and expression of it.
As Baha'u'llah states,
"All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded...the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly subjected...they can never transcend that which is the creature of their own conceptions." Similarly, Abdu'l-Baha explains that
"all these attributes, names, praises and eulogies apply to the Places of Manifestation; and all that we imagine and suppose beside them is mere imagination."
This does
not mean that revelation is reduced to mere human invention. Rather, it acknowledges the inherent limitations of human expression when attempting to convey divine truths.
The Báb's concept of
tajjali (reflection) further clarifies this: while God's essence remains unknowable, we perceive Him through reflections in the world, most perfectly through the Manifestations of God. These reflections, though adapted to different cultural contexts, are not illusions but real manifestations of divine attributes. Finally, the concept of
irtifa explains how each revelation simultaneously cancels and elevates previous understandings, building upon them while also introducing new dimensions of truth. This progressive nature of revelation ensures that divine guidance remains relevant and accessible to humanity throughout history, fulfilling and perfecting previous dispensations without emptying them of their original meaning.
I happen to believe, according to the nature of the Infinite and Divine Plenitude, God never 'reveals' the same thing twice, because that would be a 'lesser good'.
Your assertion that God never reveals the same thing twice because it would be a "lesser good" raises a question about divine communication, doesn't it? How can God effectively convey new truths to humanity if every revelation is entirely novel and disconnected from existing understanding? You yourself acknowledge that revelation must be "couched in terms of the historical process" to be intelligible. This creates a clear tension: How can something that "transcends the process" simultaneously be understood within that process? How can something utterly discontinuous be communicated through continuous, historical means like language and cultural concepts?
Initially, your argument, echoing N.T. Wright, emphasized the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, claiming it had no parallel in Greco-Roman culture. This argued a complete lack of precedent. However, scholars like Litwa and Endsjø, and even Armstrong, have demonstrated the prevalence of similar resurrection concepts in that context. Armstrong wrote:
"'Jesus’ restoration to physical life…is the same preliminary to divine glorification or bodily deification that heroes like Asklepios, Herakles, and Romulus had received," which contradicts Wright's claim of uniqueness.
This brings us to an inconsistency: If something is truly unique and without parallel, it cannot simultaneously have cultural resonance. These are mutually exclusive conditions. For a revelation to be understood, it must have some degree of connection to existing frameworks. Yet, you seem to be arguing that the resurrection both relies on such parallels for intelligibility and fundamentally transcends them. This creates a paradox: It would be like saying, "This is completely unlike anything you've ever seen, but you need to understand it by comparing it to things you've already seen."
The central problem is the ambiguity surrounding the necessary degree of parallel. Are you arguing for a parallel in the basic concept of physical resurrection in a glorified body in the Greco-Roman world, or in the specific meaning and implications of Jesus's resurrection? If the parallel is merely conceptual, it doesn't explain how the unique meaning of Christ's resurrection is conveyed. If, on the other hand, the parallel extends to the meaning and implications, then the claim of absolute uniqueness is significantly weakened. The fact that revelation is "couched in terms of the historical process," as you acknowledge, necessitates interaction with existing human understanding. So how can you maintain that God never reveals the same thing twice?
What God reveals is and will always be perceived in its particularities, its 'singularity', and in discounting that, one glosses over those very things through which the full depth and meaning of the revelation is lost.
A Revelation by definition is that which is not the result of a natural historical process – it transcends the process. Revelation is always a rupture. It is couched in terms of the historical process, of course, it has to be, or it would be completely unintelligible to its witnesses, as is argued above. Were it the fruit of that historical process, it would not be revelation but realisation, which is entirely different and entirely within the scope of human intellectual activity.
I used the word 'singularity' above, and looking at a scientific definition:
"a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole."
And I find that definition apposite – those elements particular to a given revelation are the points that 'take on an infinite value' – and by rendering all much of a likeness, that value is overlooked and that horizon remains veiled.
The 'rending of the veil of the temple' is a clear indicator that everything has changed, that the old tropes may be used, but they now convey entirely new and different meanings.
Nice use of the "singularity" analogy to emphasize the absolute uniqueness of each revelation. I like it.
"All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly subjected… No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created… He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence."
-Baha'u'llah
"All these attributes, names, praises and eulogies apply to the Places of Manifestation; and all that we imagine and suppose beside them is mere imagination, for we have no means of comprehending that which is invisible and inaccessible."
-Abdu'l-Baha
The "singularity" you refer to is not a singularity of
essence (which remains unknowable) but a singularity of
manifestation, a unique expression of the same divine attributes in a specific historical context. Just as different mirrors reflect the same sun in different ways, different revelations reflect the same divine reality in ways suited to their respective audiences. This does not diminish the value of any revelation; each is a perfect reflection within its own context.
+++
I would also voice a note of caution. The basic premise of the argument can be applied to the Baha'i Faith (indeed any faith) and thereby claim that the Bab, Baha'u'llah and so on are nothing more than derivative steps along an historical process, in a sense inevitable, and do not constitute anything new or insightful with regard to what has gone before.
While it's true that each Manifestation appears within a specific historical and cultural context, their appearance is not
caused by that context. The Manifestations are divine interventions. They are not merely reacting to existing conditions; they are actively shaping and transforming those conditions through their teachings and influence.
