What good has education done to women? In spite of so much knowledge and
information around, still there are educated women who opt to become 'semi
nude models and walk on the ramp shamelessly. When educated females
propagate the fact that 'women are sex objects only' - what do you expect
from illiterate, uneducated women? How can they come up? Who will take the
responsibility? If history is checked its men (Raja Ram Mohan Roy - who
brought in some change in the lives of women - and certain women talk big
on 'Women's Liberation'!
It brought tears to my eyes to know that Urdu is dissappearing in India. I
am from South India and I can understand some Urdu. I wish I knew more Urdu,
but one thing I do know is that it is a beautiful language. I hope
people like you will make efforts to keep this wonderful language alive.
Keep up the good work.
Your articles have attracted me and created great interest in Gurbani with
your scienctific interpretation. Your findings in this field are extraordinary and
a new milestone in the reaserch of Sikhism. I pray to God for your long and prosperous
life.
Regards,
Jagmohan Singh Gill
General Secretary
Central Gurdwara Committee
West Bengal
Although things are changing about the way we as a society feel about
girls, we still have a long way to go. Its us women that need to stop
putting down other women for not having a male issue. Its us women that
need to celebrate the birth of a girl child with more fervor. And its us
women that need to educate anyone that makes another woman feel any less
because she does not have a son.
This was a very informative article written about the man. I have only
heard of him before, and after reading this article I will certainly
research his works further.
I am an Australian-born person proud of my 100% Lebanese
ancestry, proud of Danny Thomas, that wonderful comedian who transmitted
so many family values through his show which I used to watch in my
childhood days, and all the more proud of him after having read your
article and learning of the secret pledge he made at such a key moment in
his life.
It was indeed a privilege to read an article about a true warrior.
Sardar Sahib, every page of our history was written with our blood. We were hunted like animals, tortured in most brutal ways, without ever sparing our women and children. When these sordid and inhuman acts could not make a dent in our high spirits and our ‘CHARDI KALA’ (Perpetual Ascending Spirit), few more deaths, taunts and abuses cannot and would not make any difference to us, our confidence and our approach/attitude towards whichever society we live in, as we are also blessed with spirit of forgiveness. We also understand the acts of ignorance
In my mind, i have not an iota of doubt that you, sir, are a far better Sikh than i, by thousand times. But i am impelled, most humbly, to draw your kind attention to few facts. With your permission, i will try to explain these facts in reference to following lines from your article:
“Not only did Mian Mir lay the foundation stone for the most significant Sikh house of worship, known commonly as the Golden temple, but he also used his knowledge of the Qur’an to help organize the Sikh holy text, the Adi Granth. In our holy book, we use many different names for God, including about a dozen of Islamic origin, including Allah”.
There was no dearth of pious souls around Guru Arjan. He could have laid down the foundation stone himself. Instead, he deliberately chose Pir Sain Mian Mir to lay the foundation stone of Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) for reason of setting revolutionary precedents (in those intolerant times and atmosphere, brimming with mutual hatred and persecution) and lay down the mission statement of ‘The Gurus’: Kya Hindu kya Mussalman, Manas ki jaat sab ek hi pehchanbo. That human race is one and all are equal. And Golden Temple was bestowed with four open doors, one on each side, open to all without any distinction of cast, colour or creed. We sit down in a pangat (together and equal, in a same line) and share the food and joy.
The sunshine and the Energy provided by Sun is self generated and self emanated as ordained of by HIS HUKAM and by HIS WILL (Sardar Baldev Singh very correctly translate it as Divine Law/Cosmic Law or Law of Nature). Similarly, Gurus/Prophets are fired and inspired by Wahe Guru/ Allah/Ishver/God alone and are sent from time to time, from places to places, to get rid of the dross and to charge the mind of humankind. In other words, God speaks through them. So they don’t need or seek any body else’s knowledge or advice.
Guru Nanak and succeeding Nine Nanaks were addressing the audiences who were familiar with and understood these names/attributes of God i.e. Ram, Allah, Brahma, Ishver or Rahim, Qarim (attributes of GOD) etc, and also to drive home the vital point that it is the same GOD (ONE UNIVERSAL GOD) with different names and attributes. They never included YAHEWA because in all probability, nobody in Punjab or surrounding areas would have heard of YAHEWA. Similarly, they cited examples of myths or religious folklores as teaching aids and reference points, which could be easily understood by their audiences.
i may humbly add that all Gurudwaras are equally significant. Some are more visited for historical (Gurus having visited/stayed in or some great important events took place at that particular Gurudwara) or for architectural reasons. Harmandir Sahib is first in the row and became most important because (a) Guru Arjan established the Adi Granth in this sanctum sanctorum which was build in the middle of the Sarover (sacred tank) and was open to all. (b) Guru Hargobind established and erected Akal Takht from where, he used to issue Hukamnamaas (Commandments) to Sikh Panth and subsequently, Akal Takht became the highest seat for seeking and for issuing Advices and Gurmattaas (decisions taken collectively by the Panth) for the entire Sikh Panth and (c) For it’s Sarover (sacred tank) after which, the city of Amritsar is named after.
Sardar Sahib, i am neither an academic nor a scholar but just trying to explain in my lay and ignorant manner. i hope you wouldn’t mind. But i will most strongly recommend you to go through the article in the same issue of SikhSpectrum; Relocating Gender in Sikh History: Transformation, Meaning and Identity (Author: Doris Jakobsh) A Critical Analysis by Sardar Baldev Singh (November 2006). Please try to read the whole article. i have copied some relevant points from his chapter 3 for your kind consideration:-
“The concept of “one God” was known before Guru Nanak but that “one God” is nothing more than a tribal god, an exclusive god, which has caused balkanization and disintegration of mankind. In addition to the millions of gods, Hindus also believe in a God who communicates only through the Brahmans and then there is a God for the chosen people, the Jews. Christian God is approachable only through his only son Jesus Christ. For the Muslim, Mohammed is the last and final in a long line of Prophets of Allah (God) and they claim that theirs is the only true prophetic religion. For Guru Nanak the Creator is “One and Only” and Its creation, mankind is also one:
My Master is One. It is One, hey brother! It is One.
AGGS, M 1, p. 350
“The One is in all and all are in One” that is what the True Guru (God) has made me understand.
AGGS, M 1, p. 907.
It is God’s light that is in all. Its brightness enlightens all.
AGGS, M 1, p. 663.
Nanak understands that the True Guru (God) brings all together.
AGGS, M 1, p. 72.
The compatible thoughts of many Indian sages of diverse background with Nanakian philosophy are incorporated in the AGGS. However, there are no direct quotes from the texts of Semitic and Hindu religions, as these religions are based on the concept of an “exclusive God”:
Neither the Vedas (four Hindu texts) nor the four Katebs [Semitic texts: the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the Quran] know the mystery of the Creator.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1021.
It is the teachings of Vedas, which has created the myths of sin and virtue, hell and heaven, and karma and transmigration. One reaps the reward in the next life for the deeds performed in this life -goes to hell or heaven according to the deeds. The Vedas have also created the fallacy of inequality of caste and gender for the world.
The Merciful One is the only Emancipator (Maula), not the holy men (pir and sheikh), or Prophet. The Master of every heart, Who delivers justice, is beyond the description of the Quran and other Semitic texts.
AGGS, M 5, p. 897.
Before commenting on the above passage, it is important to understand what the words “Guru, Satguru and personal Guru” mean in AGGS. Most often the words--Guru and Satguru--stand for God or Word (Truth, Sabad, Bani, Guru’s teaching) and when used for a “personal Guru,” they represent his spiritual attributes, and not his physical body/appearance:
Guru is Enlightener, Formless/Invisible and Mysterious (incomprehensible in totality). One, who understands the Guru (God), comprehends the nature of the universe.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1125.
Nanak met the Guru, Who is Sovereign/Self-Sufficing, Formless/Invisible (beyond the material world) and Almighty.
AGGS, M 1, p. 599.
In his discussion with the yogis, Guru Nanak affirms that his Guru is Sabad. Sabad means “Word, sound, and voice” but in Nanakian philosophy it also means the sacred hymns enshrined in AGGS--hence the voice of God -Divine knowledge (Word). Sabad is synonymous with bani and gurbani:
“Who is your Guru or whose disciple are you of?” “Sabad is my Guru and my mind which is focused on the Sabad and comprehends it, is the disciple,” replied Guru Nanak.
AGGS, M 1, p. 942.
Here Guru Nanak makes it abundantly clear that Guru is the Sabad (Divine knowledge), not a Guru in person. Personal Guru is the medium for transmitting the Divine knowledge. Guru Nanak’s successors affirmed the same that Guru is God or Sabad or bani:"
End
In fact i will suggest to you humbly, to read all the articles written by this enlightened, learned and wise ‘olde soul’ who is specially BLESSED by AKAL PURAKH and one, who is relentlessly doing an invaluable service to his Gurus and his Panth
My special regards, best wishes and prayers for your illustrious mother and dear Pa-in-law. i salute your dear mom for having flowered a beautiful and kind soul like you. Forgive me for taking so much of your time
That women are discriminated against even in today's world is a reality that we have to face sadly enough. That there are crimes committed on them even today, is a reality that cannot be wished away; Their exploitation is the order of the day. Awareness about women’s rights is very necessary. There are laws but these are not implemented. Women don't even know their Human Rights. Therefore they silently bear injustice, which is dangerous and should be avoided at all cost. I work with women on grass root level and help create awareness among them. I also write poetry in Urdu, my mother tongue and often speak in public meetings and 'Mushairas' (poetic meets). The poem, Woman Burning Bright was originally written in Urdu. Once, after I read this poem in a public meeting, a woman came to me and said that she was earlier contemplating suicide, but after listening my poem decided to fight for her rights.
Writing in Urdu is one way of preserving the language. I write poetry in Udru, apart from writing in English. This is my way of preserving the beautiful language of Urdu.
Real Waris Shah, like all others, has their works appropriated, name
used/misused to have additions made at the whims of whoever was using the popular kissa (from local scribes to folk-artists) to jump on the
bandwagon of immense popularity and enduring quality of the story.
The anti-jat feelings of the Brahmanical proteges stamped its paw-marks on the kissas as well. It is hardly surprising that the people who challenged the authority of the bipars and their imposed system would be maligned by using a play, whose main gist is enduring love - to be misused in this way! There are various lengths and pages to the popular kissa, with some extremely vulgar
passages added -passed off as Waris Shah, forgetting Waris Shah was a
Sufi by persuasion, and he wrote the kissa for the inspirational value of enduring love.
There is nothing that is/has been left alone by a certain coterie of
traditional scribes and court parasites, who made a living distorting the
truth and using it to promote themselves and their enduring legacy of
their 'caste' i.e mold of Brahmin hatred for those who refuse to fit into
their scheme of things.
This use of Heer Ranjha as a historical document is rather bizarre for
Rajputs are known for their glorified sati/johar propensities - something
that spilled over into society under the spell of latter day influences of
Brahminism. It is/was the Jatts who practiced widow re-marriage and
rehabilitation that is frowned upon in the Brahmanical establishment. Female
infanticide was a very widespread problem, far and wide including the
middle-east and not limited to just affluent Jats some of whom were under
the sway of the thugs.
The name of Nagarjuna's text is not "Madhyamika Sutras". The text is
written in verses called karikas, not in sutras ("aphorisms").
The correct name of his text is the "Mula-Madhyamaka-Karika." An
excellent recent translation by Jay Garfield is entitled "the Fundamental
Wisdom of the Middle Way".
In his article Grounds of Inter Religious Spirituality in Indian Culture,
Issue No. 26, SikhSpectrum.com, November 2006, Prof. Muthumohan says:
"Granth Sahib contains the hymns of Sufi saints, Siddha poets and Vaishnavite Sants along with that of the Sikh Gurus."
This is an erroneous and misleading statement because Guru Nanak rejected the ideology of Sidhas, Yogis and Vaishnava bhakats (bhagats). Yes, Guru Arjan did honor Indian sages of diverse background by incorporating their thoughts in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib, but only those thoughts that are compatible with the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), and wherever there are minor differences or need clarification, the Gurus added their comments.
Further, it is odd that Prof. Muthumohan has discussed the religious
traditions of the people of the Indian subcontinent from ancient to modern age without mentioning their nationality or ethnicity or the their country. Instead, he uses the names Indus or India given by the Greeks who ruled over the territory, which is called Western Punjab nowadays. He did not use the name Hindu even once!
Thank you for sharing your experience. I have an American born
teenage daughter and a Caucasian non-Sikh wife and am now finding it very hard to instill Sikhi in kids. My daughter is fifteen and this year was her first Sikh camp. Your article is helpful in guiding my kids to more camps.
Editor: The ongoing debate is open to all people in an attempt to publish informed opinions. We do not necessarily endorse any particular view and encourage well-written and well-researched articles. We welcome personal views of our writers including Jass Singh, as is the case in the following letter that was sent to us.
_._._._._._
Dear Editor,
It is odd that two non-Sikh and apparently atheists should be asked to respond to a paper directed at theistic Sikhs who share many presuppositions with Christianity, primarily the existence of a personal omnipotent God. Almost the entirety of Daniel Wright & Ed Unger’s responses are baseless assertions (not well reasoned arguments) & needles to say, they lack documentation.
The worst of the two responses is Unger’s because:
1. He ignores my evidence,
2. then doesn't make the distinctions I do,
3. and then he blames me for them.
Unger’s opening paragraph is a Red Herring and he quite conveniently leaves unaddressed all my arguments including the possibility of miracles. I started with the premise that God exists because my audience are Sikhs who are monotheists and believe in a personal transcendent omnipotent creator God – a God who can do miracles e.g. creation. This paper was not about whether God exists or not; neither was it about whether miracles are possible nor that the Bible is the infallible word of God, nor about the historicity of the New Testament. My opening paragraph & disclaimer stating my presuppositions clearly disarms Unger of any ammunition in this respect. And as explained in my analysis of Wright’s response, it is not a circular argument. Based on those presuppositions, Unger (nor Wright) has successfully undermined my position.
The rest of Unger’s assertions are unfounded and clearly refuted in my paper. Unger makes further assertions that the gospel authors are all unknown and do not claim to be witnesses and quite conveniently leaves out any supporting evidence or documentation. Then he makes the outlandish claim that Jesus is a legend and that there is no evidence outside the New Testament for the existence of Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth. No matter what Unger claims, he is obviously not a historian and has given no data or documentation for his baseless hypothesis.
Wright is stronger & gives details. G.B. Singh says that Wright & Unger are biblical scholars but they are plainly ignorant of a number of things. They don't seem to know much about the early church, philosophy, logic or theology.
1. Both Wright & Unger erroneously raise the issue of circularity in my argument. As far as the resurrection of Jesus is concerned I am using a MINIMAL FACTS APPROACH whereby I am ONLY using data that is multiply evidenced & accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars. In other words, virtually everyone allows these facts on strong grounds, so it is not circular.
2. As for the historicity of the New Testament, in the first paragraph I state my presuppositions, which I am forced to make because of limitation on the length of the article I am allowed to write and the fact that the topic is NOT “The Historicity of the New Testament” or “The Historicity of Jesus.“ In fact I state that I would have preferred that these topics be discussed first. No one can be expected to repeat all the evidence and arguments starting at square one--unless that is the author's explicit purpose. I guess I should have made it clearer by explicitly stating that I am predicating my thesis on the case propounded by …(and list several books and their authors, such as F.F. Bruce etc), which I find to have cogently established the reliability of the New Testament, and thus avoid any misconstrual of circularity. I have in fact cited many scholars but what is more important than their qualifications is the soundness of their arguments. By citing scholarly works, I am not making a mere assertion. I am saying that if a critic wants to know on what basis I affirm the historicity of the New Testament, he should go to the sources I have found cogent. Accepting the reliability of the Gospels is not a matter of "blind faith."
3. Wright resorts to a worthless "argument from silence" in regard to Nazareth. He is also wrong about the date. There are extra-biblical references to it earlier than the fourth century. Wright commits a blatant non sequitur by saying that Nazareth was established between the 2nd and 4th centuries because there is no early reference to it outside the Gospels. Has he ever had a course in logic? Luke's reference to Nazareth cannot justifiably be called a mistake. At most one can say that we have not yet found any reference to Nazareth earlier than the second century. In addition, Josephus did not mention dozens of other towns and villages in Israel, but we know they existed.
Here are a couple of quotes on the archeological data:
a. "Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2nd century B.C. "
(John P. Meier, Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57.
b. "Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."
(Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42)..
4. Wright thinks that Luke makes the most mistakes and later states that he makes so many errors in regards to Jewish law and geography that many scholars doubt that he or any supposed sources were eyewitnesses to the events he describes. Once again he is making wild uniformed assertions and does not know what he is talking about. Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. After thirty years of study including traveling to places mentioned by Dr. Luke and studying first hand the geographical & topography, concluded that
"Luke is a historian of the first rank" and "should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." (W. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, 81, 222.).
5. Wright is very ignorant of Inference to the Best Explanation as illustrated in his example of Indra. His illustration, which is itself very muddle headed and poorly articulated, is a mere illustration and does not constitute a well reasoned & sound argument. In addition you can only talk of the “best” when you have looked at & evaluated other alternative explanations/hypotheses, which he conveniently omits. This is an important component of Inference to the Best Explanation.
6. Wright states that parthenogenesis – in humans – always results in a female offspring. So what? This is irrelevant because the virgin birth of Christ was not a “natural” parthenogenesis, it was a supernatural intervention.
7. Wright's comments on physicalism are muddled. One can stipulate that he simply means a Stratonian universe by the term. In that sense, it denotes a worldview.
8. His comments on science and miracles are nonsense. The rarity of miracles precludes incompatibility with science. Science brackets numerous anomalies in order to proceed with its work. Scientists just figure that such anomalies or enigmas may be understood in the future, but they cannot rule out a supernatural cause or dimension to them. That goes beyond science, and anyone who assumes such is not speaking scientifically but philosophically and unwarrantably.
9. Wright's imaginative scenario borders on the puerile. I can think up a number of contrafactual scenarios that seem to be plausible. Piling one arbitrary assumption on top of another gets one nowhere--certainly not closer to the truth. It is utterly naive for him to assert, "Such a scenario certainly fits with the evidence." He has presented no evidence--only suppositions.
10. His appeal to pagan gods is so passe that it is appalling. He should read Ronald Nash's book on the subject and also Edwin Yamauchi's--both of whom have argued convincingly against all this borrowing nonsense. Such special pleading ignores the fundamental differences between them (such as Mithra) and Jesus, dissolving alleged similarities by their superficiality.
11. The classic trilemma of C.S. Lewis is indeed inadequate and vulnerable to serious criticism but the important question has to do with the reliability of the sources. Of course, adopting a naturalistic stance invariably precludes a serious consideration of any line of evidence for a miracle, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Since it assumes that there is no supernatural, real miracles cannot happen. Therefore, the Resurrection didn't happen. This is a circular argument for he says he doesn't have any evidence for the Resurrection; therefore, he doesn't believe it occurred. A committed philosophical naturalist will not allow any evidence for it. He will always find some naturalistic explanation, no matter how absurd or unwarranted.
12. Wright unfairly accuses me a number of times of ad hominem attacks. It appears that he does not know what an ad hominem attack is, for I have not attacked any person in my paper, only their arguments. He says for example that my saying that those who disbelieve the Virgin Birth have an “anti-supernatural bias” constitutes an ad hominem attack. This is clearly fallacious reasoning for those who a priori preclude a miracle have adopted a “biased” position that makes miracles including the Virgin Birth impossible. There is no ad hominem attack here. Philosophically, anything that is logically possible is ontologically possible. The possibility of a miracle cannot be ruled out a priori for there is nothing illogical about a miracle.
13. Wright erroneously appeals to Hume's (fallacious) argument against miracles. Hume's epistemological (radical empiricism) and ontological perspective (discrete sensory impressions) contradict his premises in his argument against miracles. He maintained that we could not philosophically justify causality; consequently, the world could not be a closed, deterministic system that necessarily excludes miracles. Yet he argued that a miracle violates the closed system of cause and effect, which is so well established that no amount of "evidence" or testimony could suffice to overcome the principle of the uniformity of nature. Hume contended that mere sense impressions and relations of ideas can never establish any causal relation. Yet he assumed that the causal relations that constitute the uniformity of nature preclude any adequate grounds for proving that a miracle has ever occurred or could ever occur. I suspect that Wright is not a philosopher and that he does not have a critical, systematic epistemology. The critical point in regard to the paragraph is this: Hume's epistemology is separate from his argument against miracles. In fact, they are mutually contradictory. As confused as he was and as Wright is, it is possible to appeal to one without appealing to the other. Wright could actually repudiate Hume's epistemology and hold to his argument against miracles. Hume's argument against miracles presupposes a different epistemology and a different ontology from the ones he espoused elsewhere in his writings.
In addition to the contradiction indicated above, the major problem with his argument against miracles is his naturalistic assumption. Understood as a special act of God, a miracle is precluded by definition from a naturalistic ontology. On such a basis, testimony and other evidences can never override natural explanations. Only within a theistic worldview or openness to a theistic worldview can a putative miracle even be considered. The statistical regularities (laws of nature) do not make miracles impossible; they make them significant by their very deviation from the usual, pervasive regularities that constitute nature (and by the all-important context in which they reportedly occurred).
Whatever is logically possible cannot be proscribed a priori. More precisely the ontological principle of noncontradiction, which is distinguishable but not separable from the logical principle of noncontradiction, means that nothing is existentially instantiable if it violates it. One must look at all relevant evidence, direct and indirect, pertaining to any claim, whether it has a miraculous or non-miraculous referent, in order to judge whether or not its truth value is established or probabilified.
Just as some anti-theists have tendentiously defined God or His attributes in such a way that logical or ontological contradiction is entailed, so some anti-supernaturalists tendentiously define miracles in the same way. No one has succeeded (nor can anyone) in showing that either one is logically or ontologically impossible except in terms of agratuitous worldview that implicitly or explicitly stipulatestheir impossibility.
Regards,
-Jass Singh
Reading the articles published in....
-Krishna Ajjarapu, USA
from Krishna Ajjarapu
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
Reading the articles published in SikhSpectrum, it is apparent that you have been meticulously presenting diverse views.
I hope you will publish this letter in its present form.
I have noted that there is much discussion among some writers in SikhSpectrum on topics related to Sikhism versus Christianity. It appears to me that none of these writers are experts either on Sikhism or on Christianity. I am of opinion that their kind of Christian Hermeneutics can neither defend Sikhism, nor explain the glory and greatness of the Gurus' religion. Apologetics based on uninformed critical attitude do not help but create distance from Sikhism.
In my view, the greatness of Sikhism does not lie in our deep enthusiasm, but in the teachings of the great Gurus like Guru Gobind Singh whose glorious testimony of self-sacrifice is unmatched in Indian history. By his personal example, Guru Gobind Singh has exemplified and defined who MAN is. In essence, all the Gurus have personified nobility in humanity. Their revolutionary movement seems to flow from their seeing, and recognizing an innate dignity in man endowed with courage to the point of self-sacrifice. The Gurus so loved Man (mankind) that they gave themselves for him. Redemption of man appears to have been their primary concern. It seems relevant to imagine that even in their definition of the nature of God, the Gurus seem to have been influenced by their moral view of the essence of Man. And in doing so, their rational approach to enlightenment seems to have moved from the definition of Man to the definition of God, but not vice versa. Such is the greatness of Sikhism - the light of redemption from inhuman and unjust institutions.
If the contemporary leaders of Sikhism have such courage as to embody the model of the sacrificial life of Guru Gobind Singh, and his concept of social revolution based on (1) dignity of Man, (2) justice, and (3) moral responsibility, the religion of Sikhism needs no defense, and it will ignite the collective intellect, and will of the world, and change the Cultures in India and abroad.
Jass Singh’s article, “Jesus – According to Orthodox Historic Biblical Christianity,” is based on assumptions and is devoid of logic and truth. So it does not deserve any comment from me. However, his statement in response to his critics, published in the Feedback section of SikhSpectrum, caught my eye and prompted me to respond. Jass wrote:
“I started with the premise that God exists because my audience are Sikhs who are monotheists and believe in a personal transcendent omnipotent creator God – a God who can do miracles e.g. creation.”
Here again he makes a false assumption that Sikhs believe in a God who can perform miracles. Comparing Christianity with the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) is like comparing witchcraft with the modern science. God described in Aad Guru Granth Saheb (AGGS) is radically different from that proclaimed in the Bible.
AGGS proclaims that the Cosmos came into being according to the Hukam (Cosmic Law, Divine Law, Universal Law) of the Nirankar (Formless One) and it is the Hukam that controls the working of the Cosmos. Hukam is immutable and whatever happens in the Cosmos is under its control and nothing is beyond it. The God described in the AGGS is a Rational Being who does not perform miracles. AGGS unequivocally rejects miracles and supernatural powers, for example the miracles of “virgin birth” and “resurrection”.
All are subject to Hukam (Cosmic Law); nothing is exempt from it.
AGGS, Jap 2, p. 1.
The Infinite One has fashioned human body with beautiful features from father’s semen and mother’s blood (eggs).
AGGS, M 1, p. 1022.
Mother and father create a child through sexual union according to the Hukam (biology of reproduction of life).
AGGS, M 1, p. 989.
It is Hukam, which is the cause of creation and destruction (birth and death) or birth and death occur according to Hukam (biological processes of death and birth).
AGGS, M 1, p. 472.
In the highlights of his book, Religion, Caste and State, Prof. Radhakrishnan has made some questionable assumptions and statements.
1. He seems to think as if Antyajas (Untouchables, Harijans, Dalits) constitute the only minority in India. He makes no mention of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Advasis (aborigines). Whereas Dalits are a minority under the Hindu umbrella, the others are outside the Hindu domain. Further, he looks at inequality and injustice in the Indian society from the Dalit angle.
Sikhs have been complaining loudly since 1949 that Indian Democracy is the tyranny of the Hindu majority over non-Hindus. In spite of vehement opposition of two Sikh representatives, Hukam Singh and Bhupinder Singh Mann who refused to sign the document, the Indian Parliament declared Sikhs as Hindus in the Indian Constitution. How could democracy be compatible with caste ideology, which is based on the fundamental belief that human beings are unequal forever on the basis of birth and gender? Besides, the caste ideology is incompatible with universal human rights, as the foundation of caste is the cardinal doctrine of Karma and Transmigration: One is rewarded or punished in the present life according to ones deeds/actions in the previous life. So the question of injustice, inequality and cruelty does not arise. Even modern Hindus “Avatars” like Gandhi and Vivekananda were diehard advocates and defenders of the caste system.
I believe in Varna Ashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be a scavenger if I am one?
Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 3-6-1947.
He, Sudra may not be called a Brahman, though he (Sudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahman in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Sudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.
Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, 11-24-1927.
There is something in caste, so far as it means blood: such a thing as heredity there is, certainly. Now try to [understand]—why do you not mix blood with the Negroes, and the American Indians? Nature will not allow you. Nature does not allow you to mix your blood with them. There is unconscious working that saves the race. That was the Aryan’s caste. … The Hindus believe—that is a peculiar belief, I think; and I do not know, I have nothing to say to the contrary, I have not found anything to the contrary—they believe there was only one civilized race: the Aryan. Until he gives the blood, no other race can be civilized. [An excerpt from a speech Swami Vivekananda delivered on February 2, 1900 to white audience in Pasadena, California (G. B. Singh. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity, Prometheus Books, 2004, pp. 239-40.)]
2. Religion, caste, and State are key words in understanding India’s failure to mature into a full-blooded democracy. There is all-round failure of Indian State, in particular its executive and legislative wings. Judiciary still retains some credibility. Millions of Indians still look to it for succour. But given its lackadaisical style of functioning, and slow grind, it has also belied people’s expectations.
The judiciary may provide succor to Hindus, but the Central and State governments and law enforcement agencies have used judiciary as a tool to justify the mass killing and persecution of non-Hindu minorities. Since 1947, the Indian “democracy” has killed more innocent Indian citizens than the British colonists killed in 200 years. It is not surprising that vast majority the victims ((90-95 %) happen to be non-Hindus. Thousands of Muslims and Sikhs have been killed in fake encounters. What did the Indian judiciary ever do to protect them? On the other hand the judiciary buckled to Indira Gandhi, as incarnation of Durga or Kali Devi, was quenching her thirst with Sikh blood. For example: Promulgation of National Security Act Ordinance on June 22, 1984, Terrorist Affected Areas Ordinance on July 14, 1984 and the draconian Terrorist and Disaffected Area Act (TADA) in May 1985. These “Black Laws” gave free hand to the police to exterminate Sikhs in the name of law and order and to deny them justice in the judicial system. Sikhs were asked to prove their innocence.
Further, UN Declaration of Rights of Minorities, 1993, protects the rights of minorities, as almost every nation-state is multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual. On the other hand, on August 8, 2005, judgment of a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, written by Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari, upheld Article 25 of the Indian Constitution that recognizes Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as Hindus. Contrary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Minority Rights, Indian Supreme Court determines the religion of minorities and advocates the assimilation of minorities in Hinduism as a desirable goal.
3. In fact, inasmuch as even Mahatma Gandhi, a devout Hindu, regarded religion as a private affair, the Constituent Assembly and the Constitution framed by it relegated religion to the private domain of the individual without in any way interfering even with the issue of religious conversions which has of late, and for overriding political considerations, been dragged into the public domain. To the extent religion found a place in the Constitution it was only for correcting certain historically situated socially and politically debilitating, deleterious, disharmonic, and dysfunctional accretions, anomalies, and malignancies, and to gradually usher in a harmonic society by merging the majorities and minorities through the solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly.
These statements are false and misleading as well. Let us just examine the one: In fact, inasmuch as even Mahatma Gandhi, a devout Hindu, regarded religion as a private affair. For Mahatma Gandhi religion was a private affair as long as it was Hindu Dharma, all other religions for him were open to his interpretation to bring them under the Hindu umbrella. This is exactly what the framers of the Indian Constitution did to bring Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists in the fold of Hinduism. Gandhi used to tell Sikhs that if they were to abandon Gurmukhi Script and adopt instead Hindi Script (Devnagri), and declare themselves as Hindu then Hindus would accept Guru Nanak as a reincarnation of Vishnu.
Maybe Prof. Radhakrishanan is not aware of the following proclamation by Gandhi:
Hinduism is an ocean into which all the rivers run. It can absorb Islam and Christianity and all other religions and only then can it become the ocean.
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is the architect of the “vibrant” and “egalitarian” Indian Constitution.
Since my high school days in 1950s I have been hearing that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar wrote the Indian Constitution. Moreover, Dalit writers never miss the opportunity to point out that he is father of the Indian Constitution. I am very conscious of the fact that Dalits need “Heroes” and “Role Models” and who could be a better person than Dr. Ambedkar who was one of the most educated and qualified among his contemporary Indian leaders. However, I want to caution my Dalit friends that Dr. Ambedkar was after all a “politician”—of the very Indian variety. He knew well that in Hindu India after 1947, the fountainhead of all power was the “caste hierarchy.” So in order to be accepted as an equal among the top echelon of Hindu leadership, he tried his best to placate it.
a. With the stroke of his pen, Ambedkar carried out constitutional genocide of Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists by classifying them as Hindus under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. On what basis Ambedakar declared Sikhs as Hindus when Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) enshrined in Aad Guru Granth Sahib rejects all the essentials of Hinduism? Besides, Guru Nanak rejected Sanskrit and its script as medium to express and propagate his teachings.
b. In November 1948, a ten-member sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly recommended reservation of seats for religious minorities in East Punjab, with potential benefit for Sikhs. But the minority committee of the Constituent Assembly, which included Ambedkar, Nehru, Vallabbhai Patel, and Rajendra Prasad, turned down this proposal.
c. Dr. Ambedkar’s campaign for human rights was limited only to Dalits (untouchables/outcastes) within the pale of Hinduism. The Indian Constitution provides economic and political benefits through reservations only to Hindu Dalits. What about Dalits who are not Hindus?
I hope Prof. Radhakrishnan will address these issues.
I am responding to Daniel Wright’s critical article with the following points:
1. He questions the historical record of the Bible saying that the Bible is so inconsistent that it can be used to prove almost any position and that the author simply made up something on the basis of assumptions within the article.
Historical record means any event that took place within the knowledge of the people and that has been recorded. If that historical record is based on reasonable assumptions, then that has to be accepted. For example, if somebody says that a dinosaur killed people during a particular period, that fact has to be established by the eyewitness who had lived during that period. Then this eyewitness’ evidence has to be reasonably acceptable. Whether the dinosaur was like the dinosaur that we had seen in the film “Jurassic Park”? Whether any fossil of this animal discovered through archaeological excavations suggested existence of this species during that particular period? We would definitely believe this fact if the evidence is presented in a cogent manner. This means we need eyewitness accounts recorded during that period which should be still preserved, and which should be further supported by the evidences collected during excavations. We would not believe the fact by the fiction of the film “Jurassic Park” but by the evidence of the fossil. Fiction is not evidence.
Bible is the recorded history because the authors are known. The authors’ lives were also recorded to some extent. The witnesses recorded miracles. Can Daniel Wright quote some specific instances from the Bible to prove his point “that the Bible is so inconsistent that it can be used to prove almost any position”?
2. I humbly submit that historicity of the New Testament is not an assumption but a fact. For example, there is a telephone instrument lying on the table of the critic. It is a fact only, and not an assumption. History is not an assumption but a fact that has been established by evidence. How can the critic establish the fact that a telephone instrument has been lying on his table? He would establish this fact through his own eyewitness. Sitting in Delhi, I cannot establish this fact. The author has presented the evidence from the authors of these biblical books. Since the author is not the eyewitness, he has presented the eyewitnesses and evidences presented by those who had witnessed. I again refer to the example of the telephone instrument lying on the table. The critic is the eyewitness. I believe his eyewitness without any doubt because it is reasonably presumed that he has a telephone instrument on his table. Suppose, if he claims that he has a refrigerator on his table, I will be hesitant to believe it because the refrigerator is not supposed to be on his table.
3. I humbly submit that the fact of eating lunch by Daniel Wright was proved by his testimony supported by the documentary evidence in the form of hotel bill and the statement of employees. It is simply an arithmetical equation. The inputs are his money and time in the restaurant and the outputs are his belly full of food and his money purse getting depleted to the extent of money spent. This is 1+1 = 2. Generally speaking, one plus one making two means we get some output when we put some input. The input is the eyewitness account of the gospel presented by the authors of the original gospels and the output is the faith leading to salvation. We would not require the critic to show us the receipt because we would believe his statement, which is reasonably presumed to be true. Why should he tell us a lie that he had eaten his lunch in the restaurant?
4. I humbly submit that it is only a discovery of the fact of existence of Nazareth in the early 4th century. Nazareth had existed during the birth of Jesus Christ and before that. This is like the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus during 1492. America existed before the discovery by Christopher Columbus. The hard-core evidence is that America existed before 1492. Similarly, the hard-core evidence is that Nazareth existed before its discovery by some historians in the early 4th century. What needs to be deduced is the fact of its discovery in the 4th century, which has to be weighed and evaluated along with the other forms of historical findings about the existence of Nazareth. The writers of the Old Testament books who prophesied on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul, the apostle who testified to the gospel of Christ Jesus, and other contemporary historians are the right people whose evidence has to be trusted. The writers of the gospel wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Joseph, the father of Jesus, took his wife and infant Jesus to Nazareth and Jesus grew up in Nazareth. The only point under dispute is the existence or otherwise of the town of Nazareth before the discovery made by some historians in the 4th century. Let us deduce this fact and accept the incontrovertible evidence concerning the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. The existence of Nazareth is the truth to be accepted and the fact to be deduced is its discovery in 4th century.
5. I humbly submit that I do not term the belief of those who do not believe in the fact of the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ as “anti-supernatural bias”. An ordinary birth is a miracle to a human mind that does not know biology. To an illiterate tribal woman who has not seen the outside world, when a child comes out of her belly, it is a miracle. For the literate people who know biology or science, it is not a miracle. This perception differs from person to person. For the Christians who believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ, it is a miracle because no sexual union was involved. For others who do not believe in miracles, it is a fiction. The God we believe is supernatural. Do you believe that there is a God? If so, he must be a supernatural Person who is not seen by you. Supernatural things are not seen by us but are believed by us. Virgin birth is indeed supernatural which nobody has witnessed at the time the Seed was implanted in the womb of Mary. Even normal birth can also be considered as a miracle because nobody witnessed the fact of the child being conceived or embryo receiving the very life in the mother’s womb. Do you need an eyewitness to believe in the pregnancy of a woman? We are not proving the truths concerning Virgin Birth, Resurrection of Jesus through our words or arguments. It is the witness of the Holy Spirit whom the world has not known that speaks about these truths. You and I were not there when Virgin Mary was conceived and when Jesus rose from the dead. These truths are supported by historical evidences and by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge.
6. I submit that we do not want anyone to accept the accuracy of the Bible on “blind faith” at all. You should see everything through your own eyes. We do not want anyone to close his eyes and to believe what we say. We present the evidence to be seen by others. Every story has a beginning and an end. In the Bible, you would find it. A frog in the well does not see the outside world unless it comes out of the well. The world we present is likened to the work of God in the human history. The well is the mind-set of the people who do not want to see the outside world.
7. I humbly submit here that the author who was born in this century has nothing to produce in evidence except the writings of the authors who witnessed the life of Jesus and lived during the first century – the evidence that has been proved over the 2000 years through the testimonies of countless saints who lived holy and righteous lives. A fact has to be proved through the evidences – oral, documentary and contemporary. The documentary evidences are the writings preserved over the years. The oral evidences are the personal testimonies of people who have encountered the living Christ after His ascension into the Heaven. The contemporary evidences are the evidences presented today through the signs and wonders being performed in the Name of Jesus Christ.
8. Daniel Wright may not believe the evidence of “Empty tomb” because he was not there to see this tomb at that time. Nobody would believe it today because nobody had seen this about 2000 years ago. We believe this truth because the Jesus Who rose from the dead is alive today in our midst working the same signs and wonders. The dead Jesus would not perform any signs and miracles that He performed before His death.
9. Daniel Wright also has questioned the authenticity of the Bible, especially the gospels. One saint in Tamil Nadu, India, called "Tiruvalluvar" wrote the wonderful book of ethics before the birth of Christ. He lived about 500 to 200 B.C. His writings are called "Tirukkural" known as a book of morals, which is still held in high esteem by the people all over the world. His writings were not altered or changed during the long period of more than 2000 years, whereas Daniel Wright claims that the gospel accounts were altered or changed over a long period of time. Every civilization existed and it has left a footprint of historical evidence behind it. Nobody who lives today had ever witnessed any past civilization. But we go by the recorded historical evidence.
I enclose my views against Joe Atwill’s thesis on the Roman’s conspiracy to invent Jesus. Please post these views as they appear.
- William Harwood
The Roman Origin of Christianity, by Joseph Atwill
reprinted from Freethought Perspective, April 2004.
I once encountered the theory that Julius Caesar was a woman. For a long time I could not bring myself to believe that the kind of convoluted thinking capable of reaching such a conclusion actually existed. Then along came Chariots of the Gods?, Worlds in Collision, The Passover Plot, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, and The Synthesis of Christianity. To that list let us now add The Roman Origin of Christianity.
I was only able to read the first three chapters of this book. I asked the author if he was sufficiently confident that it could withstand scholarly scrutiny to send me a review copy. Apparently the answer was NO. Fortunately, the 40 pages I was able to download free from his website (joeatwill.com) clearly revealed that Atwill based his conclusions almost completely on English translations (although he sometimes cited the original language to make a point), and that he has no awareness of any of the competent scholarship in the field of Christian origins. It logically follows that the rest of the book will be equally speculative.
For example, he writes about Jesus’ description of himself as “Son of Man,” unaware that the Hebrew title mistranslated as huios anthropou in Greek was Ben Adam, meaning “descendant of Adam.” Ezekiel first applied the title to himself as simply a synonym for “human,” descendant of the first human. To the author of Daniel it meant more than that. And Jesus discernibly used it to mean, in effect, the Second Adam who would annul the sentence imposed on the first Adam. Hs adoption of the title, Ben Adam, was a desperate attempt to compensate for his inability to call himself Ben David, since he was perfectly aware that he was not descended from the Jews’ ancient king. Had Atwill known that, he would not have come up with the imaginative theory that the “son of man” cited by Jesus was not himself but the emperor Titus.
“Jesus had a political perspective precisely opposite to the ‘Son of David’ who was awaited by the Jews of this era.” That is indeed the way the anonymous author of Mark tried to portray his figurehead, for the purpose of winning acceptance from Vespasian. But Jesus did believe that he was the prophesied warlord destined to overthrow the Roman occupation. Why else would he have made a unilateral declaration of independence with an army that was wiped out in ten minutes by a single Roman cohort?
Atwill cites Jesus’ alleged prophecy of the destruction of the temple, “They will not leave one stone upon another in you,” and argues that it was written for the purpose of portraying Jesus as an accurate foreseer of the true Savior, Titus himself. In fact Atwell is right that the anonymous author of Mark put the prophecy into Jesus’ mouth after it had already been fulfilled. But Mark did not write his gospel at Titus’s dictation to persuade the Jews that a pacifist was their messiah. He wrote it to convince Vespasian that, even though Jesus had been crucified for starting a war of independence that lasted all of ten minutes, the Christians were not a sect of the religion that had rebelled against Rome, but were adherents of a mystery cult not unlike the Mithraism to which much of Vespasian’s army belonged. He even went so far as to pretend that Jesus’ treasurer, Judas the sicarius, a member of the terrorist sect most responsible for the war, was “really” Jesus’ enemy and had ultimately betrayed him.
Atwill’s most chronic purblindness (for I am not willing to believe that he intentionally suppressed evidence that falsified his thesis), lies in his claim that Christianity and its figurehead, Jesus, were invented by the Flavians, even though the Flavians did not come to the purple until after the death of Nero. But it was in Nero’s reign that the Christians started the great fire of Rome. Atwill cites both Tacitus and Suetonius in his footnotes. Yet he shows no awareness of the passages by each that record the theory that Nero himself started the fire and selected the Christians as scapegoats. According to Tacitus, “The confessions of those [Christians] who were seized revealed a great multitude of their accomplices, and they were all convicted, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the city as for their hatred of the human race.” In other words, the Christians were already regarded as hatemongering anarchists long before the date Atwill claims that Christianity was invented. And Domitian’s classifying the cult as criminals does not accord very well with the theory that the Flavians were themselves Christians. As for Domitian’s demand to be addressed as “my master and my god,” a title by which the anonymous author of the fourth gospel had Thomas address Jesus, Atwill perhaps omitted the comparison as irrelevant, since it neither supported nor refuted his thesis.
Atwill refers to “the year of the census of Quirinius, the year the NT gives for the birth of Jesus.” But only Luke dates Jesus’ birth to the year of the census, 6/7 CE. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Such inconsistencies refute the theory that the gospels were produced and directed by Flavius Titus, who would certainly have eliminated them. They also refute the pretence that the gospels are nonfiction, but that is a conclusion Atwill correctly accepts as a given.
Atwill points out that the title of Pontifex Maximus was not Jewish but Roman. It was indeed. But no bishop of Rome claimed such a title in the first or second century. When the emperor Theodosius (378-395 CE) rejected a title that meant high priest of the Roman gods, even though it had been borne by all emperors since Julius, as incompatible with his Christian religion, the current bishop of Rome, Damasus I, picked it up. Atwill attributes the title to Flavian-age “popes” to bolster his theory that Romans invented Christianity. Paul of Tarsus invented Christianity, although not as the three-god religion it later became.
And Atwill’s acceptance of the Catholic Church’s pretence that Peter and Clement were popes (although he recognizes that the two names between them were fictitious) reveals his unawareness that the first true pope, meaning self-styled head Christian, was Siricius (384-399). Until Siricius proclaimed himself the sole pope, the five concurrent archbishops were all styled “pope,” but they accepted one another as coequals. And Atwill’s claim that, “the bishop of Rome was able to give orders to the Church of Corinth” (actually under the jurisdiction of the pope of Constantinople) is falsified by the very passage he quotes to support it, “The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.”
In comparing Jesus to the Flavians, Atwill refers to “miracles also performed by Jesus.” Certainly Atwell does not believe Jesus really did the impossible. But he might have made his position clearer by writing, “miracles also attributed to Jesus.”
Atwill refers to “seven of the Christian ‘churches of Asia,’” and points out that all seven housed a Roman agency called Commune Asiae. But his point crumbles when the passage of Revelation (1:11) is correctly translated as “the seven communes.” Ecclesia, “commune,” did not acquire its Christian meaning of “church” until long after the reign of the Flavians.
“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is cited as evidence that the Christian religion advocated obedience to Rome. But it meant nothing of the sort. While Jesus lacked the sophistication to have come up with such an ambiguity, the gospel author who put the words into his mouth was portraying him as making a speech that his Jewish hearers would interpret as unequivocally denying Rome’s right to collect Jewish taxes, while giving Roman readers the idea that he meant the precise opposite. (For detailed evidence for conclusions merely summarized in this review, see Mythology’s Last Gods.)
Atwill compares the gospel myth in which Jesus inaugurates a sacred cannibalism ritual, common to mystery religions but utterly repugnant to all Jews, including Jesus, to a story in Josephus’s Jewish War. The comparison is superfluous. The author of Mark invented the scene for the specific purpose of convincing Vespasian that Christianity was a clone of the harmless religion of Mithraism rather than the anti-Roman religion of Judaism.
As for Atwill’s comparison of Jesus’ condemnation of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, with Titus’s battle against Jewish rebels at Lake Galilee, the Occam’s razor explanation is that Jesus indeed threw a tantrum against the towns that rejected him as an upstart local boy. “And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades,” makes little sense until it is realized that Capernaum was “exalted” in Jesus’ mind by his being born there.
“Jesus predicted that a ‘Son of Man’ would come to Judea before the generation that crucified him had passed away, encircle Jerusalem with a wall, and then destroy the temple.” As mentioned above, the prophecy of the destruction of the temple was written ex post facto. But Jesus did predict that his defeat of the Romans would occur during the lifetime of persons listening to him preach, by which he meant a matter of months, perhaps even a matter of days. He assuredly had no awareness that he would be crucified, as his belief in his messiahship necessarily meant that he could not die with the liberation of Judea still not accomplished.
“Jesus constantly complained about scribes who, one must assume, were writing something.” But “scribes” is a misnomer. The Hebrew word rendered as grammateis in Greek meant “lawteachers.” And Atwill’s use of the Christian dating system, AD, rather than the connotatively neutral equivalent, CE, as well as his capitalization of adjectives and pronouns referring to a sectarian god, are offensive to this planet’s 5.5 billion non-Christians and have been abandoned even by liberal Christian theologians. Apparently Atwill does not know that.
“The Apostle Matthew, for example, is actually described as a ‘publican’ or tax collector.” That is true. But only the anonymous gospel eventually attributed to the nonexistent “Matthew” called him a tax collector. Mark had Jesus recruit a disciple named Lewis bar Halphaios “sitting in the tax office.” To Mark, the taxpayer (not necessarily tax collector) Lewis and the apostle Matthew were two different persons. It was the second gospel that equated Matthew with Lewis and called him a tax collector. Luke identified Lewis as a tax collector, but did not make him a major disciple or equate him with Matthew. While this is a trivial point, it knocks the stuffing out of Atwill’s claim that Titus supervised the gospels’ composition for the purpose of showing Jesus as a pro-Roman whose lieutenants included Rome’s tax collecting collaborators.
Atwill has clearly never completed a properly supervised Master’s thesis. This is revealed by the fact that his inexpertise in first century history is equaled by his inexpertise in correct English. Consider the following: “One that has finally been discovered.” “This being the Jewish Zealots’ refusal to worship him as a god.” “The same prophecies that the NT claims predicted a pacifist.” All of those fragments, and many more, are presented as English sentences, despite their lack of a principal clause. There are worse errors, on page after page after page, but they can be presumed to stem not from similar ignorance but from the absence of competent proofreading.
On the basis of the foregoing, it would be unrealistic to hope that the rest of Atwill’s book says anything useful. But unlike the above-named authors of equally nonsensical speculation, Atwill shows signs of being educable. If he first reads the relevant works of competent scholarship, it is by no means unlikely that he could turn out a useful contribution to biblical scholarship. As of now, he has not done so. Perhaps his next project could be to prove that Bram Stoker was a plagiarist, and the true author of Dracula was Van Helsing? He has certainly demonstrated his aptitude for such a task.
Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus, Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, P O Box 3440, Berkeley, CA 94703-3440, 2005, ISBN 1569754578, 256 pp. ppb, $14.95, reviewed by William Harwood
reprinted from Freethought Perspective, Jan 2006.
Since my review of Joseph Atwill’s previous book can be found in Freethought Perspective Oct 2004, and Caesar’s Messiah is nothing more than a reprint, another detailed review would be superfluous–especially since I am granting Atwill undeserved dignity just by acknowledging his existence.
Atwill has clearly learned nothing from the rebuttals of his nonsense by competent biblical scholars in Freethought Perspective. And judging by the favorable reviews of Atwill’s incompetent drivel posted to Amazon.com, neither have the unlearned masses.
The Piso/Atwell fantasy of Christian origins is best compared to a hypothesis that the fairy tales of Hans Anderson were really written by Walt Disney. The appalling ignorance that would be needed to come up with the latter claim is exactly equal to the ignorance of evidence no further away than the nearest university library needed to come up with the Piso/Atwell fantasy.
No competent scholar has ever taken the Piso/Atwell theory seriously, and none ever will.
Reading the letters of Jass Singh and Job Anbalagan, I thought it would be prudent to add a few words. The question of history intermingled with religion is complicated. Many scholars with diverse backgrounds have already shown Bible to be mythic and therefore historically inaccurate. Just about every facet of the Bible is under a question mark.
The Bible believers have every right to try to uphold its integrity. To make their case convincing, I urge them to shy away from this practice: Utilize the very disputed contents of the Bible to prove Bible’s accuracy. This methodology being adopted by these two gentlemen is inherent with many problems. Such adopted method proves nothing--not to mention that it shows incompetence.
I humbly respond to the letter of my friend G.B.Singh on his response to
the views expressed by me on the rebuttal article of Daniel Wright in
response to the article, "Jesus - According to Orthodox Historic Biblical
Christianity". My learned friend says that the question of history
intermingled with religion is complicated and that many scholars with
diverse backgrounds have already shown Bible to be mythic and therefore
historically inaccurate. He also says that we are utilizing the very
disputed contents of the Bible to prove Bible's accuracy.
I would like to add that history and the Christian religious faith are
intermingled only. History of the Bible cannot be separated from the
Christian faith at all. In my message, I have not quoted any Bible verse
to prove the authenticity of the Bible at all. I used only logic and
jurisprudence.
In his criticism of Daniel Wright, Job Anbalagan has mentioned the name of the great thinker, Tiruvalluvar and his writngs "Tirukkural", but Tiruvalluvar was a human, born to human parents. Not only his birth but also in his death he died like a human. So in what manner Tiruvalluvar's example is relevant to the Jesus story.
I thank Mr. Baldev Singh for his elaborate write-up on the excerpts of my book published in the Sikhspectrum.com. It clearly shows that the Sikhspectrum.com readers take the website seriously, which is indeed heartening to the website team and its readers.
Let me respond to the write-up in the order in which the issues are raised.
1. The Dalits are not a minority, though Ambedkar used the term minority in their context only. On the contrary the other groups such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims, and Christians are minorities. The Constitution of India does not treat Scheduled Castes as a minority. They remain a special category. If my understanding is correct, the Constitution also does not use the term Dalits.
That I look at inequality and injustice in the Indian society from the Dalit angle is partly true. I am aware of the inequalities and injustices in other religious groups. I have not written extensively on this aspect. But I have dealt with the issues in the context of Muslims in the book, and in the context of Christians in an earlier book. In my view inequalities and injustices are socially pervasive but if one has to make a distinction in terms of the intensity of the resulting deprivations, inequalities and injustices are more among the Hindus and Dalits are the worst victims. Of course, one can add the corresponding victims from other religions to the Dalit category and make it a common category based on multiple deprivations and entrenched backwardness.
No doubt, there was lack of clarity on caste and community in the Constituent Assembly Debates. But what I see in the dispensation by the state and judiciary since the Constitution came into force is not only lack of clarity, but also a lot of bias.
It is true that caste and democracy do not go together. This was also recognized in the Constituent Assembly Debates. The question is how to evolve democracy in a caste-ridden society and in that process gradually make the caste system invisible. I have discussed this issue elaborately in another book, - was also featured on the Sikhspectrum.com - in an article, “A costly digression”. That book is now available as an e-book, The Perfidies of Power: India in the new millennium. I am giving its URL below.
While I recognize the reality of the existence and persistence of caste, I am not a defender of the caste system.
2. I am in full agreement with the observations on the Indian judiciary and the executive (State). I have discussed the issues in the book. In a number of places I have highlighted the failure of the judiciary.
3. My reference to Gandhi is only contextual; to critique the caste system and condemn Hindutva’s attack of other religions, and the Tamil Nadu Government’s attempts to prevent conversions from Hindu religion to other religion. I thought using Gandhi was more effective, even if I do not subscribe to many of his views. I am aware of Gandhi’s observations on Hinduism being an ocean. That was in the sense of the resilience of Hinduism. But that does not mean that Hindu religion or its versions should dominate other religions. My understanding is that Hindu religion was not an evangelical or proselytizing religion, though Hindus could embrace other religions. Gandhi’s reference can also be used against Gandhi when one looks at the influence (often debilitating) of Hindu religion, particularly its caste system, on other religions.
4. As Chairman of the drafting committee, Ambedkar was certainly the architect of the Constitution. This was also acknowledged by the Constituent Assembly. If Ambedkar can inspire Dalits as their leader and hero and if they recognize him so, what is the harm?
5. Responding to the issue raised about communal reservations, and the Sikhs losing out in the process is difficult. The entire communal issue in the context of the Constituent Assembly Debates has to be seen in the context of partition and the communal tension of the time. While on this, we should also remember that though the Constituent Assembly had many of the best minds of the country, the debate was not always smooth. Caste, language, and communal issues were sensitive, which on occasions made the debate acrimonious.
Ambedkar’s campaign was largely, if not solely, in the context of Dalits. But he never denied or spoke against the human rights of other groups. On one occasion when someone asked him (in the Bombay Legislative Council?) why he is not speaking for the Tribes, his answer was the responsibility he has taken up on behalf of Dalits itself was too onerous for him, let someone else take up the cause of the Tribes.
I will certainly keep in mind the various issues raised by Mr. Baldev Singh when I deal with the related issues in future.
I appreciate Prof. Radhakrishnan's reply to my comments on his book. I
understand his reluctance to respond to the questions I raised about Dr. Ambedkar concerning Sikhs, so there is no need to peruse them further. However, I want to explain the term Dalit from the Sikh point of view.
Prof. Radhakrishnan is right that the word Dalit is absent in the Indian Constitution because in my opinion neither the framers of the Constitution nor the leaders of the Antyajas (untouchables) were familiar with it. The Antyajas were happy with epithet Harijan that Mahatma Gandhi conferred upon them. On the other hand, the Singh Sabha reform movement was using the term Dalit for untouchables in the later part of the 19th century.
The roots of this word are in the Khalsa terminology used in the first half of the 18th century when Mughals put a price on the heads of Sikhs, and upper caste Punjabi Hindus were collecting rewards as booty-hunters. The Khalsa used the terms "dalit malit" and "dale male", meaning crushed/suppressed/oppressed, for people who were victims of the
tyranny of Mughal rule and the Hindu caste system. The word dalna in modern Punjabi means grinding grain into course powder (dalia) or splitting lentil grains into two halves (dal).
The untouchables took pride in the label Harijan bestowed upon them until the 1970s when Kashi Ram, founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party reminded them of the cruel joke Mahatma Gandhi has played on them because the term Harijan is used for the illegitimate children born to Dev Dasis (temple girls). Due to his Sikh background Kashi Ram was familiar with the term Dalit. It is the Bahujan Samaj Party
of Kashi Ram, which popularized the term Dalit and is responsible for replacing the word Harijan with Dalit.
Mahan Kosh (Encyclopaedia of Sikhism) published in Punjabi in 1930 by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha defines Dalit as daliahoia, kuchiliahoia, hini jaat wala jo uchi jatan ton paran heth dalia gia hai (crushed, pressed, low castes who are
crushed under the fee of upper castes), p. 625.
This is in reference to Dr. Baldev Singh's response. If my reply on Ambedkar is brief it is not because of any reluctance. Ambedkar has to be placed in his larger socio-political ambience and the context of his emancipation concerns, namely the Untouchable castes and the Hindu society. Why Ambedkar did not address similar issues in other religions calls for an altogether different explanation. I have not attempted it. I thank Dr. Singh for his information on the use of the term Dalit, which should be very important for research on Dalits. Till now the attempt has been to trace the term to the social reform movement of Phule in the late 19th century, though the term, as Dr. Singh rightly pointed out gained political currency only since the 1970s.
Best Regards,
- P. Radhakrishnan
Mr. Baldev Singh in his letter to....
-Job Anbalagan, India
from Job Anbalagan
Place: India
Dear Editor,
Mr. Baldev Singh in his letter to the Editor in Issue No.26 of November 2006,
has responded to say that when I dealt with the rebuttal of Daniel Wright I
had mentioned the example of Tiruvalluvar, the great poet of Tamil out of
context as it is not relevant to the story of Jesus as Tiruvalluvar was a
human being who died like a human. I never equated Tiruvalluvar with Jesus
Christ at all. I only compared the writings of Tiruvalluvar with the
gospels saying that even the writings of Tiruvalluvar which were dated prior
to the gospels were not altered or changed over a long period of time. If
the old writings of Tiruvalluvar had been preserved over a long period of
time, why did Daniel Wright and others say that the gospels were altered or
changed. Let Daniel Wright prove by evidence how the gospels were altered.
They should quote the historical evidence to prove their point because the
onus of disproving the authenticity of the gospels rests on their shoulders
only.
When I saw the movie Water I was taken back. I couldn't believe this went on so I did a Google search and came by your article. How come I have never heard of this till now? How come the women's movements in the USA have never said anything or done anything about this - even to raise awareness? It boggles my mind. How can companies like Hewlett Packard, Unisys, IBM come to India for cheap labor, yet look the other way at these awful happenings? What can I do?
Regards,
- Jean H.
From Mr. Job Anbalagan's reply to my....
-Baldev Singh, USA
from Baldev Singh
Place: USA
Dear Editor,
From Mr. Job Anbalagan's reply to my comments it is quite clear that either he did not understand what I said or he is trying to sidetrack the issue of truth. Arguments based on contradictory absurd assumptions and chimerical and fantastic narratives/ stories do not tell the truth.
According to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), God is knowledge (Truth); hence It is Enlightener, the destroyer of ignorance and falsehood. Thus, it is the duty of an enlightened being (God-centered being) to fight against ignorance, falsehood rather than being their agent. For example, does Mr. Anbalagan believe that Biblical God kills babies to express His wrath? Priests often tell such stories to ignorant and gullible parishioners to scare them of their God's wrath.
According to C. Dennis McKinsey, killing babies is another method Biblical God uses to express his anger. Babies were drowned in the worldwide Flood, first-born Egyptian babies were among the killed at the Passover, and babies were killed in the wars of extermination. This divine punishment was also used after King David succeeded in having a loyal Israeli soldier, Uriah, killed in battle. David selfishly took this action in order to steal Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. Although David was the one who committed premeditated murder, the son Bathsheba bore to him received the brunt of Biblical God's punishment. This God, in
his infinite wisdom and justice, punished David by killing the baby.
Isaiah says a similar punishment would be used against the Babylonians. He quotes the Lord as vowing, "Infants will be dashed to the ground before their eyes…. I will stir up against them the Medes, … who have no pity on little children and spare no mother's son…." The book of Psalms indicates that those inflicting this punishment can enjoy it. The book says about Babylon: "Happy is he who shall seize your children and dash them against the rock." Hosea prophesies that Samaria will receive the same treatment. He explains: "Samaria will become desolate because she has rebelled against her God; her babes will fall by the sword and be dashed to the ground, her women with child shall be ripped up."
The Bible also teaches that God is willing to test people by having their offspring slaughtered. The Lord allowed Satan to kill Job's sons and daughters to see if Job would then curse God. Additionally, the New Testament contains a murderous attitude toward the young. The book of Hebrews attests to the Lord's horrible acts at the time of the Passover, but does not disapprove of them. And the book of Revelation indicates that Christ will behave similarly. As for a certain false prophetess who will lead his servants astray, the book quotes Jesus as
promising to throw her on a bed of pain and strike dead her children.
Jesus explains his actions: "This will teach all the churches that I am the searcher of men's hearts and thoughts, and that I will reward each one of you according to his deeds."
This is an excellent article, and I pray to the lord that repair of the shrine is done as early as possible. It is ane old and a rare shrine which is still there today.
Regards,
- Harpreet Saluja
I now respond to the letter of my....
-Job Anbalagan, India
from Job Anbalagan
Place: India
Dear Editor,
I now respond to the letter of my learned friend Baldev Singh from USA on my post in your esteemed forum on the subject of Biblical God.
Baldev Singh defines the truth saying God is Truth and that it is the duty of an enlightened person to fight against ignorance. What is ignorance? It is the state of a human mind not to understand a fact logically and not to discern the truth from the untruth. The Biblical God does not kill babies to express His wrath. God need not express His wrath at all. He executes judgment as His wrath is revealed. In this world, many babies are dying daily either in their mother's wombs or just after their birth. Birth and death of children take place daily. You can agree with me that it is an act of God. You call it an act of God when the same is not attributable to human acts. When the human institutions cannot tolerate murder, injustices, corruption, in this world and express their wrath, why cannot God the Creator reveal His wrath on those who disobey Him? What does Baldev Sngh means by "ignorance"? Judgment of God is not a story at all. It is a
fact. There is a system of judgment in this world and we are all subject to the law of jurisprudence in our respective nations. The judiciary declares its judgment and the executive fulfills the orders of judgment.
God did take away the child of David because the latter disobeyed God's
commandments about adultery and murder. If a person convicted with the rape and murder, what the government of the day will do? Will it condone such an act? God could have taken away the life of David! He did not do so because David repented. Please note that God under the Old Covenant had to punish the sin because the Blood of the Lamb was not shed at that time.
Killing the infants for the sins of their parents or forefathers was an act of God under the Old Covenant. Please note "Samaria had rebelled against her God". Let us note that the divine Child was also murdered in order to meet with the divine standards of righteousness. One should read the Old Testament books in the light of the truth revealed under the New Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant at all.
Mr.Baldev Singh has quoted the instances of the death of Job's children, the death of the firstborn children of Egyptians at the tim
What good has education done to women....