Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, San Francisco, Harper, 2002,
When I borrowed this book from one library the owner of this book warned me, ‘after completing the reading, you will become either a liberal or agnostic, as Ehrman became.’ With a smile I said, ‘No. It cannot change my conviction’.
Later when I went for my evening walk, I was reflecting on a few pages that I already read yesterday and today. This is not the first time I am reading this kind of book. Already I read the Oxford Handbook on the Bible, which according to many is written by liberal scholars. After reading this particular book (Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, edited by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu, New York, 2006.), as per my habit, I typed important notes. Later when I was discussing with another staunch evangelical, who is also a Mukti Vedic scholar, he reiterated that this book is written by liberals. So when I suggested sharing some important points with other (Hindu) bhaktas in the mandali, he strongly objected to it by saying, ‘all cannot have the same kind of approach that you have to the liberal scholars. Therefore, I would suggest you not to do that’. Then I didn’t share it with anyone.
But reading such books by the so-called liberal scholars never changed my conviction about any scripture, be it Hindu or Mukti Veda. Because, as a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord, these labels like liberal, fundamentalist, evangelical etc., are not applicable to me. Every Hindu is both orthodox and liberal, viz., she is a liberal orthodox. When it comes to her personal bhakti in her deity or chosen scripture, she will remain orthodox. Whereas in her approach and attitudes towards others faith and scriptures she will remain liberal. When any Hindu goes against the orthodoxy of her sampradaya she will be treated as a ‘heretic’1 (pashanda) than a liberal. Coming from such a background, I also remain always a liberal orthodox.
Ehrman, who was an Episcopalian where Mukti Veda never was, in his own words, ‘not overly emphasized: it was there as one of the guides to faith and practice, along with the church’s tradition and common sense’ (p.2). But once he became a ‘born-again’ Christian and joined ‘Moody Bible Institute’ where, in his own words, ‘there was an ethical “code” that students had to sign off no: no drinking, no smoking, no dancing, no card playing, no movies. And lots of Bible. As we used to say, “Moody Bible Institute, where Bible is our middle name”’. There ‘Only one perspective was taught in these courses, subscribed by all the professors (they had to sign a statement) and by all the students (we did as well) : The Bible is the inerrant word of God. It contains no mistakes. It is inspired completely and in its very words—“verbal, plenary inspiration.” …’, (italics original) (p.4).viz., ‘down to the very word and complete from beginning to end’ (p.251).
After completing three years at Moody, he decided to become an evangelical “voice” in secular circles, by getting degrees that would allow him to teach in secular settings while (p.5) retaining his evangelical commitment. Then in order to complete his bachelor’s degree, he chose Wheaton College. But, in his own words, he ‘was warned that I might have trouble finding real Christians at Wheaton—which shows how fundamentalist Moody was: Wheaton is only for evangelical Christians and is the alma mater of Billy Graham…’ (p.6). Anyhow he joined Wheaton and committed to learning Greek under the guidance of Dr Gerald Hawthrone.
Then, in his own words, ‘The more I studied Greek, the more I became interested in the manuscripts that preserve the New Testament for us, and in the science of textual criticism, which can supposedly help us reconstruct what the original words of the New Testament were. I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? We don’t have the
Originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently in thousands of ways.’ (italics original, p. 7)
So, after completing his degree at Wheaton, he committed ‘to the textual criticism of the New Testament by going to study with the world’s leading expert in the field, a scholar named Bruce M. Metzger who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary.’ (p.7) Like before again he was warned by his evangelical friends ‘against going to Princeton Seminary, since…(p.7) It was, after all, a Presbyterian seminary, not exactly a breeding ground for born-again Christians.’ (p.8). However, in his own words, ‘A turning point came in my second semester, in a course I was taking with a much revered and pious professor named Cullen Story. The course was on the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark….’(p.8)
In the course of his studies, the question came, ‘If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of scripture?…..It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don’t even know what the words are!(p.11)
This led to the question of inspiration. In his own words:
…for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for god to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.
In short, my study of the Greek New Testament, and my investigations into the manuscripts that contain it, led to a radical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismic change for me. Before this—starting with my born-again experience in high school, through my fundamentalist days at Moody, and on through my evangelical days at Wheaton—my faith had been based completely on a certain view of the Bible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw the Bible that way. The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end…..Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did, but they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these perspectives beliefs, views, needs, (p.11) desires, understandings, and theologies informed everything they said. In all these ways they differed from one another….’ (pp. 11-12)
Thus:
What follows in the rest of the book is a detailed study on ‘The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings’, (Ch. 2); Texts of the New Testament: Editions, Manuscripts, and Differences (Ch. 3); The Quest for Origins: Methods of Discoveries (Ch. 4); Original that matters (Ch. 5); Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text (Ch. 6); The Social Words of the text (7) and Conclusion: Changing Scripture: Scribes, Authors, and Readers.
All these chapters give lots of information with technical details and terms for us to understand how the endeavour began to trace the ancient manuscript that comes close to the original after realizing that there were lots of mistakes done by the copyists. Those who want to learn this history can benefit greatly by reading them. But as it is not going to serve my purpose of sharing my reflection on the topic of ‘inspiration’, I leave them here.
When I read this introduction, it never surprised me much, because I also held a similar view, back in early 1980 when I began to follow the Lord and started to read Mukti Veda, in depth that too with the help of several (evangelical commentaries). Though I never discussed my views, doubts and questions with other fellow evangelicals among who I was sojourning, I got the opportunity to interact with few Seminary trained graduates and I constantly asked them this one question: when we say Mukti Veda is the INSPIRED Word of God, does it mean verbal inspiration of each word and letter or the mind of the authors who wrote the books in it. As usual I received the answer that as a new bhakta in the Lord, I am asking so many serious questions to which I need to read Mukti Veda properly and become mature in my faith. Agreeing with them, then I never raised this topic with others, knowing their fundamental view about Mukti Veda.
But as I write poems, I have my own view on INSPIRATION. However I try my best, unless I get inspiration, I cannot write any poem or article by straining my mind. When anyone requested me to write an article by giving some topic, then I had to struggle a lot to write (thanks to AI, now it will solve that problem also). Whereas when there comes some compulsion from within, then immediately I will write my thoughts and later edit it properly. When inspiration comes, even stopping other works, I have written several poems, that too quickly as the words use to flow rapidly so that I have to scribble the song quickly before the words disappear from my mind. But once I write a song, I will read it again to edit it properly to adjust it to the (poetic grammar, particularly to ‘eduhai’ and ‘monai’ viz., matching the first and lost words of each line with other lines), grammar, and thought. Several times I changed the words and shifted the stanzas top to bottom or bottom to top. Not only that, when I started to share them after a long time with my comments, in order to make it more sense I also added one or two stanzas or removed them (ex. Secular Song 295)3. Similarly in a few songs, to which I composed music, I have to change the words to make them suitable to the tune.
This being my experience writing poems, I know well that when anyone claims that any scripture as INSPIRED WORD OF God, then for me it means not each and every word in verbatim but only the thought which the author later had to edit to communicate that inspiration using human terms even using her own worldview in which she was born and brought up. It is like the modern personal secretaries to Managers, who often take only main points dictated by her boss which she later had to draft using her own words. Before signing the letter, the Manager had to read it again, in case he had to make any change. This example we see in the letter that Chottu Lal dictated to his scribe to which he later added a postscript in his own handwriting (Gal. 6:11) (p. 58) Any other theory claiming that each and every word (including the comma and full stop, yes even them, which were not used in the ancient time in most of the written documents) were INSPIRED was not acceptable to me. I think the Koran is the only exception to this, as it is believed that it is nothing but God’s Word as the Prophet only wrote down as dictated by the angel (known as typewriter theory), and ‘it was impossible for Mussulmans to break one syllable out of their holy Koran’.4
More than this, as most of the people remain illiterate very few alone could read them, as we had this tradition in Tamil Nadu where most of the ancient text were written only in poetic form, that too without the word and sentences separated, without using any comma, semicolon, or full stop.5 Even those who can write, cannot read as they managed to learn to sign their name only. This being the modern reality, in the ancient world, everywhere very few people could read and write. So while copies were made, the copyists, though they could write letter by letter, couldn’t read to copy correctly, as several of them couldn’t read the text that they were copying.
This led to another valid point that Erman raises, (Readers’ Response to Misquoting Jesus, pp. 256 to 261), ‘Sometimes the meaning of a verse, a passage, or an entire book (p.260) depends on which textual variants the scholar decides are “original”.(pp. 260-61)
Though I completely agree with him, I wonder whether he ever knew how Indian philosophies (rather theology) were developed, because in Hindu philosophy more than the mistakes done by the scribes while copying, even the nature of the language in which it was written also plays an important role. For example, as most of the main line scriptures were written in Sanskrit, even how the words were divided known as ‘sandviched’ also plays a crucial role. The best example is from Bhagavad Gita where both Sanakar and Ramanuja divided one word that best served their theological purpose. As Eherman mentions Bhagavad Gita6 I assume that he also has some knowledge on it. The following point from Mainkar will help us to understand about this:
…But a very subtle point regarding the relation of this Highest Brahman and Krsna is raised by the commentators while commenting on “Anaadimatparam”(13:12). Samkara to whom there is nothing else higher than Brahman, divides the words as Anaadimat and Param, while Ramanuja to whom Krsna is higher than Brahman, divides as Anaadi and Matparam understanding the latter as “that in relation to which I am the Supreme.”7
This is not limited only to Sanskrit. In Tamil there is a poetic genre called ‘Siledai’ in which there will be two different kinds of meaning as one wishes to interpret it. Kavi Kalamegam is very famous for writing such songs. On one songs he says:
In the inn of Kakan at Nagai (where free meals will be served for travellers), only in the evening rice starts to come; before cooking the whole town will be already gone to sleep; before serving the food, it would become dawn.8
But when the in charge questioned him why he criticised their service in such a way, Kalamegam re-interpret by saying, ‘I am not degrading you but only praising you. Because I said: Till evening rice will come, as they cook lots of food it will take time to complete the cooking late at night and when they serve the food (annam, the cooked rice which is in white colour) the heap will look like a white mountain (to show their generosity).
This being the reality in India regarding scripture of literature, neither the ‘inspiration’ nor the ‘interpretation’ ever become a crucial issue for a Hindu to have her faith in her deity or religious tradition. Whereas in the West, particularly among the bible believing evangelicals in the words of Eherman, ‘This belief in God involved a number of doctrinal commitments and beliefs, and these beliefs were rooted in certain historical claims about what had happened in the past (for example, in the history of the people of Israel and in the life of the historical Jesus)…. When I began doing serious research into these historical claims and into the nature of the Bible, I began to see that the foundation of my faith was not nearly as secure as I had assumed it was. (p. 246)… but eventually I came to realize that I could no longer hold on to the historical foundation of my belief…. And so I consider myself a rather “happy agnostic.” (p. 247)
One of such critical approaches that Eherman presents might help to understand his journey from Born again Christian to a happy agnostic. He rightly points out how the parable of ‘The Woman Taken in Adultery’ was not actually the original part of John’s gospel but later addition.9 When I began to read Mukti Veda (in Tamil), I noticed as this section was printed within brackets in some versions. But we have similar examples from Veda (like Purusha Sutra which, according to several scholars, were a later addition and not the original part of Veda) down to recent time literatures and Scriptures in India. For example, when the Critical edition of Mahabharata was edited, they had to refer to so many manuscripts that were collected from various parts of India. Even after the Critical edition was published there were different Critical Editions like South and North, as anyone who wanted to add any of her thoughts could write and insert in any part of Mahabharata. Even the Mahabharata that we finally got was only an abbreviated version of the original as Mahabharata itself claims.10 Such later additions never diminishes the importance of the Scriptures for a Hindu to consider it as the Word of God.11
The reason for such variations in manuscript in India is that most of the local stories that were preserved locally in oral tradition were inserted in the famous scripture or literature (like Mahabharata) to make it authentic and to give scriptural autority.12 The famous example is Bhagavad Gita which was disputed whether it was the original part of Mahabharata or later inserted.13 This being the Indian reality and we Hindus never believe in the so called verbatim INSPIRATION, when any scholar writes such book like this it never challenged my conviction about Mukti Veda as the Word of God.
Added to this, the other question that I constantly asked was, ‘What does it mean by claiming “biblical”’. Later I even wrote an article ‘biblically unbiblical’14 because I believe that when we claim anything as ‘Mukti Vedic’ (biblical) it is only our interpretation, even our own slogans and formulas (like ‘Bible Interprets Bible; Bible Hols the Final authority; Bible is the {only} Word of God etc.) and not actually reading the plain text; Here what Eharman says will make more sense:
For the more I studied, the more I saw that reading a text necessarily involves interpreting a text. I suppose when I started my studies I had a rather unsophisticated view of reading: that the point of reading a text is simply to let the text “speak for itself,” to uncover the meaning inherent in its words. The reality, I came to see, is that meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves ….(p.216)…surely the texts of the New Testament are not simply collections of words whose meaning is obvious to any reader. Surely the texts have to be interpreted to make sense, rather than simply read as if they can divulge their meanings without the process of interpretation. And this, of course, applies not just to the New Testament documents, but to texts of every kind…’—pp. 216-17
This is true as every commentary written on any scripture of amendments made in any constitution or verdict written by judges is nothing but interpretation of the existing previous texts.
As a digression not immediately relevant to my reflection on ‘Inspiration versus Interpretation, but an important point which forced Eherman to give up his faith in God is worth noting. He ‘came to realize that the Bible does not provide us with an infallible guide for faith and practice.’ (248) But, in his own words, ‘ The big issue that drove me to agnosticism has nothing to do not with the Bible, but with the pain and suffering in the world. I eventually found it impossible to explain if there was a good and loving God who was actively involved in this world. found it impossible to explain the existence of evil so rampant among us’ (p.248). And dissatisfied with various answers ‘even within the Bible’, which led him to a place where he ‘could no longer believe in God’ (That however is in his next book p.258)
I agree that Mukti Veda (as often claimed by so many Christians) never gives any infallible and one time guidance to so many practical issues.
Then comes the crucial point of copying. Though, while copying there were so many scribal errors (based on their lack of knowledge to read, due to their particular theological and social needs), still they cannot do major changes in everything about the life and teaching of that guru. Later when corrections were done by the next scribe or added or removed some verses or sections, then that might have been done based on the overall life and teaching of that guru. For example, as Eherman points out in the story of ‘The Woman Taken in Adultery’ (John 7:53-8:12), that goes with the overall important teaching of Him who in other places opposed the (religious) hypocrisy of His adversaries. Particularly to those two specific verses 8: 7 and 8, which according to Eherman were not part of the ancient manuscript but ‘found in late medieval manuscripts’ (p.265), still highlights the way he exposed their hypocrisy (8:7) and importance of forgiving the sin by God not condemning but through reconciliation (8:11).15
So, scripture provides the foundation to understand the life and teaching of my guru, on which I can make all kinds of alterations according to my need based on my own Indian worldview. As my faith/bhakti does not depend upon any infallible scripture or doctrine created on the interpretation or need any critical study to know the original writing or teaching but based on my personal relationship with him. That relationship continues to ‘inspire’ me to understand so many crucial questions in life, like that of suffering and evil among us. For example, instead of searching answers to so many questions from scripture my worldview gives alternative perspectives even outside the scripture, as no scripture could give answer to all human problems. There are wonderful ethical, moral, social, and even spiritual teachings outside every scripture. If a votary of any particular scripture strongly believes that her chosen scripture is all sufficient for her, then we have to accept and respect it, though we need not agree with her. For example, regarding suffering we have the view that it is caused by oneself (adhyatmika), by others (adibouthika) and outside our (human) control (adidaivika) like natural calamity. At least with the first two (personal and by others) we cannot blame God for not solving our problems. He may allow trials in a bhakta’s life but never creates any problem on His own. As we alone created so many problems, we need to work out our own solution. Regarding adhidaivika, as nature has its own law to operate about which we cannot blame God or give any scientific reason. ‘We don’t know’ is the best answer. Anyhow, God never created the problem and He or She doesn’t have a solution for that. We collectively as human beings work out our own solutions either to survive or perish.
As a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, my faith or bhakti begins with the relationship with my guru (whether historical or not but based not on any doctrine) who reached me when my atman and buddhi was ready to receive Him or Her. That time my relationship begins as a mystic experience. But to know about His or Her life and teaching, then I have to depend upon the Scripture which gives the record about it. If the authors misunderstood Him or Her and left not an authentic record about Her or His life and teaching, we are not in a position to know better than that.16
Conclusion:
From the beginning when I started to read Mukti Veda deeply, I noted so many contradictions, errors as I read it in Tamil, English and Hindi to know the meaning in a better way. And noted how the same verse was translated in a different way than in various versions in these languages.
For me the human authors inspired by God, wrote Mukti Veda conveying His message in their language using their own worldviews which are subjected to change from place to place. And later when they were translated in other languages, more mistakes were made, unable to understand the original context in which a particular book was written. For example, from the beginning I never believed that Pentateuch (the first five books in Purva Veda) was actually written by Moses but later in King’s time the oral traditions were collected and compiled. We also have the literary tradition where some others write new texts in the name of some famous acharyas and gurus (e.g. several works of Sankara were written not by him). Several books in Mukti Veda also were not written by the authors in whose name they were compiled and edited. And this never remains a problem for me.
For example, at the end of each chapter in Gita one sloka was added giving the name of that chapter giving his own interpretation about the theme of that chapter. But this is not the original part of Gita, but now considered as part of Gita and for any votary of Gita this is not at all a problem.
So, my advantage to be born and remain as Hindu, helps me to read the scholarly book written by the so-called liberals on Mukti Veda. Whereas for the Christians who were born and brought up in an evangelical or fundamentalist tradition where Mukti Veda is considered an inerrant17 verbally INSPIRED WORD OF GOD (verbal plenary inspiration), books likes this become an anathema and even threat to their faith. Most of the Christian began their faith with a strong faith in history as well as based on a book.
Whereas for us Hindus, though Scriptures are also important, our bhakti is more based on personal relationship with the chosen deity or to a guru plus family tradition related to other forms of their bhakti (mostly rituals and vows). Those who take their spiritual sadhana seriously, in most cases would have a ‘living guru’ or some kind of preceptor to guide them (either in the family or outside). This kind ‘guru and shishya’ relationship helps them to have some ‘intellectual’ understanding about it. For others just following the family tradition in religious matters is enough and that itself is ‘spirituality’ for them, with a caution that the so-called ‘spiritual life’ is not a common word used by them. Whereas for most of the (Protestant) Christians unless you have the ‘born again experience’ and believe as Mukti Veda as the VERY WORD OF GOD, even the translation and printed text in the form of Mukti Veda as the authority of faith (sola scriptura) then neither you are spiritual nor you are saved. In the case of Roman Catholics, unless you remain faithful to the Church Tradition, there is no hope of salvation as there is no salvation outside the church (authority) other than having any personal intellectual understanding about their faith through proper study and reflection. A common practice in their church is mere ‘preaching’ but not proper ‘teaching’.
Generally we Hindus uphold the principle that truth is important not the event, principle is important not the Person, what said is more important than when said and why said is important than how said, no kind of literary criticism by (liberal) scholars never challenges or change our faith in the respective Scripture that forms the fundamental to our faith/bhakti.
DB, Thirupunthuruthi,
24-07-2023
1.. …Heresy-hunting, the favourite game of many religions, is singularly absent from Hinduism.— The Hindu View of Life, Radhakrishnan, New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, (1927), 1998, Fourth impression, p.24
…In India, by common consent again, neither atheism: nor ‘religious schism’ was unknown. What was unknown and remains unknown to this day is the notion of “heresy” as understood in the religious traditions of the West. Without “truth”, there can be no heresy either.— S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005, p.364
2… I cannot understand what Eherman means by ‘God’s word’. God doesn’t have his own word or language. God has only one word and that is ‘silence’.
4… Ramachandra Guha. Gandhi Before India, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2014 , London, Alle Lane, 2013, p. 525
5.. …One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (which would include all the earliest Christian writings, including those of the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no marks of punctuation were used no distinction made between lowercase and uppercase letters, and, even more bizarre to modern reads, no space used to separate words. This kind of continuous writing is called scriptuo continua, and it obviously could make it difficult at times to read, let alone understand, a text. The words godisnowhere could mean quite different things to a theist (God is now here) and an atheist (God is nowhere):@ and what would it mean to say lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable? Was this normal or a supernormal event?—Eherman, p. 48
@. I borrow this example from Bruce M. Metzger. See Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005), 22-23)
The same is the case here in India, particularly in Tamil literatures where it was copied in palm leaves without giving any gap between words and no punctuation as it was a modern invention. Only a person who can both read and write, that too well versed in poetry alone can separate the words in the proper place while reciting to any audience. Any wrong separation of the words will communicate the wrong meaning. A common joke about this in Tamil is this. Outside in a pure vegetarian hotel, the painter who wrote the boar separated the word my mistake by changing the meaning from ‘Where Brahmins can eat’ to ‘Where Brahmins can drink country wine. (Bramanarkal sappitum idam to ‘Brahmanar kal sappitum idam பிராமணர்கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம்; பிராமணர் கள் சாப்பிடும் இடம்)–db
6… I came to see that the Bible was a book written by human authors, and if it was “inspired” it was in the way that other sacred books (the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Christian apocrypha) and other great literature (Shakespeare, Milton, John Donne) were inspired’. (in Q & A with Bart Ehrman, pp. 246 to 255), p. 251.
7 T.G. Mainkar, A Comparative Study of The Commentaries On The Bhagavadgita;; Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, (2nd Edi), 1969. p.25. Manikar further highlights:
Thus Samkara, in the interpretation of passages where the word Brahman occurs, has been faithful, only where his doctrine is not involved, and when these passages seem to affect his doctrine, he does not hesitate to change the context affecting big passages, to interpret the word as Sannyaasa, or justify an archaic test by the lame excuse of slokapuurana {old sloka}. Ramanuja’s interpretation may not appear as altogether satisfactory; but it will have to be accepted that in certain places, Samkara agrees with him, and where they differ, Samkara’s interpretations affect the text and the context, while his do not. The spirit of the poem therefore is better reflected in his comments than in those of Samkara.—ibid. p. 25
8.. கத்துகடல் சூழ்நாகைக் காத்தான்றன் சத்திரத்தில்
அத்தமிக்கும் போதி லரிசிவரும்-குத்தி
உலையிலிட வூரடங்கு மோரகப்பை யன்னம்
இலையிலிட வெள்ளி யெழும்.- காளமேகப் புலவர்
தனிப்பாடல் திரட்டு,உரை கா. சுப்பிரமணிய பிள்ளை, சென்னை, நல்லறப் பதிப்பகம், 2007, முதல் தொகுதி, ப. 148
9.. To prove about such latter additions Eharman gives a list of ‘Top Ten Verses That were Not Originally in the New Testament. See notes number 11 below.
Eherman might be right as he points out in Chapter 6 (Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text)the scribe who added these verses could have done so in order to make the text relevant to his theology. Or guessing that considering the other teachings of the Lord and Apostles, such additions would give proper conclusion to that section. For example, both verses 7 and 8 in John could have been done either to bring logical conclusion knowing the other teachings of the Lord and his nature.
10. … The powerful Island-born Krishna [Vyasa] who will not have to come back, and who is liberation incarnate, made an abstract of the Bharata, moved by the desire of helping the cause of virtue.( 48). He made another compilation consisting of sixty lakhs of verses.(49). Thirty lakhs of these were placed in the region of the celestials. In the region of the Pitris, fifteen lakhs, it should be known, are current; while in that of the Yakshas fourteen lakhs are current. (50) One lakh is current among human beings. Narada recited the Mahabharata to the gods; Asita-Devala to the Pitris; Shuka to the Rakshasas and the Yakshas; and Vaishampayana to human beings. This history is sacred, and of deep significance, and considered as equal to the Vedas. (51-52). [Sauti to Shaunaka].— M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. Vol. I. 1988, Foreword: by Publisher, SWARGAROHANIKA PARVA. VOL. 7. Ch. V. p. 556
11 Eherman gives ‘Top ten verses that were not Originally in the New Testament’ on page 265.:
Some of the most familiar verses of the New Testament were not originally part of the text, but were added by later scribes. Thes scribal additions are often found but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries. But because some of the best-known English editions of the New Testament, such as the King James Bible (the Authorized version), were based not on early manuscripts, but later ones, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands. The following are some of the verses that originally were not part of the New Testament:
I John 5:7 (There are three…three are one); John 8:7 (Let the …stone at her); 8:11 (Neither…sin no more); Luke 22:44 (In his anguish….to the ground); Luke 22:20 (And in the….in my blood) ; Mark 16:17 (These signs…tongues) ; 16:18 (And they will…become well); John 5:4 (For an angel….disease he had); Luke 24: 12 (But Peter…had happened); Luke 24: 51(And when…into heaven).—pp. 265-66
13. According to Vempeny (Vempeny, Ishanand, S. J., Krsna and Christ, Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1988, pp 24-32.)there are three views regarding the relationship between Mbh and BG. The traditional view is that BG is the heart of Mbh. Those who defend this generally base their argument on the similarity of the two and much common subject matter in both BG and Mbh, viz. dharma. `…According to Vinoba Bhave, Vyasa, the mythic author of the epic has taken out the cream of the whole Mhb and put it in BG, “Standing in the middle of the epic”, he adds, “BG is like an elevated lamp which throws its light on the whole of Mbh”‘(Thomas, P. M., Thomas, P. M.; 20th Century Indian Interpretations of Bhagavadgita: Tilak, Gandhi & Aurobindo, ISPCK,1987,p 9. The quote from Vinoba Bhave is from Talks on the Gita, Sarva-seva-sangh Prakashan, Varanasi, 1964, p 1.) The second view is that BG partially belongs to Mbh According to this school of thought BG has several authors and the `…Mbh portion of BG is a very small one.'(Vempeny, op. cit., p 26.) Adherants of the third position `…doubt or deny any substantial relationship of BG with Mbh.'(Ibid., pp 27-28.)
14. Soon it will be posted in this blog.
15.. This reminds me of one that happened in recent history in the life of Mahatma Gandhiji. When he lived in South Africa some disgruntled Pathans (Mer Allam Khan) for whom Gandhi had compromised his principle of passive resistance against ‘Asiatic Ordinance’ by physically assaulting him severely wounded him. When the case came to the court, they falsely accused that it was Gandhi who first verbally abused them in English and ‘Thambi Naidoo {Gandhi’s friend and associate} prodded the Pathans with a stick. It was then that they retaliated’ (p. 277). In his summing up, the magistrate, H. H. Jordan, said that he was:
Perfectly sure that Mr. Gandhi did not use the words alleged against him. He did not think that anyone could be brought forward to say that Mr. Gandhi had used bad language. It was from his personal knowledge of the man that he could say that he (Mr Gandhi) was not a man to use words of that description.–Guha. Op. cit. p. 277.
16.. Of course, we need not agree with all such even the so-called authentic records of the followers about the life and teaching of their guru. The example that comes to my mind is about the life of Sri (Adi) Sankara. Though we have his commentaries and few other authentic works, still the records about his life were written very late around 14th century known as ‘Sankara Digvijaya’. (Maadhava viz. Vidaaranya, not Madhava the founder of Daita School who lived in Vijayanagara empire), This writing gives so many events that are related to the life of Sri Sankara. But any typical scholar will dismiss them as more fiction than facts. But that never deter the present day followers of Sankara for whom every incident that was recorded in Sankara Digvijaya was historical fact. The same is the case with Buddha, Mahavira and even many other gurus and acharyas. I need not point out the mystery surrounding saints like Kabir, Meera. Even in this century so many miracles were attributed to the late Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswathi Swami of Kanchi peet. Books were written, TV serials were produced and well known speakers talk about it with much passion. This being the Indian reality, for anyone coming from this tradition no kind of textual criticism is going to shake her faith that much easily. A scholar like Eherman could dismiss it as nothing but blind faith trusting his reason. Whereas for Indians we even question the rationality of the reason.
17. Eherman points out that, ‘Actually, the view that the Bible is inerrant is a completely modern idea—it is not the traditional “Christian” view since time immemorial… In fact, the views of inerrancy held by evangelical and fundamentalist Christian today were developed less than a century ago, in a set of conflicts in Christian circles in the United States.’—p. 249
Leave a Reply