Jesus Beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts

JESUS BE YOND CHR ISTI A NIT Y the cl a ssic te x ts

This page intentionally left blank

jesus BEYOND CHRISTIANITY THE CL ASSIC TEXTS

EDITED BY

gregory a. barker & stephen e. gregg

FOR EWOR D BY

desmond m. tutu

1

1

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Introduction, selection, supplementary materials and volume layout © Gregory A. Barker and Stephen E. Gregg, 2010 Closing Reflections © The several contributors, 2010 Copyright details for reproduced material provided in acknowledgements section. Foreword © Desmond M. Tutu. Used with permission. All rights reserved. The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain by on acid-free paper by Clays Ltd, St. Ives plc ISBN 978–0–19–955345–7 (hbk) ISBN 978–0–19–955344–0 (pbk) 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

JESUS BEYOND CHRISTIANITY: THE CLASSIC TEXTS editors gregory a. barker is Head of the School of Theology and Religious Studies, Trinity University College, Carmarthen. He has edited Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Scholars and Leaders from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning. Greg teaches the study of religion to university students and Religious Education teachers across Wales. stephen e. gregg is a lecturer in the School of Theology and Religious Studies, Trinity University College, Carmarthen, where he teaches at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Stephen has presented research widely throughout the United Kingdom and India on the subjects of inculteration and HinduChristian encounter.

advisory board dan cohn-sherbok (judaism) is Professor of Judaism at the University of Wales. He is the author and editor of over eighty books including Rabbinic Perspectives on the New Testament and The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism. gavin flood (hinduism) is Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion at Oxford University where he is also the Academic Director of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. He is the author of An Introduction to Hinduism and editor of The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism.

amjad hussain (islam) lectures in Religious Studies at Trinity University College, Carmarthen. He is a member of the Shap Working Party on World Religions in Education and serves on the Editorial Board of the Review of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Suleyman Demirel in Isparta, Turkey.

vi

jesus beyond christianity

donald s. lopez jr. (buddhism) is the Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Michigan, USA. His books include Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West and Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed.

archbishop desmond m. tutu is an honorary Fellow of Trinity University College and a tireless international advocate for peace, justice, and reconciliation. He played a leading part in the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. In 1995, he was appointed Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee by President Nelson Mandela. Recent books for adults include Made for Goodness (2010), written with his daughter the Reverend Mpho Tutu and God is Not a Christian, edited by John Allen (in progress). Archbishop Tutu is currently chair of The Elders (see www. theelders.org).

For Teresa, Christopher, Julianna, and Sophia g.a.b.

for Helen, Joseph, and Thomas s.e.g.

This page intentionally left blank

FOR EWOR D

The book that you are about to read is an expression of our human family. The readings are astonishingly diverse, reflecting vastly different time periods, geographical locations and even different views of divine truth. Readers are certain to find some passages which affirm cherished ideas, evoking gratitude for belonging to this human family. Other passages may be much more difficult to understand and appreciate. It is not always easy to live in a family; we do not get to choose our family members and family relations can too easily break down. This is true not only in the context of one’s ‘immediate’ family, but is also true within and between nations, races and religions. I cannot help but admit that Christianity has not always nurtured the delicate network of interdependence that is so vital to living peacefully. For, Christian missionaries did not always approach adherents of other religions as children of God. As a result, there has sometimes been a glaring lack of love, understanding and compassion. This is ironic given the inclusive and compassionate spirit that was so much a part of the ministry of Jesus. I urge this book to be read with the quality of ubuntu. This is an expression of the Nguni languages (or botho in the Sotho languages) that is difficult to translate exactly into English. Ubuntu speaks to the fact that my humanity is bound up with yours. A person with ubuntu is willing to share and is warm, welcoming, and generous of spirit. Importantly, one with this quality does not feel threatened in the presence of diverse views or opinions; they have a self-assurance that comes from knowing that they belong to a greater whole. Ubuntu is necessary for building the human family since we must move beyond merely tolerating each other and into an attitude of listening, respect, and appreciation.

x

foreword

In our African idiom we say, ‘A person is a person through other persons.’ In the process of deepening our personhood we must take time to listen to and to hear respectfully what others are saying. This book provides a wonderful opportunity to do this. My wish, therefore, is that this volume will serve the larger purpose of opening ourselves to truth wherever it may be found so that we may progress on our journey towards realizing that we are indeed part of one human family. —Desmond M. Tutu

PR EFACE

This volume presents key texts on Jesus from four religions. There are many worthy candidates for the status of ‘classic text’ and hard choices had to be made so that this book did not expand into a multi-volume work. In addition to this, there are important texts on Jesus outside the traditions presented here. The editors take full responsibility for final decisions, apologizing that more texts could not have been included. It is hoped, however, that the texts selected for this volume will provide an opportunity for a wider understanding of this subject for many readers. This volume would not have been possible without the assistance of a community of scholars from all over the world. In the first instance, we are deeply grateful to our Advisory Panel for responding to numerous questions and concerns about content, translations, and annotations. There are also a number of other individuals who have given strong support. Susannah Heschel, Eli Black Professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College, provided guidance on key texts for the Judaism chapter. Tarif Khalidi, Sheikh Zayed Chair in Islamic and Arabic Studies at the American University of Beirut, is thanked for his contribution to the Islam chapter and for urging the editors to continue their search for quality translations. The editors wish to recognize those who have laboured to reproduce important texts in fresh translations for this volume. Samir Mahmoud (doctoral student of medieval Islamic mysticism and aesthetics at Cambridge) translated the Al-Razi and Ibn Kathir passages. Scott Pacey (doctoral student in the China Centre in the Faculty of Asian Studies at the Australian National University) translated the Shengyen reading. Michael J. Sweet (University of Wisconsin-Madison) translated the passage from the Crystal Mirror. Ulrike Vollmer (Honorary Research Fellow

xii

preface

in Theology at the University of Glasgow and at the University of Wales, Lampeter) translated Iso Kern’s work on Ouyi Xhixu. Without the dedication of these scholars, this volume could not have reached its desired uniqueness as an anthology. There are a number of scholars whose advice has made an enormous difference to the editors. Iso Kern (formerly of the University of Berne) is thanked for his assistance in selecting the Ouyi Xhixu passage. Ismail L. Hacinebioglu and Haluk Songur (Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey) provided guidance on the Tafsir tradition. Abdal Hakim Murad (Cambridge Muslim College), a Muslim convert, preacher at the Cambridge Mosque, and translator of Busiri’s ‘Burda’ into English, answered numerous questions throughout the process. David Thomas (Professor of Christianity and Islam, The School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham) assisted the editors with annotations of Ibn Kathir. Richard Fox Young (Associate Professor of the History of Religions, Princeton) is thanked for his assistance with selecting and annotating the Carpenter-Heretic passage for this volume. Other help and advice was gratefully received from Lejla Demiri (Cambridge) and Maya Warrier (University of Wales, Lampeter). The editors wish to note the invaluable assistance of Gillian Gaywood for many hours of transcription work and Isabell Phillips for sourcing key texts. Tom Perridge and Elizabeth Robottom at Oxford University Press have provided excellent support through all stages of the publishing process. Finally, and most importantly, the editors wish to thank their families for their patience and support.

CONTENTS

general introduction I.

1

JESUS IN JUDAISM: THE CLASSIC TEXTS

Jewish Perceptions of Jesus: Key Issues

9

1. Dangerous Times for Jews

15

Nachmanides’ Debate

2. The Rejected Disciple

18

The Talmud

3. A Teacher of Jewish Law

21

The Talmud

4. The Bible Testifies against the Deity of Jesus

23

The Nizzachon Vetus

5. The Church—Not Jesus—is the Heretic

25

Isaac of Troki, Faith Strengthened

6. Jesus: Jewish Evangelist to the Gentiles

28

The Letter of Rabbi Jacob Emden

7. Reasons for Jewish Silence on Jesus

31

Moses Mendelssohn, Letter to Johann Caspar Lavater

8. Jesus: An Unoriginal Pharisee

38

Abraham Geiger, Judaism and its History

9. Jesus: Forerunner of the Reform Jew

43

Kaufmann Kohler, Jesus of Nazareth

10. The Value of the Gospels for a Jew Claude Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels

46

xiv

contents

11. Jesus: A Prophet

51

Claude Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels

12. Jesus: Destroyer of Culture and Nation

52

Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth

13. Jesus on Jewish Soil

60

Leo Baeck, The Gospel as a Document of History

14. No Sentimental Love

63

David Flusser, Jesus

Closing Reflection

69

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

Questions for Discussion Guide for Further Reading II.

75 77

JESUS IN ISLAM: THE CLASSIC TEXTS

Muslim Perceptions of Jesus: Key Issues 1. The Miraculous Conception of Jesus

83 87

The Qur’an

2. The Mission of Jesus

90

The Qur’an

3. At the End of Jesus’ Mission

93

The Qur’an

4. Responses to Jesus

94

The Qur’an

5. A Final Word from the Qur’an

97

The Qur’an

6. Jesus in the Hadith

97

The Sayings of Muhammad

7. The Ascetic Jesus

99

The Muslim Jesus

8. Jesus and the Powers of God

103

Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari

9. Jesus in the Graveyard

105

Al-Tha’labi, The Tales of the Prophets

10. A Rationalist Examines Christian Claims about Jesus Al-Razi, The Great Commentary

107

contents 11. Jesus: A Mirror of God

xv 110

Al-Ghazali, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God

12. Jesus and the Fool

112

Jalaluddin Rumi, The Mathnawi

13. On Praising a Human Being

115

Al-Busiri, Qasidah Burdah

14. Realizing God

115

Ibn al-Arabi, The Bezels of Wisdom

15. Who Died on the Cross?

119

Ibn Kathir, Tafsīr ’al-Qur’ān ’al-az.īm

16. Jesus in India

123

Ghulam Ahmad, Jesus in India

17. Jesus and Non-violence

127

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, Islam: A Challenge to Religion

18. Jesus between Us and You

130

A Common Word

Closing Reflection

137

Amjad Hussain

Questions for Discussion Guide for Further Reading III.

143 145

JESUS IN HINDUISM: THE CLASSIC TEXTS

Hindu Perceptions of Jesus: Key Issues 1. Jesus was a Unitarian

153 159

Ram Mohun Roy, Answer of a Hindoo

2. A Divine Teacher—Not Atoner

162

Ram Mohun Roy, The Precepts of Jesus

3. Jesus: The Ideal Son

165

Keshub Chunder Sen, Lectures in India

4. Repudiate the Little Christ

166

Keshub Chunder Sen, Lectures in India

5. Jesus: Simple, Honest, and Ignorant Dayananda Saraswati, Satyarth Prakash

168

xvi

contents 6. Mystical Experiences of the Universal Jesus

172

Ramakrishna, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

7. Jesus is like Ramakrishna

174

Ramakrishna, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

8. Jesus vs. His Christian Followers

177

Vivekananda, The Preface to the Imitation of Christ and Christianity in India

9. Jesus Was Oriental

181

Vivekananda, Christ, The Messenger

10. Jesus is the Property of the World

185

M. K. Gandhi, What Jesus Means to Me

11. Christ Has Yet to be Born

188

M. K. Gandhi, The Jesus I Love and My Reaction to Christianity

12. Jesus’ Message Continues to be Ignored

191

Aurobindo Ghose, Essays Divine and Human

13. An Avatar of Sorrow

193

Aurobindo Ghose, Essays on the Gita and Savitri: A Legend & A Symbol

14. Jesus: An Eastern Seer

196

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion and Eastern Religions and Western Thought

Closing Reflection

201

Gavin Flood

Questions for Discussion Guide for Further Reading IV.

207 209

JESUS IN BUDDHISM: THE CLASSIC TEXTS

Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus: Key Issues 1. Jesus: Son of a Dubious Deity

217 223

Fabian Fucan, Deus Destroyed

2. The Founder of a Passive Religion

226

Ouyi Zhixu

3. Jesus: A Teacher of Morality Thuken Chökyi Nyima, The Crystal Mirror

232

contents 4. A Demon in Disguise

xvii 233

The Carpenter-Heretic

5. Birth Omens Compared

238

Migettuwatte Gunananda, A Full Account of the Buddhist Controversy Held at Pantura

6. A Man between Egoism and Universalism

240

Anagarika Dharmapala, An Appreciation of Christianity

7. Jesus: Absolute and Relative

245

Tanabe Hajime, The Demonstratio of Christianity

8. Obliterating God Consciousness

248

Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism

9. A Man of Contradictions

250

Sheng Yen, Further Discussion of the Similarities and Differences between Buddhism and Christianity

10. The Good Heart of Jesus

257

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, The Good Heart

Closing Reflection

263

Donald S. Lopez Jr.

Questions for Discussion Guide for Further Reading acknowledgements index

273 275 282 291

This page intentionally left blank

GENER AL INTRODUCTION

There are two stories of Jesus. The ‘first’ story is familiar to those who grew up in ‘Christian’ lands: an incarnation of the Trinity, a miraculous life, a sacrificial death, a surprising resurrection, the founding of a Church, and a mission to spread the news of this account across the world. This is, of course, not just one story, but thousands. For as much as the rigidly orthodox may resist, each Christian has their favourite Bible verses, their own canon within the canon, and their preferred imaginative pictures of the look and attitude of Christianity’s primary figure. The first story, then, is a collage around a central core, or an art gallery of related images which continues to inspire theologians, artists, poets, architects, and Church members across the world. This inspiration continues to produce a steady stream of Christological volumes and biblical explorations intent on establishing, each in their own way, the coherence of this ‘first’ story. Criticisms of this story abound. From one point of view the Christian version of Jesus began to be questioned in earnest during the eighteenth century when historical critics threw down their gauntlet at the doors of the Church: ‘Why should Christians call their story “first?” ’ Since that time every key feature of this story has been subject to extensive revision by historians, archaeologists, philosophers, sociologists, freethinkers, secularists, and atheists. These critics were raised in a ‘Christian’ culture and objected to the exclusive ownership of Jesus by the Church. Many of the most thorough criticisms of Christian doctrine have actually come from those who considered themselves devoted to the Church, but wanted to reconcile traditional belief with currents of enlightenment

2

gener al introduction

thought. So it is that the west now lives in an interesting situation where traditional Christian views of Jesus live side by side with large, bold question marks over every aspect of that story. Because no major church body has remained immune to the questions raised by enlightenment-inspired critics, it might be said that the ‘first’ story now includes the story of the critical reaction to a literal interpretation of the Gospels. There is a ‘second’ story of Jesus. This story began long before the eighteenth century and anticipated enlightenment dissatisfaction with traditional Christian views. This is the story of what has been made of Jesus by those with no commitments to the ‘first’ story. As will be seen in the pages of this volume, the ‘second’ story involves much more than a questioning of Christian doctrine. It is a radical reinterpretation of the religious significance of Jesus through the lenses of other religious commitments. This second story is, of course, not just one story, but a thousand; to begin this journey is to observe diverse cultures, heated struggles for identity and to watch a myriad gauntlets thrown down at the doors of the Church. At first, those who spread the ‘first’ story were not interested in listening to these alternative accounts. Or, if they were interested, it was only so that these ‘second’-story tellers could be exposed as spreading lies which opposed the will of God. At first, perhaps, it was easy for adherents of the first story to dismiss the second. For those who promoted Christian orthodoxy had long gazed at theological masterpieces while those they were trying to convert were only making their first drawings of Jesus. Yet, as more thoughtful reflections of the central figure of Christianity developed, the challenges deepened. Now, these ‘second’ stories of Jesus represent nothing less than a direct confrontation between cohesive world-views. ‘Confrontation’ is perhaps a better term than ‘dialogue’ to describe the readings collected in this volume. For, ‘dialogue’ conjures up images of smiling religious leaders nodding politely to one another, extolling the virtues of one another’s beliefs. As valuable as these exercises may be in a world torn apart by conflict, these pages reflect heat rather than mild temperatures. Christian supercessionism soon met other supercessionisms;

gener al introduction

3

defending the coherency of the ‘second’ story became a way to defend one’s heritage, culture, and faith. The result is that these pages are full of challenges, previously unheard interpretations, and counter-narratives. Some might take joy in the thrashing given the ‘first’ story in many of these passages. After all, has not the Church with its creedal orthodoxy been a source of oppression? Certainly, much harm has been done as adherents of the ‘first’ story capitalized (literally) from their spiritual account of the world. Yet, many Christians have also stepped into the gutters of life to extend the kind of love they see at work in their founding figure. How much light and how much darkness has been inspired by the ‘first’ story? Perhaps this collection of readings from the ‘second’ story is one answer.

who will use this book? What is known is determined by where one stands. Standing at the entrance to the church, gazing into its sanctuary, one sees images of Jesus which are both singular and plural, an agreed-upon Jesus as well as Jesuses of diverse artistic and theological interpretation. To turn from this view to the interpretations offered in this volume is to gaze at a vast and diverse landscape. One’s bearings may be easily lost; there are no clear boundaries, the horizon is distant, the territory has not been fully mapped. Should one even begin this journey? The student of religion will venture forth knowing that to step into this landscape will usher one into the sacred and profane of religious traditions, providing a unique opportunity to grasp distinctive features of religious belief through a single theme (in this case, beliefs and attitudes about Jesus). In other words, perceptions of Jesus at a certain time and place will instruct one about that time and place. This has long been recognized in the case of Christian theological approaches: interpretations always reflect culturally bound conceptions. Whether or not these images are more than this, whether or not they are derived from a transcendent source, is a question that lies outside the attempt to understand religions anthropologically. There is, then, a wealth of material in this book for

4

gener al introduction

those who want to explore four of the world’s oldest religious traditions as an avenue to understanding humanity. There will also be those who pick up this volume as a part of a theological rather than an anthropological quest. The traditional Christian reaction to the points of view expressed in this book has been to turn away from the landscape and gaze only at the four walls of the Church. This is no longer the official position, however, of major church bodies, who have recognized that God’s truth is greater than the Church’s. Therefore, according to this standpoint, a revelation of God is accessible through non-Christian sources. That is the theory. In practice, many theological journeyers have concluded that the quest for God outside the Church is not necessary: all approaches to the divine are but dim reflections of Christian truth. Some individuals tell a different story; their lives have been forever impacted by their journey, their faith has shifted. A new orientation and, with it, a new energy has arisen—but there have sometimes been ecclesiastical and personal prices to pay for this. The individual on a theological quest should be warned: the images in this book are not merely quaint pictures of an unenlightened past. They are bids for truth stated strongly and uncompromisingly. Some of these bids not only exclude Christian approaches, but stand in direct opposition to them. Other strands might be seen as compatible, yet these challenge the Church to radically readjust the emphasis it has traditionally given to cherished themes. The thoughtful theological reader is likely to find both intrigue and discomfort in this book. One approach this collection of readings will not allow is a bland dilettantism or fuzzy pluralistic tolerance which seeks to bless equally all points of view. All-encompassing theological syntheses have been infamous for privileging the data closest to the heart of the synthesizer. The voices of these pages are just too strong and diverse to tolerate this—these readings are full of sharp challenges, iconoclasms, creative syntheses, and new proposals. This volume has been composed with the conviction that it is too early for synthesis; it is time for exposure.

gener al introduction

5

special features Readers can quickly grasp key dates and central issues by reading the Key Issues introductions at the beginning of each chapter. Chapters end with a Closing Reflection by a leading scholar in the field. These closing reflections are fresh pieces of work written specifically for this volume; the editors feel privileged to be able to include them. In between the introduction and the reflection, the readings are arranged, roughly, chronologically. The only exception to this is the first reading of the book. The Talmud is an ancient and complex document that could contain the earliest views of Jesus outside the New Testament. As an aid to entering into the world of the Talmud, the first reading presents a rabbinical reflection from the thirteenth century on central issues for Judaism about Jesus. After this, the readings move through the centuries. The Muslim chapter of the book has the most passages; Islam is the only religion other than Christianity that requires its adherents to commit to a position on the identity of Jesus. As a result, Muslims across centuries and traditions have reflected often upon Jesus. We are pleased to feature two fresh translations from the Muslim commentary (Tafsir) tradition in this chapter. In the Hinduism and Buddhism chapters, for reasons explained in the Key Issues introductions, readings are largely clustered around the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many Hindu scholars and leaders have made an abiding impact on the west; their names will be familiar to many readers. In the Buddhism section, we are proud to feature fresh translations of three passages on Jesus that will be familiar to many Buddhists but are only now being introduced to readers outside Asia. The chapters themselves are ordered chronologically; this is clear in the case of Judaism and Islam—less clear with Hinduism and Buddhism. For, though Hindu and Buddhist traditions pre-date the Common Era, recorded encounters with Christianity and its central figure came very late in their histories. While it is likely that early reactions to Jesus existed, our first evidence does not appear until the seventeenth century and it is only in the nineteenth century that one begins to observe a diversity

6

gener al introduction

of approaches emerging. We’ve placed Buddhism as the last chapter not because Buddhists have reflected upon Jesus later than Hindus, but to reflect the relatively late appearance of Buddhist traditions in the west. The editors have tried to anticipate readers’ questions and have added footnotes throughout. These annotations, however, cannot anticipate all questions and readers are encouraged to turn to the works themselves; full bibliographical information is recorded on the same page each reading occurs. Readers will notice that these footnotes are uneven—ancient texts are annotated far more thoroughly than more contemporary readings. There is a Guide for Further Reading at the close of each chapter, pointing readers towards primary and secondary sources. The Questions for Discussion have been designed for either the lecture hall or the living room. Care has been taken to avoid questions that lead to simple yes/no answers; the goal is to point the reader to issues raised by the readings. It will soon become clear that this book contains an astonishing diversity of readings, reflecting many distinct eras, cultures, and literary genres. The editors could not have achieved this diversity without an accomplished Advisory Panel as well as advice generously given from scholars across the world. We ask our readers to turn to the Preface, where we more fully thank the community of scholars who helped to make this volume possible. G. A. B.

CH A PTER I

jesus in judaism: the classic texts

This page intentionally left blank

JEWISH PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS Key Issues

A chapter that presents Jewish readings on Jesus would be deceptive if it led one to believe that Jesus is important for Judaism. He is not. During his lifetime Jesus was a little known figure in the late Second Temple Period and, after his death, Judaism grew and developed largely without reference to Christian beliefs about Jesus. In fact, Jesus is a taboo subject for many Jews. How could this not be the case? For Christianity, early in its history, adopted dogmas and attitudes that contradicted key Jewish themes on the unity of God, the nature of the Messiah, and lifestyle requirements. Christian anti-Judaism soon resulted in centuries of Jewish persecution including ghettoizations, Talmud burnings, economic oppression, physical torture, and brutal murders—often in the name of Jesus. Whilst Christians have been anxious for Jews to respond to questions about Jesus, Jews through the centuries have asked Christians different questions: when will you stop trying to convert us, kill us, declare we are ‘God-killers’, burn our sacred texts, and view our faith as other than dead legalism? However, the readings in this chapter will demonstrate that Jewish silence on Jesus is not the entire story. In fact, there have been times when articulating a Jewish viewpoint on Jesus became essential in light of internal questions amongst a persecuted community or external demands from a ‘Christian’ society eager to know why Jews could continue to resist the supposedly compelling logic of Christian belief. More recently, many Jews have found an assessment of Jesus helpful in demonstrating how Judaism can respect Christianity without needing to be converted to it. The variety and depth of views about

10

jesus in judaism

Jesus by Jewish scholars provide a fascinating entrance into Jewish beliefs and values. All Jewish views on Jesus might be seen to lie on one of two paths. Each path contains many related views and each reaches, eventually, a firm boundary beyond which one may not pass. The first path is ‘The Deceiver Path’. Along this route are views that treat Jesus with suspicion. At the beginning of this path is the conviction that though Jesus may have been well intentioned, he was ignorant, self-deceived, or lost his way as a rabbi. At the extreme end of this path is the view that Jesus was intentionally deceptive: he was a disturbed young man with a sexually promiscuous mother; he was a boy who became unusually rebellious, exceptionally power hungry, and sexually insatiable. In this fallen state, he taught that he was divine and hoped to entice all of Israel away from the worship of God. How could Judaism take such a dim view of Jesus? Many Jews interpreted early Christian beliefs about the divinity of Jesus in light of Deuteronomy 13, which clearly outlines the response of the community to one who leads it away from the one, true God. ‘The Deceiver Path’ is perhaps the earliest Jewish viewpoint on Jesus; it is reflected in the Talmud and was adopted by many who sought to defend Judaism in the face of Christian hostilities (see readings one to three). Jews who observed the growth of the Christian Church, its doctrines, and its supercessionistic attitudes toward Judaism found it logical to view Christian heresy as having been authored by its founding figure. In the medieval era this viewpoint was developed as Jewish scholars responded to a Christian apocalyptic fever that desired the conversion of every Jew to Christianity. The Nizzachon Vetus (‘Book of Victory’, reading four) is one of many Jewish works that adds to earlier criticisms a detailed reading of the New Testament, demonstrating inconsistencies and errors in teaching by and about Jesus. At the heart of this approach is the conviction that no human can claim to be God, that the state of the world is proof of the fact that a Messiah did not come, and that Jesus appears to have promoted a deep disregard for the regulations a community needs if it is going to remain faithful to God in a hostile world. The passage from Joseph Klausner (reading twelve) is a more contemporary restatement of

jesus in judaism

11

this path, warning Jews of uncritically adopting the unworldly spirituality of Jesus and thereby undermining community values. ‘The Deceiver Path’ ends at a firm boundary: Jesus is Jewish, not gentile; Jewish law dealt with him justly. His supposedly regrettable life is a lesson for all Jews as to the result of unrighteous behaviour. Many of the readings of this chapter, however, travel along a completely different path: ‘The Righteous Teacher Path’. In the medieval era (if not before) many Jews questioned if the true deceiver was not Jesus, but the Christian Church. That is, Jesus may not have been responsible for the doctrines and attitudes of the disciples who built the Church in his name. He may have actually been an acceptably orthodox Jewish rabbi who was later misunderstood (see reading five). At the beginning of this path are assessments which view Jesus as an uninformed, uneducated, and mediocre teacher with some positive characteristics. Further along this path are more positive assessments of his teaching. Some Jews have even travelled far enough along this path to call Jesus a prophet (see reading eleven). Jewish believers at the beginning of this path recognized that Christianity brought the Ten Commandments to ‘pagan’ lands. Jesus, then, could at least be valued as having prepared the world for Judaism (see reading six). Soon, however, shifts in Jewish definitions and identity would entail an unprecedented period of Jewish evaluations of Jesus, reclaiming him as a Jew. These shifts were brought about as the result of some Jews gaining greater freedom in enlightenment Europe (see reading seven). Soon many Jews began to raise questions of belief and practice that would lead to entirely new expressions of Judaism. There were changes to the liturgy, a liberal reinterpretation of traditional doctrines, and abandonment of strict adherence to the Jewish Law. These ‘reform Jews’ were in a difficult place: many of their fellow believers viewed abandonment of the law as an abandonment of Judaism itself. Many Christians, observing the modernization of worship and lifestyle, wondered why the reformers didn’t go further and join the Church. In response to these pressures, reform Jews replied (to their more traditional brothers and sisters) that the highest stage in the spiritual evolution of Israel was the prophetic movement, a movement that, at times, could stand above the

12

jesus in judaism

law in making ethical demands. To Christians, reform Jews maintained that Jesus should be seen as a prophetic rather than a messianic figure. A thoroughly Jewish Jesus, then, became a way to illustrate how one could live as a Jew with the highest ethical and spiritual standards and yet maintain an identity wholly within Judaism. A number of Jewish scholars put forth the following arguments about Jesus, views which remain popular today: • Jesus was unoriginal in his teaching. • Jesus was a rabbi, perhaps even a great one. • Jesus was a successor to the prophetic tradition. • Jesus was not killed by the Jews but by the Romans; at most, only a handful of Sadducean or ‘Temple Jews’ were involved in his arrest. • Jesus was not divine. • Jesus shared great affinity with the Pharisees in his theological views, though he stood outside any Jewish party. • The Jesus of the Gospels is not the Pauline Christ (Paul, not Jesus, is viewed as the founder of Christianity).

There was polemic built into these arguments: Jesus was on no occasion original; the greatest aspects of his teaching were always a reflection of the Judaism that he had inherited (see readings eight, nine, and thirteen). After the Holocaust one might expect that there would have been a cessation of the Jewish study of Jesus. For, it is widely recognized that the Nazi programme to annihilate the Jewish people would not have been as forceful without centuries of theological anti-Judaism. However, the opposite has been the case: Jewish studies on Jesus have grown dramatically in number, depth, and originality. Why? Surely the answer to this question is complex. Many Christians, shocked by their silent complicity with the Holocaust, initiated interfaith dialogue with Jewish leaders. This was followed by new initiatives of scholarly sharing, popular dialogues, unprecedented church statements, the first papal visit to a synagogue, and a growing recognition in many Christian circles of the theological validity of contemporary Judaism.

jesus in judaism

13

But there were other factors at work. In America, the Reform movement still found a Jewish interpretation of Jesus helpful in establishing identity amongst Jews and Christians: even some Orthodox and Conservative leaders expressed enthusiasm about Jesus’ faithfulness to the law. The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 brought many scholars the sense of security needed to examine the life of Jesus more objectively. The fruit of all of these developments has resulted in hundreds of works on Jesus by Jews in Hebrew, German, English, and other languages as well as the positive portrayal of Jesus as a faithful Jew in the official educational curriculum of Israel. Jewish approaches to Jesus in recent years are marked by two unique trends: (i) the rise of a number of scholarly studies sympathetic to Jesus which explore his originality and (ii) historical explorations by Jewish scholars who devote themselves to New Testament research in North American seminaries and theological schools. David Flusser (reading fourteen) reflects these trends as he urges his readers to first understand what is unoriginal to Jesus before appreciating the spiritual breakthroughs in his teachings. This ‘Righteous Teacher’ path has a firm boundary, however. Even if a Jewish believer considers Jesus to be a prophet (this is rare), one must view claims about Jesus’ divinity to be in error. The Church mistakenly worships Jesus whilst frequently turning away from embracing the prophetic lifestyle he advocated. Two paths, each with a firm boundary. On this continuum of Jesus as a disturbed deceiver to an enlightened prophet lies nearly every point in between: Jesus as misguided, mediocre, perceptive, witty, sagacious, a revolutionary, a great rabbi, a charismatic Hasid, an Essene, a Pharisee, and even a preacher of universalistic values. Nearly all points on this continuum continue to be represented in Jewish thought today; however, it would be misleading to imply that all Jews view the study of Jesus as important. The name of Jesus continues to be anathema to many Jews given the nature of the history between Christians and Jews. The ‘Deceiver Path’ is largely an intramural discussion hidden from ‘Christian’ culture, a

14

jesus in judaism

dialogue by Jews for Jews. The ‘Righteous Teacher Path’ emerges largely from an enlightenment context in which some Jews were attempting to build a new identity, justifying this not only to orthodox believers but also to their ‘Christian’ political context. This means that positive discourse on Jesus has functioned historically, not for the edification of Jews, but for the defence of Judaism. Though this does not mean that all positive perceptions are politically motivated, it further underscores the minor role Jesus has played in the development of Judaism. G. A. B.

jesus in judaism

15

1 dangerous times for jews Rabbi Nachmanides (1194–c.1270) knew the perils involved in giving an account to Christians of Jewish beliefs about Jesus. There had been Talmud burnings, imprisonments, and brutal killings for nothing more than disagreeing with Christian doctrine. Nachmanides might have avoided the encounter if he hadn’t been summoned by King James I of Spain. His defence is articulate and intelligent, providing an insight into the heart of Jewish belief and practice. His challenge to Christians is uncompromising: does Christian political power and strength reflect Messianic values as revealed by the Bible?

Nachmanides’ Debate1 Our lord the King commanded me to hold a Disputation with Fray2 Paul in his presence and in the presence of his counsellors in Barcelona. I replied, ‘I will do as my lord the King commands if you will give me permission to speak as I wish.’ I was seeking thereby the permission of the King and the permission of Fray Raymon of Pennaforte and his associates who were there. Fray Ramon of Pennaforte replied, ‘Provided only that you do not speak disrespectfully.’ I said to them, ‘I do not wish to have to submit to your judgement on that, but to speak as I wish on the matter under dispute, just as you say all that you wish; and I have enough understanding to speak with

1

Hyam Maccoby, ed. and trans., Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages (Oxford and Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982), 102–3 and 119–22. Nachmanides’ full name is Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (by acronym, Ramban). 2 [Editor’s note:] Friar.

16

jesus in judaism

moderation on the matters of dispute just as you do, but let it be according to my own discretion.’ So they all gave me permission to speak freely. Upon this I replied, ‘There is dispute between Gentiles and Jews on many points of religious practice in the two religions which are not essential for religious belief. In this honoured court, I wish to dispute only on matters which are fundamental to the argument.’ They all replied, ‘You have spoken well.’ And thus we agreed to speak first on the subject of the Messiah, whether he has already come as Christians believe, or whether he is yet to come as Jews believe. And after that, we would speak on whether the Messiah was truly divine, or entirely human, born from a man and a woman. And after that we would discuss, whether the Jews still possess the true law, or whether the Christians practise it. [. . .] ‘My lord King, hear me. The Messiah is not fundamental to our religion.3 Why, you are worth more to me than the Messiah! You are a king, and he is a king. You are a Gentile king, and he is a Jewish king; for the Messiah is only a king of flesh and blood like you. When I serve my Creator in your territory in exile and in affliction and servitude and reproach of the peoples who ‘reproach us continually’, my reward is great. For I am offering a sacrifice to God from my body, by which I shall be found more and more worthy of the life of the world to come. But when there will be a king of Israel of my religion ruling over all the peoples, and there will be no choice for me but to remain in the Jewish religion, my reward will not be so great. No, the real point of difference between Jews and Christians lies in what you say about the fundamental matter of the deity; a doctrine which is distasteful indeed. You, our lord King, are a Christian and the son of a Christian, and 3 [Editor’s note:] Whilst the subject of the Messiah is important in Judaism, Nachmanides is attempting to differentiate between the essence of Judaism (Torah obedience) and the rightly placed faith in the coming of the Messiah and a new world to come. Hyam Maccoby notes, ‘Maimonides, though he included belief in the coming of the Messiah in his thirteen Articles of Faith, says (Melachim, 12: 2): “One should not spend too much time on inquiries on these topics [Messianic topics], and one should not regard them as fundamental [‘iqqar], for they do not lead to either the love or the fear of God.” ’ See Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, 119, n.1.

jesus in judaism

17

you have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled with you, because of that accustomed habit. But the doctrine in which you believe, and which is the foundation of your faith, cannot be accepted by the reason, and nature affords no ground for it, nor have the prophets ever expressed it. Nor can even the miraculous stretch as far as this as I shall explain with full proofs in the right time and place, that the Creator of Heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewess and grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards, as you say, he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this; and you speak your words entirely in vain, for this is the root of our controversy. Nevertheless, let us speak of the Messiah too, as this is your wish.’ Said Fray Paul, ‘Will you believe, then, that he has come?’ Said I, ‘No. On the contrary, I believe and know that he has not come; and so far there has never been any other man (leaving aside Jesus) who has claimed to be the Messiah (or has had that claim made for him) in whose Messiahship it is possible for me to believe. For the prophet says about the Messiah, ‘His rule shall be from sea, and from the River until the ends of the earth’ [Psalms 72: 8]. Jesus, however, never had any power, but in his lifetime he was fleeing from his enemies and hiding from them, and in the end he fell into their hands and could not save himself, so how could he save all Israel? Even after his death he did not have any rule, for the power of Rome is not because of him. Even before they believed in Jesus, the city of Rome was ruling over most of the world, and after they adopted faith in him, they lost many provinces; and now the worshippers of Mohammed have greater power than they. The prophet says that in the time of the Messiah, ‘They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me’ [Jeremiah 31: 34]; also, ‘The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea’ [Isaiah, 11: 9]; also, ‘They shall beat their swords into ploughshares . . . nation shall not lift up sword against nation,

18

jesus in judaism

neither shall they learn war any more’ [Isaiah 2: 4]. Yet from the days of Jesus until now, the whole world has been full of violence and plundering, and the Christians are greater spillers of blood than all the rest of the peoples, and they are also practisers of adultery and incest. And how hard it would be for you, my lord King, and for your knights, if they were not to learn war any more! Moreover, the prophet says about the Messiah, ‘He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth’ [Isaiah 2: 4]; and this is explained in the book of Aggadah4 which Fray Paul has in his hand, as follows [Midrash Tehillim, 2]: ‘If the King Messiah is told, “A certain province has rebelled against you,” he will say, “Let the locust come and destroy it”; or if he is told, “A certain eparchy has rebelled,” he will say, “Let wild beasts come and consume it.” ’ This did not happen with Jesus. As for you, his servants, you think it better to have horses clad in armour, and sometimes ‘even all this availeth you nothing’ [Esther 5: 13]. Now I shall bring you many other proofs from the words of the prophets.’ That man cried out, ‘This is always his way, to make long-winded speeches. But I have a question to ask.’ Said the King to me, ‘Be silent, for he is the questioner.’ So I was silent.

2 the rejected disciple The following sad tale relates what happens when a rabbi treats a disciple too harshly; in this case, Jesus is that disciple. It comes in the midst of a discussion on the judiciary and judicial procedure in the tractate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud. Though some of the events

4

[Editor’s note:] Elsewhere in the debate Nachmanides urges Christians to recognize that Jews approach the Talmud in a complex manner, recognizing that the Halakhic portions (legal) have more authority than the Haggadic (or Aggadic) portions (narrative). When Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud it is the Haggadic or narrative portions of the text.

jesus in judaism

19

referred to in this account occurred a hundred years earlier than the life of the historical Jesus (King Jannai ruled from 104 to 78 bce), it is widely held that by the time of the composition of this section of the Talmud, popular views of Jesus outside Christianity aligned him with many of the themes in this passage: inappropriate relations with the opposite sex, a rebellious nature, and the promotion of idolatry. The last sentence of this passage can be taken as a summary of some Jewish views about Jesus from this period.5

The Talmud6 What was the incident with Yehoshua b. Perahya? When King Yannai killed the rabbis,7 R. Yehoshua b. Perahya8 fled to Egyptian Alexandria. When there was peace, Shimon b. Shetah sent (the following message): ‘From Jerusalem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt. O my sister, my husband dwells in your midst and I remain desolate!’ 5 [Editor’s note:] Whilst there is a great deal of disagreement about the historicity of Jesuspassages in the Talmud, there is wide recognition that many passages represent some Jewish perceptions of Jesus from a period following the close of the New Testament. Relevant passages, other than the two included in this volume, include references to Jesus’ family in Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a, remarks about Jesus as a disciple in Sanhedrin 103a and Berakhot 17b, healings in Jesus’ name Abodah Zerah 27b, the execution of Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a–b, a section on the disciples of Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a–b, and a portrayal of Jesus after his earthly life in Gittin 57a. There are parallel passages to many of these in the Jerusalem Talmud and other early Jewish writings, though where the Jerusalem Talmud might not refer to Jesus by name (or have another character in mind), the Babylonian Talmud is more explicit in relating these same passages to Christianity’s central figure. 6 From Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007), 34–5 and notes on 155. [Peter Schäfer says:] b Sanh 107b and b Sot 47a. I follow the version in Sanhedrin and refer to the variant readings in the manuscripts. [Editor’s note:] See also the Soncino Talmud’s uncensored version of Sanhedrin 107b found in Rabbi Dr I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin Vol. 3 trans. H. Freedman (London: The Soncino Press, 1935+), 735, 735 n. 4, and 736 n. 2. A similar version of this passage occurs in tractate Sotah 47a (Seder Nashim Vol. 3, trans. A. Cohen, 247–8). For a manuscript history of this and other related Talmudic texts see Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. 7 b Sot adds: ‘Shimon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister’ (who happened to be, according to rabbinic tradition, king Yannai’s wife). 8 Vilna printed edition: ‘and Jesus’.

20

jesus in judaism

He [Yehoshua b. Perahya]9 arose, went and found himself in a certain inn. They paid him great respect. He said: ‘How beautiful is this inn/innkeeper (akhsanya)!’ He [one of his disciples/Jesus]10 said: ‘Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.’11 He [Yehoshua b. Perahya] replied: ‘(You) wicked (student), do you occupy yourself with such (a thought)?!’12 He sounded 400 Shofar blasts and excommunicated him. He [the disciple] came before him [the rabbi] several times (and) said to him: ‘Receive me!’, but he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] refused to take notice. One day, while he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] was reciting the Shema, he [the disciple] came (again) before him. (This time) he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] wanted to receive him (and) made a sign to him with his hand. But he [the disciple] thought that he [Yehoshua b. Perahya] was again repelling him. He [the disciple] went, set up a brick and worshipped it. He [Yehoshua b. Perahya] said to him [the student]: ‘Repent!’, (but) he answered him: ‘Thus have I learned from you: Whoever sins and causes others to sin, is deprived of the power of doing penitence.’ The master said: ‘Jesus the Nazarene13 practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.’

9 Yehoshua b. Perahya/Jesus are preserved in MSS Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1, Firenze II.1.8–9 and in the Vilna printed edition; MS Munich 95 erases ‘Jesus the Nazarene’ (le-Yeshu is still faintly visible). b Sot: Yehoshua b. Perahya/Jesus are preserved in MSS Oxford Heb. d. 20 (2675), Vatican 110, and this time also Munich 95, whereas the Vilna printed edition reads: ‘and not as Yehoshua b. Perahya, who pushed one of his disciples away with both hands.’ 10 ‘Jesus (the Nazarene)’ in MSS Yad ha-Rav Herzog 1 (b Sanh) and Oxford Heb. d. 20 (2675) (b Sot). 11 Or ‘bleared, dripping’ (terutot); cf. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950), s.v. ‘tarut’. 12 [Editor’s note:] Whereas the rabbi had praised the quality of the inn, Jesus is viewed to have been preoccupied with the woman serving them. 13 MSS Munich 95 (Sanh 107b), Vatican 110, and the Vilna printed edition (Sot 47a) have only ‘He [the disciple].’

jesus in judaism

21

3 a teacher of jewish law This fascinating passage may provide a rare glimpse into Jewish–Christian relations in the first century ce. It also highlights a saying of Jesus not found in the Christian Gospels. The central character, however, is not Jesus but one Rabbi Eliezer—whose identity might provide a clue to early Jewish perceptions of Jesus. Elsewhere in the Talmud, Eliezer is associated with the use of magic to deny rabbinic authority.14 Also, the reference to Proverbs 5, which is concerned with prostitution, might be an oblique way to tarnish this rabbi’s reputation, aligning him with popular perceptions of the lawlessness of Jesus and Christians. Thus, this rabbi’s association with Christians may act as a warning to the Jewish community. The passage begins with Rabbi Eliezer puzzled as to why he has been arrested and it concludes with the pious realization that this was a divine punishment for having associated himself with heretics (Christians).

The Talmud15 Our rabbis taught:16 When R. Eliezer was arrested because of heresy (minut), they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. The [Roman] Governor

14 [Editor’s note:] See the interesting account in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Metzia 59b. 15 From Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007), 41–2 and notes on 158. [Editor’s note:] Avodah Zarah 16b–17a, the Babylonian Talmud. Earlier Palestinian parallels are t Hul 2: 24; QohR 1: 24 on Eccl. 1: 8 (1: 8 [3]). See also A. Mishcon trans., ‘Abodah Zarah 16b–17’ in Rabbi Dr I. Epstein ed., The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nezikin, Vol. 4 (London: The Soncino Press, 1935+), 84–5. 16 [Editor’s note:] The introductory formula of this section indicates that it is a baraita, a legal teaching or saying by one of the sages of the Mishanic age (codified by 200 ce), not included in the Mishna. This is therefore likely to be an early Palestinian tradition. It occurs in a legal section of the Talmud concerned with laws about idol worship.

22

jesus in judaism

(hegemon) said to him: ‘How can an old man like you occupy himself with such idle things?’ He [R. Eliezer] answered: ‘I acknowledge the judge as reliable (ne’eman)!’17 Since the Governor thought that he referred to him— though he really referred to his Father in Heaven—he said to him: ‘Because you have acknowledged me as reliable,18 dimissus:19 you are acquitted!’ When he [R. Eliezer] came home, his disciples arrived to comfort him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Aqiva to him: ‘Master, will you permit me to say one thing of what you have taught me?’ He answered: ‘Say it!’ He [Aqiva] said to him: ‘Master, perhaps you encountered (some kind of) heresy (minut) and you enjoyed it and because of that you were arrested?’ He [R. Eliezer] answered him: ‘Aqiva, you have reminded me! Once I was walking in the upper market of Sepphoris when I came across20 someone/one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene,21 and Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah22 was his name. He [Jacob] said to me:23 It is written in your Torah: You shall not bring the hire of the harlot [or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord, your God] (Deut. 23: 19). May such money be used for making a latrine for the High Priest?24 To which I made no reply.

17

Also in the sense of ‘trustworthy’, ‘right’. Or, ‘right’. 19 The Bavli and all parallels use here the Latin word in Hebrew characters (dimus). 20 This is the reading in t Hul (matzati, lit. ‘I found’); QohR has ‘and . . . came to me’; the Talmud manuscripts: ‘one of the disciples of . . . found me (metza’ani).’ 21 The explicit reference to Jesus in MSS Munich 95, Paris Suppl. Heb. 1337, and JTS Rab. 15. 22 Or ‘Sikhnaya’. 23 t Hul: ‘He told me a word of heresy (minut) in the name of Jesus ben Pantiri/Pandera’ (the following exegesis of Deut. 23: 19 and Mic. 1: 7 is missing in t Hul); QohR: ‘He told me something (lit. a certain word) in the name of So-and-So’ (however, some manuscripts and printed editions of QohR read ‘in the name of Jesus ben Pandera’ see Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978), 296, n. 305 and the chart on 137 f. in this [Schäfer’s] work). 24 [Editor’s note:] This intricate legal discussion concerned a possible exception to the Torah’s prohibition of money gained from prostitution to be used in the Temple. As the high priest had to spend the entire night before the Day of Atonement in the Temple perhaps one legitimate use of such money would be for a latrine since both money and defecation have to do with uncleanliness. 18

jesus in judaism

23

He [Jacob] said to me: Thus was I taught [by Jesus the Nazarene]:25 For from the hire of a harlot was it gathered26 and to the hire of a harlot shall it27 return (Mic. 1: 7)—it came from a place of filth, and let it return to a place of filth. This word pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for heresy (minut). Because I transgressed what is written the Torah: Keep your way far from her (Prov. 5: 8)—this refers to heresy (minut); and do not come near to the door of her house (ibid.)—this refers to the ruling power (rashut).’ There are some who say: Keep your way far from her (Prov. 5: 8)—this refers to heresy and the ruling power;28 and do not come near to the door of her house (ibid.)—this refers to the harlot.29 And how far (is one to keep away)? Rav Hisda said: Four cubits.

4 the bible testifies against the deity of jesus In a time of persecution and forced conversions to Christianity many documents provided Jewish believers with counter-arguments. The Nizzachon Vetus (‘Book of Victory’, late thirteenth to early fourteenth century ce) is one of the first works to make extensive use of the Hebrew scriptures as well as the New Testament. In fact, the Nizzachon Vetus is encyclopedic in its presentation of biblical arguments against Christianity. Jesus is perceived as an unstable and erratic figure whose words and actions reveal him as an ineffectual and dangerous Jewish teacher.

25 MSS Munich 95 and Paris Suppl. Heb. 1337; MS JTS Rab. 15: ‘thus taught him Jesus his Master.’ 26 Reading qubbtzsah instead of qibbatzsah. 27 The money, in the Hebrew plural. 28 QohR has only ‘heresy’. 29 QohR: ‘prostitution’ (zenut).

24

jesus in judaism The Nizzachon Vetus30

Be diligent in the study of Torah in order to be able to answer a heretic and question him. When you speak to them, do not allow your antagonist to change the subject, for it is the usual method of the assertive and impatient Gentile to skip from one subject to another. He does not continue to stick to the point, for when he realizes his inability to verify his statements, he begins to discuss other matters. One who argues with them should be strong-willed by asking questions or giving responses that deal with the specific issue at hand and not permitting his antagonist to extricate himself from that issue until it has been completed. Then, you will find the Gentile thoroughly embarrassed; indeed, he will be found to have denied their central dogmas, while all Israel ‘will speak lovely words’ [Gen. 49: 21]. [. . .] ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me and from the words of my cry?’ [Ps. 22: 2]. The heretics say that Jesus said this psalm at the time of his hanging. Indeed, in their books it says, ‘My God, my God, remember me; why have you forsaken me?’ and it is also written in the heretics’ books, ‘My God, my God, look at me. Why have you forsaken me? Why are the words of my transgression far from my salvation?’ You see then that Jesus himself admits that he is a sinner, and so how can you say that he is God? We see also that Jesus was complaining that God forsook him; consequently, he could not have been a righteous man, for Ecclesiastes said, ‘I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread’ [Ps. 37: 25]. [. . .] It is written in their books: ‘In the evening, Jesus went out to Bethany with his twelve students, and on the next day, when they had left Bethany, Jesus was hungry. And he saw a fig tree from afar off, and he desired it. He then came to see if there were figs there, but when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves on the tree. So he was angered and said, No edible fruit will come out of you for ever’ [Mark 11: 11–14]. Now, why was he hungry? You may say that it was because of his flesh, but we have seen that Moses, may he 30

David Berger, The Jewish Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzachon Vetus with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), sections 155, 145, and 181.

jesus in judaism

25

rest in peace, who was flesh and blood, was able to fast forty days and forty nights because he had drawn near to the divine presence; why, then, was this fellow, who was himself God according to you, hungry because of his flesh? You may then maintain that the spirit was hungry, but this is preposterous since the spirit doesn’t eat anything. A further question may be posed in light of the fact that Jesus went to see if there were any figs on the fig tree. Did he, then, not know if there were figs or not from the original vantage point from which he saw the tree? Perhaps you will again maintain that he said this in accordance with his carnal aspect, but since when does the flesh think about or know anything? It is, after all, well known that it is not the flesh but the spirit which knows or understands anything. Consequently I am amazed at this; if he was God and the spirit of God was in him, why did he not know from his original vantage point that there was no fruit there? Moreover, even if he didn’t find fruit, why did he curse the tree? Perhaps he was angry at it and cursed it because it caused him to make the vain effort of getting there; however, it is written that he commanded the apostles, ‘Love your enemies, and do good to those that hate you. Pray for your oppressors, and bless those who hate you’ [Luke 6: 27–8]. Now this should certainly be true of this tree, which committed no sin. It didn’t send for Jesus and mock him by inviting him to come and eat of its fruit. Why, then, did he curse it and cause it to dry up without a trial or a discussion?

5 the church—not jesus—is the heretic This selection by Isaac of Troki (1533–94) represents a shift in Jewish perceptions of Jesus: it is the Church and not Jesus who is responsible for the heresy of worshipping a mere mortal. In other words, the Church deified Jesus against his own self-understanding; Christian doctrine has evolved beyond the ‘original Jesus’ who would have been shocked to learn that he was a member of the trinity. This work was condemned and extolled by many involved in controversies about the truth of Christian belief. Voltaire, no

26

jesus in judaism

friend of the Jewish people, found in this work arguments congenial to his fight against the Church. This passage is remarkable for anticipating historical-critical perspectives of Christian doctrine which were to later flourish in the nineteenth century.

Isaac of Troki, Faith Strengthened31 The more clearly we examine into the purport of the New Testament, the more clearly we perceive its general intent is not to deify Jesus; and that the doctrines which assign to him the title of God, have arisen from want of due investigation and are not upheld by the force of sound argument. [. . .] Many Christians oppose us with the opinion that the Mosaic law had not been established for a permanent, but only for a limited period, and was totally abrogated by Jesus, who bequeathed to his disciples and followers a new law which dispensed them from conforming to the ancient statutes and ordinances laid down in the Mosaic code. For (they allege) according to the old law, they (the Israelites) had been given over to the power of death, while the new dispensation was a law of grace and easy to practise. The commandments given, they say, were so rigorous that no man could observe them properly. Hence it came that the fundamental laws, such as circumcision and the observances of the Sabbath, were but temporary, and continued only to the time of the coming of Jesus the Nazarene, who immediately substituted baptism instead of circumcision, and the consecration of the first day instead of the seventh. Refutation: This statement of the Christians is fallacious. The Gospel itself refutes their opinion, for in Matthew 5.17–20, Jesus says to his disciples, ‘Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil; for verily I say unto you, till Heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all is 31

Isaac ben Abraham Troki, Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta [from the Hebrew] (London, n.p., 1851). For a more recent source see: Isaac of Troki, Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970), 87–93 and 264. See: World Karaite Movement http://faithstrengthened.org/index.html (30 January 2009).

jesus in judaism

27

fulfilled;’ ‘Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.’ [. . .] It appears, however, that the Christians have been anxious to abolish the law of Moses on their own accord and responsibility, for they have no authority whatever for doing so from Jesus and his Apostles. If Jesus had really absolved them from the commandments contained in our Bible, wherefore did he urge the observance of a part of them; as, for instance, the honour due to parents, neighbourly love and charity? Wherefore did he warn them against homicide, adultery, theft, and false testimony? (See Matthew 19) On what foundation rests the Apostles’ prohibition to abstain from idolatry, incest, and eating of ‘blood and strangled animals’? (See Acts 15.20.) Nor can we comprehend the assertion, that the law of Moses must discontinue because the Israelites had been guilty of death according to it, but not according to the law of Jesus, which was called the law of Grace. Did not St. Paul order the death of one marrying his father’s wife? (See 1st Cor. 5.1) Even at the present day, Christians inflict death on the murderer, the adulterer, and the thief; while, according to the Mosaic dispensation, pecuniary thefts were not punished with death. See Exodus 21.16, where it is said, ‘He who stealeth man and selleth him, he shall be put to death,’ etc. Equally untrue is it that the law of Jesus is more easy to practise than that of Moses. In Matthew 19.21, we find, ‘If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.’ The same is repeated in Luke 28.22. This shows that it is required by the laws of Jesus, that man shall dispose of his property, and devote it to charitable purposes; the law of Moses, however, decrees that only the tenth part of the harvest shall go for charitable purposes, and the remainder be enjoyed by the owner. This proves that the legislative system of Moses is by no means oppressive; but, on the contrary, serves to benefit both the body and the soul. Again, if men have been dispensed from obedience to the laws of Moses, why do they acknowledge some of the laws on consanguinity, and prohibit intercourse between the following six degrees of affinity, namely, with the mother, the father’s wife, the sister, the brother’s wife, the daughter, and the son’s wife?

28

jesus in judaism

With regard to other relations, they are not guided by the Divine enactments transmitted to us through Moses; but occasionally they permit the unlawful, and forbid the legitimate degrees of intermarriage. The Christians seem here to abandon the solid foundation on which we rest our hopes, and act from self-formed opinions. The Gospel presents no express code on the points in question; and if these laws are no longer valid which determine the relationship of consanguinity, why did not Jesus introduce new regulations in lieu of the laws of Moses? In modern days, the Christians are partly guided by the mosaic code, and partly by human enactments at various periods. They make changes and alterations, accommodating them to the customs of the day, and render established principles subservient to temporary wants and arbitrary innovations. Convinced, as we Israelites are, that the divine revelation proceeds from Infinite Wisdom, and is, therefore, in itself complete and perfect in its aim, we cannot possibly admit of any change, deviation, addition, or diminution. [. . .] Jesus gave no new law, but merely confirmed the commandments given through Moses. Thus in all these doctrinal points they are found to agree with us.

6 jesus: jewish evangelist to the gentiles Whilst Christians were proclaiming their supercession from Judaism, some Jews believed that Christianity prepared the world for Jewish Law. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204) had declared that though Christianity contained dangerous heresy, it ultimately served the purpose of the Law.32 Perhaps the strongest expression of this point of view comes from a highly respected Torah authority of the eighteenth century: Rabbi 32 See A. M. Herschmann, ed., The Code of Maimonides, Book 14, Yale Judaica Series (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), 238–42.

jesus in judaism

29

Jacob Emden (1696–1776). Emden was involved in controversies with Jewish Messianic movements; he appealed to Christian authorities for help. In this appeal he shares respect for Christianity and its founder.

The Letter of Rabbi Jacob Emden33 Christian scholars have assumed from certain passages in the Gospels that he wished to give a new Torah to take the place of the Torah of Moses. How could he then have said explicitly that he comes only to fulfil it? But it is as I have said earlier—that the writers of the Gospels never meant to say that the Nazarene came to abolish Judaism, but only that he came to establish a religion for the Gentiles from that time onward. Nor was it new, but actually ancient they being the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, which were forgotten.34 The Apostles of the Nazarene then established them anew. However, those born as Jews, or circumcised as converts to Judaism (Ex. 12: 49; one law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger), are obligated to observe all commandments of the Torah without exception. [. . .] Certainly, therefore, there is no doubt that one who seeks truth will agree with our thesis, that the Nazarene and his Apostles never meant to abolish the Torah of Moses from one who was born a Jew. Likewise did Paul write in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7) that each should adhere to the faith in which each was called. They therefore acted in accordance with the Torah by forbidding circumcision to Gentiles, according to the Halakha, as it is forbidden to one who does not accept the yoke of the commandments. They knew that it would be too difficult for the Gentiles to observe the Torah of Moses. They therefore forbade them to circumcise, and it would suffice that they observe the Seven Noahide Commandments, as commanded upon them through the Halakha from Moses at Sinai. 33 Harvey Falk, ‘Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Christianity’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 19, no. 1 (Winter 1982), 105–11. 34 [Editor’s note:] The Talmudic teaching of the seven noahide commandments is based upon Genesis 2: 14 and Genesis 9 (see tractate Sanhedrin 56a/b): no idolatry, no blasphemy, no killing, no stealing, no sexual sins, no eating the limb of a living animal, and the charge to establish courts of justice.

30

jesus in judaism

It is therefore a habitual saying of mine (not as a hypocritical flatterer, G-d forbid, for I am of the faithful believers of Israel, and I know well that the remnant of Israel will not speak falsehood, nor will their mouths contain a deceitful tongue) that the Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles (provided they do not turn about his intent as they please, as some foolish ones have done because they did not fully understand the intent of the authors of the Gospels. I have recently seen someone publish a book, and he had no idea about what he was writing. For if he had understood the subject, he would have kept his silence and not wasted the paper and ink. There are also found among us foolish scholars who know not their right from their left in the Written and Oral Torahs and cause the people to err with their pompous pronouncements. But there are true scholars among the Christians, just as there are the chosen few among Torah scholars; and there are few of the truly great.) by doing away with idolatry and removing the images from their midst. He obligated them with the Seven Commandments so that they should not be as the beasts of the field. He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses, as is well-known. This in itself was most proper, as it is the correct way to acquire ethical practices, as the philosopher (Maimonides) mentioned. We have written similarly in our Siddur. However, it is not necessary to impose upon Jews such extreme ethical practices, since they have been obligated to the yoke of Torah, which weakens the strength of the (evil) inclination without it. They have taken the oath at Sinai and are already trained in proper practice and nature. These are clear words that will not be rejected by a clear-thinking person. If certain Christians who consider themselves scholars would understand this secret, who believe that they are commanded to abolish the Torah of Moses from the seed of Israel, they would not engage in such foolishness. The people listen to their self-conceived words, something which was never intended by the writers of the Gospels. Quite the opposite, they have written clearly that they intended the contrary.

jesus in judaism

31

Because of these errant scholars, hatred was increased toward the Jews who are blameless of any guilt and proceed innocently to observe their Torah with all their heart, imbued with the fear of G-d. They should instead bring their people to love the ancient Children of Israel who remain loyal to their G-d, as indeed commanded to Christians by their original teachers. They even said to love one’s enemies. How much more so to us! In the name of heaven, we are your brothers! One G-d has created us all. Why should they abuse us because we are joined to the commandments of G-d, to which we are tied with the ropes of his love? We do this not to enjoy the pleasures of the (evil) inclination and the emptiness of a passing world. For truly (Ps. 44) we have become a byword among the nations, and with all this (ibid.). In G-d have we gloried all the day, and we will give thanks unto Thy name for ever. We pray for the good of the entire world, and especially for the benefit of these lands in which we reside, protecting us and our observance of the Torah. [. . .] You, members of the Christian faith, how good and pleasant it might be if you will observe that which was commanded to you by your first teachers; how wonderful is your share if you will assist the Jews in the observance of their Torah. You will truly receive reward as if you had fulfilled it yourselves—for the one who helps others to observe is greater than one who observes but does not help others to do so—even though you only observe the Seven Commandments.

7 reasons for jewish silence on jesus In a private conversation with the Christian cleric Johann Lavater, Moses Mendelssohn (1729–86) shared admiration for the moral character of Jesus—with one significant reservation: that Jesus had not claimed divinity for himself. Jewish freedom in Germany in this period was in a promising but delicate state and Mendelssohn hoped to avoid further discussion on this subject. Imagine Mendelssohn’s surprise when Lavater challenged him

32

jesus in judaism

publicly to become a Christian in the prologue to an apologetic work. Mendelssohn’s reply is eloquent, respecting his Christian environment without compromising his religious beliefs.

Moses Mendelssohn, Letter to Johann Caspar Lavater35 Dear Friend, You have found it advisable to dedicate your translation from the French of Bonnet’s Examination of the Proofs for Christianity36 to me and to request me publicly and solemnly to refute this treatise if I felt that its arguments in support of the claims of Christianity were erroneous. Should I, however, find the arguments convincing, you ask me ‘to do what wisdom, love of truth, and honor require, and what a Socrates would have done had he read the treatise and found it irrefutable,’ namely, to abandon the religion of my fathers and to embrace the faith advocated by M. Bonnet. For even if I were ever tempted to stoop so low as to place expediency above my sense of truth and probity, my course of action would in this particular case obviously be dictated by all three elements. I am convinced your motives are pure and reflect nothing but your loving concern for your fellowmen. Indeed, I should not be worthy of anyone’s respect if I did not gratefully reciprocate the affection and friendship for me that are evident in your dedicatory inscription. Yet I must confess that your action has shocked me deeply. I should have expected anything but a public challenge from a Lavater. Since you recall the confidential conversations I had with you and your friends in my home, you cannot have forgotten how often I attempted to shift the discussion from religious issues to more neutral and conventional topics and how strongly you and your friends had to prod me before I would venture to express my views on these matters [i.e., 35 Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem and Other Jewish Writings, ed. A. Jospe (New York: Schocken, 1969), 113–22. See also: Moses Mendelssohn, ‘Letter to Johann Caspar Lavater’, Disputation and Dialogue, ed. Frank E. Talmage (New York: Ktav and The Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 1975), 265–72. 36 [Editor’s note:] In 1769 Lavater had translated a section from the Genevan philosopher Charles Bonnet’s Palingenesis; this section was devoted to proofs of Christianity.

jesus in judaism

33

Mendelssohn’s views on Jesus and Christianity], which touch upon man’s deepest convictions. Unless memory betrays me, I was assured on these occasions that our conversations would be kept confidential. I would, of course, rather be mistaken in my recollection than accuse you of a breach of promise. [. . .] If my decision, after all these years of study, had not been entirely in favour of my religion, I would certainly have found it necessary to make my convictions known publicly. I fail to see what could have kept me tied to a religion that is so severe and generally despised had I not, in my heart, been convinced of its truth. Whatever the result of my studies, I would have felt compelled to leave the religion of my fathers had I ever begun to feel that it was not true. And had my heart been captured by another faith, it would have been depravity not to admit to the truth. What could possibly cause me to debase myself [by not admitting it]? There is only one course, as I have already pointed out, that wisdom, love of truth, and honesty can choose. If I were indifferent to both religions or mocked and scorned all revelations, I might indeed follow the counsel which expediency dictates while conscience remains silent. What could deter me? Fear of my fellow Jews? They lack the power to intimidate me. Stubbornness? Inertia? Blind adherence to familiar customs and conventions? Since I have devoted a large part of my life to the examination of my tradition, I hope no one will expect me to sacrifice the fruits of my studies to such personal failings. You can, therefore, see that I would have been impelled to make a public statement about the results of my studies had they left me without the sincere conviction of the validity of my faith. However, inasmuch as my investigations strengthened me in the faith of my fathers, I was able to continue in it quietly, without feeling that I had to render an account to the world of my convictions. I do not deny that I see certain human excesses and abuses that tarnish the beauty of my religion. But is there any friend of truth who can claim that his religion is completely free of man-made accretions and corruptions? All of us know that the search for truth can be impeded by the poisonous breath of hypocrisy and superstition. We wish we could dispel

34

jesus in judaism

both without damaging the beauty and truth of the essentials of our religion. Nevertheless, of the validity of the essentials of my faith I am as firmly and irrefutably convinced as you or M. Bonnet is of his, and I declare before God, who has created and sustained both you and me— the God in whose name you have challenged me—that I shall adhere to my principles as long as my soul remains unchanged. My inner remoteness from your religion has remained unchanged since I disclosed my views to you and your friends [in our earlier conversations]. And I would even now be prepared to concede that my respect for the moral stature of its founder has not diminished since then, were it not that you have clearly disregarded the reservation which I had attached to my views at that time. But there comes a moment in a man’s life when he has to make up his mind about certain issues in order to be able to go on from there. This happened to me several years ago with regard to religion. I have read; I have compared; I have reflected; and I have made up my mind [about my religion]. [. . .] According to the principles of my religion, I am not expected to try to convert anyone not born into my faith. Even though many people think that the zeal for proselytizing originated in Judaism, it is, in fact, completely alien to it. Our rabbis hold unanimously that the written as well as the oral laws that constitute our revealed religion are binding only for our own people. ‘Moses had given us the law; it is the inheritance of the House of Jacob’ [Deut. 33: 4]. All other nations were enjoined by God to observe the law of nature and the religion of the patriarchs. All who live in accordance with this religion of nature and of reason are called ‘the righteous among other nations’; they too are entitled to eternal bliss. Far from being obsessed by any desire to proselytize, our rabbis require us to discourage as forcefully as we can anyone who asks to be converted. We are to ask him to consider the heavy burden he would have to shoulder needlessly by taking this step. We are to point out that, in his present state, he is obligated to fulfill only the Noachide laws37 in order to be saved but that upon his conversion he will have to observe 37

[Editor’s note:] See note 34.

jesus in judaism

35

strictly all the laws of his new faith or expect the punishment which God metes out to the lawbreaker. Finally, we are to paint a faithful picture of the misery and destitution of our people and of the contempt in which they are held, in order to keep him from a hasty decision he may later regret. As you see, the religion of my fathers does not ask to be propagated. We are not to send missionaries to the two Indies or to Greenland in order to preach our faith to distant nations. [. . .] Anyone not born into our community need not observe its laws. The fact that we consider their observance incumbent upon us alone cannot possibly offend our neighbours. Do they think our views are absurd? No need to quarrel about it. We act in accordance with our convictions and do not mind if others question the validity of our laws, which, as we ourselves emphasize, are not binding on them. Whether they are acting fairly, peaceably, and charitably when they mock our laws and traditions is, of course, something else that must be left to their own consciences. As long as we do not want to convince or convert others, we have no quarrel with them. If a Confucius or a Solon were to live among our contemporaries, I could, according to my religion, love and admire the great man without succumbing to the ridiculous desire to convert him. Convert a Confucius or a Solon? What for? Since he is not a member of the household of Jacob, our religious laws do not apply to him. And as far as the general principles of religion are concerned, we should have little trouble agreeing on them. Do I think he can be saved? It seems to me that anyone who leads men to virtue in this life cannot be damned in the next. [. . .] It is my good fortune to count among my friends many an excellent man who is not of my faith. We love each other sincerely, although both of us suspect or assume that we differ in matters of faith. I enjoy the pleasure of his company and feel enriched by it. But at no time has my heart whispered to me, ‘What a pity that this beautiful soul should be lost . . .’ Only that man will be troubled by such regrets who believes that there is no salvation outside his church. [. . .] But some of my fellowmen hold views and convictions which, although I may consider them wrong, do belong to a higher order of theoretical

36

jesus in judaism

principles. They are not harmful, because they have little or no relationship to the practical concerns of daily life. Yet they frequently constitute the foundation on which people have erected their systems of morality and social order and are therefore of great importance to them. To question such notions publicly merely because we consider them biased or erroneous would be like removing the foundation stones of a building in order to examine the soundness of its structure. Any person who is interested more in man’s welfare than in his own fame will refrain from public statements in such matters. He will proceed with the utmost care in order not to destroy someone else’s ethical principles, even though he may suspect they are faulty, until the other person is prepared to accept the truth in their stead. Therefore, I find it possible to remain silent despite the fact that I may encounter racial prejudices and religious errors among my fellow citizens, as long as their views do not subvert natural religion or undermine natural law. In fact, these views may incidentally even produce some good. I admit that our actions do not deserve to be called moral if they are grounded in error and that the cause of the good will be advanced more effectively and lastingly by truth, where truth is known, than by prejudice and error. Nevertheless, as long as truth is not yet known or not yet sufficiently accepted to have the same impact upon the masses that their old prejudices did, their preconceived notions must be considered inviolate by any friend of true virtue. We must show this kind of discretion especially where a people, though harbouring seemingly erroneous beliefs, has otherwise distinguished itself intellectually and morally and has produced a number of great personalities who rank high among the benefactors of mankind. We should, with respectful silence, overlook the errors of so noble a member of the human family even if we think it is all too human on occasion. Is there really anyone among us who is entitled to ignore the excellent qualities of such a people and to criticize it for a single weakness he may have discovered?

jesus in judaism

37

These are the reasons, rooted in my religious and philosophical convictions, for which I carefully avoid religious controversy. If you add to them the circumstances of my life among my fellowmen, I am sure you will find my position justified. I am a member of an oppressed people which must appeal to the benevolence of the government for protection and shelter— which are not always granted, and never without limitations. Content to be tolerated and protected, my fellow Jews willingly forgo liberties granted to every other human being. Barred even from temporary residence in many countries, they consider it no small favor when a nation admits them under tolerable conditions. As you know, your circumcised friend may not even visit you in Zurich, because of the laws of your own home town. Thus, my coreligionists owe much grateful appreciation to any government that shows them humanitarian consideration and permits them, without interference, to worship the Almighty in the ways of their fathers. They enjoy a fair amount of freedom in the country in which I live. Should they therefore attack their protectors on an issue to which men of virtue are particularly sensitive? Or would it not be more fitting if they abstained from religious disputes with the dominant creed? [. . .] I have given you the reasons for which I fervently wish to have nothing to do with religious disputes. But I have also intimated to you that I could easily present strong arguments in refutation of M. Bonnet’s thesis. If you insist, I shall have to overcome my reservations and publish my arguments against M. Bonnet’s apologia in the form of a ‘Counterinquiry.’ I hope you will spare me this disagreeable task and permit me to return to the peaceful stance which is so much more natural to me. I am sure you will respect my preference if you put yourself in my place and look at the situation from my point of view, not yours. I should not like to be tempted to go beyond the limits that I have set for myself after mature consideration. I am, with sincerest respect, Your obedient servant, M. M. Berlin, December 12, 1769.

38

jesus in judaism

8 jesus: an unoriginal pharisee Rabbi, scholar, and leading Jewish reform figure of nineteenth-century Germany, Abraham Geiger (1810–74) challenged anti-Judaism in New Testament research. ‘Christian’ scholars frequently defined Jesus in contrast to a depraved Jewish context; Geiger argued that once rabbinic literature was used to understand the Gospels, Jesus could be seen in affinity with Pharisees. This insight, viewed with hostility in Geiger’s day, is now accepted by many contemporary New Testament scholars as vital for understanding the historical Jesus.

Abraham Geiger, Judaism and its History38 It was then that a man appeared in Galilee who still more confidently gave shape to the commotion of the times. While others before him had merely advised preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven, promising that it would come—that a son of man wrapt in the clouds of heaven would appear—that a complete transformation would take place, while others acted only as prophets and proclaimers of that belief, bearing in their imagination that hope without giving it shape, he had the courage and confidence to state, ‘The time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of Heaven is come, and the son of man wrapt in the clouds of heaven’—at first he did not distinctly pronounce it, but he had the belief within him and let it shine through everywhere—‘that son of man, I am.’ It was not his idea to carry on a fight against the kingdom of this world; the words attributed to him by a later narrator, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ may have fully corresponded to that belief. It means, ‘My kingdom does not begin in the present heathen world; this heathen world will soon have been broken up and passed away; the future world will then come 38 Abraham Geiger, Judaism and its History in Two Parts, trans. Charles Newburgh (New York: Bloch, 1911), 130–6.

jesus in judaism

39

in, actually and tangibly, and then my kingdom will begin.’ He was fully convinced of that, and in all later times of deep oppression we meet with men who presented themselves with the same self-assurance as Messiahs. Should we wonder that at such a time of general tension and suspense, a bold and glowing enthusiasm for Judaism and its reign at large should completely possess and carry an over-anxious man to the point of faith in himself, of filling him with the courage to announce those hopes with the fullest assurance? It was such a belief that animated the first author of Christianity. He was a Jew, a Pharisean Jew with Galilean coloring—a man who joined in the hopes of his time and who believed that those hopes were fulfilled in him. He did not utter a new thought, nor did he break down the barriers of nationality. When a foreign woman came to him with request to heal her, he said, ‘It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.’ He did not abolish any part of Judaism; he was a Pharisee who walked in the way of Hillel, did not set the most decided value upon every single external form, yet proclaimed ‘that not the least tittle should be taken from the Law;’ ‘The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, and whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.’ It is true that, if the accounts are faithful, he allowed himself to be carried away to trifling depreciatory expressions concerning one subject or another, when he was opposed; but he never faltered in his original convictions. The replies which we learn from the most faithful reporter—a completely accurate report can hardly be expected, but the one styled ‘according to Mark’ is the most reliable—the objections and tests presented to him rest all on the basis which he occupied. The Sadducees took him to task concerning the resurrection which he distinctly emphasized with his assertion of the entrance of the future world, of the kingdom of Heaven. With the scoffing question, ‘Moses wrote unto us, if a man’s brother die and leave his wife behind him and leave no children, that his brother take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother;—now there were seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and dying, left no seed; and the second took her and died, neither left he any seed; and the third likewise, and the seven had her and left no seed; last of all, the woman died also;—in the resurrection therefore, when

40

jesus in judaism

they shall rise, whose wife shall she be?’—with that scoffing question, cunningly calculated to meet his assertion of the speedy appearance of the future world and the resurrection, the Sadducees met him. He replied, ‘The future world will appear, but there will be no more marrying nor giving in marriage.’ When a Pharisee heard that and found that the answer was a good one, he asked, ‘Which is the first commandment of all?’ and Jesus replied, ‘The first of all commandments is, Hear O Israel, God is our Lord, God is One (this beginning of his answer is found only in Mark, the other Evangelists—a very significant pointer— have omitted it) and thou shalt love God thy Lord with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ There was nothing new in that. And the Pharisee replied, ‘Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the soul and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.’ The Pharisee raised no objections, for what he had heard corresponded fully to his own conviction. That reply of the Pharisee is also to be found only in Mark; the other later Gospels shape it to suit their purposes. If the author of Christianity is represented as having taught the specific doctrine: ‘God is a God of love and not of anger and vengeance,’ it is likewise a later addition which is not found in the book of the more faithful narrator. What could be added to the saying of Hillel: ‘The Merciful inclineth the scale toward mercy?’ If Jesus’ utterances concerning the purely moral relations of men to each other are indeed faithfully reported, they either present nothing new, or whatever is new, bears such a diseased character as belongs to a diseased age. ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself ’ was a saying to which the Pharisee gave his approval, ‘Well, Master, thou hast said the truth!’ But in the varying reports, Jesus is said also to have praised poverty and contempt of the world and everything that proceeds from this world; to have repudiated cheerful participation in the affairs of this world. Such doctrines are not taught

jesus in judaism

41

by Phariseeism; on the contrary, it announces this principle: ‘The world is an ante-chamber for the future one; prepare thyself well in the antechamber, that thou mayest appear properly in the reception room. One hour in the future world is sweeter than all enjoyments in this one, but also, one hour in this world spent in the study of the Law and the performance of good deeds, is better than all the pleasures in the future world.’ If such cheerful and energetic participation in the affairs of this world, undertaken in honor and honesty, is to be shunned and everything earthly to be despised, it must be a morbid tendency, unless it can be explained by the belief that the future world, organized quite differently, was near at hand. If an alleged morality is to suppress every sense of justice, if the doctrine is to prevail: ‘Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also’ (in other words, Do not only suffer, but lose all sense of honor) and also: ‘If anyone take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,’ if that be the new doctrine proclaimed by Jesus (Jesus is the Greek pronunciation of the name Joshua; Joshua, the son of Nun, is called Jesus by the Greek translators, and so is Jesus Sirach), then it is either the product of a diseased period which perverts all order and destroys all notions of right, or it proceeds from the transfer of an entirely different future world into the present. Thus the movement started at first, and no new departure in religion is exhibited, although the impulse to one was contained in it. It was the belief in the fulfilment of the Messianic hopes entertained by Pharisean Judaism of that period. Whatever else is related concerning the author of Christianity belongs to that class of myths or legends which we have alluded to in a former place. Whenever legend fails to make the outlines of a person sharper and more distinct, whenever it fails to draw its matter from the distinctive character and essence of the man and thereby throws more light upon him; but when, on the contrary, it adorns him so much that he becomes unrecognizable, far exalted beyond all individual distinctness and volatilizes him into a mere abstraction, then the legend is a formation of the imagination which in exuberant growth shapes things out of the dim fancies of the period and wraps them in an ever deepening darkness.

42

jesus in judaism

That the first author of Christianity found believing adherents was the natural effect of the conditions of his time. At first, the educated and intelligent were not attracted by him. In Galilee, a small band who stood low and were despised by the bulk of the population—many of them mercenaries of the government, publicans that gathered the taxes for the hated empire, upon whom the whole weight of contempt rested, who were shunned on all sides; they, the low and vulgar, willingly listened to his announcement. ‘They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick,’ he said. And those sick ones were gathered around him. Soon he did not confine his addresses to those exiles from the population; his fame spread, and he ventured to move to the metropolis of Judea. But soon, charges were made against him. Here and there he also met approval, he was hailed with, ‘Hosanna, son of David.’ For such he must needs be, if he meant to be a Messiah. He was brought before a court, and we are not told that a large number of followers were with him, so that they would have been afraid to pronounce judgement against him. The judgement had to be executed by the procurator. Pilate asked him, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ and he replied, ‘Thou sayest it.’ He did not deny it. According to a later account, he added, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’—of course not, but of the future which will soon come and appear. ‘Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God’— ‘there be many here who shall see how the end of things shall be fulfilled.’ To Pilate, the whole matter seemed strange, unintelligible doings, not important enough to demand his rigorous interference, but the people to whom he left it to pray for his release, according to an ancient custom, giving them the right to obtain pardon for a criminal before a festival, repudiated all fellowship with him and refused their intercession. Thus a judgement was pronounced which could not have been different in a time of such commotion, which threatened to be made still more miserable by the announcement of lying hopes—for such they were to those who did not believe in him—and by the implied attempt at revolution. Imbued with the religious convictions of his time, he raised himself into a position which was not accorded to him, represented the

jesus in judaism

43

hope of the future as fulfilled and embodied in himself, raised expectations of a complete change in all political conditions, and ignored the whole civil arrangement of the time, even if he did not start a revolt. Under such circumstances, the verdict could not have been otherwise; he was crucified, as was Judah of Gaulonitis and his followers at a previous time. The adherents of Jesus at first were stunned by that issue, but not shaken in their belief. Of course this world moves on in its course, he also dies; this world must hate him, it had power yet for a short time, but the Heavenly Kingdom comes, then he rises again, the resurrection will start with him and then become general. That faith prevailed even during his lifetime, it could not be shaken by his death; on the contrary, it was but natural that it would appear more vividly in the foreground. He must rise again—he will surely rise again—and soon the opinion was arrived at: He is risen—he is gone to heaven and will appear again, wrapt in the clouds of heaven at the general resurrection with the entrance of the Heavenly Kingdom. That course of development is perfectly natural, there is nothing strange about it; and his disciples see him, waiting day by day for his glorious return. That is the first disposition to the origin of Christianity, the germ out of which the mighty tree comes forth, to which the other factors become joined, to gradually transform the sect, feeble in its incipiency, into a ruling power.

9 jesus: forerunner of the reform jew In the United States there had been calls for conversion of Jews by large interdenominational Christian groups. Yet, as in Germany, reform-minded Jews hoped they could build bridges of appreciation between Judaism and Christianity. To this end, Jesus was viewed as a harbinger of an inspired spirituality. The views of Kauffman Kohler (1843–1926), a leading figure in the late nineteenth-century Jewish reform movement, are representative of the reform stance at this time.

44

jesus in judaism Kaufmann Kohler, Jesus of Nazareth39

‘Did the Jews reject Christ?’ The very question implies a misconstruction of facts. Only Jews could confer upon the Galilean leader the title of Messiah or Christ. Did they expect ‘salvation from their enemies’ (Luke i. 71; xxii. 36, 49) by the sword? Nearly all of the followers of Jesus deserted his cause when their lives were imperilled and heavenly interference failed to come. Peter himself denied his master in the critical hour. What blame can be laid upon the rest of the Jews if they failed to believe in the re-risen Christ, whom but the few beheld in strange visions and amid ecstatic states of mind? The Jews still wait and pray, as did Jesus while walking on earth, for the kingdom of heaven to come and unite the children of God. And were Jesus, that zealous worker for the millennium of peace, on earth to-day, he would in all likelihood join his brethren in the flesh in prayer for the great Universal Church of the future, rather than accept the Church that bears his name as the best and highest fruitage of the divine spirit of man, as the final outcome of the great contest of all religions and races, for truth and justice, love and peace. Nay, more. True to the principle of the Hasidim or ‘pious ones,’ the Essenes, he would ‘rather be among the persecuted than among the persecutors, among the hated than among the haters, among the scoffed at than among the scoffers.’ ‘Did the Jews reject Christ?’ Most assuredly the weird and visionary figure of the dead and re-risen Christ, the crucified Messiah lifted up to the clouds there to become a partaker of God’s nature, a metaphysical or mythological principle of the cosmos, the Jews did reject. They would not, let it cost what it may, surrender the doctrine of the unity and spirituality of God. Jesus the living man, the teacher and practiser of the tenderest love for God and man, the paragon of piety, humility, and self-surrender, whose very failings were born of overflowing goodness and sympathy with the afflicted, the Jews had no cause to reject. He was one of the best and truest sons of the Synagogue. Did he not say, ‘I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it’? What reason had the Jews for hating and 39 Kaufmann Kohler, Jesus of Nazareth from a Jewish Point of View (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1899), 2–3 (pamphlet).

jesus in judaism

45

persecuting him who had nothing of the rigidity of the schoolman, none of the pride of the philosopher and recluse, nor even the implacable zeal of the ancient prophet to excite the popular wrath; who came only to weep with the sorrowing, to lift up the downtrodden, to save and to heal? He was a man of the people; why should the people have raised the cry, ‘Crucify him!’ against him whose only object in life was to bring home the message of God’s love to the humblest of his children? Nor, in fact, was he the only one among the popular preachers of the time who in unsparing language and scathing satire exposed and castigated the abuses of the ruling priesthood, the worldly Sadducees, as well as the hypocrisy and false piety of some of the Pharisean doctors of the Law. His whole manner of teaching, the so-called Lord’s Prayer, the Golden Rule, the code of ethics expounded for the elect ones in the Sermon on the Mount, no less than his miraculous cures, show him to have been one of the Essenes, a popular saint. But he was more than an ordinary teacher and healer of men. He went to the very core of religion and laid bare the depths of the human soul. As a veritable prophet, as a true religious genius, he disclaimed allegiance to any of the Pharisean schools and asked for no authority but that of the living voice within, while passing judgement on the Law, in order to raise life to a higher standard. He was a bold religious and social reformer, eager to regenerate Judaism. [. . .] ‘Did the Jews reject Christ?’ Jesus anticipated a reign of perfect love, but centuries of hatred came. Could the Jews, victims of Christian intolerance, look with calmness and admiration upon Jesus, in whose name all the atrocities were perpetrated? Still, the leading thinkers of Judaism willingly recognized that the founder of the Christian Church, as well as that of Islamism, was sent by Divine Providence to prepare the pagan world for the Messianic kingdom of truth and righteousness. The Jew of to-day beholds in Jesus one of the highest types of humanity, an inspiring ideal of matchless beauty. While he lacks the element of stern justice expressed so forcibly in the Law and in the Old Testament characters, the firmness of self-assertion so necessary to the full development of manhood, all those social qualities which build up the home

46

jesus in judaism

and society, industry and worldly progress, he is the unique exponent of the principle of redeeming love. His name as helper of the poor, as sympathizing friend of the fallen, as brother of every fellow-sufferer, as lover of man and the redeemer of woman, has become the inspiration, the symbol, and the watchword for the world’s greatest achievements in the field of benevolence.

10 the value of the gospels for a jew The writings of British liberal Jewish thinker and spiritual leader Claude Montefiore (1858–1938) represent, perhaps, the furthest a Jew might travel in a positive evaluation of Jesus. Montefiore’s two-volume commentary on the synoptic Gospels is likely the most thorough treatment on Jesus’ teaching by a Jewish scholar. Still, Montefiore, insisted that even an ‘enlightened’ Jewish reader could only travel so far with Jesus.

Claude Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels40 For Jews—so long as they are and remain Jews (i.e. members of the Jewish faith)—the great interest or value of the Synoptic Gospels lies in the teaching ascribed to Jesus rather than the personality or the life. We persist in separating the one from the other, whereas to Christians they form a unity, a whole. From his childhood upwards the Jew’s highest conceptions of goodness and God have never been associated with Jesus. These conceptions may have been due to an idealization of O.T. teaching, or of Rabbinic teaching, or of both. Some might argue (whether wrongly or rightly) that they are partly due to an unconscious absorption and adoption of Christian and Gospel teaching. But, consciously and deliberately, his highest conceptions of goodness and God have been ever presented 40 Claude G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1927 [1909]), xxiv–xxvi, cxxxvi–cxxxviii, and cxliii.

jesus in judaism

47

to the Jew, whether the orthodox or the liberal Jew, as wholly and characteristically Jewish. Moreover, he has had it ingrained into him that there need and can be nothing—no mediator, no divine man—between himself and God. The position of Jesus, the place he fills, even in Unitarian Christianity, is impossible for the Jew, for two reasons which, at first sight, may seem somewhat irreconcilable with each other. God is too ‘far’; God is too ‘near.’ To make Jesus as ‘divine’ as Christians make him seems to the Jew presumptuous and out of the question. Man is man, he says; God is God. The best man is infinitely removed from the perfect goodness of God, and the fullness of the divine righteousness can be revealed in no man’s life. On the other hand, God is so near that there is no room, as well as no need, for a tertium quid between man and God. The Jew, so long as he is and remains a Jew, simply cannot believe that any man was ever endowed with the fullness of every conceivable moral excellence—that any man was ever wholly sinless, and conscious of his sinlessness, the more perfect because of this consciousness, the acme and cream of goodness and love. The Jew simply cannot believe in such a being, on the one hand, and he has no room or place for him, upon the other. Jesus has not introduced the Jews to God in their childhood; they do not require him in order to get to God in their manhood. But the teaching of Jesus abides. The unprejudiced Jew, even remaining a Jew, can find bits of his teaching which go beyond O.T. teaching, or which, at any rate, bring out occasional utterances and teachings of the O.T. more clearly and fully. Jesus links on to the Prophets, and sometimes seems to go beyond them. Let us imagine that the writings of a new Hebrew prophet a contemporary, say, of Isaiah or Jeremiah, were brought to light. The Jewish position would not be changed, but Jews would be delighted to obtain some fresh teachings and sayings of beauty and value, and even of originality, to add to those which they already possess. So it is, or so it can be, as regards Jesus and the Gospel. But the Christian, even the Unitarian Christian, has received his highest conceptions of God and righteousness through Jesus. To the Christian, alike in his teaching and in his personality and life, Jesus reveals God. To the Christian, even to the Unitarian Christian, the N.T. is the book which tells him most truly

48

jesus in judaism

and fully about goodness and God, and within the N.T. it is the Gospels which tell him best of all. He fits in Jesus with his purest thoughts of God; Jesus brings God near to him. Whereas, to the Jews, Jesus—or any man— would be in their way in their relations with, and in their approaches to, God, to the Christian, even to the Unitarian Christian, Jesus smooths the way to God and shortens it. He is the way. Without Jesus—if that fatality could for a moment be conceived—God, even to the Unitarian Christian, would be more distant and more dim; without Jesus, God, to the Jew, would be no less near and no less bright. [. . .] It might be asked: What is, or what should be, the Jewish interest in the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels, or in the life and character of Jesus? To these questions, too, the commentary will supply some incidental answers. The origin of a great religion, which has filled so immense a place in the history of the world, must surely be of interest to every cultivated person. To know something about a Book and a Person that have been of such huge and amazing importance, and that are of such great importance still, is a right and reasonable thing—a desirable part of knowledge. But the European Jew lives in a Christian environment, a Christian civilization. He has absorbed much of this civilization himself; he breathes it in; it is part of him. He reads the history of the country of which he is a citizen. This civilization and this history are all unintelligible without Christianity. They rest upon the New Testament and the Gospels. The book which has had the greatest influence upon European history and European civilization is the Bible. The Jew does not mind saying and repeating this. But he too often forgets that the Bible which has had this influence is not merely the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament and the New Testament combined. And of the two, it is the New Testament which has undoubtedly had the greater influence and has been of the greater importance. It is the Gospels and the life of Christ which have most markedly determined European history and most influenced for good or evil many millions of lives. If it is an improper ignorance not to have read some portions of Shakespeare or Milton, it is, I am inclined to think, a much more improper ignorance not to have read the Gospels.

jesus in judaism

49

The curiosity of the Jew as regards these writings might also be legitimately aroused when he reflects that the Gospel hero was a Jew, and that the books of the New Testament were mainly written by Jews. Jewish ignorance of the Gospels is indeed not unnatural. It has many causes which I will not here enumerate. It needs, even today perhaps, some detachment of mind to say: ‘I will read and study the book upon which is based the religion which has inflicted upon my ancestors such incalculable cruelty and wrong. I will read and study the book from which comes the religion which vaunts itself to be a religion of love, but which, so far as my race is concerned, has usually been a religion of hate. I will read and study the book from which proceeds a monotheism less pure and lofty than my own, a monotheism, if it can be called such, which has deified a man and invented the Trinity. I will read and study the book from which evolved the religion which pretends to have superseded and to be superior to my own—to be purer and better than my religion, of which the cardinal doctrines are contained in such words as: Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God the Lord is One. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. What does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?’ Yet this detachment of mind must now be demanded. Judaism, and therefore the Jews or some Jews, must answer the questions, and answer them better and more impartially than they have yet been faced and answered: What are we to think about the Gospels and the Gospels’ hero? I cannot believe that the best and final answers will be merely negative. They will not be framed upon the familiar lines that what is new in the Gospels is not true, and what is true is not new. Does Judaism really expect that in the future—even the distant future—the Old Testament will be ‘accepted’ and the New Testament ‘rejected’? Does Judaism really expect that the Bible, for the Europe of the ‘Messianic’ age, will be a smaller Bible than the European Bible today? Will it include the Old Testament only? But if such an idea is inconceivable, if the Bible for Europe has been constituted once and for all—whatever men may think of its theologies— should not Judaism take up some more reasoned and studied attitude

50

jesus in judaism

towards so permanent a part of the religious literature and religious consciousness of the Western world? One view which will be incidentally maintained and supported in this commentary is that Judaism has something to gain and absorb from the New Testament, and above all in the Gospels, which supplement and carry forward some essential teachings in the Old Testament. It seems true to say that in respect of moral and religious value we can dispense neither with the Old Testament nor with the New Testament. I will not attempt to sum up here the special excellences and values of either. So far as the Gospels are concerned, these excellences will be alluded to in the commentary. But over and above the excellences in detail, there is the spirit or impression of the whole. So too with the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. The strong, virile, healthy tone of the Old Testament religious teaching is sometimes contrasted with a certain sentimentality and introspectiveness in the New. Its vigorous social and ‘collective’ morality—its insistence upon justice and righteousness in society and the State—are also sometimes contrasted with a certain marked individualism in the New. Contrasts proverbially exaggerate, yet there may be something not wholly false in this contrast as in others. Meanwhile we need both the Old Testament’s imperative demand for a righteous nation, and the New Testament’s insistent emphasis upon the value of the individual soul; we need both the severity of justice and the tenderness of love. As regards the latter pair of apparent opposites they are both present in both Testaments, but in different ways. And these different ways could themselves be made to form one illustration the more for my contention that an Englishman, a German, or a Frenchman, be he Christian or be he Jew, has something to gain, something of moral or religious value to absorb, both from the New Testament and the Old, or, if the collocation be more emphatic, both from the Gospel and the Law. [. . .] Religious and ethical teaching must produce not merely right and excellent actions, but also (and above all) noble characters. I will not emphasize the distinction between the commands, ‘Do this’ and ‘Be this,’ or urge that, upon the whole, the Rabinnic teaching tends to the former type, and the Gospel teaching to the latter. Something too much, perhaps,

jesus in judaism

51

has been made of the difference . . . It is in a country like England, where the Jews have full rights and complete liberty, that the large demands and the heroic stature of the Synoptic teaching would be of advantage for the production of noble and ideal personalities, for the production of people who grandly are, as well as of those who only rightly do.

11 jesus: a prophet Montefiore granted a high place to Jesus within Judaism which few Jews before or since have been willing to give. This reading stands in stark contrast to the views of his contemporary Joseph Klausner (see reading twelve).

Claude Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels41 An essential feature of the prophet is the sense of commission and vocation. He is called by God to deliver a message, and thus stands towards God in a certain special relation. What he speaks he speaks in God’s name, and he believes that it is the divine spirit which impels him to his work and directs his words. Jesus does not preface his speeches with ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ but in the conviction of inspiration, in the assurance that he too was called and chosen by God to do a certain work, he entirely resembles Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. And herein lies his originality. It is hardly possible to say with any certainty how far, in the best O.T. sense of the word, we may suppose that John the Baptist was a prophet. We do not really know enough about his teaching or about his attitude to the Law to say this. But we do, I think, know enough about the great Rabbis of the first century A.D. to say that, however fine and noble their teaching may have been or was, it cannot properly be called prophetic. They were not called prophets, and they could not properly have been 41

cxx.

Claude G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1927 [1909]),

52

jesus in judaism

called so. However much they may have recognized that, at bottom, the Pentateuchal laws of morality were greater than its laws about sacrifice or ‘clean and unclean,’ they could not, they did not, deal with the subject in the same way and spirit as Jesus. Hillel was ever the servant of the Law, and never its Judge. In a sense he was more consistent than Jesus; but for that very reason he was less prophetic. Sabbath conflicts, such as happened to Jesus, could not have happened to him. That is why, or that is one ‘why,’ the production of parallels from the teaching of Hillel with the teaching of Jesus is mostly futile. The spirit is different. The prophetic touch is present in the one case and absent in the other, and it is the prophetic touch which makes the difference. It is true that Jesus was called a prophet mainly because, as we have just seen, he announced with the assurance of conviction, with inspiration and therefore with authority, the imminence of the Judgement and of the Kingdom. In this, too, he resembles the ancient prophets, and he may indeed be said to have combined the parts of Amos and of the Second Isaiah. He announces doom to the unrepentant and the wicked: he comforts the repentant and the seekers; the afflicted and the poor; the humble and the yearning. And in this more primary sense of the word he was, if not so original as in the other, yet also unlike his Rabbinic contemporaries. The combination at least was new: Jesus was teacher, pastor, and prophet in one, and in this combination too lies something of his originality.

12 jesus: destroyer of culture and nation Joseph Klausner (1874–1958) would not have agreed with the preceding reading: Jesus might have been a Jew with some outstanding qualities but to call him a prophet would be to miss the dangerous seed in his teaching which could destroy essential aspects of human community. Klausner, a Zionist and scholar, sensed that the exaggerated Judaism represented by Jesus did not help to sustain Jews in the Second Temple period and was

jesus in judaism

53

largely irrelevant for contemporary Jews concerned with strengthening Judaism in a hostile world.

Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth42 Jesus did not give any new ceremonial law to replace the old (except, perhaps, the brief form of prayer, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven. . .’), and so he taught no new national ways of life in spite of abolishing, or hinting at the abolition of the old ways. By this very fact he raised the nation out of its national confines: for is there not but one moral law for all nations alike? The Prophets, too, found cause for indignation in that the commandments had become a ‘law of men which could be taught,’ and that the external, ceremonial laws, such as sacrifices, were made the first principle, and righteousness, judgment and mercy matters of secondary importance. Yet the Prophets could insist on the observance of the ceremonial laws when they served to fulfil a national-religious need (e.g., the Sabbath in Jeremiah and ‘Second Isaiah,’ and circumcision in Ezekiel). Furthermore, even in their stern reprobation we feel a strong air of nationalist, Jewish history in its close connexion with the great events of universal human history. Hence the Prophets brought it to pass that other nations ‘were joined unto the house of Jacob’ (as actually happened from the time of the Babylonian Exile till the time of Jesus and the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene). The Pharisees and the Tannaim—even the earliest of them—did, indeed, ‘pile up the measure’ of the ceremonial laws, and they so overlaid the original nucleus with a multiplicity of detail and minutiae as unwittingly to obscure the divine purpose of these laws. This habit Jesus rightly opposes: but he fails to see the national aspect of the ceremonial laws. He never actually sets them aside, but he adopts towards them an attitude as to outworn scraps in the new ‘messianic garment,’ and depreciates their religious and moral worth; he 42 Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1925 [1922, in Hebrew]), 371–3, 376, 390, 393, and 396–7.

54

jesus in judaism

does not recognize the connexion which exists between national and human history, and he entirely lacks the wider political perspective shown by the Prophets, whose sweeping vision embraced kingdoms and nations the world over. Hence, all unwittingly, he brought it to pass that part of the ‘house of Jacob’ was swallowed up by those other nations who, at the first, had joined themselves to that part. [. . .] The problem is a very wide one and turns on fundamental principles. All arts and sciences have their root in religion. From religion there developed the early stages of mathematics and indirectly astronomy, music as well as poetry, history in connexion with drama. In course of time the Greeks succeeded in separating art and science from religion and the Romans and European nations followed their example; but with the oriental nations—the Egyptians, the Assyrians and Babylonians, Tyre and Sidon—arts and sciences remained inseparable from religion. In the East the learned were found only among the priests and higher officials (who also came from the priestly caste). The Jews, likewise, did not succeed in creating sciences and arts independent of religion. In one thing only did they differ from other orientals—they wrested religion from the monopoly of priests and placed its development and exegesis in the hands of laymen; thus they made religion more democratic and, in general, more nationalistic. We have seen that the ‘Scribe’ (and his successor the Tanna43) was not only a ‘Rab’ and teacher, but also a lawyer, a judge, a notary (in matters of divorces and contracts), a law-maker, a physician (expert in questions touching the fitness of cattle for food, and menses), a botanist, an agriculturalist (in matters of tithes and mixed crops), and so forth. Similarly Jewish religious literature touches on such topics as algebra, surveying, medicine and astronomy (e.g., in the Book of Enoch), zoology and botany, law and politics, history and geography, (e.g., in the Book of Jubilees). These did not approach the status of ‘science’ in the Greek or in the modern sense, but they served as a substitute. They served to widen the 43 [Editor’s note:] Tanna (s.), Tannaim (pl.): the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishna (approximately 70–200 ce).

jesus in judaism

55

horizon, increase the interests in life and enlarge material and spiritual culture. They preserved the national life from concentrating on a confined circle of ethico-religious ideas, and gave it a wider, more vital and more universal scope. As to the excessive meticulousness, reaching to such an extremity of far-fetched definition, hair-splitting, sophistry and casuistry, usually alleged against the Tannaim—this lay in the nature of the case: in the wish to embrace the whole of life in all its incidental forms (casûs), the Jewish ‘sages’ were forced to concern themselves even with abnormal and unseemly cases. For this Jesus, sometimes rightly, found fault with them; but they were right in their fundamental principle, namely, in their desire to bring religion and life together into a higher synthesis, to make religion life, and sanctify life with the sanctity of religion. This does not fit in with the needs of the present time, a time of narrow specialization in the sciences, when politics and culture are kept apart from religion. But in those early days, and in that Eastern world saturated with simple and all-embracing faith, this association of science and art with religion was a great boon to the nation: religion escaped the danger of exclusiveness and one-sidedness, and national life, the danger of stagnation and dryness. If it be a fact that Christianity has endured throughout nineteen hundred and twenty years and attracted thousands of millions of believers, it is equally a fact that Talmudic Judaism endures, alive and active, capable of rising superior to the most difficult conditions that human imagination can conceive, and that it possesses the ability of taking a lead in every new movement, both itself creating new things and also absorbing and digesting the best and newest things of others’ creation—and this, too, throughout a period of some eighteen hundred and fifty years. What did Jesus do? Had he come and said: Instead of religion alone, I give you here science and art as national possessions independent of religion; instead of scripture commentaries—learning and poetry, likewise independent of religion; instead of ceremonial laws—grown so oppressive as to crush the warmer religious feelings—a practical and theoretical secular culture,

56

jesus in judaism

national and humanistic. Had Jesus come with such a Gospel his name would have endured as a blessing among his nation. But he did not come and enlarge his nation’s knowledge, and art, and culture, but to abolish even such culture as it possessed, bound up with religion, a culture which the Scribes and Pharisees (unlike the Prophets who, though they ignored it in their wider political purview, did not annul it) seized upon and held tightly, as though it were the single anchor of safety left to the nation—a nation not minded to be only a religious community, but a real nation, possessed of a land, a state and authority in every sense. [. . .] The Judaism of that time, however, had no other aim than to save the tiny nation, the guardian of great ideals, from sinking into the broad sea of heathen culture and enable it, slowly and gradually, to realize the moral teaching of the Prophets in civil life and in the present world of the Jewish state and nation. Hence the nation as a whole could only see in such public ideals as those of Jesus, an abnormal and even dangerous phantasy; the majority, who followed the Pharisees and Scribes (Tannaim), the leaders of the popular party in the nation, could on no account accept Jesus’ teaching. This teaching Jesus had imbibed from the breast of Prophetic and, and to a certain extent, Pharisaic Judaism; yet it became, on one hand, the negation of everything that had vitalized Judaism; and, on the other hand, it brought Judaism to such an extreme that it became, in a sense, nonJudaism. Hence the strange sight:—Judaism brought forth Christianity in its first form (the teaching of Jesus), but it thrust aside its daughter when it saw that she would slay the mother with a deadly kiss. [. . .] Judaism is not only religion and it is not only ethics: it is the sum-total of all the needs of the nation, placed on a religious basis. It is a national worldoutlook with an ethico-religious basis. Thus like life itself, Judaism has its heights and its depths, and this is its glory. Judaism is a national life, a life which the national religion and human ethical principles (the ultimate object of every religion) embrace without engulfing. Jesus came and thrust aside all the requirements of the national life; it was not that he set them apart and relegated them to their

jesus in judaism

57

separate sphere in the life of the nation: he ignored them completely; in their stead he set up nothing but an ethico-religious system bound up with his conception of the Godhead. In the self-same moment he both annulled Judaism as the life-force of the Jewish nation, and also the nation itself as a nation. For a religion which possesses only a certain conception of God and a morality acceptable to all mankind, does not belong to any special nation, and, consciously or unconsciously, breaks down the barriers of nationality. This inevitably brought it to pass that his people, Israel, rejected him. In its deeper consciousness the nation felt that then, more than at any other time, they must not be swallowed up in the great cauldron of nations in the Roman Empire, which were decaying for lack of God and of social morality. [. . .] Everything which Jesus ever uttered of this nature is Jewish ethical teaching, too; but his overemphasis was not Judaism, and, in fact, brought about non-Judaism. When these extreme ethical standards are severed from the facts of daily life and taught as religious rules, while, at the same time, everyday life is conducted along completely different lines, defined in the prevailing legal codes (which are not concerned with religion) or in accordance with improved scientific knowledge (which again is not concerned with religion)—it is inevitable that such ethical standards can make their appeal only to priests and recluses and the more spiritually minded among individuals, whose only interest is religion; while the rest of mankind all pursue a manner of life that is wholly secular or even pagan. Such has been the case with Christianity from the time of Constantine till the present day: the religion has stood for what is highest ethically and ideally, while the political and social life has remained at the other extreme of barbarity and paganism. The Spanish Inquisition was not thought to be incompatible with Christianity. The Inquisition was concerned with everyday life, it was political religiousness, whereas Christianity was pure religion and ethics lifted above the calls of everyday life. This, however, can never be the case when, as with Judaism, the national religion embraces every aspect of the national life, when nation and belief are inseparable; then it is impossible to use an extreme ethical standard as a foundation.

58

jesus in judaism

The nation desires freedom: therefore it must fight for it. As ‘possessor of the state’ it must ensure the security of life and property and, therefore, it must resist evil. A national community of to-day cannot endure without civil legislation—therefore the community must legislate. Swearing on oath cannot always be dispensed with. The national community of today cannot exist without private property—therefore there must be private property; the point is, rather, in what manner the rich man makes use of his property. The social system is based on the family, therefore there is no place for teaching ‘celibacy for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’ as the most exalted virtue in those who would fit themselves for the kingdom of heaven. As to freedom of divorce, now, nineteen hundred years after Jesus, ‘enlightened’ Christianity the world over is fighting for it. What room is there in the world for justice if we must extend both cheeks to our assailants and give the thief both coat and cloak? Human civilisation is wholly based on the difference between man and nature, between human society and the brute beast and vegetable world; it is, therefore, neither possible nor seemly for man to become as ‘the lilies of the field’ or ‘the fowls of the air’. But when, in reality, did Christianity ever conduct itself in accordance with these ethical standards of Jesus? In the small fellowship of his disciples community of goods was practised; but even so, the system was adopted only in part and temporarily. The earliest of Jesus’ disciples married; they indulged in litigation, they hated and reviled not only their enemies but all who opposed them. Did Jesus himself abide by his own teaching? Did he love the Pharisees—who were not his enemies but simply his theoretical opponents? Did he not call them ‘Hypocrites,’ ‘Serpents,’ ‘Offspring of vipers?’ and did he not threaten that ‘upon them would come all the innocent blood that was shed in the land?’44 Did he not condemn the ungodly to hell where there would be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth?’ [. . .] The Talmud ideal is Hillel the Elder; he, no less than Jesus, was a moralist of high degree, humble, a peace-maker, and a lover of his fellow men; but he was no fighter nor politician; instead his teaching embraced 44

Matthew 23: 35.

jesus in judaism

59

the whole of the social and national life. Hillel took up his position in the centre of affairs, laboured together with the community (his favourite saying was, ‘Do not keep yourself apart from the community’), took within his purview all the requirements of life from every possible point of view, embodied just such ethical standards as were possible in practice, and thus sanctified and raised the tone of ordinary, every-day life, and made his ethical teaching popular and widespread. He rendered it possible of practice to any man, and not merely to the chosen few who could withdraw from the affairs of everyday life. Jesus surpassed Hillel in his ethical ideals: he changed Hillel’s ‘Golden Rule’ from the negative form (‘What thou thyself hatest do not unto thy neighbour’—in which the Book of Tobit 45 anticipates Hillel) to the positive form (‘What thou wouldest that men should do unto thee, do thou also unto them’—in which the ‘Letter of Aristeas’46 anticipates Jesus), and concerned himself more with ethical teaching than did Hillel; but his teaching has not proved possible in practice. Therefore he left the course of ordinary life untouched—wicked, cruel, pagan; and his exalted ethical ideal was relegated to a book or, at most, became a possession of monastics and recluses who lived far apart from the paths of ordinary life. Beyond this ethical teaching Jesus gave nothing to his nation. He cared not for reforming the world or civilisation: therefore to adopt the teaching of Jesus is to remove oneself from the whole sphere of ordered national and human existence—from law, learning and civics (all three of which were absorbed into the codes of the Tannaim-Pharisees), from life within the State, and from wealth in virtually all its forms. How could Judaism accede to such an ethical ideal?—that Judaism to which the monastic ideal had ever been foreign! 45 Tobit 4: 15; the Rule is also found in Philo, as quoted by Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, VIII 7, 6; and also what is, in the main, a Jewish work, the Didache, I. 2. 46 See P. Wendland, ed., Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretum cum testimoniis (Leipzig, 1900), 207; see E. Kautzsch, ed., Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Tübingen/Freiburg: Mohr, 1900), II 22, n.a. See the Slavonic Enoch LXI 1.

60

jesus in judaism

13 jesus on jewish soil Leo Baeck (1873–1956) fought courageously for the rights of Jewish people in Nazi Germany, refusing many times the opportunity to emigrate as Hitler consolidated his power. Finally he was sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp where he acted as a teacher and comforter to many. Baeck was one of few survivors in the camp at the end of the war; upon release he became an advocate of forgiveness towards those who had imprisoned him. He achieved a unique synthesis of thought when he compared Christianity and Judaism to post-enlightenment romanticism, charging Christianity (along with its deification of Jesus) for having created a passive, sentimental, and romantic religion subject to ethical corruption. However, he viewed the Gospels as outside of this criticism; they reflected a ‘classical’ and ethical approach to religion.

Leo Baeck, ‘The Gospel as a Document of History’47 Again and again, the Gospels resemble a palimpsest: new things have, as it were, been written over the old tidings. But on the whole it is nevertheless possible to get back to the original tradition. If one notes the special characteristics of each of the three authors and, so to say, eliminates them, the procedure and method to be followed after that can be shown quite clearly. All of the following are indicative of later strata: first of all, whatever accords only with the experiences, hopes, wishes, ideas, and the faith and the images of the faith of a later generation; then, events which were clearly begotten in the image either of biblical verses or of the gradually developing dogma and its symbolism; also, whatever is related or spoken with an eye on the Greco-Roman world or the Roman authorities, any obvious attempt to curry favor with them as well

47 Leo Baeck, ‘The Gospel as a Document of History’, Judaism and Christianity, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Atheneum, 1981), 98–102.

jesus in judaism

61

as anything prompted by the desire not to be confounded by them with the Jewish people; moreover, whatever is in the Hellenistic style, modeled after Hellenistic prophets and miracle workers; and finally all that reflects the age of the catastrophe, the age after the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. All this belongs to the history of the faith of the Church, but is not part of the old Gospel. The following, on the other hand, must be part of the old and original tradition: whatever is completely different from the tendencies and purposes of the generations which came after the first generation of disciples; whatever contradicts the tenets which later became part of the faith; whatever is different from, or even opposed to, the intellectual, psychic, and political climate in which these later generations gradually found themselves; whatever, in other words, exemplifies the way of life and the social structure, the climate of thought and feeling, the way of speaking and the style of Jesus’ own environment and time. In all this we are confronted with the words and deeds of Jesus. In this way—but indeed only in this way—we uncover something which is truly a unity, a distinctive whole—something that bears witness to a personality and a life. We are confronted with something that accords fully with the words in which the Peter of the Acts of the Apostles tries to summarize briefly what was the old tradition of the life and death of Jesus. In these words, incidentally, the phrase ‘Holy Spirit’ is still used in its old Jewish meaning, in the sense of ‘spirit of inspiration’ or ‘spirit of prophecy.’ ‘That word ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, about Jesus of Nazareth, namely, how ‘God anointed him with holy spirit’ and with power (Isaiah 61.1), so he went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of Satan; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God ‘raised up on the third day’ (Hosea 6.2) and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead’ (Acts 10.37 ff.). For the disciples, this had been the content of the life and death of their master.

62

jesus in judaism

In the old Gospel which is thus opened up before us, we encounter a man with noble features who lived in the land of the Jews in tense and excited times and helped and labored and suffered and died: a man out of the Jewish people who walked on Jewish paths with Jewish faith and hopes. His spirit was at home in the Holy Scriptures, and his imagination and thought were anchored there; and he proclaimed and taught the word of God because God had given it to him to hear and to preach. We are confronted by a man who won his disciples among his people: men who had been looking for the messiah, the son of David, who had been promised; men who then found him and clung to him and believed in him until he finally began to believe in himself and thus entered into the mission and destiny of his age and indeed into the history of mankind. These disciples he found here, among his people, and they believed in him even after his death, until there was nothing of which they felt more certain than that he had been, according to the words of the prophet, ‘on the third day raised from the dead.’ In this old tradition we behold a man who is Jewish in every feature and trait of his character, manifesting in every particular what is pure and good in Judaism. This man could have developed as he came to be only on the soil of Judaism; and only on this soil, too, could he find his disciples and followers as they were. Here alone, in this Jewish sphere, in this Jewish atmosphere of trust and longing, could this man live his life and meet his death—a Jew among Jews. Jewish history and Jewish reflection may not pass him by nor ignore him. Since he was, no time has been without him; nor has there been a time which was not challenged by the epoch that would consider him its starting point. When this old tradition confronts us in this manner, then the Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure

jesus in judaism

63

air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.

14 no sentimental love David Flusser’s work on Jesus has been praised by many Jewish and Christian scholars. Flusser (1917–2000), formerly Professor of Judaism at Hebrew University, wrote about Jesus at a time when Israel was facing a threat of national security in the 1960s. He was searching for fidelity to Judaism without engaging in violence in such a way as to perpetuate conflict. He found some inspiration in what he viewed as a teaching unique to Jesus: loving one’s enemies.

David Flusser, Jesus48 The germ of revolution—if we may speak thus—in Jesus’ preaching does not emerge from a criticism of the Jewish law, but from other premises altogether. Jesus was not the first to provide these: his attack proceeded from attitudes already established before his time. Revolution broke through at three points: the radical commandment of love, the call for a new morality, the idea of the kingdom of heaven.

48 David Flusser, Jesus, trans. Robert Walls (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 65–7, 69–70, 71–2 and 74. (Originally published in German in 1968: Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1968) ). Those interested in reading more of Flusser are directed to the newly revised edition of this work: David Flusser with R. Steven Notley, The Sage of Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2007). NB some of the annotations draw on this latter work.

64

jesus in judaism

In about the year 175 B.C. a Jewish scribe bearing the Greek name Antigonos of Ssocho used to say: ‘Be not like slaves who serve their master for the sake of reward, but like slaves who serve their master with no eye on any reward; and may the fear of heaven be among you.’49 This saying is characteristic of the change in intellectual and moral atmosphere that had taken place in Judaism since the time of the Old Testament. At the same time, it is the expression of a new and deeper sensitivity within Judaism, which was an important precondition for the preaching of Jesus. The religion of Israel preached the one righteous God: his iconoclastic exclusiveness was linked with his inflexible moral will. The righteousness of the Old Testament seeks concrete expression in a new and just social order. God’s righteousness is also his compassion; he espouses especially the cause of the poor and oppressed, for he desires not men’s physical power and strength, but their fear of him. The Jewish religion is a religion of morality in which the principle of justice is indispensable. That is why the division of men into just and sinners is so important. For the Jew, the concept that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked is the confirmation of God’s steadfast truth. How, otherwise, could the righteousness of God prevail in the world? Man’s destiny, however, seldom corresponds to his moral endeavour; often guilt obviously goes unpunished, and virtue unrewarded. It is thus easy for man to see that something is amiss; but no ethics and no religion has yet succeeded in solving the problem of evil. In the Old Testament, the book of Job is devoted to the topic of the bitter lot of the righteous; and Eastern heathen wisdom literature too knows the cry: ‘They walk on a lucky path those who do not seek a god. Those who devoutly pray to a goddess become poor and weak.’50 It was not this problem that caused the revolution that led to the moral imperative of Jesus. As we have said, the moral-religious maxim according to which the righteous flourish and the evil come to a bad end, is constantly refuted by life. For the Jew of ancient times, however, 49

Mishnah ’Abot 1: 3. J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 439. 50

jesus in judaism

65

the statement was doubtful from another point of view also. Even if the maxim had been confirmed by experience, the question would still have to be asked: Is the simple division of men into righteous and sinners itself appropriate? We know, it is true, that no one is perfectly just or utterly evil, for good and evil struggle within the heart of every man. Also, there arises the question of the limits of the mercy of God and of his love for men. Even if there were no problems about the reward of the just and the punishment of the sinner, would a man be performing a truly moral act if he performed it because he knew that he would be rewarded? As we have said, Antigonos of Ssocho believed this to be the morality of the slave: a man ought to act morally, and at the same time give no thought to the reward that will surely come to him. The black and white morality of the old covenant was clearly inadequate for the new sensitivity of the Jews of classical times. Having now recognized that men are not sharply divided into righteous and sinners, it was practically impossible for one to love the good and hate the wicked. Because it had become difficult to know how far God’s love and mercy extended, many concluded that one ought to show love and mercy towards one’s neighbor, thus imitating God himself. Luke 6: 36 puts this saying into the mouth of Jesus: ‘Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’ This is an old rabbinical saying.51 In those circles where, at that time, the new Jewish sensitivity was especially well developed, love of one’s neighbor was regarded as a precondition of reconciliation with God. ‘Transgressions between a man and his neighbor are not expiated by the Day of Atonement unless the man first makes peace with his neighbor.’52 Thus spoke a rabbi a few years after Jesus. And Jesus said: ‘For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses’ (Mt. 6: 14–15) [. . .]

51

Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishamael on Exodus 15: 2. Mishnah Yoma 8: 9; H. D. Danby, The Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 172. 52

66

jesus in judaism

Both Jesus and Hillel before him saw the Golden Rule as a summary of the Law of Moses. This becomes intelligible when we consider that the biblical saying: ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself ’ (Lev. 19: 18) was esteemed by Jesus and by the Jews in general as a great chief commandment of the law. An old Aramaic translation of this biblical precept runs like this: ‘Love your neighbor, for whatever displeases you, do not do to him!’53 This periphrastic translation turns the phrase ‘as yourself ’ into the negative style of the Golden Rule. The saying: ‘Love your neighbor’ was understood as a positive commandment, and the words ‘as yourself ’ as a negative commandment included in it: you are not to treat your neighbor with hatred, because you would not like him to treat you in that way. Therefore, by means of Jewish parallels we have been able to see how the Golden Rule (Mt. 7: 12) and the commandment to love our neighbor (Mt. 22: 39) are related within Jesus’ teaching. There was yet another explanation of the phrase ‘as yourself ’ in the biblical commandment to love one’s neighbor, so important in those days. In Hebrew the phrase can also mean ‘as though he were yourself.’ The commandment then reads: ‘Love your neighbor for he is like yourself.’ Sirach knew of this interpretation when he demanded that one forgive one’s neighbor his trespasses, for it is a sin to withhold mercy from ‘a man like himself ’ (Sir. 28: 3–5). Rabbi Hanina, who lived approximately one generation after Jesus, explicitly taught that this commandment to love one’s neighbor is: ‘A saying upon which the whole world hangs, a mighty oath from Mount Sinai. If you hate your neighbor whose deeds are wicked like your own, I, the Lord, will punish you as your judge; and if you love your neighbor whose deeds are good like your own, I, the Lord, will be faithful to you and have mercy on you.’54 A man’s relationship to his neighbor ought, therefore, to be determined by the fact that he is one with him both in his good and in his evil characteristics. This is not far from Jesus’ commandment to love; but Jesus went further and broke the last fetters still restricting the ancient Jewish commandment to love one’s neighbor. 53 54

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Leviticus 19: 18. ’Abot de R. Nathan.

jesus in judaism

67

Rabbi Hanina believed that one ought to love the righteous and not to hate the sinner, but Jesus said: ‘I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ (Mt. 5: 44). We shall see, it is true, that in those days the semi-Essene circles had reached similar conclusions from different presuppositions, and that Jesus’ moral teaching was influenced by these circles also; but influences do not explain everything. He who avoided his parental home in Nazareth and became the ‘friend of publicans and sinners’ felt himself sent to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ It was not simply his total picture of life that urged Jesus on to loving devotion to sinners: this inclination was deeply linked with the purpose of his message. Moreover, from his infancy until his death on the cross the preaching of Jesus was, in turn, linked with his total picture of life. The commandment to love one’s enemies is so much his definitive characteristic that his are the only lips from which we hear the commandment in the whole of the New Testament. Elsewhere we hear only of mutual love and blessing one’s persecutors. In those days it was obviously very difficult for people to rise up to the heights of Jesus’ commandments. [. . .] All that has been said explains how the double commandment of love existed in ancient Judaism before, and alongside Jesus.55 The fact that it does not appear in the rabbinical documents that have come down to us is probably a sheer accident; for Mark (12: 28–34) and Luke (10: 25–28) show that on the question of ‘the great commandment’ Jesus and the scribes were in agreement. The saying before us is but one example of many in which the uninitiated reader thinks he finds a specially characteristic teaching of Jesus, and in so doing fails to observe the significance of the really revolutionary sayings. All the same, such sayings as the great commandment fulfill a significant function within the total preaching of Jesus. [. . .] Those who listened to Jesus’ preaching of love might well have been moved by it. Many in those days thought as he did. Nonetheless, in the 55 Book of Jubilees 36: 1–24; Didache 1: 2, Testament of Dan 5: 3; Testament of Issachar 5: 2, 7: 6; Testament of Zebulon 5: 1.

68

jesus in judaism

clear purity of his love they must have detected something very special. Jesus did not accept all that was thought and taught in the Judaism of his time. Although not really a Pharisee himself, he was closest to the Pharisees of the school of Hillel who preached love, but he pointed the way further to unconditional love—even of one’s enemies and of sinners . . . this was no sentimental doctrine.

jesus in judaism

69

JESUS IN JUDAISM Closing Reflection

For nearly two millennia Jews and Christians have lived alongside one another: nevertheless, positive dialogue between these two faiths has been fraught with difficulties. The central obstacle to fruitful dialogue has been the figure of Jesus. In the classic rabbinic texts surveyed in this volume, key Christian claims about Jesus are categorically rejected. According to the Talmud, Jesus was not the long-awaited Messiah; rather, he was a magician who led Israel astray. For the Jewish theologian Nachmanides, Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah since he never had any power. Throughout his life he fled from enemies and in the end was crucified like a common criminal. After his death he did alter the course of history. From the time of his death, the world has been full of violence. These early readings highlight the fact that Jews have consistently denied the Christian claim that Jesus is the Anointed Redeemer of Israel. For the Jewish community, it is obvious that Jesus did not fulfil the messianic expectations: he did not restore the kingdom of David to its former glory, nor did he gather in the dispersed ones of Israel and restore all the laws of the Torah that were in abeyance (such as the sacrificial cult). Further, he did not compel all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah. Again, he did not rebuild the Temple and usher in a new order in the world and nature. In other words, Jesus did not inaugurate a cataclysmic change in history. Universal peace—in which there is neither war nor competition—did not come about on earth. Thus for Jews, Jesus did not fulfil the prophetic messianic hope in a Redeemer who would bring political and spiritual redemption as well as earthly blessings and moral perfection to the human race.

70

jesus in judaism

Added to these objections to Jesus’ messiahship is the Jewish rejection of Christian claims about Jesus’ divine status. The Nizzachon Vetus, for example, stresses the implausibility of Trinitarian doctrine. Referring to Jesus’ cry from the cross (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ [Psalm 22: 1] ), this medieval Jewish text stresses that Jesus himself admits that he is a sinner. How then could he possibly be God? Such an assertion mirrors early sources. From the early rabbinic period, Judaism has categorically rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation. According to rabbinic Judaism, the belief that God was in Christ is heretical: the doctrine that God is both Father and Son was viewed as a dualistic theology. In the third century, for example, when rabbinic sages were in contact with Christians, R. Abahu denounced Christian claims about Jesus in his commentary on Numbers 23: 19 (‘God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent; hath He said, and shall He not do it? Or hath He spoken and shall He not make it good?’). Here R. Abahu interpreted the last part of this verse not as a question but as a statement, and the pronoun in the first part of the verse as referring not to God but to humanity. Thus he said: If a man says to you, ‘I am a god’, he is lying; ‘I am the Son of Man’, he will end up being sorry for it; ‘I am going up to Heaven,’ he will not fulfil what he has said [J. Talmud Taan 2: 2].

In the Middle Ages the doctrine of the Trinity was bitterly denounced as well. Christian exegetes in this period interpreted the Shema (‘Hear O Israel, the Lord, Our God, the Lord is One’ [Deuteronomy 6: 4] ), with its three references to God, as referring to the Trinity. Jewish exegetes maintained that in this prayer there is reference only to one God and not three persons in the Godhead. Throughout the Middle Ages all Jewish thinkers rejected Trinitarianism as incompatible with monotheism. During this period Jewish martyrs gave their lives rather than accept this doctrine. Similarly, modern Jewish thought is equally critical of any attempt to harmonize the belief in God’s unity with the doctrine of a triune God. Contemporary Jewish theologians of all degrees of observance affirm that Judaism is

jesus in judaism

71

fundamentally incompatible with what they perceive as the polytheistic character of Trinitarian belief. Yet despite this theological barrier between Jews and Christians, Jewish thinkers from medieval times to the present day have offered positive assessments of Jesus. Abraham Geiger, for example, regarded Jesus as a Jew whose message was consonant with mainstream Jewish thought. ‘He did not abolish any part of Judaism,’ he claimed. ‘He was a Pharisee who walked in the way of Hillel.’ Going even further, Claude Montefiore, while rejecting supernatural claims about Jesus, stressed that the teaching of Jesus abides. ‘Jesus links on to the Prophets, and sometimes seems to go beyond them.’ In this regard he wrote: He (Jesus) resembles the ancient prophets and he may indeed be said to have combined the parts of Amos and Second Isaiah. He announces doom to the unrepentant and the wicked: he comforts the repentant and the seekers; the afflicted and the poor; the humble and the yearning . . . Jesus was teacher, pastor, and prophet in one, and in this combination too lies something of his originality. (Reading eleven)

In a similar fashion Leo Baeck sought to connect Jesus with the tradition. For Baeck, Jesus was a person with noble features; a man out of the Jewish people who followed the Jewish paths with Jewish faith and hopes: His spirit was at home in the Holy Scriptures, and his imagination and thought were anchored there; and he proclaimed and taught the word of God because God had given it to him to hear and to preach . . . In this old tradition we behold a man who is Jewish in every feature and trait of his character, manifesting in every particular what is pure and good in Judaism. (Reading thirteen)

More recently David Flusser stressed the importance of Jesus’ teaching about loving one’s enemies: Those who listened to Jesus’ preaching of love might well have been moved by it. Many in those days thought as he did. Nonetheless, in the clear purity of his love, they must have detected something very special. Jesus did not accept all that was thought and taught in the Judaism of his time. Although not really a Pharisee himself, he was closest to the Pharisees of the school of Hillel who preached love, but he pointed the

72

jesus in judaism way further to unconditional love—even of one’s enemies and of sinners . . . this was no sentimental doctrine. (Reading fourteen)

From the readings contained in this volume, we can see that there has been a shift away from a negative assessment of Jesus in previous centuries to a more positive affirmation of Jesus’ links to Judaism and the significance of his moral teaching. This change in Jewish consciousness points to the way to a new Jewish vision of Jesus. As in the past, Jews cannot accept the central theological tenets of the Christian faith concerning Jesus. Jews of all degrees of observance deny the claim that Jesus was the long-awaited Redeemer of Israel. In their view, he did not fulfil the messianic expectations: Jesus did not gather in the exiles and restore the law; he did not rebuild the Temple, nor did he bring about a cataclysmic change in human history. Further, through the centuries Jews have rejected the belief that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Yet, despite such a rejection of these cardinal doctrinal elements of the Christian faith, Jews can find much to sympathize in Jesus’ teaching. Like the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus can be seen as the conscience of Israel. Just as the ancient prophets criticized the inhabitants of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms for their iniquity so did Jesus attack the scribes and Pharisees for their lack of righteousness. Jesus’ departure from Jewish law should therefore not be construed as a rejection of Judaism itself, but as a critique of religious corruption and moral stagnation. In his confrontation with the leaders of the nation, Jesus echoed the words of the prophets by denouncing hypocrisy and injustice. The love of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, he contended, made it impossible to establish a proper relationship with God. It was Jesus’ conviction that the leaders had led the people away from true worship. In his ministry, Jesus opposed a life of ritual practice devoid of moral concern. As a prophetic figure, this image of Jesus should be recognizable to all Jews. Like the prophets, he stressed that loving-kindness is at the heart of the Jewish faith. Jesus’ words thus recalled such figures as Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah. Placing himself in the line of the prophetic tradition, Jesus was anxious to call the people back to the true worship of God, and his words

jesus in judaism

73

and actions testify to his dedication to compassion and loving-kindness. For this reason he healed the sick on the Sabbath in violation of Pharisaic law; he conspicuously turned his attention to the lowly, to sinners, to children, and to foreigners. In the case of those who were most sorely in need, Jesus illustrated the love and concern that all human beings are to exhibit. Jesus established fellowship with all those who were at the margin of society; he continually took the side of the weak who were ostracized and condemned by the general public. Salvation, Jesus declared, is determined on the basis of love for one’s neighbour. When he was asked what must be done to attain eternal life, he answered first by quoting the moral commandments (Mk 10: 17–22). Such an orientation echoed the prophetic insistence on righteousness. By removing the emphasis on legalistic and ritualistic dimensions of the Jewish tradition, Jesus illustrated that the love of God must necessarily keep one pointed in the direction of love for other human beings. Jesus thus condemned all malevolent thoughts and actions. In the Sermon on the Mount, he decried hatred and anger. Jesus’ words thus recalled the great prophets of ancient Israel, and like them he utilized graphic images to emphasize the importance of love. In the life and ministry of Jesus then, we can see the bonds that link him to his Jewish past. Like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, as well as the post-exilic prophets who followed them, Jesus rebuked the people for turning away from God. The Hebrew prophets’ experience was of a God so concerned with human social justice that He was compelled to pour out his wrath on Israel for her infidelity to the Torah. The prophets attacked the exploitation of the poor by the rich because God demands not sacrifice but human justice. They condemned the people for turning the worship of God into a mechanical process divorced from the offering of a heart committed to acts of loving-kindness. So, too, Jesus condemned the leaders of the people for their hard-heartedness, hypocrisy, and injustice. This vision of Jesus as a prophet of Israel calling the people back to true worship of God can serve as a pointer for a future Jewish understanding of the Gospels. For nineteen centuries, Jews and Christians have

74

jesus in judaism

regarded one another with suspicion and mistrust. Today, however, there is an opportunity for Jews to reassess Jesus’ role in history. His attack on the scribes and Pharisees can be seen, not as a rejection of the Torah, but as a prophetic renunciation of a corrupt religious establishment. Such a conception of Jesus should enable Jews to set aside previous christological barriers to interfaith dialogue. Instead of rejecting Jesus as a blasphemous heretic, Jewry should now see in Jesus’ life a reflection of the prophetic ideals of Israel. In this fashion the Jesus of the New Testament can be understood as Jesus the Jew, who like the great prophets of Israel, struggled to rescue the nation from its iniquity and draw the nation back to the faith of their ancestors. Here then in the life of Jesus is a link that can draw Jews and Christians together in a mutual quest for the elimination of oppression and injustice in the modern world. Dan Cohn-Sherbok

jesus in judaism

75

questions for discussion * Why has it been dangerous for Jews to offer views on the identity of Jesus? Is it still dangerous to do so? (Readings one and seven) * How might the anti-Judaism that has permeated the west create for Jews both sympathy and antipathy toward the figure of Jesus? (Readings two, three, and seven) * How can the Bible and reason be used to support the claim that Jesus was not divine? (Readings one and four) * How surprised might the first followers of Jesus have been if confronted with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as it was presented centuries later? (Reading four) * Has Christianity helped the spread of Judaism? (Reading six) * Is the claim that Jesus valued the Law and ritual observance in conflict with the claim that Jesus valued ethics over the Law? (Compare reading five to reading nine) * Could the application of Jesus’ lifestyle and teachings, as they are presented in the Gospels, be corrosive to stable family and community life? (Reading twelve) * How might Christians agree and disagree with the view of Jesus as a great prophet? (Readings nine, ten, and eleven) * ‘Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian.’ What might this statement mean to a Jew? What might this statement mean to a Christian? (Readings four, five, six, and thirteen)

76

jesus in judaism

* The Jewish reform movement demonstrated a strong connection between Jesus’ teaching and his Jewish heritage. To what degree, then, might it be said that the teachings of Jesus are original? (Readings eight and fourteen) * Evaluate the claim that the ‘original Gospel’ was more about the quality of faith Jesus possessed than it was about faith in Jesus. (Readings thirteen and fourteen)

jesus in judaism

77

guide for further reading The following list, though not comprehensive, provides readers with many places to pursue questions that have arisen in this chapter. Historical and Contemporary Studies Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study. Alabama and London: The University of Alabama Press and The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1998. Berlin, George L., ed. Defending the Faith: Nineteenth-Century American Jewish Writings on Christianity and Jesus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989. Borowitz, Eugene B. Contemporary Christologies: A Jewish Response. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. Catchpole, David R. The Trial of Jesus: A Study In the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. Chazan, Robert. Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1989. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism. London: HarperCollins, 1992. —— Rabbinic Perspectives on the New Testament. Felinfach: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Cohon, Jeremy. The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval AntiSemitism. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 1982.

78

jesus in judaism

Cook, Michael. ‘Evolving Jewish Views of Jesus’. In Jesus through Jewish Eyes: Rabbis and Scholars Engage an Ancient Brother in a New Conversation, ed. Beatrice Bruteau, 3–24. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Eisenbinder, Susan. ‘Trial By Fire: Burning Jewish Books’. In Lectures on Medieval Judaism at Trinity University: Occasional Papers III. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 2000. Friedlander, Albert H. Leo Baeck: Teacher of Theresienstadt. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1950. Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1998. —— ‘Jewish Views of Jesus’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 149–60. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Horbury, William. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Kahle, Paul E. The Cairo Genizah. 2nd edn. New York: Frederick A. Praegner, 1960. Lasker, Daniel J. Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc. and The Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 1977. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. ‘Jesus in the Talmud’. In Rabbinic Essays, 473–570. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1973. Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. London: SCM, 2001 [1973]. NB. This is Vermes’s ground-breaking study;

jesus in judaism

79

he has followed this work with many other relevant historical studies of Jesus. Jewish Reflections on Jesus Agus, Jacob B., ed. Christianity and Judaism: Selected Accounts. New York: Arno Press, 1973. Ben-Chorin, Schalom. Brother Jesus: The Nazarene through Jewish Eyes, trans. Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart. London: The University of Georgia Press, 2001 (1967). Bruteau, Bernice, ed. Jesus through Jewish Eyes: Rabbis and Scholars Engage an Ancient Brother in a New Conversation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Lapide, Pinchas. Israelis, Jews and Jesus, trans. Peter Heinegg. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. —— The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Minneapolis and London: Augsburg and SPCK, 1983 and 1984. Maccoby, Hyam. Jesus the Pharisee. London: SCM, 2003. Neusner, Jacob. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. London and Ithaca, NY: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2000. This is a revised and expanded version of A Rabbi Talks with Jesus: An Intermillenial, Interfaith Exchange. New York: Doubleday, 1993. —— ‘Why Jesus Has No Meaning to Judaism’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 166–73. Maryknoll, NY: 2005. Reinhartz, Adele. Jesus of Hollywood. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Sandmel, Samuel. We Jews and Jesus. New York and London: Oxford University Press and Victor Gollancz, 1965. Vermes, Geza. The Changing Faces of Jesus. London: Penguin, 2000.

80

jesus in judaism

Interfaith Explorations Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, and Michael A. Signer. Christianity in Jewish Terms. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2000. Kasimow, Harold, and Byron L. Sherwin, eds. John Paul II and Religious Dialogue. New York: Orbis, 2000. —— eds. No Religion is an Island: Abraham Joshua Heschel and Interreligious Dialogue. New York: Orbis, 1991. Küng, Hans, and Pinchas Lapide. Brother or Lord? A Jew and a Christian Talk Together, trans. Edward Quinn. Glasgow: Collins, 1977. Lapide, Pinchas, and Karl Rahner. Encountering Jesus, Encountering Judaism: A Dialogue. New York: Crossroad, 1987. —— and Jürgen Moltmann. Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Le Beau, Bryan F., Leonard J. Greenspoon, and Dennis Hamm, eds. The Historical Jesus through Jewish and Catholic Eyes. London and Harrisburg, Penn.: Continuum and Trinity Press International, 2000. Shermis, Michael, and Arthur E. Zannoni. Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Swidler, Leonard, John Lewis Eron, Gerard Sloyan, and Lester Dean. Bursting the Bonds: A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul. New York: Orbis, 1990. —— Reuven Firestone, and Khalid Duran. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007. Zannoni, Arthur E., ed. Jews and Christians Speak of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

CH A PTER II

jesus in islam: the classic texts

This page intentionally left blank

MUSLIM PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS Key Issues

It is a curious fact of history that whilst Muhammad has been frequently criticized in western and Christian writings, Muslims hold the central figure of Christianity in high esteem. There are complex factors behind this fact and western assessments of Muhammad have grown more positive in recent decades. However, the Muslim view of Jesus remains firmly and uniformly positive: Islam is the only religion other than Christianity that requires its adherents to commit to a position on the identity of Jesus. Yet, the readings of this chapter will show that this fact presents a gulf as well as a bridge between Muslims and Christians. There are three distinct images of Jesus that arose early in the history of Islam. These images each present a key issue that continues to differentiate Muslim approaches to Jesus from other religious views. The first view is foundational for all Muslims: Jesus is a prophet, a human being chosen by God to present both a judgement upon humanity for worshipping idols and a challenge to turn to the one, true God. Jesus is no more than this (he is not divine) and he is no less than this (to reject Jesus as a prophet is sacrilegious). The Qur’an does not present details of Jesus’ teaching; it is enough to understand this prophetic office with its central convictions. However, many distinctive elements of Jesus’ life are shared in the Qur’an. Jesus is born from a miraculous conception, performs many miraculous deeds (by God’s will) and a miraculous event occurs as Jesus faces the cross. He is called the ‘Messiah’, ‘a word from God’, and ‘Spirit of God’. Christians have sometimes seized upon these Qur’anic facts to evangelize Muslims. However, for Muslims the miracles of Jesus and the Qur’anic titles demonstrate the power of God rather than

84

jesus in islam

the divinity of Jesus—the same power behind the message of all prophets. It would be a mistake to view Jesus as necessarily the most important prophet in Islam (see reading thirteen). Whilst he is the subject of 93 passages in the Qur’an, this is less than Moses (502), Abraham (245), and Noah (131). Of course, the central messenger for Muslims is Muhammad, the seal of the prophets. As all Muslim views of Jesus are derived from the Qur’anic witness, the first several readings of this chapter are devoted to key passages from the Qur’an (see readings one to five). In the current debates that wage over the identity of Jesus many Muslims, drawing from the Qur’anic perspective, seek to demonstrate that Muslim views of Jesus are consonant with early Jewish-Christian low Christologies. In other words, the human prophet Jesus has had laid upon him the ‘mask’ of Chalcedon (reading ten). To understand Jesus properly, Muslims maintain, one must view him as a part of a prophetic brotherhood, sharing a universal message about idolatry and the need for submission. Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and therefore provides the most relevant and complete testimony to this message. The second early image is of Jesus as an end-time figure. This perspective arises in the Hadith, collections of sayings of the prophet Muhammad. At the centre of this approach is a question left by the Qur’an in 4: 157. The plain sense of this passage is a denial of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and the affirmation that Jesus was raised into God’s presence. But what exactly happened to Jesus? Where is he now? Muslim traditions responded to these questions with the view that Jesus was awaiting the end of time when he will descend to the earth and fight against the Antichrist, championing the cause of Islam. At this time he will point to the primacy of Muhammad and then die a natural death (see reading six). Western scholars have seen these views as providing a window to issues related to the rapid expansion of Islam in its early period. Unrest and civil war led to widespread expectations of the end of the world. The detailed descriptions of the appearance of Jesus at the end of time would have reassured Muslims that their cause was not in vain and that they would recognize the side of righteousness in a confusing world of sociopolitical currents. In Muslim piety, however, these traditions report

jesus in islam

85

accurately events at the end of the world and strengthen the role of Jesus as a servant of Islam. What happened on the cross? Muslim views of a rescue from physical death followed by a pro-Islamic return contrast strongly with the Christian version of an atoning death followed by a hopeful resurrection—though there are some intriguing parallels between the two accounts. To make matters more complex, Muslim traditions developed theories about a substitute who went to the cross in the place of Jesus (see reading fifteen). However, not all Muslims have put the accent of Jesus’ life on these eschatological views (see reading eighteen). The final distinctive image of Jesus is as an ascetic figure and prophet of the heart (readings seven to twelve and fourteen). Whilst the Qur’an refers to the ‘gospel’ of Jesus, his specific teachings are not detailed. It was in the Sufi movement that Jesus became revered as a spiritual teacher with a distinctive voice. Sufism is not a movement with specific boundaries nor a rigid set of beliefs. Rather, it is a tendency within Islam to explore the dimensions of union with God through a wide variety of approaches including asceticism, poetic outpourings, philosophical speculation, and mystical/ecstatic experiences. Western scholars have sometimes maintained that Sufism had its sources in Neoplatonism, gnostic Christianity, or Buddhism, but this search for sources must not ignore the distinctly Islamic nature of Sufism as an internalization of the word of the Qur’an and the imitation of Muhammad as the perfect man. Early Sufism was largely an ascetic protest against the perceived corruption of state-sponsored religion. In their struggle to champion the submitted life, early Sufis maintained that Muslims must be kept pure from the lure of power and wealth. Many of these Sufis seized upon the sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as well as ascetic sayings then current: submission required sacrifices that set the Muslim apart from worldly compromises (see reading seven). Later Sufism shifted its concern somewhat from asceticism to an examination and celebration of spiritual states. In the speculation and moving poetry that soon emerged among Sufis, Jesus was celebrated as a prophet close to the heart of God who achieved an uncommon degree of annihilation of the self

86

jesus in islam

(see reading eleven). Jesus’ miracles were often embellished and could be presented as metaphors of the inner life (see reading twelve). These rich and diverse presentations of Jesus in Sufi traditions are the largest body of Jesus-texts in any non-Christian tradition. A key issue arises for Muslims with the Sufi picture of Jesus: how universally should the ascetic/esoteric approach be applied? For many Muslim poets and scholars the answer is clear: every Muslim is invited to the path of asceticism and inner realization embodied by Jesus (see reading nine). However, whilst all Muslims revere Jesus, most have reservations about the application of his way of life to society. For Muslims the highest pinnacle of human achievement is, after all, Muhammad. Muhammad is revered in part because he promoted the right blend of justice and mercy. In other words, Muslims need both a path that addresses individual spirituality as well as a path that will address the complex issues of community life, law, justice, etc. Jesus is viewed by many Muslims as having lived out only one side of this equation. As a figure of the heart or individual conscience, Jesus is viewed by some to be a limited figure. In more critical Muslim perspectives the Sermon on the Mount is admired but seen as impractical for human society (see reading seventeen). When it comes to reverence of Jesus as a prophet, Muslims are united (see reading eighteen). Jesus was a messenger of God to his unique era; Christians do a great disservice to his mission when they ignore his prophetic message and instead focus on theories about his divine identity. There are, however, a diversity of Muslim approaches to which elements of Jesus’ teachings apply to Muslims today (reading sixteen). Perhaps the greatest division amongst Muslims has to do with the relevance of ascetic and esoteric beliefs in the context of strengthening an Islamic society. There are sharp points of disagreement between Muslim and Christian views of Jesus, but the readings of this chapter also display strong convergences. Many Muslims therefore wonder: if the central figure of Christianity can be both a bridge and a gulf between the two religions, does the central figure of Islam have to remain only a gulf ? G. A. B.

jesus in islam

87

1 the miraculous conception of jesus Jesus appears in ninety-three passages in the Qur’an. In all of these, Jesus is extolled as a prophet whose words point to the sovereignty of God and the truth of the message transmitted later by Muhammad. The narrative of Jesus begins with a birth unlike all other prophets—except Adam.

The Qur’an56 Q 3: 33–7; 42–51 33

God chose Adam, Noah, Abraham’s family,57 and the family of ‘Imran,58 over all other people, 34in one line of descent—God hears and knows all. 35 ‘Imran’s wife said, ‘Lord, I have dedicated what is growing in my womb entirely to You; so accept this from me. You are the One who hears and knows all,’ 36but when she gave birth, she said, ‘My Lord! I have given birth to a girl’—God knew best what she had given birth to: the male is not like the female—‘I name her Mary and I commend her and her offspring to Your protection from the rejected Satan.’ 37Her Lord graciously accepted her and made her grow in goodness, and entrusted her to the charge of Zechariah. Whenever Zechariah went in to see her in the sanctuary, he found her supplied with provisions. He said, ‘Mary, how is it you have these provisions?’ and she said, ‘They are from God: God provides limitlessly for whoever He will.’ [. . .]

56 All quotations from the Qur’an are from M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, trans., The Qur’an (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 57 This means family in the widest sense of the term. 58 [Editor’s note:] In Muslim tradition the name ‘Imran’ is associated with both Mary’s maternal grandfather and the father of Moses. Thus, to belong to the family of Imran is of special significance.

88

jesus in islam

42

The angels said to Mary: ‘Mary, God has chosen you and made you pure: He has truly chosen you above all women. 43Mary, be devout to your Lord, prostrate yourself in worship, bow down with those who pray.’ 44 This is an account of things beyond your knowledge that We reveal to you [Muhammad]: you were not present among them when they59 cast lots to see which of them should take charge of Mary, you were not present with them when they argued [about her]. 45 The angels said, ‘Mary, God gives you news of a Word from Him,60 whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to God. 46He will speak to people in his infancy61 and in his adulthood. He will be one of the righteous.’ 47She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ [The angel] said, ‘This is how God creates what He will: when He has ordained something, He only says, “Be”, and it is. 48He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, 49He will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God’s permission, it will become a real bird;62 I will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life with God’s permission; I will tell you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses.63 There truly is a sign for you in this, if you are believers. 50 I have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. Be mindful of God, obey me: 51God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him—that is a straight path.” ’

59

The priests. Jesus was given the epithet ‘a Word from God’. One explanation is that this was because it was God’s command that brought him into being, rather than the intervention of a human father (Razi). 61 Cf. 19: 29–30. The word mahd means a place smoothed out for a small child to sleep in. It is not a piece of furniture like a cradle. 62 [Editor’s note:] This miraculous account of Jesus can be found in non-canonical Christian writings. See the ‘Infancy Story of Thomas’ in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and London: Westminster and SCM, 1963 and 1966). 63 Another possible translation is ‘to tell you what you eat and what you store. . . ’. 60

jesus in islam

89

Q 19: 16–34a 16

Mention in the Qur’an the story of Mary. She withdrew from her family to a place to the east 17and secluded herself away; We sent Our Spirit to appear before her in the form of a perfected man. 18She said, ‘I seek the Lord of Mercy’s protection against you: if you have any fear of Him [do not approach]!’ 19but he said, ‘I am but a Messenger from your Lord, [come] to announce to you the gift of a pure son.’ 20She said, ‘How can I have a son when no man has touched me? I have not been unchaste,’ 21 and he said, ‘This is what your Lord said: “It is easy for Me—We shall make him a sign to all people, a blessing from Us.” ’ 22And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place 23and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to [cling to] the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ 24 but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet 25and, if you shake the trunk of a palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, 26so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain64 from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” ’ 27 She went back to her people carrying the child, and they said, ‘Mary! You have done something terrible! 28Sister65 of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!’ 29She pointed at him. They said, ‘How can we converse with an infant?’66 30[But] he said: ‘I am a servant of God. He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet; 31 made me blessed wherever I may be. He commanded me to pray, to give alms as long as I live, 32to cherish my mother. He did not make me domineering or graceless. 33Peace was on me the day I was born, and will be on me the day I die and the day I am raised to life again.’ 34Such was Jesus, son of Mary. 64

Sawm can mean ‘abstinence’ from food or from speech. Either she had a brother called Aaron, or was simply of Aaron’s tribe: in Arabic ‘sister/brother of ’ can mean ‘relation of ’, e.g. ‘brother of Hamdan’ meaning ‘of the tribe of Hamdan’. 66 See note 61 (above). Here again the term mahd refers to any level place rather than the concrete ‘cradle’. 65

90

jesus in islam Q 66: 12

[. . .] She67 guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her from Our spirit. She accepted the truth of her Lord’s words and Scriptures: she was truly devout. Q 3: 59 In God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to him, ‘Be’, and he was.

2 the mission of jesus The Qur’an does not convey the specific teachings of Jesus—this would be taken up by later followers of Islam. Central to the Qur’an’s picture of Jesus is that his teaching conformed to the prophetic model: a human sent by God to present both a judgement upon humanity for worshipping idols and a challenge to turn to the one true God. In the case of Jesus, Muslims believe that his mission was to the people of Israel and that his status as a prophet was confirmed by numerous miracles.

The Qur’an Q 4: 163–70 163

We have sent revelation to you [Prophet] as We did to Noah and the prophets after him, to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon—to David We gave the book [of Psalms]—164to other messengers We have already mentioned to you, and also to some We have not. To Moses God spoke directly. 165They were messengers bearing good news and warning, so that mankind would have no excuse before God, once the messengers had been sent: God is almighty 67

[Editor’s note:] Mary, daughter of ‘Imran.

jesus in islam

91

and all wise. 166But God Himself bears witness to what He has sent down to you—He sent it down with His full knowledge—the angels too bear witness, though God is sufficient witness. 167Those who have disbelieved and barred others from God’s path have gone far astray; 168God will not forgive those who have disbelieved and do evil, nor will He guide them to any path 169 except that of Hell, where they will remain for ever—this is easy for God. 170 The Messenger has come to you [people] with the truth from your Lord, so believe—that is best for you—for even if you disbelieve, all that is in the heavens and the earth still belongs to God, and he is all knowing and all wise. Q 5: 46–7 46

We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed—a guide and lesson for those who take heed of God. 47So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are lawbreakers. Q 5: 110–15 110

Then God will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man; how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how, by My leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird;68 how, by My leave, you healed the blind person and the leper; how, by My leave, you brought the dead back to life; how I restrained the Children of Israel from [harming] you when you brought them clear signs, and those of them who disbelieved said, “This is clearly nothing but sorcery”; 111and how I inspired the disciples to believe in Me and My messengers—they said, “We believe and bear witness that we devote ourselves [to God].” ’69 68 69

[Editor’s note:] See note 51. Cf. 2: 131–3.

92

jesus in islam

112

When the disciples said, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, can your Lord send down a feast to us from heaven?’ he said, ‘Beware of God if you are true believers.’ 113They said, ‘We wish to eat from it; to have our hearts reassured; to know that you have told us the truth; and to be witnesses of it.’ 114Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘Lord, send down to us a feast from heaven so that we can have a festival—the first and last of us—and a sign from You. Provide for us: You are the best provider.’ 115God said, ‘I will send it down to you, but anyone who disbelieves after this will be punished with a punishment that I will not inflict on anyone else in the world.’ Q 9: 28–31 28

Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid you may become poor, [bear in mind that] God will enrich you out of His bounty if He pleases: God is all knowing and wise. 29Fight those of the People of the Book70 who do not [truly]71 believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice,72 until they pay the tax73 and agree 70 [Editor’s note:] ‘People of the Book’ is a title given by the Qur’an to Jews and Christians in recognition of the belief that these groups received a revelation from God. Zoroastrians (see Q 22: 17) have also been thought of by this designation. Some Muslim scholars have argued that Hindus and Buddhists are ‘People of the Book’ but this has not always been accepted; see Abdullah Saeed, The Qur’an: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2007), 157 n. 4. 71 ‘Truly’ is implied, as it is in many other statements in the Qur’an, e.g. 2: 32; 8: 41; and 65: 3. 72 The main meaning of the Arabic dana is ‘he obeyed’. It also means ‘behave’, and ‘follow a way of life or religion’. See E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1988) and al-Fayrūzabādī, al Qāmūs al-Muh.īt. (many editions). 73 Etymologically, jizya means ‘payment in return’, related to jaza’ meaning ‘reward’, i.e. in return for the protection of the Muslim state with all the accruing benefits and exemption from military service, and such taxes on Muslims as zakah. This tax was levied only on ablebodied free men who could afford it, and monks were exempted. The amount was generally low (e.g. one dinar per year).

jesus in islam

93

to submit.74 30The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God,’75 and the Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of God’: they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said. May God confound them! How far astray they have been led! 31They take their rabbis and their monks as lords, as well as Christ, the son of Mary. But they were commanded to serve only one God: there is no god but Him; He is far above whatever they set up as partners!

3 at the end of jesus’ mission The Qur’an’s description of the events at the end of Jesus’ life have been at the centre of controversy between Christians and Muslims, as well as igniting different interpretations in the classical commentaries. The often-debated passage below occurs in the larger context of God prevailing against those who reject the prophetic message. The Qur’an declares that Jesus did not die as the result of crucifixion; he was raised to heaven.

The Qur’an Q 4: 157–8 [. . .] 157[they] said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition:

74 Commentators in the past generally understood wa hum saghirum to mean they should be humiliated when paying. However, it is clear from the context that they were unwilling to pay, and the clause simply means they should submit to paying this tax. 75 Clearly this refers to a certain group who, possibly at the time of the Prophet or earlier, made this claim.

94

jesus in islam

they certainly did not kill him—158God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise.)76

4 responses to jesus The Qur’an laments the Christian interpretation of Jesus as a member of the Trinity. Christians, according to the Qur’an, had been given scripture and a clear prophetic message about the sovereignty of the one God. That they should turn from this and glorify Jesus as divine is nothing less than confusing the message with the messenger.

The Qur’an Q 2: 87 We gave Moses the Scripture and We sent messengers after him in succession. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. So how is it that, whenever a messenger brings you something you do not like, you become arrogant, calling some impostors and killing others? Q 4: 171–3 171

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’—stop [this], that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him

76 [Editor’s note:] The use of the parentheses here does not indicate that this sentence is not literally from the Qur’an but is simply a convention to indicate an explanatory statement following a main thought.

jesus in islam

95

and He is the best one to trust. 172The Messiah would never disdain to be a servant of God, nor would the angels who are close to Him. He will gather before Him all those who disdain His worship and are arrogant: 173To those who believe and do good works He will give due rewards and more of His bounty; to those who are disdainful and arrogant He will give an agonizing torment, and they will find no one besides God to protect or help them. Q 5: 72–5 72

Those who say, ‘God is the Messiah, son of Mary,’ have defied God. The Messiah himself said, ‘Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ If anyone associates others with God, God will forbid him from the Garden, Hell will be his home. No one will help such evil doers. 73 Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. 74Why do they not turn to God and ask His forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? 75The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are. Q 17: 111 [. . .] say, ‘Praise belongs to God, who has no child nor partner in His rule. He is not so weak as to need a protector. Proclaim His limitless greatness!’ Q 43: 57–64 57

When the son of Mary is cited as an example, your people [Prophet] laugh and jeer,77 58saying, ‘Are our gods78 better or him?’—they cite him only to

77

[Editor’s note:] This is a reference to the polytheistic Quraysh tribe who accused Muhammad of merely exchanging their gods for the ‘god’ of the Christians. 78 The angels, whom they worshipped as the daughters of God and superior to Jesus, whom they considered to be a god worshipped by Christians as the Son of God.

96

jesus in islam

challenge you: they are a contentious people—59but he is only a servant We favoured and made an example for the Children of Israel: 60if it had been Our will, We could have made you angels,79 succeeding one another on earth. 61 This [Qur’an] gives knowledge of the Hour:80 do not doubt it. Follow Me for this is the right path; 62do not let Satan hinder you, for he is your sworn enemy. 63When Jesus came with clear signs he said, ‘I have brought you wisdom; I have come to clear up some of your differences for you. Be mindful of God and obey me: 64God is my Lord and your Lord. Serve Him: this is the straight path.’ Q 57: 26–9 26

We sent Noah and Abraham, and gave prophethood and scripture to their offspring: among them there were some who were rightly guided, but many were lawbreakers. 27We sent other messengers to follow in their footsteps. After those We sent Jesus, son of Mary: We gave him the Gospel and put compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers. But monasticism was something they invented—We did not ordain it for them—only to seek81 God’s pleasure, and even so, they did not observe it properly. So We gave a reward to those of them who believed, but many of them were lawbreakers. 28Believers, be mindful of God and have faith in His Messenger: He will give you a double share of His mercy; He will provide a light to help you walk; He will forgive you—God is most forgiving, most merciful. 29The People of the Book should know that they have no power over any of God’s grace and that grace is in the hand of God alone: He gives it to whoever He will. God’s grace is truly immense. Q 61: 6 Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘Children of Israel, I am sent to you by God, confirming the Torah that came before me and bringing good news of a

79

Just as God was able to create Jesus without a father. Alternatively, the pronoun hu can also be seen to refer to Jesus: ‘[Jesus] gives knowledge of the Hour’. [Editor’s note:] ‘Hour’ signifies the ‘Day of Judgement’. 81 Alternatively, ‘only that they should seek’. 80

jesus in islam

97

messenger to follow me whose name will be Ahmad.’82 Yet when he came to them with clear signs, they said, ‘This is obviously sorcery.’

5 a final word from the qur’an The account of Jesus in the Qur’an is a part of a larger narrative which views Muhammad as a part of a prophetic brotherhood struggling to proclaim the truth of the one God, meeting resistance and prevailing in the end.

The Qur’an Q 2: 136 So [you believers], say, ‘We believe in God and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we devote ourselves to Him.’

6 jesus in the hadith The Hadith are sayings of the Prophet Muhammad that achieved canonical status in the third Muslim century. As a source of authority for the Muslim community, they must not be underestimated. For, in the search to live a pious life it is the example of Muhammad in the Hadith, alongside the Qur’an, that provides guidance unparalleled by any other source. The perception of Jesus that emerges in the Hadith is that of a miraculous, sinless, and eschatological figure, pointing people to the Muslim faith. 82

Ahmad, like Muhammad, means ‘praised’ (for his good character).

98

jesus in islam The Sayings of Muhammad83

If anyone testifies that there is no god but the One God who has no associates; that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger; that Jesus is God’s servant and messenger, His word addressed to Mary and a spirit from God; that Paradise really exists and that Hell really exists, God will cause him to enter Paradise regardless of his actions.84 ~ Hardly a single descendant of Adam is born without Satan touching him at the moment of his birth. A baby who is touched like that gives a cry. The only exceptions are Mary and her son [cf. Q 3: 36].85 ~ Among men I am the closest to Jesus Son of Mary in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers; although they have different mothers, their religion is one.86 ~ While I slept, I had a vision in which I saw myself circumambulating the Kaaba. Then I noticed a brown-skinned man with smooth hair which was wet; water was dripping from it onto the ground between his legs. I asked who it was and was told, ‘It is the Son of Mary.’ As I continued, I noticed another man. He was red-faced, very fat and had frizzy hair. Moreover he was blind in the right eye and his good eye revolved in its orbit like a grape. I asked who it was and was told, ‘The Antichrist.’ The man who most resembles him is Ibn Qatan.87 83 All sayings in this section are from Neal Robinson, trans., The Sayings of Muhammad (London: Duckworth, 2003), 35–6. This is based upon the edition of Sahih Bukhari (Muhammad al-Bukhari 810–870 ce) edited by Ahmad Muhammad Shākir (Beirut: ‘Ālam al-Kutub, n.d.), 9 parts bound in 3. The numbers indicated in the notes below indicate the part and the page. The name indicates the earliest individual in the chain of transmission of these sayings. 84 4.201, ‘Ubāda. 85 4.199, Abū Hurayra. 86 4.203, Abū Hurayra. 87 4.203, Abū Sālim. [Editor’s note:] According to early Muslim tradition, Ibn Qatan was a figure who died just prior to the revelation being given to Muhammad. This period is known by Muslims as Jahliyyah, a time of spiritual ignorance in Arabia. Ibn Qatan, for reasons not now known, was associated by early Muslims with undesirable qualities.

jesus in islam

99

I swear by Him who holds my life between His hands, the son of Mary will come back down among you very soon as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill pigs and abolish the tax which Jews and Christians pay in return for their religious freedom. Wealth will be so abundant that nobody will accept it. When this happens, one prostration will be better for you than this world and all that it contains.88 ~ Do not extol me as the Christians have extolled the Son of Mary. I am only God’s servant. Refer to me as the servant and messenger of God.89 ~ Don’t believe what the Jews and Christians tell you, but don’t call them liars either. Say, ‘We believe in God and in what has been revealed to us . . .’ [Q 2: 130]90

7 the ascetic jesus Early Sufism (before the third Islamic century) was largely an ascetic movement, an often quietistic protest against the wealth and power that accompanied the rapid expansion of the Islamic world. Jesus emerges in these sayings as a popular figure whose strict ascetism mirrors the early Sufi reaction against some established forms of religion. Tarif Khalidi (b. 1938) identifies four approaches to Jesus in these early collections: (i) sayings with an eschatological import, (ii) quasi-Gospel sayings, many coming from the Sermon on the Mount and Islamicized by adding Qur’anic details, (iii) ascetic sayings and stories (Jesus’ renunciation is total and uncompromising), and (iv) sayings which appear to respond to intra-Muslim politics such as the role of scholars in society, the attitude towards governments, free will versus predestination, faith and sin, and the status of the sinful believer or ruler.

88 89 90

4.205 Abū Hurayra. 4.204 ‘Umar. 6.25, Abū Hurayra.

100

jesus in islam The Muslim Jesus91

Jesus said to his people, ‘Do not talk much without the mention of God, lest your hearts grow hard; for the hard heart is far from God, but you do not know. Do not examine the sins of people as though you were lords, but examine them, rather, as though you were servants. Men are of two kinds: the sick and the healthy. Be merciful to the sick and give thanks to God for health.’92 ~ Gabriel met Jesus and said to him, ‘Peace be upon you, Spirit of God.’ ‘And upon you peace, Spirit of God,’ said Jesus. Then Jesus asked, ‘O Gabriel, when will the Hour come?’ Gabriel’s wings fluttered and he replied, ‘The questioned knows no more about this than the questioner. It has grown heavy in the heavens and the earth; it will only come upon you suddenly.’ Or else he said, ‘Only God will reveal it when it is time.’93 ~ Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Just as kings have left wisdom to you, so you should leave the world to them.’94 ~ Jesus said, ‘There are four [qualities] which are not found in one person without causing wonder: silence, which is the beginning of worship; humility before God; an ascetic attitude toward the world; and poverty.’95 ~ Jesus said, ‘Strive for the sake of God and not for the sake of your bellies. Look at the birds coming and going! They neither reap nor plough, and God provides for them. If you say, ‘Our bellies are larger than the bellies of birds,’ then look at these cattle, wild or tame, as they come and go, neither reaping nor ploughing, and God provides for them too. Beware the 91 Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 2001), 51–94. The numbers accompanying the readings in the following footnotes indicate their position in Khalidi’s collection. The names below refer to the earliest known figures to have preserved the sayings; the first of the dates refers to the Muslim calendar ah (anno Higarae, or after Hijrah, referring to Muhammed’s flight to Medina in 622 ce) and the second number refers to the date in the Common Era. 92 No. 3 Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181/797). 93 No. 5 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak. 94 No. 8 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak. 95 No. 13 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak.

jesus in islam

101

excesses of the world, for the excesses of the world are an abomination in God’s eyes.’96 ~ Jesus addressed his followers the night he was raised to heaven, saying: ‘Do not make your living from [teaching] the Book of God. If you refrain from doing so, God will seat you upon pulpits a single stone of which is better than the world and all that is therein.’ ‘Abd al-Jabbar said, ‘These are the seats mentioned by God in the Qur’an: “Upon a seat of truth with a mighty King.” ’ Jesus was then raised to heaven.97 ~ John son of Zachariah met Jesus and said, ‘Tell me what it is that draws one near to God’s favor and distances one from God’s wrath.’ Jesus said, ‘Avoid feeling anger.’ John asked, ‘What arouses anger and what makes it recur?’ Jesus replied, ‘Pride, fanaticism, haughtiness, and magnificence.’ John said, ‘Let me ask you another.’ ‘Ask what you will,’ replied Jesus. ‘Adultery—what creates it and what makes it recur?’ ‘A glance,’ said Jesus, ‘which implants in the heart something that makes it veer excessively toward amusement and self-indulgence, thus increasing heedlessness and sin. Do not stare at what does not belong to you, for what you have not seen will not make you wiser and what you do not hear will not trouble you.’98 ~ God revealed to Jesus: ‘O Jesus, admonish yourself. Once admonished, admonish people. Otherwise, be modest in my sight.’99 ~ Jesus was asked, ‘Prophet of God, why do you not get yourself an ass to ride upon for your needs?’ Jesus answered: ‘I am more honorable in God’s sight than that He should provide me with something which may distract me from Him.’100 ~ God revealed to Jesus: ‘O Jesus, I have granted you the love of the poor and mercy toward them. You love them, and they love you and accept 96 97 98 99 100

No. 15 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak. No. 16 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak. See Qur’an 54: 55. No. 18 ‘Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak. No. 25 Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855). No. 30 Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

102

jesus in islam

you as their spiritual guide and leader, and you accept them as companions and followers. These are two traits of character. Know that whoever meets me on Judgment Day with these two character traits has met me with the purest of works and the ones most beloved by me.’101 ~ Jesus used to say, ‘Truly I say to you, to eat wheat bread, to drink pure water, and to sleep upon dung hills with the dogs more than suffi ces him who wishes to inherit paradise.’102 ~ Jesus said, ‘Time revolves around three days: a yesterday which has passed away and during which you have been admonished, a today which supplies your needs, and a tomorrow in which you do not know what is in store for you. All matters revolve around three things: a thing whose rightness has become apparent to you and which you must follow, a thing whose evil has become apparent to you and which you must shun, and a thing which appears uncertain to you and which you must defer to God.’103 ~ Jesus said to his disciples, ‘In truth I say to you’—and he often used to say, ‘In truth I say to you’—‘those among you who sorrow most in misfortune are the most attached to this world.’104 ~ Jesus said, ‘Slaves of this world, instead of dispensing alms, be merciful to those whom you treat unjustly.’105 ~ God revealed to Jesus: ‘Make me your sole concern. Make me as your treasure for your afterlife. Trust in me and I shall suffice you. Do not take anyone else to be your lord, or I shall abandon you.’106 ~ The day that Jesus was raised to heaven, he left behind nothing but a woolen garment, a slingshot, and two sandals.107 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

No. 37 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 42 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 44 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 51 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 56 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 58 Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No. 77 Hannad ibn al-Sariyy (d. 243/857).

jesus in islam

103

8 jesus and the powers of god Al-Tabari108 (839–923 ce) is revered in the Islamic world as a commentator of the Qur’an; he also collected facts and traditions for his massive historical account of the ancient world and the rise of Islam. The traditions al-Tabari collected about Jesus underscore the fact that there were many accounts of Jesus across the near east not found in the four Christian canonical Gospels. Accounts of Jesus popular in al-Tabari’s day confirm the Qur’anic picture of Jesus as a miracle-working prophet. In the readings below, the Devil (Iblis) has just become aware of an unprecedented birth and miraculous powers are revealed whilst Jesus is a child.

The History of al-Tabari109 Wherever idols were worshiped, the idols were toppled and thrown upside down. Devils took fright but remained unaware of the cause. They rushed to Iblis,110 who was on his throne in the deep green sea like the throne that had been upon the water, and he veiled himself in imitation of the veils of light before the All Merciful. The devils came to him while six hours of daylight remained. When Iblis saw their congregation he was frightened, for since he had dispersed them he had never seen all of them together. He had seen them in small groups only. He questioned them, and they told him that something had happened upon earth, and that the idols were turned upside down. These idols were most conducive to human perdition. ‘We used to enter their insides, address the humans, and contrive to direct them, while the people thought that the idols were 108

Abu Dja‘far Muhammad al-Tabari. Moshe Perlmann, trans., The History of al-Tabari Volume IV: The Ancient Kingdoms (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), 115–16 and 116–17. 110 [Editor’s note:] Iblis is the name of an individual Jinn in the Qur’an who was once a worshipper of God (see Q 2: 34, 7: 11–12, 15: 30–5, 17: 61–3, 18: 50, 20: 116, and 38: 74–8). When Iblis refused to obey God’s command to prostrate himself before Adam, God cast him out and gave him the title al-Shaitan. The terms Satan, Devil, and al-Shaitan are identical in Muslim traditions. 109

104

jesus in islam

speaking to them. When this event occurred, however, it detracted from the stature of the idols, humbling and humiliating them. We fear humans will not worship them anymore. Know, that we did not come to you before crossing land and sea, and doing whatever we could, but we are still utterly ignorant about the cause of what happened.’ Iblis told them, ‘Truly, this is a grave matter. I know it was concealed from me. Stay here.’ He flew away and was absent for three hours during which time he passed by the place where Jesus was born. When he saw the angels surrounding the spot, he realized that this was where the event had occurred. Iblis wanted to approach it from above. But the angels’ heads and shoulders that reached up to heaven were over it. He then tried to reach it from under the earth but the angels’ feet were firmly entrenched below— lower than Iblis expected. Thereupon he tried to enter among them, but they shoved him away. Then he returned to his associates, and said to them, ‘I come to you after crossing the whole earth, east and west, land and sea, the four quarters of the world, and the upper sphere. I managed to do that in three hours.’ Then informing them about the birth of Christ, he said to them, ‘It was concealed from me. No female womb has ever conceived without my knowledge, and none has given birth without my presence. I am more apt to mislead the newborn than he is to find right guidance. No prophet was ever more calamitous to me and to you than this one.’ [. . .] Then Jesus turned twelve. The first miracle of his witnessed by people occurred when his mother was staying at the home of an Egyptian dignitary. A treasure was stolen from him while only poor people were living in his house, yet he did not accuse them. Mary was saddened by that dignitary’s misfortune. When Jesus noticed his mother’s sadness at the misfortune of their host, he asked her, ‘Oh mother, would you like me to guide him to his property?’ She said, ‘Yes, my son.’ He then said, ‘Tell him to assemble the poor men of his home;’ whereupon Mary told the dignitary, and he assembled them. When they were assembled, Jesus approached two of them, one blind, the other crippled. He put the cripple on the shoulder of the blind man and said to him, ‘Stand up with him.’ The blind man said, ‘I am too weak.’ Jesus replied, ‘How then were you able to do that yesterday?’ When they heard his words, they forced

jesus in islam

105

the blind man to get up with the cripple. When he stood up carrying the other, the cripple plunged to the window of the treasury. Jesus said, ‘This is how they cheated the landlord yesterday; the blind man used his strength, and the cripple his eyes.’ The cripple and the blind said, ‘He is right.’ And they returned the property to the dignitary. The dignitary replaced it in his treasury, and said, ‘O Mary, take half of it.’ But she replied, ‘It is against my grain to do so.’ He said, ‘Give it to your son.’ And she replied, ‘He is even more scrupulous than I.’ Soon afterward one of the dignitary’s sons gave a wedding feast, and all the people of Egypt gathered there. When the feast was over, people from Palestine visited him. The dignitary was not prepared for them. They came, and he had no wine to offer them. When Jesus saw him worry about it, he entered one of the dignitary’s houses in which there were two rows of jars. As he walked by them, Jesus touched the tops of the jars and each jar, to the last of them, became filled with wine. He was twelve years old. Upon seeing what he had done the people were in awe of him and of the powers that God had endowed him with. God revealed to his mother Mary, ‘Go up with him to Palestine.’ She did as he commanded, and stayed in Palestine until he was thirty years old. Then inspiration came upon him at the age of thirty. His prophethood lasted three years, and then God raised him unto Himself.

9 jesus in the graveyard A fascination with Jesus and his miracles is reflected in tales that circulated in the centuries following the spread of Islam. Jesus is viewed as an ascetic and miracle worker, with many embellishments made to the Qur’anic portrait of his miraculous qualities. The best known of these collections is that of al-Tha‘labi (d. 1035 ce). The colourful tale below picks up on traditions about Jesus raising the dead, showing that these amazing feats do not always lead people closer to Allah’s will . . .

106

jesus in islam The Tales of the Prophets111

Among them is what is related about Jesus—upon whom be peace—passing by a man seated at a grave. He kept passing by him and always found him sitting there. He said: ‘O servant of Allah, how is it that I see you always sitting at this grave?’ Said he: ‘O Spirit of Allah, this woman was such and such to me because of her beauty and her suitability, and I had great trust in her.’ Said [Jesus]: ‘Would you like me to pray to Allah to restore her life for you?’ ‘Yes, indeed’, replied he. So Jesus performed his ablutions, prayed a two rak‘a prayer,112 and called upon Allah, Most High, whereupon a blackamoor emerged from the grave as though he were a burnt stump. [Jesus] said to him: ‘Who are you?’ He answered: ‘O Apostle of Allah, I am a man [who has been] in torment for forty years, and now when I had reached this hour, it was said to me: ‘Respond!’ so I responded.’ Then he said: ‘O Apostle of Allah, the pain of the punishment has been upon me. If Allah would let me return to the world I would give Him a covenant never to disobey Him. So pray to Allah for me.’ Then Jesus—on whom be peace—was touched by compassion for him, so he prayed to Allah, Most High, for him. Then he said to him: ‘Go!’ and he went. Then the one who was [sitting] at the grave said to him: ‘O Apostle of Allah, I was in error about the grave. Verily this one is her grave.’ So Jesus— on whom be peace—prayed to Allah, and there came forth from that grave a beautiful young woman. Said Jesus to him: ‘Do you recognize her?’ ‘Assuredly’, said he, ‘this is my wife.’ So [Jesus] prayed to Allah, He gave her back to him. Then the man took her by the hand, [and they walked along] until they came to a tree under which he went to sleep, placing his head in her lap. Now there [presently] passed by her the son of the king, who looked at her, and she looked at him, and each was pleased with the other. He beckoned

111 Or, Qisas al-anbiya by al-Tha‘labi. This passage is from Arthur Jeffery, A Reader on Islam: Passages from Standard Arabic Writings Illustrative of the Beliefs and Practices of Muslims (’S-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1962), 590–1. 112 [Editor’s note:] Al-Tha‘labi would have considered Jesus to have prayed in a manner similar to the obligatory prayers of the Qur’an. Jesus’ prayer consisted of two rak‘a (lit. ‘unit’). This was followed by a dua’ –an informal prayer (indicated by the phrase ‘called upon’) of praise and supplication made with the palms open and facing upwards.

jesus in islam

107

to her, so she removed her husband’s head from her lap and followed the youth. When her husband woke up he looked for her but found her not, so he sought her and was directed towards where she was. Then he clung to her, saying: ‘This is my wife.’ But the young man said: ‘Nay, she is my slavegirl.’ While they were thus disputing Jesus—on whom be peace—passed by. Said the man: ‘This is Jesus’, and he told him the story. Jesus said to her: ‘And what do you say?’ She said: ‘I am the slave-girl of this young man, and I do not know the other.’ Jesus said to her: ‘Then give us back what we gave you.’ She said: ‘I do’, and fell dead on the spot. Then said Jesus: ‘Have you ever seen anything more amazing than this? [Here was] a man whom Allah caused to die while an unbeliever, and then He raised him and he believed. And here you have seen this woman whom Allah caused to die while a believer, then He raised her to life and she became an unbeliever.’

10 a rationalist examines christian claims about jesus Al-Razi113 (b. 1149 ce) sought to demonstrate that the revelation of the Qur’an was consonant with rigorous logic and rational methods of interpretation. This passage, from his renowned commentary on the Qur’an, provides reasons why Christians are misguided as to the identity of Jesus.

The Great Commentary114 God said: ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, was but a messenger: all [other] messengers had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth; and they both ate food [like other mortals]. Behold 113

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muh.ammad b. ‘Umar b. al-Ḥusayn Fakhr ’al-Dīn al-Rāzī (1149–1209). The editors are grateful for this fresh translation from the Arabic provided by Samir Mahmoud (see Preface). ’al-Tafsīr ’al-kabīr (Mafātīh. ’al-Ghayb): lil-’Imām Fakhr ’al-Dīn ’al-Rāzī. 16 Volumes, Published: Mis.r: ’al-Mat.ba‘ah ’al-Bahīyah ’al-Mis.rīyah, 1938, VII, pp. 61–2. 114

108

jesus in islam

how clear We make these messages to them: and then behold how deluded away from the truth they are.’ (Q 5: 75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was but a messenger: all [other] messengers had passed away before him; and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth (Q 5: 75) i.e. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, of the genus of messengers that passed away before him. He brought signs from God just as the other messengers who came before him. If God had cured those born blind, the lepers, and gave life to the dead at the hands of Jesus; similarly, God gave life to the staff of Moses and parted the sea at the hands of Moses. If God created Jesus without a father, God had created Adam without a father and a mother. . . . and his mother was one who never deviated from the truth: There are different possible interpretations for this verse: 1) Mary accepted the signs of her Lord and all that her son Jesus had told her. God describes her thus: . . . and she accepted the words of her Lord and His Scriptures (Q 66: 12). 2) Then We sent to her Our angel of revelation, who appeared to her and assumed the likeness of a man in all respects (Q 19: 17): When Gabriel spoke to her and she immediately accepted the veracity of his claim to be an angel, she earned the sobriquet ‘The Veracious.’ 3) The meaning of her being called ‘Veracious’ is her distancing herself from sin and the intensity of her earnestness and exertion in upholding the requirements of servanthood to God; as God says: They shall be among those upon whom God has bestowed His blessings: the prophets, and those who never deviated from the truth (Q 4: 69).

Then God May He be Exalted said: ‘Both [Jesus and Mary] ate food’ (Q 5: 75). Know that the intended meaning of this verse is: first, whoever has a mother has come into existence after not existing. Everyone who is like this is a created being and not a god. Second, Jesus and Mary were needy for they were in dire need of food. A god is one who stands in no need for anything. How, then, could Jesus be a god? Third, some say that the phrase both [Jesus and Mary] ate food is a metaphor for defecation, because

jesus in islam

109

anyone who eats food must thereby defecate.115 But I think this is a weak opinion for numerous reasons. Firstly, not everyone who eats necessarily defecates; the inhabitants of Heaven eat but do not defecate. Secondly, the act of eating expresses the need for food and this need is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is not a god. What need have we of making the act of eating a metaphor for something else? Thirdly, a god is by definition he who is able to create and bring into existence from non-existence. Therefore, if Jesus was a god, he would have been able to ward off the pain of hunger without the need for food or drink. Since he could not ward off this harm how can it be reasoned that he is god of the two worlds? In short, the self-evident and clearly corrupt account of the Christians suffices and requires no external proof to be brought against it. [. . .] God says: Say: ‘Would you worship, beside God, something which has no power either to harm or to benefit you . . .’ (Q 5: 76) This verse is another proof of the corrupt account of the Christians and it bears a number of different proofs: First, the Jews treated Jesus with animosity and intended to inflict every kind of harm on him. Jesus wasn’t able to inflict harm on them. His supporters and companions used to love him but he was unable to bring them any worldly benefits. How can it then be reasoned that he, who is unable to inflict harm and bring benefit, is a god? Second, according to the Christian account, it is believed that the Jews crucified Jesus and ripped his ribs apart and that when he asked for water, they poured vinegar down his nose. How can it be reasoned that one of such weakness is a god? Third, the Lord of the universe must be in no need of anything other than Himself and that everything other than Himself should be in need of Him. If Jesus were like this, then it would be impossible for the reason that he was preoccupied with the worship of God, May He be Exalted. A god does not worship anything; rather it is the servant that worships the god. Since it is known by multiple traditions that Jesus was assiduous in his worship of God, 115 [Editor’s note:] Al-Razi would certainly have agreed that the argument ‘Jesus is not divine because he defecated’ is valid (i.e. divine beings do not defecate); however, he does not believe that this verse is a reference to defecation. Furthermore, it is known in the Qur’an that the inhabitants of Heaven eat but do not defecate (see Q 2: 25, 19: 62, 37: 41–2, 38: 51, 43: 73, 44: 55, 47:15, 52:22, and 55:52).

110

jesus in islam

we know that he used to perform the worship because of his need for acquiring benefits and warding off harm from others. How can one who is like this bring benefit to the servants of God and ward off harm from others? If he is like this then he is a servant just like all the other servants of God. This is the quintessence of the proof recounted by God concerning Abraham, peace be upon him, when Abraham said to his father: ‘O my father! Why do you worship something that neither hears nor sees and can be of no avail whatever to you?’ (Q 19: 42) Then God, May He be Exalted, said: . . . God alone is all-hearing and all-knowing (Q 5: 76). The intended meaning is one of a threat, that is, God hears their blasphemy and knows what is in their minds.

11 jesus: a mirror of god Al-Ghazali116 (1058–1111 ce) is a towering figure in Islam, noted for his quest to discover the limits of both philosophical speculation and ecstatic experience. For al-Ghazali, revelation was ultimate and neither reason nor ecstatic experience could, by themselves, produce a complete world-view. This was no merely theoretical search for al-Ghazali; he sought to live an ascetic life in accordance with his discoveries. This passage shows how he sought to hold together reason, asceticism, and mystical experience in relationship to an experience of union with the divine.

The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God117 The saying of Abu Yazid118—may God be merciful to him—ought to be taken in a similar way: ‘I have sloughed off myself as the snake sloughs

116

Abu Hamid Muhammad B. Muhammad al-Tusi al-Ghazali (or, al-Ghazali). Al-Ghazali, The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God, trans. David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1992), 153–4. 118 [Editor’s note:] A Persian Sufi (804–74 ce) also called Bayazid Bastami, Abu Yazid Bistami, or Tayfur Abu Yazid al-Bustami; he is known as one of the main early teachers 117

jesus in islam

111

off its skin, and I looked and behold! I am He’. Now his meaning is that when one sloughs off the passions of his soul with its desires and concerns, no room remains in him for anything other than God, nor will he have any concern other than God—may He be praised and exalted. So if nothing exists in his heart but the majesty of God and His beauty, so that he becomes immersed in it, he does become as though he were He, but not so that he actually is God. And there is a difference between our saying ‘as though he were He’ and our saying ‘he is He’. But we may use our saying ‘he is he’ to express our saying ‘he is as though he were he’, just as the poet sometimes says ‘as though I were the one I desire’ and sometimes ‘I am the one I desire’. But here lies a pitfall, for if one does not have a firm footing in things rational, he may fail to distinguish one of them from the other, and looking upon the perfection of his essence and how it may be adorned with the finery of truth which shines in it, he will think that he is He [God], and will say: ‘I am the Truth’.119 Such a one commits the same error as the Christians, when they see that [same perfection] in the essence of the messiah, ‘Isa [Jesus]—may peace be upon him—and say: he is God; yet they are as mistaken as the one who looks into a mirror and sees in it a coloured image yet thinks that this image is the image of the mirror, and this colour is the colour of the mirror. Far from it! For the mirror has no colour in itself; its nature is rather to receive the image of coloured things in such a way as to display them to those looking at the appearance of things as though they were the images of the mirror—to the point where a child who sees a man in the mirror thinks that the man actually is in the mirror. In a similar way, the heart is devoid of images and shapes in itself, yet its state is to receive the meaning of shapes and images and realities. So whatever inheres in it is as though it were identical with it, but it is not actually identical with it. Similarly, one unfamiliar with glass or wine, when he sees the glass with wine in it may not notice the difference between them, and sometimes he will say: ‘there of Sufism and as one of the first to speak of ‘annihilation of the self in God’ (fana fi Allah). 119

The saying of al-Hallaj, the celebrated mystic of early Sufism.

112

jesus in islam

is no wine’, and sometimes ‘there is no glass’. The poet expressed this when he said: The glass is fine and the wine is pure, So alike are they that the facts are confused; As if there were wine and no glass, Or a glass and no wine.120

Now the claim of the one who said ‘I am the Truth’ either means what the poet means when he said: ‘I am whom I desire, and the one I desire is I’, or he says it in error, as Christians err in thinking that divinity is united with humanity in Jesus.

12 jesus and the fool The Persian Sufi Jalaluddin Rumi121 (1207–73) continues to be the most celebrated poet amongst Muslims worldwide. His work, the ‘Mathnawi’ holds a prominent place in the piety of many Muslims; it has been called the Qur’an in the Persian tongue. Rumi longed to see all people realize divine love. Specifically, the goal of life is to arise from a lust-permeated state (represented by animals) to reach an existence marked by God-realization. Most humans live between these two states and need the example and inspiration of the prophets in order to progress. The miraculous birth and life of Jesus becomes a metaphor for Rumi of the spiritual rebirth that is possible within each human soul. This rebirth is not achieved without effort; one needs to practice silence, poverty, and fasting—themes that were prominent in Jesus’ life according to Islamic traditions.

120

A classic Arabic verse. Mohammed b. Mohammed b. Husain al-Balkhi, better known as Mawlana Djalal al-Din Rumi (or, simply, Djalal al-Din or Mawlana); Anatolia, where Rumi resided for a time, was also known as ‘Rum’, a reference to the former western influence of Rome over this area. 121

jesus in islam

113

The Mathnawi122 Choose the love of that Living One who is everlasting, who gives thee to drink of the wine that increases life. Choose the love of Him from whose love all the prophets gained power and glory. Do not say, ‘We have no admission to that King.’ Dealings with the generous are not difficult.123 * * * A certain foolish person accompanied Jesus (on his way). He espied some bones in a deep-dug hole. He said, ‘O companion, (teach me) that exalted Name by which thou makest the dead to live; Teach (it) me, that I may do good and by means of it endow the bones with life.’ Jesus said, ‘Be silent, for that is not thy work: ’tis not meet for thy breath and speech, For it wants breath purer than rain and more piercing in action than the angels. (Many) lifetimes were needed that the breath might be purified, so that he (its owner) was entrusted with the treasury of the Heavens. (Suppose that) thou hast grasped this rod firmly in thy hand: whence will accrue to thy hand the cunning of Moses?’ He said, ‘If I am not one to pronounce (such sacred) mysteries, do thou pronounce the Name over the bones.’ Jesus cried, ‘O Lord, what are these hidden purposes (of Thine)? What is (the meaning of) this fool’s inclination (to engage) in this fruitless work? How has this sick man no care for himself? How has this corpse no care for (spiritual) life? He has left (uncared for) his own dead (soul) and seeks to mend (revive) the dead (bones) of a stranger.’ 122 Jalaluddin Rumí, The Mathnawí of Jalálu’ddín Rúmí, ed. Reynold Nicholson (London: Printed by Messrs. E. J. Brill, Leiden, for the Trustees of the ‘E. J. W. Gibb memorial’ and published by Messrs. Luzac & co., 1925-40), 8v. 123 Ibid., Vol. I, Book I, lines 219–22, p. 15.

114

jesus in islam

God (answered and) said, ‘The backslider seeks backsliding: the thistle that has grown (in him) is the retribution for (consequence of) his sowing.’ He that sows the seed of thistles in the world, be warned not to look for him in the rose garden. If he takes a rose in his hand, it becomes a thistle; and if he go to a friend, he (the friend) becomes a snake. The damned wretch is an elixer which transmutes into poison and snake; (his elixer is) contrary to the elixer of the God-fearing man.124 * * * Forsaking Jesus, you have fostered the ass: of necessity, like the ass, you are outside of the curtain. Knowledge and gnosis are the fortune of Jesus; they are not the fortune of the ass, O you asinine one! You listen to the moaning of the ass, and pity comes over you; then you know not (that) the ass commands you to be asinine. Have pity on Jesus and have no pity on the ass: do not make the (carnal) nature lord over your intellect. Let the (carnal) nature weep sore and bitterly: do you take from it and pay the debt of the (rational) soul. For years you have been the ass’s slave. It is enough, for the ass’s slave is behind (even) the ass. The thing meant by (the Prophet’s words) ‘put them (the women) behind’ is your fleshly soul; for it must be last, and your intellect (must be) first. This base intellect has become of the same temperament of the ass: its (only) thought is how it shall get hold of fodder. The ass of Jesus took (to itself) the temperament of this (rational) spirit: it took its abode in the place of the intelligent, Because (in Jesus) intellect was ruling, and the ass (was) weak—the ass is made lean by a strong rider— While from the weakness of your intellect, O you who have (no more than) the value of an ass, this worn-out ass has become a dragon. If through Jesus (the spiritual guide) you have become heartsick, (yet) health too comes from him: do not leave him.125 124 125

Ibid., Vol. I, Book II, lines 141–55, pp. 229–30. Ibid., Vol. II, Book II, lines 1850–61, pp. 316–17.

jesus in islam

115

13 on praising a human being Al-Busiri126 (1212–c.1295) was an Egyptian poet of Berber origin who experienced a miraculous healing after a vision in which he was wrapped in the Prophet Muhammad’s scarf (or, mantle/cloak). His poem, ‘Qasidah Burdah’ (The Poem of the Scarf), is arguably the most popular poem of praise to the Prophet Muhammad in the Muslim world. Its verses decorate buildings and continue to inspire devotional poetry. This brief passage points to the limits and opportunities within Islam of praising a human being.

Qasidah Burdah127 Renounce what the Christians claim concerning their prophet, Then praise him128 as you will, and with all your heart. For although he was of human nature, He was the best of humanity without exception.

14 realizing god Ibn al-Arabi129 (1165–1240 ce), a celebrated mystic, believed that humans could reach a divine core within, achieving a dynamic and dependent

126

Sharaf al-Din Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Sa‘id b. Hammad al-Sanhadji al-Busiri. Qasidah Burdah, chapter 3, lines 29–32. Translation by Abdal Hakim Murad. For an accessible version of the poem see Zhanqah-e-Sheikh Zakariyya, trans., Qasidah Burdah (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2008). 128 [Editor’s note:] The Prophet Muhammad. 129 Abu Bakr Muhammad b. ‘Ali Muhyi ’L-Din al-Hatimi al-Ta‘I al-Andalusi Ibn al-Arabi. 127

116

jesus in islam

relationship with divine reality. He has been described as a Platonist, a pantheist, or a monist, though these categories may be misleading as Ibn al-Arabi realized these truths through visions, meditation, ecstasy, and through a mystical exegesis of the Qur’an. His work, ‘The Bezels130 of Wisdom’ is a reflection of the 27 ‘perfect men’ of the Qur’an who achieved a special realization of God. Jesus’ case is special: he received the Spirit of God more directly than other human beings.

The Bezels of Wisdom131 From the water of Mary or from the breath of Gabriel, In the form of a mortal fashioned of clay, The Spirit came into existence in an essence Purged of Nature’s taint, which is called Sijjīn.132 Because of this, his sojourn was prolonged, Enduring, by decree, more than a thousand years. A spirit from none other than God, So that he might raise the dead and bring forth birds from clay. And became worthy to be associated with his Lord, By which he exerted great influence, both high and low. God purified him in body and made him transcendent In the Spirit, making him like Himself in creating. [ . . . ]

It used to be said of him, when he revived the dead, ‘It is he and yet not he.’ Both the sight of the observer and the mind of the intelligent man were confused at seeing a mortal man bring the dead to life, rationally as well as physically, which is a divine prerogative. The spectator would be utterly bewildered to see a mortal man performing divine acts. This matter has led certain people to speak of incarnation and to say that, in reviving the dead, he is God. Therefore, they are called unbelievers [concealers], being a form of concealment, since they conceal God, Who 130

This is a setting on a ring into which a gem is set, or the gem itself which would be inscribed with a name and serve as a seal ring. 131 Ibn al-Arabi, Ibn Al Arabi: The Bezels of Wisdom, trans. R. J. Austin (London: SPCK, 1980), 174–9. 132 Another name for Hell; see, Q 83: 7.

jesus in islam

117

in reality revives the dead, in the human form of Jesus. He has said, They are concealers [unbelievers] who say that God is the Messiah, son of Mary. The real error and unbelief in the full sense of the word is not in their saying ‘He is God’ nor ‘the son of Mary,’ but in their having turned aside from God by including [God in human form] in the matter of reviving the dead, in favour of a merely mortal form in their saying [He is] the son of Mary, albeit that he is the son of Mary without doubt. Hearing them, one might think that they attributed divinity to the form, making it the form itself, but that is not the case, having in fact asserted that the divine Identity is the subject in the human form, which was the son of Mary, thus they distinguished between the form and its determination, but did not make the form the same as the determining principle. In the same way, Gabriel was in mortal form [at first] without blowing [into Mary]; then he blew [into her]. Thus the blowing is distinguished from the form, since, although it derives from the form, it is not of its essence. So do the various sects quarrel concerning the nature of Jesus. Considered in his [particular] mortal form, one might say that he is the son of Mary. Considered in his form of humanity, one might say that he is of Gabriel, while considered with respect to the revival of the dead, one might say that he is of God as Spirit. Thus one might call him the Spirit of God, which is to say that life is manifest into whomsoever he blows. Sometimes it might be imagined, using the passive principle, that God is in him, sometimes that an angel is in him, and at other times mortality and humanity. He is indeed according to that aspect [of his reality] which predominates in the one who considers him. Thus he is [at once] the Word of God, the Spirit of God, and the slave of God, and such a [triple] manifestation in sensible form belongs to no other. Every other man is attributed to his formal father, not to the one who blows His Spirit into human form. God, when He perfected the human body, as He says, When I perfected him, blew into him of His spirit, attributing all spirit in man’s being and essence to Himself. The case of Jesus is otherwise, since the perfection of his body and human form was included in the blowing of the spirit [by Gabriel into Mary], which is not so of other men. All creatures are indeed words of God, which are

118

jesus in islam

inexhaustible, stemming as they do from [the command] Be, which is the Word of God. Now, can the Word be attributed to God as He is in Himself, so that its nature may never be known, or can God descend to the form of him who says Be, so that the word Be may be said to be the reality of the form to which He descends and in which He is manifest? Some gnostics support the former, some the latter, while others are confused and do not know what is the truth of the matter. This matter is one that can be known only by direct experience, as with Abū Yazīd al-Bistāmī when he blew on an ant he had killed and it came alive again. At that very moment he knew Who it was that blew, so he blew [into it]. In that respect he was like Jesus. As for revival by knowledge from spiritual death, it is that eternal, sublime, and luminous divine life of which God says, Who was dead and We made him alive again, and for whom We made a light wherewith to walk among men. Anyone who revives a dead soul with the life of knowledge relating to some truth about God has thereby brought him to life, so that he has a light by which to walk among men; that is to say those that are formed like him. But for Him and but for us, That which has become would not be. We are servants in very truth, And it is God Who is our master. But we are of His very essence, so understand, When I say ‘man’ And do not be deceived by (the term) ‘man,’ For He has given you a proof. Be divine (in essence) and be a creature (in form), And you will be, by God, a compassionate one. We have given Him what is manifest in us through Him, As He has given to us also. The whole affair is shared, divided, Between Him and us. He Who knows by my heart Revived it when He gave us life. In Him we were existences, essences, And instances of time.

jesus in islam

119

In us it is not permanent, But only intermittent. (But it gives us life).

15 who died on the cross? Ibn Kathir133 (c.1300–1373 ce) was known in his day as one of the most respected teachers in Damascus. His commentary on the Qur’an can be seen as a radically revised version of al-Tabari’s earlier work, strictly following the rule of using the Qur’an to interpret the Qur’an and only then turning to the Hadith, carefully establishing which ones could be trusted as historical sources. Ibn Kathir shows a strong interest in Christian accounts of the life of Jesus for the purposes of his own critique of these views. The passages below deal with perceptions of Christianity as well as unanswered questions from the Qur’an about the crucifixion; Ibn Kathir follows traditions which suggest that a crucifixion did, in fact, occur, though not with Jesus.

Tafsīr ,al-Qur,ān ,al-,Az.īm of Ibn Kathir134 God said in 4: 157–158: ‘and their boast, “Behold, we have slain the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God!” However, they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but it only appeared to them [as if it had been] so; and, truly, those who differ on this matter are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him: no, God raised him up to Himself—and God is indeed almighty, wise...’ [ . . . ]

133

Imām ‘Imād ’al-Dīn Abū ’al-Fidā’ Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. The editors are grateful for this fresh translation from the Arabic provided by Samir Mahmoud (see Preface). The first passage is from: Tafsīr ’al-Qur’ān ’al-’Az.īm / lil-Imām ‘Imād ’al-Dīn Abū ’al-Fidā’ Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. (Cairo: Dār ’al-Turāth ’al-‘Arabī, 1980), 4 V, VI, p. 576. 134

120

jesus in islam

When Jesus received from God the revelation: I shall raise you to Myself (Q 3: 55), he turned and said: ‘O disciples,135 who amongst you would like to be my companion in heaven by accepting to take on my likeness and be killed in my place?’ Then Sergius said:136 ‘I would, O Spirit of God.’ Jesus replied: ‘Then sit in my place.’ So Sergius sat in the place of Jesus and the latter was raised to heaven.137 Then they138 entered the house and took Sergius and crucified him. It was Sergius that they crucified for he was made to appear to them in the likeness of Jesus.139 The number of those in the house was already known to the captors, for they had been staking out the house for a while; they only moved in to capture Jesus soon after he had entered the house with his disciples. When the captors entered the house, they thought they were looking upon Jesus and his disicples. They also noticed that those in the house were one less in number. He is the one over whom the Christians would differ. The captors did not know what Jesus looked like so earlier in their scheming they had agreed to pay one Lyudas Zcarya Yuta140 135 [Editor’s note:] The Qur’anic term Hawariyyun is the word used in Ibn Kathir’s commentary to refer to the disciples. It means ‘those who wear white garments’ or ‘those pure of heart’. This term is often used by the Qur’an to refer to the disciples of Jesus. 136 [Editor’s note:] Who is Sergius? In several passages in Ibn Kathir’s commentary it was the youngest among those present who volunteers; he is not identified as a disciple but as a young man who was present with Jesus and the disciples. When this young man volunteers, Jesus initially refuses and tells him to sit down repeatedly, but he persists until Jesus finally accepts. In the account above the volunteer is given the name Sergius; his identity is unclear. Ibn Kathir may provide a clue when he states that before the captors entered the house, Jesus was there with his twelve disciples along with an additional person, a young man, making them thirteen in total (excluding Jesus). It is this thirteenth person who is identified as Sergius. 137 [Editor’s note:] Elsewhere in this commentary Jesus’ bodily ascension is seen as having happened through a window in the ceiling of the house; he was raised alive. 138 [Editor’s note:] In all of Ibn Kathir’s accounts, the Jews are named as having a hand in the arrest and crucifixion of the likeness of Jesus. 139 [Editor’s note:] According to one account narrated by Ibn Kathir, all in the house were made to appear like Jesus until the captors threatened to kill everyone present. Jesus asked his disciples who would be willing to give himself up in his place. One of them volunteered; the volunteer was taken away and crucified. 140 [Editor’s note:] This is almost certainly a reference to Judas Iscariot. Muslim traditions prior to Ibn Kathir were familiar with this name (and with this substitution theory);

jesus in islam

121

30 Dirhams141 to identify Jesus for them. Lyudas said to them: ‘When you enter the house, I will kiss Jesus, and so the one I kiss is the one you should take away.’ When the captors entered the house, Jesus had already been raised by God to heaven and when Lyudas Zcarya Yuta saw Sergius, who had assumed the likeness of Jesus, he had no doubt that he was Jesus so he bent over him and kissed him. Sergius was then taken away and crucified. Lyudas Zcarya Yuta later regretted his actions and hanged himself with a rope. Among Christians he is cursed for his actions, for he was one of the disciples. Some Christians claim that the likeness of Jesus fell upon Lyudas Zcarya Yuta and it was he who was captured, taken away, and crucified all the while pleading to his captors: ‘I am not the one you seek! I am the one who pointed out Jesus to you.’ God alone knows what actually transpired.142 [. . .] God said: ‘O Jesus! Truly, I shall cause you to die, and shall raise you to Myself, and cleanse you of those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow you above those who are bent on denying the truth, until the Day of Resurrection. In the end you shall all return to me, and I will judge between you concerning that over which you differed.’ (3: 55)143 [. . .] however, Ibn Kathir (or his scribe) may have inherited a confused form. ‘Yuta’ may be the last two syllables of Iskaryuta (from ‘Iscariot’). Tabari’s account of this story (which Ibn Kathir follows closely) has Yudas Zcarya Yuta. The Arabic for Zcarya can be read as: Zcarya, Zacharayya, or Zachariyya as in ‘Zacharias’. 141 [Editor’s note:] Historically, the Arabic word ‘Dirham’ is derived from the name of a Greek coin, the ‘Drachma’. The Greek Drachma became a common currency of trade across the ancient Near East, Ptolemaic Egypt, Persia, and as far as Arabia after the conquests of Alexander. It later became the established currency adopted by the Arab Muslims after they conquered the territories of the Byzantine Empire. 142 [Editor’s note:] After the event, Ibn Kathir tells us, people divided into three groups. The Jacobites claimed: ‘God remained with us as long as He willed and then He ascended to Heaven.’ The Nestorians claimed: ‘The son of God was with us as long as he willed until God raised him to heaven.’ The Muslims believed: ‘The servant and messenger of God, Jesus, remained with us as long as God willed until God raised him to Himself.’ 143 This second passage is from: Tafsīr ’al-Qur’ān ’al-‘Az.īm / lil-Imām ‘Imād ’al-Dīn Abū ’al-Fidā’ Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. Published: Cairo: Dār ’al-Turāth ’al-‘Arabī, 1980 4 V, VI, pp. 365–6.

122

jesus in islam

When God raised Jesus to heaven, his followers divided into sects: some of them believed in what God had revealed, namely that Jesus was a servant of God, His Messenger, and the son of his female adoring servant [Mary]; some were excessive in their fanaticism believing him to be the son of God; while others believed that he was God or the third of a trinity. God recounted their claims in the Qur’an and refuted every group. The Christians remained like this for approximately three hundred years until there appeared for them a king from among the Greek kings called Constantine who, it is said, converted to Christianity either as a ruse to corrupt it, for he was a philosopher, or out of plain ignorance. In any case, Constantine changed the religion of the Messiah and altered it; he added to it and removed from it. Laws were laid down for him in addition to the Great Trust,144 which is in fact the Despicable Treachery.145 It was during his time that the eating of pork was made permissible. The Christians began praying to the Messiah in the direction of the east and decorating their churches, temples and monasteries with images of him. They also added ten days to their fast because of a sin that they claim the Messiah had committed.146 The religion of the Messiah became transformed into the religion of Constantine. Nevertheless, he built more than twelve thousand churches, temples and monasteries for Christians as well as the city that bears his name. The Melchite147 sect followed him. 144 [Editor’s note:] The term ‘Great Trust’ (or, ‘Summary of Faith’) is almost certainly a reference to the Nicene Creed. By Ibn Kathir’s time the original creed of 325 ce would have been made more explicitly Trinitarian by additions at later councils. 145 [Editor’s note:] In Arabic this is an alliterative and assonantal wordplay in order to emphasize the error of Christian doctrine. 146 [Editor’s note:] Ibn Kathir would not have believed that Jesus sinned. The idea is that Christians changed the length of the fast (from 30 to 40 days) because of their misunderstanding of Jesus. Ibn Kathir is starting from the premiss that as the ‘original’ teachings of Jesus were identical in essence to Islam, Jesus would have instructed his followers to fast for the same length of time as given in Islam: thirty days or one lunar month. However, just as Christians distorted the revealed teachings of Jesus, so they distorted his original injunctions and observances. 147 [Editor’s note:] Melchites are those who remained faithful to the Council of Chalcedon (451 ce) affirming the two natures of Christ—human and divine—when most people turned Monophysite. The term Melkite (malik and its cognates are Semitic words for ‘king’ and

jesus in islam

123

Throughout this time, the Christians had the upper hand and dominated the Jews. God aided them against the Jews because they are closer to the truth than the Jews are, even though all of them are unbelievers, may God’s curses be upon them all.

16 jesus in india Indian Muslim Ghulam Ahmad (c.1836–1908) claimed to be the long awaited Mahdi (lit.‘guided one’; prophesied redeemer) and Messiah. Because of this he and the Muslim group he founded, the Ahmadiyyah, are considered by many Muslims to lie beyond the borders of Muslim orthodoxy. Ghulam Ahmad was saddened by some Muslim groups using beliefs about a violent pro-Islam apocalypse involving Jesus as justification for less than generous attitudes towards Christians. To counter this he promoted the peaceful spread of the Muslim faith as well as the theory that Jesus was not in heaven awaiting return, but had lived a full life on earth after having been revived from the cross.

Jesus in India148 Let it be known that most Muslims and Christians believe that Jesus (on whom be peace) went alive to the heavens; both these people have believed for a long time that Jesus (on whom be peace) is still alive in the heavens, and will sometime in the latter days come down to the earth.

‘kingship’) was originally used as a derisive term by non-Chalcedonians to refer to those who backed the council and the Byzantine emperor. Although the term originally referred to the Christians of Egypt, it later came to include all Chalcedonians of the Middle East, eventually losing its pejorative overtone. 148 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Jesus in India: Being an account of Jesus’ escape from death on the cross and of his journey to India, trans. Qazi Abdul Hamid (Rabwah, Pakistan: The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Foreign Missions Department, 1962 [1899]), 9–10, 17–18, and 21–2.

124

jesus in islam

The difference in their views, i.e. the view of the followers of Islam and that of the Christians, is only this, that the Christians believe that Jesus (on whom be peace) died on the Cross, was resurrected, and went to the heavens in his earthly body, seated himself on the right hand of his Father, and will come to the earth in the latter days for judgment; they also say that the Creator and the Master of the world is this Jesus the Messiah and no one else; he it is who, in the latter days of the world, will descend to the earth with a glorious descent to award punishment and reward; then, all who will not believe in him or his mother as God, will be hauled up and thrown into hell, where weeping and wailing will be their lot. But the aforesaid sects of Muslims say that Jesus (on whom be peace) was not crucified, nor did he die on the cross; on the other hand, when the Jews arrested him in order to crucify him an angel of God took him away to the heavens in his earthly body, and he is still alive in the heavens—which, they say, is the second heaven where is also the prophet Yahya, i.e. John. Muslims, moreover, also say that Jesus (on whom be peace) is an eminent prophet of God, but not God, nor the son of God, and, they believe that he will in the latter days descend to the earth, near the Minaret of Damascus or near some other place, supported on the shoulders of two angels, and that he and Imam Mohammad, the Mahdi, who will be already in the world, and who will be a Fatimite, will kill all the non-Muslims, not leaving anyone alive except those who will forthwith and without any delay become Muslim. In short, the real object of the descent of Jesus (on whom be peace) to the earth, is stated by Muslim sects known as Ahl-i-Sunnat149 or Ahl-i-Hadith150 called Wahabis151

149

[Editor’s note:] Ahl-i-Sunnat: short in Arabic for Sunni Muslims, the majority of the world’s Muslims. Known fully in Arabic as Ahl al- Sunnah wal – Jamaah (Arabic:
   —The people of the Sunna and the Community). 150 [Editor’s note:] Ahl-i Hadith: in Arabic/Urdu   lit. ‘People of the Hadith’. In this context it is applied to a reform movement which arose in India during the nineteenth century based loosely on the Wahabi Movement in Saudi Arabia. 151 [Editor’s note:] Wahabism (Arabic: ) is the conservative reformist movement within Sunni Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an eighteenth-century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia. Wahabis reject Sufism and the four schools of law found within the traditional Ahl-i-Sunnah wal Jamaah.

jesus in islam

125

by the common people—is that, like the Mahadev152 of the Hindus, he should destroy the whole world; that he should first threaten the people to become Muslims and then, if they persist in disbelief, massacre them all with the sword . . . [. . .] Therefore, these people turn against him who does not believe in the appearance of such a Mahdi; such a one is at once declared a Kafir,153 and outside the pale of Islam. I too, therefore, am a Kafir in the eyes of these people; and on these very grounds. For I do not believe in the appearance of a bloody Mahdi and a bloody Messiah. Nay, I hate such absurd ideas and regard them with contempt. And I have been declared a Kafir, not only because of my denial of the appearance of this supposed Mahdi and this supposed Messiah in whom they believe, but also because I have publicly announced, having been informed of it by God through revelation, that the real and true Promised Messiah who is also the real Mahdi, tidings of whose appearance are to be found in the Bible and the Quran and whose coming is promised also in the Hadith, is myself; who is, however, not provided with any sword or gun. I have been, commanded by God to invite the people with humility and gentleness to God, Who is the true God, Eternal and Unchangeable, who has perfect Holiness, perfect Knowledge, perfect Mercy, and perfect Justice. I am the light of this dark age; he who follows me will be saved from falling into the pit prepared by the Devil for those who walk in darkness. I have been sent by God to lead the people of the world to the true God through peace and humility, and to reassert the reign of morals in Islam. God has provided me with heavenly signs, for the satisfaction of seekers after truth. He has done wonderful things in my support; He has disclosed to me secrets of the unseen and of the future which, according to the holy books, is the sign of a true claimant to divine office, and He has vouchsafed to me holy and pure Knowledge. Therefore, the souls which hate truth and are pleased with darkness, have turned against me. But I 152

[Editor’s note:] The Mahadev is a name used for Shiva, who is traditionally seen as the cosmic destroyer in the Hindu Trimurti (literally ‘three manifestations’) along with Brahma the Creator and Vishnu the Preserver. 153 [Editor’s note:] Kafir (Arabic: , plural  kuffar): lit. ‘rejecter’ and ‘ingrate’. In Islam this term refers normally to a person who does not submit to the One God and does not recognize the prophethood of Muhammad.

126

jesus in islam

decided to be sympathetic towards mankind—as far as I could. So, in this age the greatest sympathy for the Christians is that their attention should be called to the true God, Who is free from such defects as being born and having to suffer death and undergo suffering, the God who made the earliest heavenly bodies spherical in shape and, in His law of nature, set down this point of spiritual guidance that, like a sphere, there is in Him Unity and absence of direction. [. . .] Let it be noted that though Christians believe that Jesus (peace be on him) after his arrest through the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, and crucifixion—and resurrection—went to the heavens, yet, from the Holy Bible, it appears that this belief of theirs is altogether wrong. Matthew (chapter 12, verse 40) says that just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the bowels of the earth. Now it is clear that Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish; the utmost that happened was that he was in a swoon or a fit of fainting. The holy books of God bear witness that Jonah, by the grace of God, remained alive in the belly of the fish, and came out alive; and his people ultimately accepted him. If, then Jesus (on whom be peace) had died in the belly of the ‘fish’, what resemblance could there be between a dead man and the one who was alive, and how could a living one be compared with one dead? The truth rather is, that as Jesus was a true prophet and as he knew that God, whose beloved he was, would save him from an accursed death, he made a prophecy in the form of a parable, revealed to him by God, in which he hinted that he would not die on the Cross, nor would he give up the ghost on the accursed wood; on the contrary, like the prophet Jonah, he would only pass through a state of swoon. In the parable he had also hinted that he would come out of the bowels of the earth and would then join the people and, like Jonah, would be honoured by them. So this prophecy too was fulfilled; for Jesus, coming out of the bowels of the earth, went to his tribes who lived in the eastern countries, Kashmir and Tibet, etc. viz. the ten tribes of the Israelites who, 721 years154 before Jesus, had been taken prisoner from Samaria by Shalmaneser, King of Assur, and had been 154

Besides these, more Jews were exiled to eastern countries as a result of Babylonian excesses.

jesus in islam

127

taken away by him. Ultimately, these tribes came to India and settled in various parts of this country. And Jesus at all events must have made this journey; for the divine object underlying his advent was that he should meet the lost Jews who had settled in the different parts of India; the reason being that these in fact were the lost sheep of Israel who had given up even their ancestral faith in these countries, and most of whom had adopted Buddhism, relapsing gradually into idolatory. Dr. Bernier, on the authority of a number of learned people, states in his Travels that the Kashmiris in reality are Jews who in the time of the dispersal in the days of the King of Assur had migrated to this country. In any case it was necessary for Jesus (peace be on him) to find out the whereabouts of these lost sheep, who had, on coming to this country, India, become merged into the other people. I shall presently adduce evidence that Jesus (peace be on him) did in fact come to India and then, by stages, travelled to Kashmir, and discovered the lost sheep of Israel among the people who professed the Buddhist faith and that these people ultimately accepted him, just as the people of the prophet Jonah accepted Jonah.155 And this was inevitable, for Jesus had said in so many words that he had been sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

17 jesus and non-violence Ghulam Ahmad Parwez156 (1903–85) was one of Pakistan’s most prolific and influential Muslim thinkers. His approach to Qur’anic interpretation

155 [Editor’s note:] Ghulam Ahmad’s theories involved references of obscure religious texts, the widespread ancient recipe for an ‘ointment of Jesus’ (which came to prominence because of legends about its effectiveness in reviving Jesus) and a convoluted argument attempting to demonstrate that Buddha’s biography was influenced by Jesus’ sojourn in India (see ibid., 62, 65–74, 75–80, and 81–101). 156 Also transliterated as Parvez, Perwaiz, Parvaiz, etc.

128

jesus in islam

influenced Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding President of Pakistan, whose Tolu-e-Islam157 movement is still active today. His work is controversial amongst some Muslims for its critical approach to Hadith traditions and rationalistic view of miracles. Citing western sources, Parwez sought to demonstrate that neither religion (which he defines as ‘priest craft’, superstition, and fatalism) nor scientific materialism are ultimately affirming to the human spirit and to scientific and social progress. The Qur’an provides, he maintained, the permanent values needed to unlock the divinely given potentialities of humanity.

Islam: A Challenge to Religion158 Christianity favours the policy of non-resistance to evil. We are advised by it not to return evil for evil, not to meet violence with violence. The New Testament tells us that the proper answer to an act of violence is an act of love: Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain (St. Matthew, 5: 38–41).

To do good in return for evil is said to be the best way to fight evil. No doubt, these are noble sentiments and in the personal lives of individuals may be praiseworthy. But it is doubtful if Jesus (P)159 could have taught these precepts for universal behaviour; for experience does not prove their wisdom. They hold good in rare instances only, and Anbiya160 do not speak for rare exceptions. The history of Christianity too negates

157

Lit. ‘Resurgence/Dawn of Islam’. Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, Islam: A Challenge to Religion (Lahore: Idara-e-Tulu-e-Islam, 1968), 286–8. 159 [Editor’s note:] Short for ‘Peace be upon him’, a phrase Muslims use when saying the name of a prophet. 160 [Editor’s note:] The plural form of nabi, ‘prophet’. 158

jesus in islam

129

their authenticity. Dean Inge’s comment on this way of combating evil deserves careful consideration: The principle on non-resistance was laid down for a little flock in a hostile environment. But an organized society cannot abstain from the use of coercion. No one would suggest that a Christian Government must not suppress a gang of criminals within its own borders, and if this is admitted, can we doubt that it should defend itself against an invading enemy? . . . Augustine held that war is justified in repelling wanton and rapacious attacks and that in preventing such crimes we are acting in the true interest of the aggressor. Without justice what is empire but brigandage on a large scale . . . Allowing that circumstances may arise which make a defensive war inevitable we have found a principle which will guide us in concrete cases.161

Even in the New Testament, as it exists today, there are statements here and there which are clearly at variance with the creed of non-violence and absolute non-resistance to evil. For example Christ (P) is reported as saying: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law (St. Matthew, 10: 34–35).

It is obvious that the use of force to defend a good cause is not ruled out in Christianity. In our own time, ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi of India was believed to be a staunch and uncompromising supporter of the creed of non-violence. He too, had to tone down his idealism and adopt a more realistic attitude to evil: If an open warfare were a possibility, I may concede that we may tread the path of violence that the other countries have, and at best evolve the qualities that bravery on the battlefield brings forth.162 161

Dean Inge, The Fall of Idols (London: Putnam, 1940), 176–9, 177, 181. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Young India, 147 (quoted by Fatima Mansur, In Process of Independence [London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul and the Humanities Press, 1962] ). 162

130

jesus in islam

This apostle of ahimsa163 even goes so far as to admit that when the need arises, not only men but also women will have to resort to violence and meet force with force. It is needless to add that the followers of this rishi164 have resorted to violence whenever it suited their purpose.

18 jesus between us and you Muslims from across the world and from all major denominations of Islam have endorsed this next reading. ‘A Common Word’, an unprecedented consensus statement written in 2007, seeks a constructive basis for dialogue between Muslims and Christians. At the heart of this document is the attempt to build concord between these two religions by using principles from the Qur’an and teachings of Jesus from the Bible.

A Common Word165 Whilst Islam and Christianity are obviously different religions—and whilst there is no minimising some of their formal differences—it is clear that the Two Greatest Commandments are an area of common ground and a link between the Qur’an, the Torah and the New Testament. What prefaces the Two Commandments in the Torah and the New Testament, and what they arise out of, is the Unity of God—that there is only one God. For the Shema in the Torah, starts: (Deuteronomy 6: 4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, 166 said: (Mark 12: 29) ‘The first the LORD is one! Likewise, Jesus of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD

163

[Editor’s note:] A Sanskrit term for non-violence, lit. ‘without injury’. [Editor’s note:] A Sanskrit term meaning ‘sage’ or ‘saint’. 165 This is the third and final section of A Common Word between Us and You entitled, ‘Come to a Common Word between Us and You’ (Jordan: The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2007 ce, 1428 ah) See: www.acommonword.com. 166 [Editor’s note:] The Arabic character here in the original text means ‘Peace be upon him’. For Muslims, this expression follows after the naming of any Prophet or Angel. 164

jesus in islam

131

is one”.’ Likewise, God says in the Holy Qur’an: Say: He, God, is One. | God, the Self-Sufficient Besought of all. (Al-Ikhlas, 112: 1–2).167 Thus the Unity of God, love of Him, and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded. This could not be otherwise since Jesus said: (Matthew 22: 40) ‘On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.’ Moreover, God confirms in the Holy Qur’an that the Prophet Muhammad 168 brought nothing fundamentally or essentially new: Naught is said to thee (Muhammad) but what already was said to the messengers before thee (Fussilat 41: 43). And: Say (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is Revealed to me, and I am but a plain warner (AlAhqaf, 46: 9). Thus also God in the Holy Qur’an confirms that the same eternal truths of the Unity of God, of the necessity for total love and devotion to God (and thus shunning false gods), and of the necessity for love of fellow human beings (and thus justice), underlie all true religion: And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Worship God and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom God guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers! (Al-Nahl, 16: 36) We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may stand forth in justice . . . (Al-Hadid, 57: 25)

Come to a Common Word! In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High tells Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture): Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no 167 [Editor’s note:] In each of the Qur’anic references the first term is the Arabic title for the Surah. 168 [Editor’s note:] The Arabic character used here means ‘Peace and blessings be upon him’; the Qur’an (see Q 33: 56) enjoins Muslims to send peace and blessings upon the Prophet.

132

jesus in islam partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3: 64)

Clearly, the blessed words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God. Clearly also, worshipping none but God, relates to being totally devoted to God and hence to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries (tafsir) on the Holy Qur’an—the Jami’ Al-Bayan fi Ta’wil Al-Qur’an of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Al-Tabari (d. 310 a.h. / 923 c.e.)—that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, means ‘that none of us should obey in disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God’. In other words, that Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God commanded them, and not have ‘to prostrate before kings and the like’169 for God says elsewhere in the Holy Qur’an: Let there be no compulsion in religion . . . (Al-Baqarah, 2: 256). This clearly relates to the Second Commandment and to love of the neighbour of which justice170 and freedom of religion are a crucial part. God says in the Holy Qur’an: God forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! God loveth the just dealers. (Al-Mumtahinah, 60: 8)

We thus as Muslims invite Christians to remember Jesus’s words in the Gospel (Mark 12: 29–31): . . . the LORD our God, the LORD is one. | And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. | And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these. 169

Abu Ja’far Muhammad Bin Jarir Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, 1st edn, 1992/1412), tafsir of Aal-‘Imran, 3: 64; Volume 3, pp. 299–302. 170 According to grammarians cited by Tabari (op. cit.) the word ‘common’ (sawa’) in ‘a common word between us’ also means ‘just’, ‘fair’ (adl).

jesus in islam

133

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes, (in accordance with the verse of the Holy Qur’an [Al-Mumtahinah, 60: 8] quoted above). Moreover, God says in the Holy Qur’an: They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him). | They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with another in good works. These are of the righteous. | And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them. God is Aware of those who ward off (evil). (Aal-‘Imran, 3: 113–115)

Is Christianity necessarily against Muslims? In the Gospel Jesus Christ says: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad. (Matthew 12: 30) For he who is not against us is on our side. (Mark 9: 40) . . . for he who is not against us is on our side. (Luke 9: 50)

According to the Blessed Theophylact’s171 Explanation of the New Testament, these statements are not contradictions because the first statement (in the actual Greek text of the New Testament) refers to demons, whereas the second and third statements refer to people who recognised Jesus, but were not Christians. Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, not in the same way Christians do (but Christians themselves anyway have never all agreed with each other on Jesus Christ’s nature), but in the following way: . . . the Messiah Jesus son of Mary is a Messenger of God and His Word which he cast unto Mary and a Spirit from Him . . . (Al-Nisa’, 4: 171). We therefore invite Christians to consider Muslims not against and thus with them, in accordance with Jesus Christ’s words here. Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to come together with us on the common essentials of our two 171 The Blessed Theophylact (1055–1108 ce) was the Orthodox Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria (1090–1108 ce). His native language was the Greek of the New Testament. His Commentary is currently available in English from Chrysostom Press.

134

jesus in islam

religions . . . that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God . . . (Aal ‘Imran, 3: 64). Let this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us, for our common ground is that on which hangs all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22: 40). God says in the Holy Qur’an: Say (O Muslims): We believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. | And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and God will suffice thee against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Al-Baqarah, 2: 136–137)

Between Us and You Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake. And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony. God says in the Holy Qur’an: Lo! God enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving

jesus in islam

135

to kinsfolk, and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may take heed (Al Nahl, 16: 90). Jesus Christ said: Blessed are the peacemakers . . . (Matthew 5: 9), and also: For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? (Matthew 16: 26). So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill. God says in the Holy Qur’an: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a law and a way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 48)

Wal-Salaamu ‘Alaykum, Pax Vobiscum.172 172

[Editor’s note:] ‘And Peace Be Upon You’ (Arabic) / ‘Peace Be With You’ (Latin).

This page intentionally left blank

jesus in islam

137

JESUS IN ISLAM Closing Reflection

Students of religion may find Islam, which has lately taken a front seat in current affairs across the globe, an unfamiliar entity. This stands in contrast to the fact that, since its inception in the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century ce, Islam has had contact with all major world religions. During the past fourteen centuries, for example, Islam and Christianity have met each other socially, politically, and theologically. It might be said that these two religions have met most frequently and most intensely around the figure of Jesus Christ. From a western academic perspective, it may seem strange that one who appeared six centuries after Jesus Christ could make correct historical pronouncements about Christianity’s central figure. However, from the Muslim point of view, Muhammad received his revelation from the same Source that lay behind the miracles of Jesus. Muslims believe it is that Source that bears witness to Jesus in the Qur’an. It is therefore appropriate that the readings of this chapter begin with the Qur’an. Muslims accept the Qur’an to be the literal word of God; however, the Qur’an is a highly complex book and its interpretations have likewise been diverse. From the various readings above and specifically from the Qur’an, it is nevertheless very clear that Islam requires its adherents to commit to the belief that Jesus was a mortal human messenger of God, one who emerged before Muhammad. Jesus proclaimed the same message as all other prophets about the Oneness and Uniqueness of God. Even though Christian and Muslim scriptures disagree on the identity of Jesus (Trinity vs. Prophethood), the readings of this chapter also suggest that there are many places where Muslim and non-Muslim views of Jesus converge.

138

jesus in islam

In 615 ce, a small number of Muslims, at the advice of the Prophet Muhammad, fled the persecution of Arab polytheists by emigrating to the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia). However, their Meccan persecutors followed them and spread rumours about their ‘heretical’ ideas. Their lives hung in the balance as they appeared before the Abyssinian king to give an account of their beliefs. The Muslims read from the Qur’an about Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus,173 convincing the court of their beliefs. However, their Meccan persecutors still attempted to force a confrontation: ‘Oh King, they utter an enormous lie about Jesus the son of Mary. Do but send for them, and ask what they say of him.’174 In front of the King again, the Muslims said, ‘We say of him what our Prophet brought unto us, that he [Jesus] is the slave of God and His Messenger, and His Spirit and His Word which he cast unto Mary, the blessed Virgin.’175 After this conversation, they were given refuge by the Christian King to live in his land for as long as they wished. This first bridge between Christian and Muslim communities was based upon love and reverence for the figure of Jesus. Muslims and Christians have, on the other hand, deeply disagreed about Jesus. Over the past fourteen centuries Muslim scholars have emphasized differences regarding the divinity and crucifixion of Jesus. Most of the readings in this chapter from the medieval era have reiterated in rational, spiritual, or mystical ways the statements of both the Qur’an and Hadith about the human nature of Jesus. Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) used a spiritual metaphor to point out that Jesus was extremely important as a chosen messenger, but his shining divine light should not be confused with the Source itself. Al-Razi (b. 1149 ce) employed a rational approach based upon the Qur’an and Hadith to refute that Jesus could partake of the nature of God. In a similar way, Ibn Arabi, though highlighting

173

Q 19: 16-21; see reading one in this chapter. Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources (Cambridge: The Islamic Text Society, 1997), 84. 175 Ibid. 84. 174

jesus in islam

139

the mystical dimensions of experience, took care to point out that Jesus should not be confused with God. Ibn Kathir’s (d. 1373) text is but one of many examples of using the Qur’an and Hadith to refute the Christian account of the crucifixion and resurrection. However, there is far more than refutation involved in Muslim accounts of Jesus. Muslims share with Christians a love for Jesus, believe in the miracles of Jesus (performed by God’s permission), and look forward to his return. The reading from Al-Tabari (d. 923) presents the closeness felt by Muslims for Jesus, whom they affectionately call ruh Allah (spirit of God). Many scholars of the eighth and ninth centuries collected traditions about Jesus in order to enrich their understanding of this spiritual messenger. Al-Tabari uncovered details concerning Mary’s childhood and the birth of Jesus that were found not only in the Hadith but also in accounts from Hebrew and Aramaic traditions including Christian non-canonical Gospels. All of these were known as Isra’iliyat (traditions from the nation of Israel) and were only accepted as long as they did not contradict the Qur’an and Hadith. Through these accounts Muslims gained valued information of Jesus as a spiritual youth and ascetic figure. Though Jesus had only been on earth for a short period,176 his miracles, wisdom, and knowledge of the Torah began to demonstrate themselves as early as his birth. However it was early expressions of Sufism that took the spirituality and asceticism of Jesus to a new level in ways that were consonant with the Qur’anic world-view. The Sufi movement began as a protest against the materialism in the seventh and eighth centuries that accompanied the rapid expansion of the Islamic world: the building of grand palaces, libraries, madrasas, and mosques adorned with gold. Accompanying this wealth was a tendency for some to become trapped in superficial legal discussions devoid of spiritual depth. These tendencies were viewed by Sufis as rejecting the austere path of the prophet Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. At the same time, Jesus emerged as an example of an ascetic 176 Muhammad was 40 when he received Prophethood whereas Jesus was already raised to heaven at the age of 33.

140

jesus in islam

who in his own time had rejected a similar level of materialism and rigid legalism through a lifestyle marked by silence, poverty, and fasting. Later Sufi authors explored deep spiritual lessons in traditions associated with Jesus. Jalaluddin Rumi (d. 1273) and others have viewed Jesus as both a healer of the heart and a beacon of the truth, a truth deeper than that revealed by a superficial orientation to the material world. Perhaps the images and messages surrounding Jesus that have emerged amongst Sufis can offer our era a road away from excessive materialism and toward a deeper sense of spirituality. The Muslim orientation to Jesus as a spiritual figure has sometimes led to a polemical contrast between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad is viewed as having embodied the right blend of spirit and law, or justice and mercy, to build a renewed society. Jesus is seen by some Muslims as having lived out only one side of this equation: spirituality and mercy. The polemical implication is clear: Jesus offers only half of what was offered by Muhammad, a spirituality limited to individuals rather than for both individuals and society. Jesus is, therefore, only one half of the equation. As with all polemics, this is a superficial and misleading characterization. For, Muslims believe that all prophets were sent by God to manifest God’s complete message within their context. Thus, Jesus cannot be seen as a limited figure in his own time but as one who fully represented the path of God for his era. Similarly, Muhammad represented the complete message for his context (which includes this era). Since Muslims recognize themselves as the Ummah (Nation or Community of believers) of the Prophet Muhammad, it follows that Muhammad’s Sunnah (way, deeds, and manner of the Prophet) is a focus of admiration and emulation for Muslims—not because he is more ‘complete’ than Jesus, but because he is the prophet for this time. Most Muslims do argue that the present era requires a path that addresses both individual spirituality as well as complex social issues of everyday life. This is achieved through the Sunnah of the Prophet. However, the Sufi (or spiritual) perspective in Islam calls Muslims to take the step of cleansing the heart for the sake of spiritual growth—the examples of both Muhammad and Jesus are relevant.

jesus in islam

141

It is important also to recognize that the emphasis on Jesus as a figure of the first century ce is complemented in Islam with the eschatological Christ who is believed to return at the end of time. In these last days he will, it seems, very much live out the other side of the equation as well. It is argued that he will descend to earth, fight against the Antichrist, marry and have children. He will live and deal with everyday life as a prophet of God and even die a natural death. It seems that the Seal of Israel (Jesus) and the Seal of the Prophets (Muhammad) will live in close proximity to each other in the future as they have in the past. Moving into the nineteenth century, Muslim reactions to Jesus were often bound up with the Christian missionary enterprise, which itself was associated with colonialism. Hindu reflections from this period reclaimed Jesus for Hindus; one fascinating piece of writing addressing Muslims comes from Mirza Ghulam Ahmed. In a context of apocalyptic feelings and inter-religious conflict, Mirza and his followers believed that reclaiming the life and death of Jesus for Muslims in India could lead to greater peace and understanding between all faiths. However, the movement Mirza Ghulam Ahmed founded came to be regarded by Sunni Muslims as heretical because of historical and theological objections to the idea of Jesus surviving the crucifixion and travelling to Kashmir. Furthermore, Mirza’s claim that Jesus’ eschatological role had devolved onto him has put him beyond orthodoxy for the majority of Muslims.177 Through the readings of this chapter it should be clear that views of Jesus both merge and diverge between Christianity and Islam. Those who wish to make Jesus a bridge between religions must take care not to pretend that minority Muslim viewpoints, or views on the fringe of Islam, are the views of the majority. Without this care, dialogue becomes deceptive and those who author pluralistic statements for the sake of concord create an unstable bridge. Such statements can often encounter too much internal opposition for the viewpoint to have any real meaning

177 Neal Robinson, ‘Which Islam? Which Jesus?’ Jesus in the World Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker (New York: Orbis, 2005), 133.

142

jesus in islam

as a representative declaration. The academic community must be especially careful to represent Muslim views as they are, not as one would wish them to be. In fact, there are legitimate grounds for Muslims to see a gulf as well as a bridge between their views of Jesus and the views of Christians and other religious and non-religious perspectives. Conversely, those who wish to promote the Muslim faith must take care not to represent their views on Jesus merely through superficial polemic which causes hurt and offence to others. This is why the final reading of this chapter, ‘A Common Word’, is such a powerful document: it corrects both of these tendencies. First, there is a robust presentation of Muslim belief and commitment where differences between Christian and Muslim viewpoints are not minimized—including differences on interpretations of Jesus. However, throughout the document Jesus is presented in such a way as to seek friendship and peace with Christians. To build a bridge to the figure of Jesus it is important to know him from various traditions and to celebrate the similarities found across the spectrum of religious traditions, for example spirituality vs. excess materialism. However, we have to respect the idea that there are differing views about Jesus that are based upon the truth claims of individual traditions. We need to have candid discussions and debates. But we also need to respect that humans will make their own decisions based upon the sources of authority to which they orient themselves. After all, is it not choice that gives humanity both its strong similarities as well as its intriguing variations? Amjad Hussain

jesus in islam

143

questions for discussion * Does the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels support the Qur’anic view that central to Jesus’ message was a proclamation against idolatry and the encouragement to submit to God? (Readings one to five) * That there has been conflict between Muslims and Christians on the identity of Jesus (Trinity vs. Prophethood) is clear. However, having read the Qur’an’s views of Jesus, how could it be argued that Jesus is actually more of a bridge than a gulf between the two religions? (Readings one to five and eighteen) * The events surrounding the crucifixion famously divide Muslims and Christians. However, in both accounts Jesus is vindicated by God and awaits a future return. So, do Muslims and Christians agree more than they disagree? (Readings three and fifteen) * To what degree does the title ‘servant (or ‘slave’) of Allah’ fit the figure described in the four Gospels? (Reading six) * What does one learn about Islam from the description of Jesus and the cataclysmic events at the end of time? (Reading six) * Has the west lost sight of Jesus as an ascetic figure? (Reading seven) * What do the miracles ascribed to Jesus in Muslim traditions teach about human nature? (Readings eight, nine, and twelve) * ‘The position that Jesus was a prophet is more rational and historically accurate than both Christian claims and atheistic doubt’. What are the grounds for and against this claim? (Readings ten, eleven, and thirteen).

144

jesus in islam

* What might Muslims say are the qualities humans need to acquire in order to reflect the light of God in a morally ambiguous society? (Readings eleven, twelve, and sixteen) * How might Christians react to the claim that all people can attain to the purity of Jesus’ soul? (Reading fourteen) * Are the ethical injunctions made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount about non-violence eminently practical or eminently impractical for the progress of society today? (Reading seventeen)

jesus in islam

145

guide for further reading The following list, though not comprehensive, provides readers with many places to pursue questions that have arisen in this chapter. Historical and Contemporary Studies Arberry, A. J. Sufism: An Account of the Mystics of Islam. London, Boston, and Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1979 (1950). Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur’an and Its Interpreters. Vols. 1 and 2. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1984 and 1992. —–— ‘Toward an Islamic Christology I: An Image of Jesus in Early Shī‘i Muslim Literature’. Muslim World, 66, no. 3 (July 1976), 163–88. —–— ‘Toward an Islamic Christology, II: The Death of Jesus, Reality or Delusion, A Study of the Death of Jesus in Tafsīr Literature’. Muslim World, 70, no. 2 (April 1980), 91–121. Ebied, Rifaat Y., and David Thomas, eds. and trans., Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades. Leiden: Brill, 2005. El-Enany, Rasheed. Naguib Mahfouz: The Pursuit of Meaning. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Goddard, Hugh. ‘An Annotated Bibliography of Works about Christianity by Egyptian Muslim Authors’. Muslim World, 80 (1990), 251–77. Leirvik, Oddbjørn. Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: Introduction, Survey of Research, Issues of Dialogue. Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research, 1999.

146

jesus in islam

Massignon, L. Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Mir, Mustansir. ‘Islamic Views of Jesus’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 115–24. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007. Nicholson, Reynold Alleyne. Studies in Islamic Mysticism. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978. O’Connor, Kathleen Malone. ‘The Islamic Jesus: Messiahood and Human Divinity in African American Muslim Exegesis’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 66, no. 3 (Fall 1998), 493–532. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in the Qur’an. London and Oxford: The Sheldon Press and Oneworld Publications, 1995. Reynolds, G. S. A Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: ‘Abd alJabbār and the Critique of Christian Origins. Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004. Ridgeon, Lloyd V. J. Crescents on the Cross: Islamic Visions of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity: The Representation of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Classical Muslim Commentaries. London: Macmillan, 1991. Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein. Islamic Messianism: The Idea of the Mahdi in Twelver Shi‘ism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1981. Thomas, David. Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abū ‘Īsā al-Warrāq’s ‘Against the Incarnation’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Trimingham, J. Spencer. Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times. New York, London, and Beirut: Longman and Librairie du Liban, 1979.

jesus in islam

147

Wismer, Don. The Islamic Jesus: An Annotated Bibliography of Sources in English and French. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1977. Muslim Reflections on Jesus Addleton, Jonathan S. ‘Images of Jesus in the Literatures of Pakistan’. Muslim World, 80, no. 2 (April 1990), 96–106. Ali, Maulvi Muhammad. Muhammad and Christ. Lahore: Ahmadia Anjuman, 1921. In Christianity: Some Non-Christian Appraisals, ed. David W. McKain, 277–88. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976. Askari, Hasan. Inter-Religion: A Collection of Essays. Aligarh: Printwell Publications, 1977. —–— ‘The Real Presence of Jesus in Islam’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 142–6. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007. ‘Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsil Qur’an, 1991, and London: Millat Book Center, 1983 (1977). Hussein, M. Kamel. City of Wrong: A Friday in Jerusalem. Trans. Kenneth Cragg. Oxford: Oneworld, 1994 (first English translation, 1959). Maqsood, Ruqaiyyah Waris. The Separated Ones: Jesus, The Pharisees and Islam. London: SCM, 1991. Robinson, Neal. ‘Which Islam? Which Jesus?’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 132–41. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007. Siddiqui, Mona. ‘Jesus in Popular Muslim Thought’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 125–31. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007. Soroudi, Sorours. ‘On Jesus’ Image in Modern Persian Poetry’. Muslim World, 69, no. 4 (October 1979), 221–8.

148

jesus in islam

Interfaith Explorations Al-Faruqi, Ismail Raji. Islam and Other Faiths. Ed. Ataullah Siddiqi. Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation and The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1998. Askari, Hasan, and John Hick, eds., The Experience of Religious Diversity. London: Gower, 1985. Ayoub, Mahmoud M. A Muslim View of Christianity: Essays on Dialogue. Ed. Irfan A. Omar. New York: Orbis, 2007. Balic, Smail. ‘The Image of Jesus in Contemporary Islamic Theology’. In We Believe in One God: The Experience of God in Christianity and Islam, ed. Annemarie Schimmel and Abdoldjavad Falatūri, 3–7. London: Burns & Oates, 1979. Berkey, Robert F., and Sarah A. Edwards, eds. Christology in Dialogue. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993. Cragg, Kenneth. The Call of the Minaret. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000 (1965). —–— Jesus and the Muslim. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1999 (1985). Goddard, Hugh. Muslim Perceptions of Christianity. London: Grey Seal, 1996. Ipgrave, Michael, ed. The Road Ahead—A Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Record of the Seminar ‘Building Bridges’ held at Lambeth Palace, 17–18 January 2002. London: Church House Publishing, 2002. Kerr, David. ‘Christology in Christian-Muslim Dialogue’. In Christology in Dialogue, ed. Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards, 201–20. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993. Mahfouz, Naguib. Children of Gebalawi. Trans. Philip Steward. London: Heinemann, 1981.

jesus in islam

149

Merad, Ali M. Christian Hermit in an Islamic World. Trans. Zoe Hersov. New York: Paulist Press, 1999. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic-Christian Dialogue-Problems and Obstacles to be Pondered and Overcome. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1998. —–— ‘The Islamic View of Christianity’. In Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, ed. Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann, 3–12. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986. Pinnault, David. ‘Images of Christ in Arabic Literature’. Die Welt des Islams, 27 (1987), 103–25. Räisänen, Heikki. ‘The Portrait of Jesus in the Qur’an: Reflections of a Biblical Scholar’. Muslim World, 70, nos. 3–4 (July–October 1980), 122–33. Ridgeon, Lloyd, ed. Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. Surrey, UK: Curzon, 2001. Robson, James M. Christ in Islam. Felinfach, Lampeter, Wales: Llanerch Publishers, 1995 (1929). Shepard, William. ‘Conversations in Cairo: Some Contemporary Muslim Views of Other Religions’. Muslim World, 70, nos. 3–4 (July–October 1980), 171–95. Siddiqi, Ataullah. Christian-Muslim Dialogue in the Twentieth Century. London and New York: Macmillan and St Martin’s Press, 1997. Swidler, Leonard, Reuven Firestone, and Khalid Duran. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muslim-Christian Encounters: Perceptions and Misperceptions. London: Routledge, 1991. Zebiri, Kate. Muslims and Christians Face to Face. Oxford: Oneworld, 1997.

This page intentionally left blank

CH A PTER III

jesus in hinduism: the classic texts

This page intentionally left blank

HINDU PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS Key Issues

Hinduism has been described as a religion of fire and ice, where contradictions and diversities of practice and belief are held within one large family of adherents, variously labelled as Hindu. This understanding can certainly be appreciated with regard to Hindu views of Jesus, for within the writings, sermons, poems, and lectures that follow there is a wide range of opinions and approaches toward Jesus, varying from devotional reverence to critical dismissal of his life and message. Superficially, Hinduism could be seen as an inclusive, pluralistic faith, often personified in responses from luminaries such as M. K. Gandhi, but we must be careful to see this as only a part of the Hindu-Christian story concerning Jesus. Critical voices abound, and voices of praise are often only understood fully within the context of the political or religious circumstances of the individual commentator. The chronology of this chapter is more truncated than the previous sections of this book. This is deliberate. Whilst Christianity claims to have been active within India since 54 ce, when it is believed that the Apostle Thomas arrived in the subcontinent, there is no reliable surviving evidence to clarify such statements beyond ‘tradition’. Later evidence does suggest the existence of a Syrian Christian community within India by the fourth century, but no documentation survives which sheds any light on perceptions of Jesus from the wider Indian community. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Christian interaction with Hindus was more commonplace, largely due to the missionary activity of Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch churches in South West India, but we are still faced with a major problem: the surviving documents and evidences are



jesus in hinduism

Christian reports of Hindu practice and beliefs, not primary sources of Hindu commentators. One notable example of such Hindu–Christian interaction was the work of Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg (1682–1719), a Danish Lutheran active as a missionary in South India. Ziegenbalg’s surviving letters, and the written records of his conversations with Hindus, are the earliest extant examples of genuine Hindu–Christian dialogue, and as such are of extreme importance. Despite this, he sits outside our current focus, as any evidence that survives him is filtered through a Christian scribe and viewed through a missionary lens. For the readings in this chapter to have sufficient authority for Hinduism, it is essential that Hindu voices should be allowed to speak for themselves, with no Christian translation or interpretation, however well meaning. Thus we find our first selected contributions from Hindu commentators taking place in the nineteenth century. The main reason for this is clear: British administration within India led to a monumental rise in Hindu–Christian dialogue, largely for the following reasons: firstly, missionary activity, although severely restricted in the very early days of the East India Company, was widespread by the nineteenth century; secondly, education reforms led to a large rise in middle-class Hindus attending British-sponsored schools, with western-style curricula; and, thirdly, British rule inspired codified and collective responses from Indian religious and political reformers. This last point is crucial to our collected writings in this section. Nineteenth century Indian responses to British rule galvanized concepts of ‘Indian-ness’ and ‘Hindu-ness’, which would eventually culminate in the success of the independence movement in the mid-twentieth century. In the course of this journey, Hinduism was reinterpreted and revitalized by key reformers and religious leaders, which of course required dialogue with and reference to the prevailing British ruling elite and their majority religion—Christianity. When examining this Hindu–Christian dialogue, several key issues arise as dominant themes in the writings of Indian religious leaders, to which we will now turn.

jesus in hinduism



Our first key issue is the concept of the Asiatic Christ. This is found explicitly in the writings of Sen (reading four), Vivekananda (reading nine), and Radhakrishnan (reading fourteen), and implicitly in the views of several other commentators. The positioning of Jesus as an oriental historical figure (in opposition to the ‘westernized’ Jesus of the Christian missionaries), served as a vital tool in the realignment of religious authority and provenance in Hindu–Christian dialogue. This technique of realignment was critical in establishing the importance of Asiatic contributions to human religiosity, and was used by Hindu reformers to ensure that Hinduism received a ‘fair hearing’ in relation to the accepted congress of world faiths. This happened in a very practical sense when Vivekananda journeyed to the west in 1893, to visit the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. Local newspapers of the time reported Vivekananda to have taken the Parliament by storm with his charisma and forceful message; a message which centred on promoting Hinduism as the ‘mother of all religions’. The ongoing development of an emerging ‘Hindu’ identity at this time was often reflected in Hindu–Christian dialogue. We see in the development of religious reform movements such as the Brahmo Samaj—a movement founded in the early nineteenth century that focused on social reform and religious integration—the use of positive and negative views of Jesus and Christianity as social, political, and religious arguments; indeed, the dialogue of theology and politics is often indistinguishable. This pattern continued well into the twentieth century with the Swaraj (‘Self-Rule’) movement of Gandhi who, whilst influenced heavily by Jesus, resisted all attempts by British or Christian friends to have him convert (reading ten). In this way, positive views of Jesus were often used to reinforce the strength of Hindu ideals, rather than to elevate the importance or validity of Christianity. In this respect, we find the second of our key issues in the writings of Hindu commentators, which is the concept of the Universal Jesus. Commentators such as Vivekananda (reading eight) have argued for an understanding of Jesus which does not limit his importance or influence to any one religious tradition. This is one instance amongst many of Hindu



jesus in hinduism

thinkers arguing stringently against Christian claims for Jesus’ uniqueness, and wider Christian claims for a monopoly on spiritual truth. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such claims were particularly important in challenging British assumptions of dominance and privilege in both religious and political life within India. Our third key issue relates to the philosophical background of many of the Hindu commentators’ analyses of Jesus. It is to be expected that Hindu commentators will filter the person and character of Jesus through a lens of their own making, and this is inextricably wrapped up in philosophical understandings of the world. One such example is advaita, a non-dual understanding of reality, which argues that there is a unity that lies behind all the apparent plurality and diversity of the universe— making distinctions such as ‘soul’ and ‘god’ logically false. Of course, this opposes classical Christian theism and contradicts much of Christian thinking concerning Jesus, including a literal understanding of incarnation, atonement of sins, and Trinitarian belief. In our readings, we see numerous examples of Hindu reinterpretations of Christian understandings of Jesus seen within this non-dual philosophy—for example Aurobindo’s lines of poetry describing the very moment of Jesus’ death on the cross (reading thirteen), and Radhakrishnan’s realignment of Jesus as an ethical, rather than salvific figure (reading fourteen). It is also interesting that two of the commentators chosen here, Rammohan Roy (reading two) and Dayananda Saraswati (reading five), concentrate much of their energy on reinterpreting scriptural statements concerning Jesus, albeit from opposing views concerning the value of Christianity. The emphasis for each of these writers was to challenge traditional Christian understandings of Jesus on Christian grounds. Roy, who valued the contribution Christianity could make to his reformed Hindu worship within the universalistic Brahmo Samaj, published The Precepts of Jesus with the express intention of removing all incarnational or miraculous elements of any understanding of Jesus—a move that would precipitate an angry reaction from Christian missionaries in India who had previously seen Roy as an ally in their work (reading two). For Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj religious movement, which was

jesus in hinduism



much more traditionalist in its promotion of the primacy of Hinduism than the more universalistic Brahmo Samaj, the text of the Bible represented the perfect opportunity to deconstruct Christian polemics and apologetics at their very source (reading five). Our fourth key issue is the focus that several of our chosen commentators place upon the human or divine nature of Jesus. The writings in this section cross a wide spectrum of opinion, ranging from views of Jesus as fully human (Saraswati, reading five), through an understanding of Jesus representing the embodiment of ‘divine humanity’ (Sen, reading three), to the belief that Jesus was a complete incarnation of God (Ramakrishna, reading six). This focus upon Jesus’ nature is crucial, as it is an important reminder that it is not possible to speak of ‘Hindu responses to Jesus’ as if that were a collective identity, standpoint, or view. Our final key issue is one that is central to several of our commentators—the separation and distinction of the person and figure of Jesus from ‘Christians’ and ‘The Church’. Much of this viewpoint rests upon an ethical interpretation of Jesus, where we see voices such as Vivekananda (reading eight), Aurobindo (reading twelve), and Radhakrishnan (reading fourteen) drawing a clear distinction between the teachings and example of Jesus, and the teachings and example of the established Churches and mainstream Christians. Simply put, several of our commentators argue that Jesus’ example has not been followed by those who claim his name. Such distinctions often have political agendas, of course—one can think here of Vivekananda and his desire to promote a Hindu-centred hierarchy of faiths as part of his dialogue with the west— but the issue at hand is wider than this. The distinctions drawn by our commentators highlight the importance of understanding the diverse Hindu views of Jesus in particular, rather than Hindu views of Christianity in general. The passages that follow will demonstrate that it is quite possible for Hindus with generally positive attitudes towards Christianity, such as Roy, to take issue with many mainstream Christian views of Jesus; similarly, commentators such as Vivekananda, who was often critical of Christians during his own lifetime, writes at length concerning the importance, value, and authority that Jesus has for him and his



jesus in hinduism

understanding of religion. It is for this reason that a full understanding of Hindu perceptions of Jesus remains fundamentally important to the areas of Hindu–Christian dialogue, inter-faith scholarship and practice, and the promulgation of a critical approach to the study of religion and religious categories. S.E.G.

jesus in hinduism



1 jesus was a unitarian Ram Mohun Roy (1772–1833) was a social and religious reformer who addressed women’s rights and educational progress. He also founded the Brahmo Samaj, a reform movement that sought to remove archaic and superstitious elements from communal worship. For Roy, this included a rejection in the belief of Jesus as an incarnation of God. This allowed a concentration on the ethical understanding of Jesus, which Roy believed was universal, and not limited by doctrine or creed, thus providing greater scope for Hindu–Christian dialogue. The following letter, written under the pseudonym Chundru Shekhur Dev, articulates clearly Roy’s stance on the incarnation of Jesus.

Answer of a Hindoo to the question ‘Why do you frequent a Unitarian place of worship, instead of the numerously attended established Churches’178 I. Because the prayers read, worship offered, and sermons preached in the Unitarian place of worship remind me of the infinitely wise Ruler of this infinite universe, without ascribing to him as Churchmen do, fellow-creators or co-operators equal in power and other attributes. My plain understanding, though it can comprehend the idea of fellow-creatures, is incapable of forming a notion of one or more fellew-creatures [sic] each equally possessed of omnipotence and omnipresence. II. Because Unitarian prayer, worship, and preaching constantly put me in mind of the benefical [sic] design kept in view by the wise and benevolent Author of all, in organizing the members of the animal 178 Jogendra Chunder Ghose, ed., The English Works of Raja Ram Mohun Roy Vol I (Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901), 287–90.



jesus in hinduism

body, such as bones, veins, vessels, limbs and in preparing the manifold necessaries of life for our maintenance, as proofs of his gratuitous blessing and free grace; while in those Churches he is declared to have refused mercy and salvation to mankind until innocent blood was offered him to appease his wrath. III. Because the Unitarian mode of worship exhibits how that infinite and Supreme author has designedly stationed the heavenly bodies, in systematic order, capable of producing and nourishing all the animal and vegetable objects under his divine control; while in those Churches that infinite being is represented as occupying a small space in this limited world, lying in a still smaller space in the womb of a virgin, subject to the control of his parents, though for a season, and daily performing the various animal functions. IV. Because I feel already weary of the doctrine of ‘Man-God’; ‘GodMan’ frequently inculcated by the Brahmuns,179 in pursuance of their corrupt traditions: the same doctrine of Man-God, though preached by another body of priests better dressed, better provided for and eminently elevated by virtue of conquest cannot effectually tend to excite my anxiety or curiosity to listen to it. V. Because I have expressed my disgust, when I heard from the Brahmuns the incredible story that God appeared in the form of a party-coloured [sic] kite, to accomplish certain purposes. While I maintain the same reverence for the Divine Being, I must be excused believing a similar doctrine held forth in those Churches, as to the appearance of God, on another occasion, in the bodily shape of a dove. I wonder to observe, that from a denial of the existence of God some are stigmatized with the term atheist; while others are highly respected, though they do not scruple, under the shield of religion, to

179 [Editor’s note:] Brahmins are the Hindu priestly caste. Roy is objecting to the popular Hindu belief in incarnations such as the figure of Ram, hero of the great epic The Ramayana.

jesus in hinduism



bring the Deity into ridicule, by representing him in the form even of a common bird. VI. Because having been taught in the schools, where the doctrine of the Incarnations of a two-fold or even of a three-fold180 nature has been solemnly preached, I perceive no novelty in the idea of a twofold nature, divine and human, as entertained and expressed in those Churches. VII. Because in those Churches, the Holy Ghost is represented as the very God and not as the miraculous power of the Deity, at the same time that the language applied there to this person of the Godhead; such as ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost’—‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee’181 fully coresponds [sic] to the words and ideas used for the deity in the western and eastern heathen mythologies, and consequently must be offensive to the feelings of those who ascribe to God purity and perfection. VIII. Because the doctrine of the trinity inculcated in those Churches, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is defensible only on the plea of mystery; while the Trinity preached to us by the Brahmuns is a representaton [sic] of the three principle [sic] attributes of the deity in all allegorical sense [sic], and does therefore deserve some momentary attention. The mind which rejects the latter as a production of the fancy, cannot be reasonably expected to adopt the former. IX. Because Unitarians reject polytheism and idolatry under every sophistical modification, and thereby discountenance all the evil consequences resulting from them. X. Because Unitarians believe, profess, and inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity—a doctrine which I find firmly maintained 180 [Editor’s note:] For example, the mixed man, lion, and divine nature of the Hindu figure Narasimha, an avatar of Vishnu. 181 [Editor’s note:] In other words, the Virgin Mary in Christian tradition.



jesus in hinduism both by the Christian Scriptures and by our most ancient writings commonly called the Vedas.

Such are my reasons for attending the Unitarian place of worship instead of the established Churches.

2 a divine teacher—not atoner As Roy did not see Jesus as God in human form, he rejected any Christian claim that Jesus should be viewed as an atoning saviour. In this extract, which is taken from a critical correspondence between Roy and a Christian priest (referred to here as the ‘Reverend Editor’) over this contentious issue, Roy focuses upon what he understood to be Jesus’ true message—the ethical fulfilment of God’s Law. In this way, Roy understands the person of Jesus within an ethical, rather than incarnational, framework.

The Precepts of Jesus: Second Appeal to the Christian Public182 In endeavouring to prove Jesus’s atonement for sin by his death, the Reverend Editor urges, ‘Is he called the Saviour of men because he gave them moral precepts, by obeying which they might obtain the divine favour, with the enjoyment of heaven as their just desert? Or, because he died in their stead to atone for their sins and procure for them every blessing? If Jesus be termed a Saviour merely because he instructed men, he has this honor in common with Moses, and Elijah and John the Baptist, neither of whom however assumed the title of “Saviour.”’ We find the title ‘Saviour’ applied frequently in the divine writings to those persons who had been

182 Ram Mohun Roy, The English Works of Raja Ram Mohun Roy Vol. III: The Precepts of Jesus—A Guide to Peace and Happiness; Extracted from the Books of the New Testament, Ascribed to the Four Evangelists with Translations into Sungscit and Bengalee (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1820), Part I, 172–5.

jesus in hinduism



endued with the power of saving people, either by inculcating doctrines, or affording protection to them although none of them atoned for the sins of mankind by their death. Obadiah, ver. 21: ‘And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.’ Nehemiah ch. ix. ver. 27: ‘And according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.’ 2 Kings ch. xiii. ver. 5: ‘The Lord gave Israel a saviour so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians.’ How could, therefore, the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible, lay such a stress upon the application of the term ‘Saviour’; to Jesus, as to adduce it as a proof of the doctrine of the atonement; especially when Jesus himself declares frequently, that he saved the people solely through the inculcation of the word of God? John, ch. xv. ver. 3: ‘Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.’ Ch. v. ver. 24: ‘He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.’ Ch. vi. ver. 63: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life:’; wherein Jesus represents himself as a Saviour, or a distributor of eternal life, in his capacity of divine teacher. Jesus is of course justly termed and esteemed a Saviour, for having instructed men in the Divine will and law, never before so fully revealed. Would it degrade Jesus to revere him as a Divine Teacher, because Moses and the Prophets before him delivered to the people divine instructions? Or would it depreciate the dignity of Jesus, to believe that he, in common with several other prophets, underwent afflictions and death? Such an idea is indeed unscriptural, for God represents the Christ as a Prophet equal to Moses, (Deut. ch. xviii. ver. 18.) Jesus declares himself to have come to fulfil the law taught by Moses: (Matthew, ch. v. ver. 7:) ‘Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil’; and strictly commands his disciples and the people at large to obey whatever Moses had taught. Ch. xxiii. vers. 2, 3: ‘Saying, the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.’ I am sorry that I cannot, without offending my conscience, agree with the Reverend Editor in the opinion, that ‘if Jesus be esteemed merely a



jesus in hinduism

teacher, the greater degree of honour must be given to Moses, for it was in reality his law that Jesus explained and established.’ It is true that Moses began to erect the everlasting edifice of true religion, consisting of a knowledge of the unity of God, and obedience to his will and commandments; but Jesus of Nazareth has completed the structure, and rendered his law perfect. To convince the Editor of this fact, I beg to call his attention to the following instances, found even in a single chapter, as exhibiting the perfection to which Jesus brought the Law given by Moses and other Prophets. Matthew, ch. v. vers. 21, 22: ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.’ Vers. 27, 28: ‘Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery.’ Vers. 31, 32: ‘It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.’ Vers. 38–39: ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ Vers. 43–45. ‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you: that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ Now I hope I may be justified in expressing my belief . . . that no greater honour can be justly given to any teacher of the will of God, than what is due to the author of the doctrines just quoted, which, with a power no less than standing miracles could produce, carry with them proofs of their divine origin to the conviction of the high and low, the learned and unlearned.

jesus in hinduism



3 jesus: the ideal son Keshub Chunder Sen (1838–84), third leader of the Brahmo Samaj, was famous for his radical reform of Hinduism, including religious rights for non-Brahmins. A fascinated observer of Christian doctrine, Sen held that the Godhead should not be seen as a Trinity, but as two distinct elements, ‘Father’ and ‘Spirit’. In relation to this he emphasized an understanding of Jesus firmly based upon the notion of ‘son-ship’. Thus Jesus, for Sen, was not an incarnation of God, per se, but an embodiment of the ideal of God’s Son—one whose knowledge, submission, and love for God was unique and which provided a perfect example of ‘Divine Humanity’.

Lectures in India183 I go to my God to learn all about the Godhead. I go to my Christ to learn what a son ought to be. God teaches me Divinity. Christ teaches me humanity. What is Christianity but the Religion of Humanity? Or shall I say the Worship of Humanity? For it seems there is a deep-seated conviction in Christendom that though Christ was a man, he must nevertheless be worshipped as ‘Divine.’ Would you give homage to Christ? Would you bow before him as before Divine humanity? Yes, you may go even so far as that. Humanity when touched and inspired by Divinity is indeed worthy of the profoundest reverence. We instinctively bow before it, and give it spontaneous homage though it is human. And so the world bends its head in reverence akin to adoration, and glorifies that God-man, Christ. But this homage is not the worship of Divinity, but the worship of humanity. It is the worship not of our Father, but of our Brother. Brother-worship! A strange doctrine! Yet perfectly 183 Keshub Chunder Sen, Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. II (London, Paris, New York, and Melbourne: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1904), 25–7.



jesus in hinduism

logical. If Christ is the Son of God, the Son of our Holy Father, he is unto us all a Brother, the sweetest, the purest, the brightest of our brothers. Is he an incarnation? He is an incarnation of Brotherhood, not Fatherhood. He is our holy Brother in flesh. The blessed gospel that gladdened Bethlehem eighteen centuries ago was that unto us a Brother was born. The spirit that came down from heaven and took a human form was the spirit of our Divine Brother. If you accept Christ as the Son of God, you are bound to carry the doctrine to its legitimate logical conclusion. You must boldly proclaim him your Brother. Christian brethren, shudder not, falter not, be not ashamed of Brother-Christ. It is the glory of Christianity that it is not only the religion of Divinity, but also and pre-eminently the religion of Humanity. It gives us the Father and the Brother both. The Father and the Brother have I said? Between the two there is an eternal distinction. The Brother was born, he is called the ‘begotten Son’; but the Father is the unbegotten, unborn, uncreate God, the Creator of all, Himself uncreated. When, therefore, you glorify the Son, remember this eternal distinction, which no heresy can ignore, no sophistry can explain away. In exalting Christ you exalt your divine Brother, in honouring him you only honour humanity. Come then, let us magnify our Father, and let us magnify our Brother also. Let heaven and earth sing the name of the Supreme Jehovah. One only without a second, and of His Son, Jesus Christ, through whom as through a brother’s example, fallen humanity rises sanctified and regenerated.

4 repudiate the little christ In response to missionary calls for Hindus to convert to Christianity on the basis of the teachings of Jesus, Sen argued for a universal understanding of an Asiatic Christ, who was accessible to adherents of many faiths. Sen argued that Christian missionaries had misunderstood the provenance and heritage of Jesus, ignoring his Asiatic roots and claiming him as their own. Sen’s rejection of the exclusive Christian view of Jesus had two desired

jesus in hinduism



outcomes: firstly, that Hinduism should not be subjugated by Christianity but be accepted into the established order of ‘world religions’; and secondly, that this religious shift could facilitate a social shift for the Indian people to better their political position in relation to the British colonial rule of India.

Lectures in India184 Wherever there is intelligence, in all stages of life, where there is the least spark of instinct, there dwells Christ, if Christ is the Logos. In this right and rational view do not the Fathers all agree? Do they not speak of an allpervading Christ? Do they not bear unequivocal testimony to Christ in Socrates? Even in barbarian philosophy and in all Hellenic literature they saw and adored their Logos-Christ. In the midst of this large assembly I deny and repudiate the little Christ of popular theology, and stand up for a greater Christ, a fuller Christ, a more eternal Christ, a more universal Christ. I plead for the eternal Logos of the Fathers, and I challenge the world’s assent. This is the Christ who was in Greece and Rome, in Egypt and India. In the bards and the poets of the Rig Veda was he. He dwelt in Confucius and in Sakya Muni.185 This is the true Christ whom I can see everywhere, in all lands and in all times, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in America, in ancient and modern times. He is not the monopoly of any nation or creed. [ . . . ] Shall we not magnify our race by proclaiming Christ Jesus as a fellow-Asiatic? Surely, the fact, that Christ and other masters all belong to our nationality, and are all of Asiatic blood, causes a thrill of pride in every Eastern heart. * * * If, however, our Christian friends persist in traducing our nationality and national character, and in distrusting and hating Orientalism, let me assure them that I do not in the least feel dishonoured by such imputations. On the contrary, I rejoice, yea, I am proud, that I am an Asiatic. And 184 Keshub Chunder Sen, Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. II (London, Paris, New York, and Melbourne: Cassell and Company Ltd, 1904), 32 and 55–6, and Keshub Chunder Sen, Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. I (London, Paris, New York, and Melbourne: Cassell and Company Ltd, 1901), 33–4. 185 [Editor’s note:] This is an alternative title for Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha.



jesus in hinduism

was not Jesus Christ an Asiatic? Yes, and his disciples were Asiatics, and all the agencies primarily employed for the propagation of the Gospel were Asiatic. In fact, Christianity was founded and developed by Asiatics, in Asia. When I reflect on this, my love for Jesus becomes a hundredfold intensified; I feel him nearer my heart, and deeper in my national sympathies. Why should I then feel ashamed to acknowledge that nationality which he acknowledged? Shall I not rather say he is more congenial and akin to my Oriental nature, more agreeable to my Oriental habits of thought and feeling? And is it not true that an Asiatic can read imageries and allegories of the Gospel, and its descriptions of natural sceneries, of customs, and manners, with greater interest, and a fuller perception of their force and beauty, than Europeans? (Cheers)186 In Christ we see not only the exaltedness of humanity, but also the grandeur of which Asiatic nature is susceptible. To us Asiatics, therefore, Christ is doubly interesting, and his religion is entitled to our peculiar regard as an altogether Oriental affair. The more this great fact is pondered, the less I hope will be the antipathy and hatred of European Christians against Oriental nationalities, and the greater the interest of the Asiatics in the teachings of Christ. And thus in Christ, Europe and Asia, the East and the West, may learn to find harmony and unity. (Deafening applause)

5 jesus: simple, honest, and ignorant Dayananda Saraswati (1824–83) founded the Arya Samaj, a religious reform movement that adopted a more critical stance towards non-Hindu faith systems than either Roy or Sen. He did not seek common ground with Christianity, but sought to counter Christian claims for Jesus’ uniqueness by demythologizing biblical tales of miracles and incarnation. In the following extracts, Saraswati

186

[Editor’s note:] This part of the text was originally delivered as a speech; the original editor has indicated the response of the audience.

jesus in hinduism



argues that Jesus was human and flawed, and that Christians are misguided in placing importance upon Jesus’ miracles. Crucially, Saraswati believed this would undermine the central tenets of Christianity, including the core belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Saraswati bases his argument on a rhetorical style of quotation from the Gospels followed by a refutation.

Satyarth Prakash187 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was this wise. When as his mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.—Mat. I. 18, 20.

No learned man can believe these things; as they are against the evidence of the senses, the laws of nature. It is the credulity of ignorant men and savages to put faith in them, but not the civilised and learned people. Well, can any one violate the order of God? If God trifle with his law, none will obey it. But he never does so, as he is omniscient and free from doubt. If the above is a fact, whenever a maiden is found big with a child, the same thing can be said of her, namely, she is pregnant with the grace of God; and it can be falsely given out that an angel of God declared it in a dream. Like this impossibility, the Puranas188 mention Kunti’s conception by the sun. Such dogmas are believed by those who are mentally blind & financially fat to be caught in the priest’s trap. It may be that when Mary was found pregnant, either she or somebody else gave currency to the impossibility that her pregnancy was from God. [ ...] Behold there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, if thou wilt thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.—Mat. VIII. 2–3. 187

Durga Prasad, ed. and trans., English Translation of the Satyarth Prakash: Literally Exposed of Right Sense (Vedic Religion) of Maharshi Swami Dayanand Saraswati ‘The Luther of India’ Being a Guide to Vedic Hermeneutics (Lahore: Virjananda Press, 1908), 471, 473, 481–2, 479, and 474–5. 188 [Editor’s note:] The Puranas are a collection of eighteen sacred books, traditionally ascribed to the sage Vyasa. They elaborate and popularize many of the religious teachings of the Vedas through popular stories, myths, parables, and legends.



jesus in hinduism

All these things are for the entrapping of simpletons. For, if the Christians believe these statements of the Bible to be true though against the teachings of knowledge and the laws of nature; why don’t they believe as truth what is said in the Puranas? For example [ . . . ] Dhanwantry189 raised hundreds of thousands of the dead, cleansed as many lepers and healed the sick, opened the eyes and ears of the blind and the deaf by millions. Why do you call these tales to be myths? If these tales are myths, why are not the miracles of Christ belived [sic] to be myths also? If you call others’ assertions to be untrue & your myths true, why will you not be set down as bigots? Hence what the Christians say savours of bigotry and childishness. [ . . . ] ‘And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came, and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. He is not here; for he is risen, as he said, (Come, see the place where the Lord lay.) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying. All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then Jesus unto them, Be not afraid, go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’—Mat. XXVIII. 2, 6, 9, 10, 16–18, 20.

What is said above in the verses, does not deserve credence; for it is against the teachings of knowledge and the laws of nature. Is the tribunal of God made like a county court, or collectorate, that God has messengers called angels, and sends them here and there on errand and they descend from above? Is it true that he went to heaven and came to life in that body? For, when the women held him by the feet and worshipped him, was it the same body? Why was it not rotten in three days? It is but arrogance to talk of one’s own power over all. It is impossible to meet disciples and talk with them after death. If these things are true, why do some people not rise from the dead? Why do they not go to heaven in the same body? [ . . . ] 189 [Editor’s note:] This is an archaic spelling of Dhanvantari, an avatar of Vishnu who is mentioned in the Puranas as a divine healer. Hindus in need of healing often pray to Dhanvantari; he is associated with the foundation of Ayurveda medicine.

jesus in hinduism



‘And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then said he unto them, my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’—Mat. XXVI. 37–39.

See, had he not been human, and had he been the son of God, knowing what happens in the three divisions of time, and learned; he would not have acted so improperly. Hence, it is plain that all this imposture is brought about either by Christ or by his disciples out of falsehood; namely, he was the son of God, the knower of the past and future, and the forgiver of sins. It shows that he was merely an ordinary simple, honest, and ignorant man, neither learned, clairvoyant yogi, nor possessed of power. [ . . . ] ‘Jesus called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. It is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you. Think not that I am come to send peace or earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, & the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.’—Mat. X. 1, 20, 34–36.

These were those disciples one of whom betrayed Christ for 30 Rs.190 and the rest deserted his cause and took to their heels. The above wonders are against knowledge. The possession, obsession or exorcism of devils, the healing of diseases without medicines and regulation of regimen are against the laws of nature. Hence belief in them is characteristic of ignorance. If it is not the souls that speak, but it is God that speaks, what are the souls, doing in the body? The consequences of speaking truth or falsehood, i.e., happiness or misery, must be borne by God himself. Hence it is a false doctrine. As Christ came to create disunion and strife among people, it is still going on among them. How bad seeing that disunion always tends to the misery of the people. The Christians have accepted it as their creed. Since Christ regarded disunion to be good,

190

[Editor’s note:] Here, the Indian currency of Rupees is used, equating to the ‘30 pieces of silver’ traditional in the west.



jesus in hinduism

why should they think it otherwise? It might be the duty of Christ to make one’s foes of his own household. It is not the duty of a good man.

6 mystical experiences of the universal jesus Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836–86), the great Guru of nineteenth-century Bengal, is believed by his followers to have been an incarnation of God. Ramakrishna practised an intensely experiential form of religious faith, which often included trances and periods of ecstasy. His devotion was focused on the Goddess Kali at the Dakshineswar temple complex north of Calcutta, and Ramakrishna stands apart from the other Hindus in this section: he left no writings, and gave no formal public lectures—his life and message has, however, been widely publicized by his key disciples who founded the Ramakrishna Math and Mission in his honour. The following excerpts, which are taken from diaries written by one of Ramakrishna’s disciples, detail Ramakrishna’s mystical experience of Jesus and highlight his belief that Jesus was not unique, but universal. Note that the painting of Jesus mentioned in the second part of this reading is but one of many in Ramakrishna’s room.

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna191 [ . . . ] in November 1874, Sri Ramakrishna was seized with an irresistible desire to learn the truth of the Christian religion. He began to listen to readings from the Bible, by Sambhu Charan Mallick, a gentleman of Calcutta and a devotee of the Master. Sri Ramakrishna became fascinated by the life and teachings of Jesus.192 One day he was seated in the 191

Nikhilananda, ed. and trans., The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: Translated into English with an Introduction by Swami Nikhilananda (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1984 [1942]), 34 and 606. 192 [Editor’s note:] This was one of two periods in Ramakrishna’s life when he experimented with non-Hindu traditions, the other being his practice of Islam in 1866.

jesus in hinduism



parlour of Jadu Mallick’s garden house at Dakshineswar, when his eyes became fixed on a painting of the Madonna and Child. Intently watching it, he became gradually overwhelmed with divine emotion. The figures in the picture took on life, and the rays of light emanating from them entered his soul. The effect of this experience was stronger than that of the vision of Mohammed. In dismay he cried out, ‘O Mother!193 What are You doing to me?’ And, breaking through the barriers of creed and religion, he entered a new realm of ecstasy. Christ possessed his soul. For three days he did not set foot in the Kali temple. On the fourth day, in the afternoon, as he was walking in the Panchavati,194 he saw coming toward him a person with beautiful large eyes, serene countenance, and fair skin. As the two faced each other, a voice rang out in the depths of Sri Ramakrishna’s soul: ‘Behold the Christ who shed His heart’s blood for the redemption of the world, who suffered a sea of anguish for love of men. It is He, the Master Yogi,195 who is in eternal union with God. It is Jesus, Love Incarnate.’ The Son of Man embraced the Son of the Divine Mother and merged in him. Sri Ramakrishna realized his identity with Christ, as he had already realized his identity with Kali, Rama, Hanuman, Radha, Krishna, Brahman, and Mohammed.196 The Master went into Samadhi197 and communed with the Brahman with attributes. Thus he experienced the truth that Christianity, too, was a path leading to God-Consciousness. Till the last moment of his life he believed that Christ was an Incarnation of God. But Christ, for him, was not the only Incarnation; there were others—Buddha, for instance, and Krishna. [ . . . ] Sri Ramakrishna was walking up and down, now in his room, now on the south verandah. Occasionally pausing on the semicircular porch west of his room, he would look at the Ganges.

193

[Editor’s note:] That is, Kali. [Editor’s note:] A garden in the Dakshineswar temple complex. 195 [Editor’s note:] That is, one who has attained the highest spiritual knowledge. 196 [Editor’s note:] Here we see Ramakrishna equated with Gods, Incarnations, Prophets, and even the underlying unity of the universe itself (Brahman). 197 [Editor’s note:] A super-conscious state where an individual realizes their oneness with Brahman, as the unity of the universe. 194



jesus in hinduism

After a little while he returned to his room and sat on the small couch. It was past three in the afternoon. The devotees took their seats on the floor. The Master sat in silence before them, now and then casting a glance at the walls, where many pictures were hanging. To Sri Ramakrishna’s left was a picture of Sarasvati,198 and beyond it, a picture of Gaur and Nitai singing kirtan199 with their devotees. In front of the Master hung pictures of Dhruva, Prahlada,200 and Mother Kāli. On the wall to his right was another picture of the Divine Mother, Rajarajesvari.201 Behind him was a picture of Jesus Christ raising the drowning Peter. Suddenly Sri Ramakrishna turned to M.202 and said: ‘You see, it is good to keep pictures of sannyasis203 and holy men in one’s room. When you get up in the morning you should see the faces of holy persons rather than the faces of other men. People with rajasic204 qualities keep “English” pictures on their walls—pictures of rich men, the King, the Queen, the Prince of Wales, and white men and women walking together. That shows their rajasic temperament.’

7 jesus is like ramakrishna Ramakrishna was equated with Jesus by his disciples—an approach that emphasizes the view of both Jesus and Ramakrishna as sitting in the line of

198

[Editor’s note:] Sarasvati is the consort of Brahma, the Hindu God of Creation. She is the Goddess of learning and patron of the arts. 199 [Editor’s note:] Sacred hymns. 200 [Editor’s note:] Dhurva and Prahlada were both devotees of Vishnu, whose stories are told in the Puranas. 201 [Editor’s note:] A manifestation of the Divine Mother symbolizing love, grace, and the desire to create. 202 [Editor’s note:] ‘M’ was the pen-name of Mahendranath Gupta, the diarist disciple of Ramakrishna. 203 [Editor’s note:] Hindu holy men or women. 204 [Editor’s note:] Liberally translated in this context, meaning those of a materialistic disposition.

jesus in hinduism



great prophets which includes the Buddha, Krishna, and Muhammad. This conversation took place in the last year of Ramakrishna’s life, when he was suffering from the lung cancer that would eventually kill him in 1886.

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna205 It was dawn. Sri Ramakrishna was awake and meditating on the Divine Mother.206 On account of his illness the devotees were deprived of his sweet chanting of the Mother’s name. Sri Ramakrishna was seated on the small couch. He asked M., ‘Well, why have I this illness?’ m: ‘People will not have the courage to approach you unless you resemble them in all respects. But they are amazed to find that in spite of such illness you don’t know anything but God.’ master (smiling): ‘Balaram207 also said, “If even you can be ill, then why should we wonder about our illnesses?” Lakshmana was amazed to see that Rama could not lift His bow on account of His grief for Sita.208 “Even Brahman weeps, entangled in the snare of the five elements.” ’209 m: ‘Jesus Christ, too, wept like an ordinary man at the suffering of His devotees.’ master: ‘How was that?’ m: ‘There were two sisters, Mary and Martha. Lazarus was their brother. All three were devoted to Jesus. Lazarus died. Jesus was on His way to their house. One of the sisters, Mary, ran out to meet Him. She fell at His feet and said weeping, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died!” Jesus wept to see her cry. 205 Nikhilananda, ed. & trans., The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: Translated into English with an Introduction by Swami Nikhilananda (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1984 [1942]), 837–8. 206 [Editor’s note:] That is, Kali. 207 [Editor’s note:] A disciple of Ramakrishna, at whose dwelling Ramakrishna would often spend time with his devotees. 208 [Editor’s note:] Sita, the consort of Rama the incarnation of Vishnu, is the embodiment of the perfect Hindu woman. Lakshmana was Rama’s brother. 209 [Editor’s note:] This is known as the Panchabhuta: earth, fire, water, air, and ether.



jesus in hinduism

‘Then Jesus went to the tomb of Lazarus and called him by name. Immediately Lazarus came back to life and walked out of the tomb.’ master: ‘But I cannot do those things.’ m: ‘That is because you don’t want to. These are miracles; therefore you aren’t interested in them. These things draw people’s attention to their bodies. Then they do not think of genuine devotion. That is why you don’t perform miracles. But there are many similarities between you and Jesus Christ.’ master (smiling): ‘What else?’ m: ‘You don’t ask your devotees to fast or practise other austerities. You don’t prescribe hard and fast rules about food. Christ’s disciples did not observe the sabbath; so the Pharisees took them to task. Thereupon Jesus said: “They have done well to eat. As long as they are with the bridegroom they must make merry.” ’ master: ‘What does that mean?’ m: ‘Christ meant that as long as the disciples live with the Incarnation of God,210 they should only make merry. Why should they be sorrowful? But when He returns to His own abode in heaven, then will come the days of their sorrow and suffering.’ master (smiling): ‘Do you find anything else in me that is similar to Christ?’ m: ‘Yes, sir. You say: “The youngsters are not yet touched by: ‘woman and gold’; they will be able to assimilate instruction. It is like keeping milk in a new pot: the milk may turn sour if it is kept in a pot in which curd has been made.” Christ also spoke like that.’ master: ‘What did He say?’ m: ‘ “If new wine is kept in an old bottle, the bottle may crack. If an old cloth is patched with new cloth, the old cloth tears away.”

210 [Editor’s note:] This reference to Jesus as ‘the’ Incarnation of God should not be read in a way that excludes other Incarnations.

jesus in hinduism



Further, you tell us that you and the Mother are one. Likewise, Christ said, “I and My Father are one.” ’ master (smiling): ‘Anything else?’ m: ‘You say to us, “God will surely listen to you if you call on Him earnestly.” So also Christ said, “Knock and it shall be opened unto you.” ’

8 jesus vs. his christian followers Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), the most famous disciple of Ramakrishna, was the first high-profile Hindu to teach across Europe and North America. A delegate at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago, 1893, Vivekananda established Vedanta Societies in numerous cities, and also pubished widely in the west before his premature death at the age of 39. Prior to this, Vivekananda journeyed extensively throughout India, carrying with him only two books—the Bhagavad Gita and The Imitation of Christ. The first part of this passage is taken from Vivekananda’s unfinished 1889 Bengali translation of the Imitation of Christ, which addresses such important areas as the Asiatic Christ and the Renouncer Christ. Vivekananda also popularized the concept that ‘the East’ was more spiritual than ‘the west’, and this tendency can be seen in the second part of our passage, where a clear distinction is made between Jesus and Vivekananda’s Christian contemporaries.

The Preface to the Imitation of Christ211 and Christianity In India212 The Imitation of Christ is a cherished treasure of the Christian world. This great book was written by a Roman Catholic monk. ‘Written’, perhaps, is 211 Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Vivekananda Vol. VIII (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 12th Impression 1999), 159–60. 212 Ibid. 214–19.



jesus in hinduism

not the proper word. It would be more appropriate to say that each letter of the book is marked deep with the heart’s blood of the great soul who had renounced all for his love of Christ. That great soul whose words, living and burning, have cast such a spell for the last four hundred years over the hearts of myriads of men and women; whose influence today remains as strong as ever and is destined to endure for all time to come; before whose genius and Sadhana (spiritual effort) hundreds of crowned heads have bent down in reverence; and before whose matchless purity the jarring sects of Christendom, whose name is legion, have sunk their differences of centuries in common veneration to a common principle—that great soul, strange to say, has not thought fit to put his name to a book such as this. Yet there is nothing strange here after all, for why should he? Is it possible for one who totally renounced all earthly joys and despised the desire for the bauble fame as so much dirt and filth—is it possible for such a soul to care for that paltry thing, a mere author’s name? Posterity, however, has guessed that the author was Thomas a Kempis, a Roman Catholic monk. How far the guess is true is known only to God. But be he who he may, that he deserves the world’s adoration is a truth that can be gainsaid by none. We happen to be the subjects of a Christian government now. Through its favour it has been our lot to meet Christians of so many sects, native as well as foreign. How startling the divergence between their profession and practice! Here stands the Christian missionary preaching: ‘Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Take no thought for the morrow’—and then busy soon after, making his pile and framing his budget for ten years in advance! There he says that he follows him who ‘hath not where to lay his head’, glibly talking of the glorious sacrifice and burning renunciation of the Master, but in practice going about like a gay bridegroom fully enjoying all the comforts the world can bestow! Look where we may, a true Christian nowhere do we see. The ugly impression left on our mind by the ultra-luxurious, insolent, despotic, barouche-and-broughamdriving213 Christians of the Protestant sects will be completely removed if we but once read this great book with the attention it deserves. 213

[Editor’s note:] A luxurious carriage used by the British in India in which the passengers were protected and the driver was exposed to the elements.

jesus in hinduism



All wise men think alike. The reader, while reading this book, will hear the echo of the Bhagavad-gita over and over again. Like the Bhagavadgita it says, ‘Give up all Dharmas and follow Me’. The spirit of humility, the panting of the distressed soul, the best expression of Dasya Bhakti (devotion as a servant) will be found imprinted on every line of this great book and the reader’s heart will be profoundly stirred by the author’s thoughts of burning renunciation, marvelous surrender, and deep sense of dependence on the will of God. * * * The people of this country look upon India as a vast waste, with many jungles and a few civilised Englishmen. [ . . . ] Many stories are related, and I have become tired of denying these. The first invaders of India, the Aryans,215 did not try to exterminate the population of India as the Christians did when they went into a new land, but the endeavour was made to elevate persons of brutish habits. The East India Company got possession of a part of India with the idea of making hay while the sun shone. They kept the missionaries away. The Hindus were the first to welcome the missionaries, not the Englishmen, who were engaged in trade. I have great admiration for some of the first missionaries of the later period, who were true servants of Jesus and did not vilify the people or spread vile falsehoods about them. They were gentle, kindly men. When Englishmen became masters of India, the missionary enterprise began to become stagnant, a condition which characterises the missionary efforts in India today. Dr. Long, an early missionary, stood by the people. He translated a Hindu drama describing the evils perpetuated in India by indigo-planters, and what was the result? He was placed in jail by the English. Such missionaries were of benefit to the country, but they have passed away. The Suez Canal opened up a number of evils. Now goes the missionary, a married man, who is hampered because he is married. The missionary knows nothing about the people, he cannot speak the language, so he invariably settles in the little white colony. He is forced 214

214

[Editor’s note:] America. [Editor’s note:] This ‘invasion’ theory of Aryan expansion in Northern India has been challenged in recent scholarship. ‘Aryan’ translates from the Sanskrit as ‘noble’ or ‘hospitable’. 215



jesus in hinduism

to do this because he is married. Were he not married, he could go among the people and sleep on the ground if necessary. So he goes to India to seek company for his wife and children. He stays among the English-speaking people. The great heart of India is today absolutely untouched by missionary effort. Most of the missionaries are incompetent. I have not met a single missionary who understands Sanskrit. How can a man absolutely ignorant of the people and their traditions, get into sympathy with them? I do not mean any offense, but Christians send men as missionaries, who are not persons of ability. It is sad to see money spent to make converts when no real results of a satisfactory nature are reached. [ . . . ] India requires help from Christ, but not from the antichrist; these men are not Christlike. They do not act like Christ; they are married and come over and settle down comfortably and make a fair livelihood. Christ and his disciples would accomplish much good in India, just as many of the Hindu saints do; but these men are not of that sacred character. The Hindus would welcome the Christ of the Christians gladly, because his life was holy and beautiful; but they cannot and will not receive the narrow utterances of the ignorant, hypocritical or self-deceiving men. Men are different. If they were not, the mentality of the world would be degraded. If there were not different religions, no religion would survive. The Christian requires his religion; the Hindu needs his own creed. All religions have struggled against one another for years. Those which were founded on a book, still stand. Why could not the Christians convert the Jews? Why could they not make the Persians Christians? Why could they not convert Mohammedans? [ . . . ] Every day you read of Christian nations acquiring land by bloodshed. What missionaries preach against this? Why should the most blood-thirsty nation exalt an alleged religion which is not the religion of Christ? [ . . . ] The Christians have been weighed in the balance in India and have been found wanting. I do not mean to be unkind, but I want to show the Christians how they look in others’ eyes. The missionaries who preach the burning pit are regarded with horror. The Mohammedans rolled wave after wave over India waving the sword, and today where are they? The furthest that all religions can see is the existence of a spiritual entity. So no religion can teach beyond that point. In every religion there is the essential truth and the non-essential casket in which this jewel lies. Believing

jesus in hinduism



in the Jewish book or in the Hindu book is non-essential. Circumstances change; the Receptacle is different; but the central truth remains. The essentials being the same, the educated people of every community retain the essentials. If you ask a Christian what his essentials are, he should reply, ‘The teachings of Lord Jesus.’ Much of the rest is nonsense. But the nonsensical part is right; it forms the receptacle. The shell of the oyster is not attractive, but the pearl is within it. The Hindu will never attack the life of Jesus; he reverences the Sermon on the Mount. [ . . . ] I pity the Hindu who does not see the beauty in Jesus Christ’s character. I pity the Christian who does not reverence the Hindu Christ.

9 jesus was oriental This passage is from Vivekananda’s major single work on the person and purpose of Jesus. Written specifically to promote Vivekanada’s view of Hinduism in relation to Christianity, the speech serves as an excellent example of Vivekananda’s dialogue with the Christian west, and his exportation of Indian religious ideals to a Christian society. In this section, Vivekananda addresses the important issues of the Oriental nature of Jesus, and the universality of Christ as one of the many incarnations of God. In this way, Vivekananda fits his understanding of Jesus within his own understanding of humanity’s three-stage journey towards God.

Christ, The Messenger216 We are now going to study a little of the life of Christ, the Incarnation of the Jews. [ . . . ] [ . . . ] my view of the great Prophet of Nazareth would be from the standpoint of the Orient. Many times you forget, also, that the Nazarene

216

Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Vivekananda Vol. IV (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 13th Impression 1995), 140–52.



jesus in hinduism

himself was an Oriental of Orientals. With all your attempts to paint him with blue eyes and yellow hair, the Nazarene was still an Oriental. All the similes, the imageries, in which the Bible is written—the scenes, the locations, the attitudes, the groups, the poetry, and symbol,—speak to you of the Orient: of the bright sky, of the heat, of the sun, of the desert, of the thirsty men and animals; of men and women coming with pitchers on their heads to fill them at the wells; of the flocks, of the ploughmen, of the cultivation that is going on around; of the water-mill and wheel, of the mill-pond, of the millstones. All these are to be seen today in Asia. [ . . . ] In Asia, even today, birth or colour or language never makes a race. That which makes a race is its religion. We are all Christians; we are all Mohammedans; we are all Hindus, or all Buddhists. No matter if a Buddhist is a Chinaman, or is a man from Persia, they think that they are brothers, because of their professing the same religion. Religion is the tie, [the] unity of humanity. [ . . . ] The oriental mind looks with contempt upon the things of this world and naturally wants to see something that changeth not, something which dieth not, something which in the midst of this world of misery and death is eternal, blissful, undying. An oriental Prophet never tires of insisting upon these ideals; and, as for Prophets, you may also remember that without one exception, all the Messengers were Orientals. [ . . . ] So, we find Jesus of Nazareth, in the first place, the true son of the Orient, intensely practical. He has no faith in this evanescent world and all its belongings. [ . . . ] The best commentary on the life of a great teacher is his own life. ‘The foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.’ That is what Christ says as the only way to salvation; he lays down no other way. Let us confess in sackcloth and ashes that we cannot do that. [ . . . ] He had no other occupation in life, no other thought except that one, that he was a spirit. He was a disembodied, unfettered, unbound spirit. And not only so, but he, with his marvellous vision, had found that every man and woman, whether Jew or Gentile, whether rich or poor, whether saint or sinner, was the embodiment of the same undying spirit as himself. Therefore, the one work his whole life showed was to call upon them to realise their

jesus in hinduism



own spiritual nature. Give up, he says, these superstitious dreams that you are low and that you are poor. Think not that you are trampled upon and tyrannised over as if you were slaves, for within you is something that can never be tyrannised over, never be trampled upon, never be troubled, never be killed. You are all Sons of God, immortal spirit. ‘Know’, he declared, ‘the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.’ ‘I and my Father are one.’ Dare you stand up and say, not only that ‘I am the Son of God’, but I shall also find in my heart of hearts that ‘I and my Father are one’? That was what Jesus of Nazareth said. He never talks of this world and of this life. He has nothing to do with it, except that he wants to get hold of the world as it is, give it a push and drive it forward and onward until the whole world has reached to the effulgent Light of God, until everyone has realised his spiritual nature, until death is vanished and misery banished. [ . . . ] If I, as an Oriental, have to worship Jesus of Nazareth, there is only one way left to me, that is, to worship him as God and nothing else. Have we no right to worship him in that way, do you mean to say? If we bring him down to our own level and simply pay him a little respect as a great man, why should we worship at all? Our scriptures say, ‘These great children of Light, who manifest the Light themselves, who are Light themselves, they, being worshipped, become, as it were, one with us and we become one with them.’ For, you see, in three ways man perceives God. At first the undeveloped intellect of the uneducated man sees God as far away, up in the heavens somewhere, sitting on a throne as a great Judge. He looks upon Him as a fire, as a terror. Now, that is good, for there is nothing bad in it. You must remember that humanity travels not from error to truth, but from truth to truth; it may be, if you like it better, from lower truth to higher truth, but never from error to truth. Suppose you start from here and travel towards the sun in a straight line. From here the sun looks only small in size. Suppose you go forward a million miles, the sun will be much bigger. At every stage the sun will become bigger and bigger. Suppose twenty thousand photographs had been taken of the same sun, from different standpoints; these twenty thousand photographs will all certainly differ from one another. But can you deny that each is a photograph of the same sun? So all forms of religion, high or low, are just



jesus in hinduism

different stages toward that eternal state of Light, which is God Himself. Some embody a lower view, some a higher, and that is all the difference. Therefore, the religions of the unthinking masses all over the world must be, and have always been, of a God who is outside of the universe, who lives in heaven, who governs from that place, who is a punisher of the bad and a rewarder of the good, and so on. As man advanced spiritually, he began to feel that God was omnipresent, that He must be in him, that He must be everywhere, that He was not a distant God, but clearly the Soul of all souls. As my soul moves my body, even so is God the mover of my soul. Soul within soul. And a few individuals who had developed enough and were pure enough, went still further, and at last found God. As the New Testament says, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.’ And they found at last that they and the Father were one. [ . . . ] This is the great lesson of the Messenger, and another which is the basis of all religions, is renunciation. How can you make the spirit pure? By renunciation. A rich young man asked Jesus, ‘Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasures in heaven: and come, take up thy cross, and follow Me.’ And he was sad at that saying and went away grieved; for he had great possessions. We are all more or less like that. The voice is ringing in our ears day and night. In the midst of our pleasures and joys, in the midst of worldly things, we think that we have forgotten everything else. Then comes a moment’s pause and the voice rings in our ears ‘Give up all that thou hast and follow Me.’ ‘Whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.’ For whoever gives up this life for His sake, finds the life immortal. In the midst of all our weakness there is a moment of pause and the voice rings: ‘Give up all that thou hast; give it to the poor and follow me.’ This is the one ideal he preaches, and this has been the ideal preached by all the great Prophets of the world: renunciation. What is meant by renunciation? That there is only one ideal in morality: unselfishness. Be selfless. The ideal is perfect unselfishness. When a man is struck on the right cheek, he turns the left also. When a man’s coat is carried off, he gives away his cloak also. [ . . . ]

jesus in hinduism



In India they have the same idea of the Incarnations of God. One of their great Incarnations, Krishna, whose grand sermon, the BhagavadGitâ, some of you might have read, says, ‘Though I am unborn, of changeless nature, and Lord of beings, yet subjugating My Prakriti,217 I come into being by My own Maya.218 Whenever virtue subsides and immorality prevails, then I body Myself forth. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of Dharma, I come into being, in every age.’ Whenever the world goes down, the Lord comes to help it forward; and so He does from time to time and place to place. In another passage He speaks to this effect: Wherever thou findest a great soul of immense power and purity struggling to raise humanity, know that he is born of My splendour, that I am there working through him. Let us, therefore, find God not only in Jesus of Nazareth, but in all the great Ones that have preceded him, in all that came after him, and all that are yet to come. Our worship is unbounded and free. They are all manifestations of the same Infinite God. They are all pure and unselfish; they struggled and gave up their lives for us, poor human beings. They each and all suffer vicarious atonement for every one of us, and also for all that are to come hereafter.

10 jesus is the property of the world Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948) is revered as the Father of the Indian nation, due to his tireless work in the cause of Indian independence. Gandhi, a lawyer by training, did not distinguish between religion and politics, and is famous for his policies of non-violence and non-cooperation.

217

[Editor’s note:] From the Sanskrit for ‘nature’. [Editor’s note:] Often translated from the Sanskrit as ‘illusion’, but more accurately meaning ‘not that’. Maya is often seen as that which limits our human understanding of the world, and which needs to be transcended to fully comprehend Brahman as the unity of the universe. 218



jesus in hinduism

As part of his legal career, Gandhi spent much of his life working alongside Christians, both during his studies in England, and during his activism in South Africa and India. During this time, Gandhi developed an attraction towards the teachings of Jesus, but he did not accept that Jesus was the only begotten son of God.

What Jesus Means to Me219 Although I have devoted a large part of my life to the study of religion and to discussion with religious leaders of all faiths, I know very well that I cannot but seem presumptuous in writing about Jesus Christ and trying to explain what He means to me. I do so only because my Christian friends have told me on more than a few occasions that for the very reason that I am not a Christian and that (I shall quote their words exactly) ‘I do not accept Christ in the bottom of my heart as the only Son of God’, it is impossible for me to understand the profound significance of His teachings, or to know and interpret the greatest source of spiritual strength that man has ever known. Although this may or may not be true in my case, I have reasons to believe that it is an erroneous point of view. I believe that such an estimate is incompatible with the message that Jesus Christ gave to the world. For he was, certainly, the highest example of one who wished to give everything asking nothing in return, and not caring what creed might happen to be professed by the recipient. I am sure that if He were living here now among men, He would bless the lives of many who perhaps have never even heard His name, if only their lives embodied the virtues of which He was a living example on earth; the virtues of loving one’s neighbour as oneself and of doing good and charitable works among one’s fellow-men. What, then, does Jesus mean to me? To me He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had. To His believers He was God’s only begotten Son. Could the fact that I do or do not accept this belief make 219 Anand T. Hingorani, The Message of Jesus Christ by M. K. Gandhi (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971), 108–11. First published in The Modern Review (Calcutta and New York, 1941).

jesus in hinduism



Jesus have any more or less influence in my life? Is all the grandeur of His teaching and of His doctrine to be forbidden to me? I cannot believe so. To me it implies a spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that in Jesus’ own life is the key of His nearness to God; that He expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense that I see Him and recognize Him as the Son of God. But I do believe that something of this spirit, that Jesus exemplified in the highest measure in its most profound human sense, does exist. I must believe this; if I do not believe it I should be a sceptic; and to be a sceptic is to live a life that is empty and lacks moral content. Or, what is the same thing, to condemn the entire human race to a negative end. It is true that there certainly is reason for scepticism when one observes the bloody butchery that European aggressors have unloosed, and when one thinks about the misery and suffering prevalent in every corner of the world, as well as the pestilence and famine that always follow, terribly and inevitably, upon war. In the face of this, how can one speak seriously of the divine spirit incarnate in man? Because these acts of terror and murder offend the conscience of man; because man knows that they represent evil; because in the inner depths of his heart and of his mind, he deplores them. And because, moreover, when he does not go astray, misled by false teachings or corrupted by false leaders, man has within his breast an impulse for good and a compassion that is the spark of divinity, and which some day, I believe, will burst forth into the full flower that is the hope of all mankind. An example of this flowering may be found in the figure and in the life of Jesus. I refuse to believe that there now exists or has ever existed a person that has not made use of His example to lessen his sins, even though he may have done so without realizing it. The lives of all have, in some greater or lesser degree, been changed by His presence, His actions, and the words spoken by His divine voice. I believe that it is impossible to estimate the merits of the various religions of the world, and moreover I believe that it is unnecessary and harmful even to attempt it. But each one of them, in my judgment, embodies a common motivating force: the desire to uplift man’s life and give it purpose. And because the life of Jesus has the significance and the transcendency to



jesus in hinduism

which I have alluded, I believe that He belongs not solely to Christianity, but to the entire world; to all races and people, it matters little under what flag, name or doctrine they may work, profess a faith, or worship a god inherited from their ancestors.

11 christ has yet to be born For Gandhi, the entirety of the Christian message was summed up in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount—the pinnacle of Jesus’ moral teaching. The importance of this section of the Gospel for Gandhi was such that its message transcended the need for a historical Jesus. Crucially, Gandhi draws a distinction between the ideals of the Sermon, and the way in which Christians have failed to live up to Jesus’ example and teachings. In the latter section of this passage, Gandhi argues that the Christian claim for Jesus as the only Son of God is an example of this failure to understand his teachings.

The Jesus I Love and My Reaction to Christianity220 I shall tell you how, to an outsider like me, the story of Christ, as told in the New Testament, has struck. My acquaintance with the Bible began nearly forty-five years ago, and that was through the New Testament. I could not then take much interest in the Old Testament, which I had certainly read, if only to fulfil a promise I had made to a friend whom I happened to meet in a hotel. But when I came to the New Testament and the Sermon on the Mount, I began to understand the Christian teaching, and the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount echoed something I had learnt in childhood and something which seemed to be part of my being and which I felt was being acted up to in the daily life around me.

220 Anand T. Hingorani, The Message of Jesus Christ by M. K. Gandhi (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971), 64–7 and 97–9.

jesus in hinduism



I say it seemed to be acted up to, meaning thereby that it was not necessary for my purpose that they were actually living the life. This teaching was non-retaliation, or non-resistance to evil.221 Of all the things I read what remained with me forever was that Jesus came almost to give a new law—though He of course had said He had not come to give a new law, but tack something on to the Old Mosaic law. Well, He changed it so that it became a new law—not an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but to be ready to receive two blows when one was given, and to go two miles when you were asked to go one. I said to myself, ‘This is what one learns in one’s childhood. Surely this is not Christianity.’ For, all I had then been given to understand was that to be a Christian was to have a brandy bottle in one hand and beef in the other. The Sermon on the Mount, however, falsified the impression. As my contact with real Christians, i.e., men living in fear of God, increased, I saw that the Sermon on the Mount was the whole of Christianity for him who wanted to live a Christian life. It is that Sermon which has endeared Jesus to me. I may say that I have never been interested in a historical Jesus. I should not care if it was proved by someone that the man called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated in the Gospels was a figment of the writer’s imagination. For the Sermon on the Mount would still be true for me. Reading, therefore, the whole story in that light, it seems to me that Christianity has yet to be lived, unless one says that where there is boundless love and no idea of retaliation whatsoever, it is Christianity that lives. But then it surmounts all boundaries and book-teaching. Then it is something indefinable, not capable of being preached to men, not capable of being transmitted from mouth to mouth, but from heart to heart. But Christianity is not commonly understood in that way. Somehow, in God’s providence, the Bible has been preserved from destruction by the Christians, so-called. The British and Foreign Bible Society has 221 [Editor’s note:] Gandhi also viewed the theme of non-retaliation reflected in the Bhagavad Gita and the works of Leo Tolstoy.



jesus in hinduism

had it translated into many languages. All that may serve a real purpose in the time to come. Two thousand years in the life of a living faith may be nothing. For though we sang, ‘All glory to God on high and on the earth be peace,’ there seems to be today neither glory to God nor peace on earth. As long as it remains a hunger still unsatisfied, as long as Christ is not yet born, we have to look forward to Him. When real peace is established, we will not need demonstrations, but it will be echoed in our life, not only in individual life, but in corporate life. Then we shall say Christ is born. That to me is the real meaning of the verse we have sung. Then we will not think of a particular day in the year as that of the birth of Christ, but as an ever-recurring event which can be enacted in every life. And the more I think of fundamental religion, and the more I think of miraculous conceptions of so many teachers who have come down from age to age and clime to clime, the more I see that there is behind them the eternal truth that I have narrated. That needs no label or declaration. It consists in the living of life, never ceasing, ever progressing towards peace. When, therefore, one wishes ‘A Happy Christmas’ without the meaning behind it, it becomes nothing more than an empty formula. And unless one wishes for peace for all life, one cannot wish for peace for oneself. It is a self-evident axiom, like the axioms of Euclid, that one cannot have peace unless there is in one an intense longing for peace all round. You may certainly experience peace in the midst of strife, but that happens only when to remove strife you destroy your whole life, you crucify yourself. And so, as the miraculous birth is an eternal event, so is the Cross an eternal event in this stormy life. Therefore, we dare not think of birth without death on the Cross. Living Christ means a living Cross. Without it life is a living death. * * * There is no religion that is absolutely perfect. All are equally imperfect or more or less perfect, hence the conclusion that Christianity is as good and true as my own religion. But so also about Islam or Zoroastrianism or Judaism.

jesus in hinduism



I therefore do not take as literally true the text that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.222 God cannot be the exclusive father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. He is as divine as Krishna or Rama or Mohammed or Zoroaster. Similarly I do not regard every word of the Bible as the inspired word of God even as I do not regard every word of the Vedas or the Quran as inspired. The sum total of each of these books is certainly inspired, but I miss that inspiration in many of the things taken individually. The Bible is as much a book of religion with me as the Gita and the Quran.223 [ . . . ] Thus, to believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God is to me against Reason, for God can’t marry and beget children. The word ‘son’ there can only be used in a figurative sense. In that sense everyone who stands in the position of Jesus is a begotten son of God. If a man is spiritually miles ahead of us we may say that he is in a special sense the son of God, though we are all children of God. We repudiate the relationship in our lives, whereas his life is a witness to that relationship.

12 jesus’ message continues to be ignored Aurobindo Ghose (1872–1950) was determined to protect the cultural heritage of India. As a young man, born in Bengal but largely educated in England, he was politically active in India. This period ended with a prison 222 [Editor’s note:] The text Gandhi is referring to is John 3: 16—‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.’ (NRSV) 223 ‘I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible the Quran and the Zend Avaesta to be as much divinely inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired. Nor do I claim to have any first-hand knowledge of these wonderful books. But I do claim to know and feel the truths of the essential teaching of the scriptures. I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense.’— Young India: Oct. 6, 1921. [Editor’s note:] Hingorani, op. cit., 98.



jesus in hinduism

sentence—he was charged with sedition and conspiracy though he was later released due to lack of evidence. Aurobindo then focused on a spiritual approach as a way to strengthen Indian nationality. Aurobindo’s main focus upon Jesus was his ethical worth, which he argued was a demonstration of Christianity’s partial spiritual truth. For Aurobindo, this truth was fully present in Advaitic Hindu systems of thought—an important argument which allowed him to link a collective Hindu spiritual consciousness with a collective Indian political identity. Aurobindo argued, therefore, that Christianity had largely ignored Jesus’ teachings—an argument he used to further strengthen the Indian opposition to the Christian British within India by undermining the ethical legitimacy of the British administration.

Essays Divine and Human224 What is Truth? said Pilate confronted with a mighty messenger of the truth, not jesting surely, not in a spirit of shallow lightness, but turning away from the Christ with the impatience of the disillusioned soul for those who still use high words that have lost their meaning and believe in great ideals which the test of the event has proved to be fallacious. What is truth,—this phantom so long pursued, so impossible to grasp firmly,—that a man young, beautiful, gifted, eloquent and admired should consent to be crucified for its sake? Have not circumstance and event justified the half-pitying, halfsorrowful question of the Roman governor? The Messenger suffered on the cross, and what happened to the truth that was his message? As Christ himself foresaw, it has never been understood even by its professors. For five hundred years it was a glorious mirage for which thousands of men and women willingly underwent imprisonment, torture and death in order that Christ’s kingdom might come on earth & felicity possess the nations. But the kingdom that came was not Christ’s; it was Constantine’s, it was Hildebrand’s, it was Alexander Borgia’s.225 For another thirteen centuries 224

Sri Aurobindo, Essays Divine and Human: Vol. 12 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition), 75–6. 225 [Editor’s note:] Aurobindo is differentiating between the spiritual rule of Christ and the earthly rule of these political figures.

jesus in hinduism



the message was—what? Has it not been the chief support of fanaticism, falsehood, cruelty and hypocrisy, the purveyor of selfish power, the keystone of a society that was everything Christ had denounced? Jesus died on the cross, for the benefit, it would seem, of those who united to slay him, the Sadducee, atheist & high priest, the Pharisee, zealot, hypocrite & persecutor and the brutal, self-seeking, callous military Roman. Now in its last state, after such a lamentable career, Christ’s truth stands finally rejected by the world’s recent enlightenment as a hallucination or a superstition which sometimes helpfully, sometimes harmfully amused the infancy of the human intellect.226 This history is written in too pronounced characters to be the exact type of all messages that the world has received, but is it not in some sort a type of the fate of all truth? What idea has stood successfully the test of a prolonged & pitiless inquiry? What ideal has stood successfully the test of time?

13 an avatar of sorrow Aurobindo believed that Jesus was an avatar (literally, a ‘descent’ or ‘downcoming’), a Hindu concept of divinity-within-humanity. However, for Aurobindo, avatars were not illusory, or less than human—the very purpose of the avatar was to act as a vehicle through which the divine could act and dwell in the human realm. In the following passages, we see Aurobindo argue for the necessity of a ‘human miracle’ (i.e. an incarnation) as a conduit for humanity’s journey towards God-consciousness. The poem that follows places Aurobindo’s understanding of the relevance of the crucifixion of Jesus firmly within an advaitic framework.

226

[Editor’s note:] Here, Aurobindo is attributing Christian misunderstanding of Christ’s message to a low level of spirituality. One can see an echo of Vivekananda’s ranking of faiths (reading nine) and the suggestion of ‘the west’ as materialistic, rather than spiritual (reading eight).



jesus in hinduism

Essays on the Gita227 and Savitri: A Legend & A Symbol228 A merely supernormal or miraculous Avatar would be a meaningless absurdity; not that there need be an entire absence of the use of supernormal powers such as Christ’s so called miracles of healing, for the use of supernormal powers is quite a possibility of human nature; but there need not be that at all, nor in any case is it the root of the matter, nor would it at all do if the life were nothing else but a display of supernormal fireworks. The Avatar does not come as a thaumaturgic magician,229 but as the divine leader of humanity and the exemplar of a divine humanity. Even human sorrow and physical suffering he must assume and use so as to show, first, how that suffering may be a means of redemption,—as did Christ,—secondly, to show how, having been assumed by the divine soul in the human nature, it can also be overcome in the same nature,—as did Buddha. The rationalist who would have cried to Christ, ‘If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross,’ or points out sagely that the Avatar was not divine because he died and died too by disease,—as a dog dieth,— knows not what he is saying: for he has missed the root of the whole matter. Even, the Avatar of sorrow and suffering must come before there can be the Avatar of divine joy; the human limitation must be assumed in order to show how it can be overcome; and the way and the extent of the overcoming, whether internal only or external also, depends upon the stage of the human advance; it must not be done by a non-human miracle. *

*

*

He who would save himself lives bare and calm; He who would save the race must share its pain: This he shall know who obeys that grandiose urge. The Great who came to save this suffering world And rescue out of Time’s shadow and the Law, 227 Sri Aurobindo, Essays on the Gita: Vol. 19 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition), 165. 228 Sri Aurobindo, Savitri: A Legend and a Symbol: Vols. 33 & 34 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition), 444–6. 229 [Editor’s note:] That is, one who relies on tricks or illusions.

jesus in hinduism



Must pass beneath the yoke of grief and pain; They are caught by the Wheel that they had hoped to break, On their shoulders they must bear man’s load of fate. Heaven’s riches they bring, their sufferings count the price Or they pay the gift of knowledge with their lives. The Son of God born as the Son of man Has drunk the bitter cup, owned Godhead’s debt, The debt the Eternal owes to the fallen kind His will has bound to death and struggling life That yearns in vain for rest and endless peace. Now is the debt paid, wiped off the original score. The Eternal suffers in a human form, He has signed salvation’s testament with his blood: He has opened the doors of his undying peace. The Deity compensates the creature’s claim, The Creator bears the law of pain and death; A retribution smites the incarnate God. His love has paved the mortal’s road to Heaven: He has given his life and light to balance here The dark account of mortal ignorance. It is finished, the dread mysterious sacrifice, Offered by God’s martyred body for the world; Gethsemane and Calvary are his lot, He carries the cross on which man’s soul is nailed; His escort is the curses of the crowd; Insult and jeer are his right’s acknowledgment; Two thieves slain with him mock his mighty death. He has trod with bleeding brow the Saviour’s way. He who has found his identity with God Pays with the body’s death his soul’s vast light. His knowledge immortal triumphs by his death. Hewn, quartered on the scaffold as he falls, His crucified voice proclaims, ‘I, I am God;’ ‘Yes, all is God,’ peals back Heaven’s deathless call.



jesus in hinduism

14 jesus: an eastern seer Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) was Professor of Eastern Religions at Oxford University and later President of India. Much of Radhakrishnan’s work focused upon the relationship between eastern spirituality and western values, often returning to a thesis of eastern influence over the west with regard to religion and ethics. In these extracts, we see Radhakrishnan argue that Jesus’ actions and teachings were foreign to his Jewish cultural background, and that his ethics of asceticism and non-violence could be seen as pointing to an eastern spiritual inheritance. Crucially, Radhakrishnan believed the established western Christian Churches ignored these distinctive aspects of Jesus’ life.

East and West in Religion230 and Eastern Religions and Western Thought231 Jesus wants us to make religion the light and law of our life. He substituted an ethical ideal for ceremonial duties. [ . . . ] The practice of the principles of Jesus will mean a society of all mankind, a society in which we bear one another’s burdens and sympathize with each other in joy and sorrow. Such a society will be free from national rivalries and industrial competitions, since it will attach little importance to external goods in which one man’s gain is another’s loss; but we are unwilling to adopt such a view of ethics. Jesus warns us that it is of no avail if we gain the whole world at the cost of our convictions. Inward truthfulness and spiritual sincerity are essential. To-day the religious hero is not so much a being near to God 230

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1933, 2nd Impression 1949), 66–7 and 57–60. 231 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn. 1940), 172–3.

jesus in hinduism



as a servant of the nation. St. Joan was clear that he who attacked France attacked God. She announced that France was always right, France was always with God, and to oppose France was to oppose Right and God. Christianity is associated with a religion of nationalism which makes each State an end in itself, an end to which truth and morality, justice and civilization are of necessity subordinated. The Church is in bondage to the State. In the last War the pacifists, with the exception of the Quakers, were outside the official churches. Jesus protested against uniting the gospel to a Jewish nationalism. The Anglican Church is linked up with British Imperialism even as the Greek Church in Russia was bound up with Czardom. The national Churches of Christianity constitute an open revolt against the gospel of Jesus. The teaching of Jesus as professed by the West has not been assimilated by the people. The dignitaries of the Church are alarmed if any of its followers take the gospel of Jesus seriously and put it into practice, though they are quite willing to use Jesus as a decorative symbol in stained glass windows of dimly lit churches. [ . . . ] The difference between the Eastern and the Western approaches and attitudes to religion becomes evident when we compare the life of Jesus, and His teaching as recorded in the Gospels, with the Nicene Creed. It is the difference between a type of personality and a set of dogmas, between a way of life and a scheme of metaphysics. The characteristics of intuitive realization, non-dogmatic toleration, as well as insistence on the non-aggressive virtues and universalist ethics, mark Jesus out as a typical Eastern seer. On the other hand, the emphasis on definite creeds and absolutist dogmatism, with its consequences of intolerance, exclusiveness and confusion of piety with patriotism, are the striking features of Western Christianity. Jesus’ religion was one of love and sympathy, tolerance and inwardness. He founded no organization but enjoined only private prayer. He was utterly indifferent to labels and creeds. He made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Roman and Greek. He did not profess to teach a new religion but only deepened spiritual life. He formulated no doctrine and did not sacrifice thinking to believing. He learned and taught in the synagogues of the Jews. He observed their ritual so long as it did not



jesus in hinduism

blind men to the inner light. He attached no importance to professions of allegiance. There is nothing in common between the simple truths taught by Jesus and the Church militant with its hierarchic constitution and external tests of membership. But the change was inevitable when Christianity went to Rome and took over the traditions of Caesar. When the Greek dialecticians and the Roman lawyers succeeded to the Jewish divines and the prophets, Christian theology became logical in form and based on law. The spirit was the Jew’s but the letter or the dogma was the Greek’s, and the polity and the organization were the Roman’s. Jesus reveals through His life and commends through His teaching the possibility of a life of a higher quality than that which is normal to man. He does not discuss intricacies of theology and ritual, but proclaims love of God or insight into the nature of reality, and love of man or oneness with the purpose of the universe, as the central truths of religion. Transplanted into the West, creeds and dogmas took the place of vision and prophecy, and intricate subtleties of scholasticism displaced the simple love of God. * * * Jesus protested vehemently against the Jew’s exaggerated devotion to ceremonial details. To the Jew the important question is, What am I to do? He insisted on a code of conduct. To the Eastern religions and the mystery cults, the more important question is, What am I to be? The aim is to become something different and not to do something else. Jesus is concerned, not with the wrong we do, but with the corruption of being of which the wrong act is the outcome. We must become different, change our natures, be born again. To be born again is to be initiated into a new life which is not a ceremonial act but a spiritual experience. Rebirth to a higher life, superiority to the bondage of the law, is emphasized by Jesus. We are by birth children of nature, by rebirth sons of God. The pathway to this rebirth is by a life of self-control bordering on asceticism. So far as the Jewish tradition is concerned, there is little or nothing in it of an ascetic character. The Jews have no monks or nuns, people who live apart from the world. [ . . . ]

jesus in hinduism



In John the Baptist, in Jesus and Paul, the new current of otherworldliness emerges, and it cannot be accounted for by their Jewish background. It is interesting to know that the moral teaching of Jesus with its ascetic and other-worldly emphasis has been anticipated several hundred years by the Upanisads and Buddha.

This page intentionally left blank

jesus in hinduism



JESUS IN HINDUISM Closing Reflection

In reading about Hindu responses to Jesus Christ an initial question arises as to why these Hindu thinkers felt the need to address the question of Christ at all? The thinkers represented here were writing during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and one important reason for reflection on Jesus was the mere fact of colonialism; that Christianity and missionary activity were bound up with the colonial enterprise. Engaging with Christianity in some way was necessitated by the particular historical circumstances in which they found themselves. Indeed, the encounter between Hinduism and Christianity is still a very live and sometimes deadly issue in India as events in Orissa and elsewhere have shown. For many of these Hindu thinkers, such as Roy and Ramakrishna, Jesus Christ represented something good to come from the west, a figure who could connect with the values of Hinduism as they perceived them and who implicitly critiqued colonialism. Indeed, Vivekananda in the passage cited here expressly criticizes missionaries as being un-Christian. But a second reason for engaging with Jesus Christ was arguably a theological necessity in the light of the kind of Hinduism they espoused, namely a rationalist and universal Hinduism formed in the context of the colonial encounter. In this short essay I intend firstly to offer a re-description of the positions towards Jesus Christ taken in these writings and secondly to offer some critique of those positions and to suggest a way forward for a Hindu comparative theology and a Hindu Christianity. With the exception of Dayananda Saraswati, all the thinkers in these readings have a positive attitude towards Jesus Christ and even Saraswati is not so much critical of Jesus, as what he thinks are the inconsistent



jesus in hinduism

and irrational beliefs of his followers. The positions can roughly be redescribed in the claims that (1) Jesus is a rational teacher of universal values; (2) Jesus is an incarnation of God among other incarnations; and (3) Jesus is a spiritual teacher. These positions are not, of course, mutually exclusive. 1. Jesus as a rational teacher of universal values. For Rammohan Roy, Jesus was a figure who expressed the unity of God, the rationality of God, and the universality of human values. In line with his deep belief in the higher rationality of the universe, he rejected some of the central claims of Christian theology such as the incarnation and sacrificial atonement. This was in keeping with his rejection of what he considered to be the superstitious dimensions of his own Hinduism, particularly image worship. For Roy there is a unity between God and Jesus as there is between God and his creation and Jesus expresses the united nature of God. The doctrine of the Trinity lacks coherence but the unity of God is not only expressed in the sacred scriptures of both Hinduism and Christianity, but is arrived at through rational thinking about the creator and is borne witness by holy people, particularly Jesus. Indeed, Roy was influenced by Deism and the Unitarians and his Hinduism as a rational religion is informed by those traditions. God is the transcendent creator of the cosmos and can be known rationally (although never completely) through the examination of that cosmos which is the effect of God’s action. Through the rational inquiry into God we arrive at the idea of God as singular, as unknowable in his essence, as the creator, and as the source of universal ethical values. Once we understand this we can move away from what Roy considered to be irrational aspects of religion, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, incarnation, and atonement in Christianity and image worship and reincarnation in Hinduism, towards shared values which are at the heart of religions. Jesus Christ teaches us this universal message which we can see if we read his sayings in the scriptures with care. These Hindu thinkers offer interpretations of Jesus which show that he needs to be separated from the distorted teachings of the Church,

jesus in hinduism



which has fundamentally misunderstood him. Jesus teaches a universal ethics about how to behave and what it is to be human in relation to a God who is within all of us. Although critical of Christianity, Dayananda Saraswati also shares this belief in that Jesus expresses shared values as does Gandhi, who, following in the same spirit as Roy, speaks of Jesus belonging to the entire world and being an example of virtues found in all people. 2. Jesus is an incarnation of God among other incarnations. While Roy and Gandhi reject an incarnational theology as irrational in favour of understanding Jesus as a moral exemplar of universal values, such as love and compassion, selfless giving and so on, Vivekananda, along with his charismatic teacher Ramakrishna, accepts the incarnational theology of Christ. While agreeing with Roy’s universal values, Vivekananda wished to see Christ as an incarnation or avatara, a ‘descent-form’ of the Lord, akin to Hindu incarnations. The ecstatic visionary Ramakrishna had visions of Christ and went through a period of strong identification with him, thereby supporting his idea that all religions are essentially one and Christ was an incarnation of God. His more down to earth disciple Vivekananda, whose vision of a unified Hinduism and a united India fed into Indian nationalism and the expulsion of the British, similarly adopted this view. For Vivekananda Christ was like the Hindu incarnations, a mode of God in the world. Indeed, for Vivekananda the spiritual heart of Hinduism is of a higher order than Christianity and the west’s materialism and Christ, like other incarnations, expresses this order. Through claiming Christ, Vivekananda is criticizing his colonial, Christian contemporaries and placing his Hinduism on a higher moral plane along with Jesus. On his view, the true teachings of Christ are completely consonant with the true teachings of Hinduism, and both are against colonial oppression and exclusivity. In the same spirit Aurobindo Ghose argued that Christianity, and so colonialism, had ignored the true teachings of Jesus, who presented a universal ethics in line with non-dualistic Hinduism and also that Jesus was an incarnation of God.



jesus in hinduism

3. Jesus as a spiritual teacher. Hindu ideas of Jesus have also seen him as a spiritual master, a guru, who teaches a universal moral code and points to a transcendent God who can nevertheless be accessed through the incarnations. Many Hindus take this view in the modern world and Sai Baba, a contemporary Indian religious leader claiming to be an avatara, sees Jesus not only as a moral exemplum but as a son of God who reveals the perfection of God within humanity. What is noticeable about these responses is that they all read Jesus through the lens of their own, particular understanding of Hinduism. Indeed, all the thinkers represented here ignore metaphysical differences between Christianity and different kinds of Hinduism and tend to claim that Christ is somewhat at odds with historical Christianity which has, largely, not been true to his teachings. Indeed, all the thinkers in this selection are generally sympathetic to non-dualism or Advaita philosophy and they all tend to espouse a universalism that they claim is at the heart of Hinduism. On this view God is one and pervades the universe (if not coterminous with it) and Jesus is a teacher who shows us this truth, as did teachers in the Hindu tradition such as Shankara. Thus the philosopher Radhakrishnan claims that Jesus, like Advaita, is against mere ritualism which he wishes to replace with an ethical life and is against dogma which we can clearly see if we compare the teachings of Jesus with the Nicene Creed. While one can see the reasons for this kind of appropriation of Jesus by Hindu thinkers, especially in the context of colonialism, there are nevertheless problems with it. Firstly, it tends to ignore history and the difficulty of separating the texts of tradition from tradition itself. Through selective reading, our Hindu thinkers construct a Jesus Christ that conforms to their own understanding of religion and claim a universal ethics at the heart of all religions. Secondly there are kinds of theistic Hinduism which are opposed to the non-dualism of Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan. These theistic traditions in modern times have not had such eloquent espousal as the non-dualistic views, but arguably they might appropriate Jesus in different ways that recognize an ontological difference between

jesus in hinduism



humanity and a transcendent God. There could be more than one Hindu reading of Jesus. But perhaps one of the most significant problems with the non-dualist’s appropriation of Jesus is not so much the assimilation itself as the underlying assumptions that allow this move. One of these assumptions is what we might call the ‘Deist presupposition’ that God can be known through rational means and universal values arrived at. On this view Jesus is another teacher who reveals this universal ethical code along with the God who is its source which is also our inner, true nature. In western theology from Lindbeck onwards there has been a move away from universalism and a critique of metaphysics in theology which has drawn from the critique of metaphysics in philosophy. In this post-metaphysicaltheological world the kind of universalism of the Hindu advaitins is inadequate because it does a symbolic violence to the particularity of tradition and fails to adequately recognize the relativistic nature of cultural values. Reason is always within the boundaries of tradition and there is no absolute or wholly objective rationality. From this perspective there can be no ‘truth’ of Jesus Christ behind his representations within tradition. The advaita view of Jesus is a reading that attempts to break out of the confines of tradition and even to break out of the confines of time, but can we do this with adequate justification? By contrast, one could present an argument that the ‘return to scripture and tradition’ in postmodern theology offers a better way forward. On this view there is no selective borrowing in the interests of universal ethics, but rather the traditions encounter each other in a spirit of mutual respect and openness. This probably could not have been done before the demise of colonialism, which has created a space for intellectual encounter between traditions on a more equal footing. Such encounter and engagement between Christianity and Hinduism is vital for inter-community relations in India and elsewhere and is intellectually stimulating and challenging. What Hindu intellectuals will make of Jesus or what Christians will make of Krishna or Shiva in the new postmetaphysical atmosphere is not entirely clear. We have dialogue occurring between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism but little to date between



jesus in hinduism

Christianity and Hinduism. One way forward is a return to tradition and a return to the true spirit of Indian philosophical discourse, which is not so much the arrival at consensus or some totalizing truth, but rather the clarification of difference and a recognition of the legitimacy of each tradition’s internal concerns. In this way we might have an appropriation not of a Jesus who needs to be rescued from a web of colonial implications, but of a Jesus found within Indian traditions, an Indian Jesus. Christianity is not so foreign to India and we might even think of it as an indigenous Indian religion as there have been Christians in India arguably since the first century. Indeed, Christianity in India is older than the formation of ‘Hinduism’ as the world religion we know and which Roy and the others had such an important part in forming. It is also older in India than the traditions or sampradayas of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Caitanya, and the rest. In some ways, Hinduism needs to engage with this Indian Christ who is already part of the cultural heritage. Rather than re-conversion to Hinduism through the ‘purification’ or shuddhi rite, Hindus and Christians need to talk to one another and to share in a spirit of openness which the nineteenth- and twentieth-century founders of Hinduism and India would have wanted. There is no reason why Jesus cannot be a figure important to Hindus (if that is what some Hindus want) but the intellectual absorption of Jesus into Hindu theologies needs to be done with care, with an awareness of the colonialist background, and with an awareness of the need for theological traditions to be true to their roots. Gavin Flood

jesus in hinduism



questions for discussion * Rammohan Roy rejects the concept of Jesus as an incarnation, but he also rejects Hindu traditions of incarnation. Why do you think this was important in his dialogue with Christian missionaries? (Readings one and two) * Keshub Chunder Sen places great importance on an understanding of Jesus as an Asiatic. In what ways does he wish western Christians to respond to this? (Readings three and four) * Dayananda Saraswati critiques traditional Christian views of Jesus by analysing biblical passages. Why is this such an effective tool, and how does this compare to the challenges Christianity faced from the rise of scholarly biblical criticism in the Christian west? (Reading five) * Ramakrishna’s mystical experience of Jesus tells of how he ‘realized his identity with Christ’. What does this tell us about Hindu understandings of avatara? How have Christians responded to this claim? (Readings six and seven) * Vivekananda described Christian missionaries as ‘ignorant, hypocritical or self-deceiving men’. What were his specific criticisms of missionaries in India, and do you think his criticisms are justified? (Readings eight and nine) * Gandhi speaks of the ‘eternal truth’ behind all religious traditions. How does this affect his view of Christianity, and what place does Jesus have for Gandhi? (Readings ten and eleven) * Aurobindo Ghose understands Jesus within an advaitic philosophical framework—how does this change an understanding of the person of Jesus from traditional Christian views? (Readings twelve and thirteen)



jesus in hinduism

* Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan argues for the possibility of an eastern origin for Jesus’ ethical teachings. How successful is his argument, and what effect does this view have upon Jesus and the early Church? (Reading fourteen) * How do the opinions of the writers represented in this chapter shape a picture of ‘Hindu’ responses to Jesus? To what extent can one argue for a coherent view, and to what degree is the picture fragmented? (All readings)

jesus in hinduism



guide for further reading The following list, though not comprehensive, provides readers with many places to pursue questions that have arisen in this chapter. Historical and Contemporary Studies Beckerlegge, Gwilym. The Ramakrishna Mission: The Making of a Modern Hindu Movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Copley, Antony. Religions in Conflict: Ideology, Cultural Contact and Conversion in Late-Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. —— ed. The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Grafe, H. ‘Hindu Apologetics at the beginning of the Protestant Mission Era in India.’ Indian Church History Review, 6, no. 1 (1972), 43–69. Hacker, Paul. ‘Aspects of Neo-Hinduism as Contrasted with Surviving Traditional Hinduism’. In Kleine Schriften, ed. L. Schmidthausen, 580– 608. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978. Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988. Jones, Kenneth W., ed. Religious Controversy in British India: Dialogues in South Asian Languages, 52–74. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.



jesus in hinduism

Jordens, J. T. F. Dayananda Sarasvati: Essays on His Life and Ideas. New Delhi: Manohar, 1998. —— Dayānanda Sarasvatī: His Life and Ideas. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1978. Killingley, Dermot. Rammohun Roy in Hindu and Christian Tradition. Newcastle upon Tyne: Grevatt & Grevatt, 1993. Marshall, P. J. The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century: Eight Articles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Neill, Stephen. A History of Christianity in India: The Beginning to ad 1707. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. —— A History of Christianity in India 1707–1858. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Avatar and Incarnation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Radice, William, ed. Swami Vivekananda and the Modernization of Hinduism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi. ‘Hindu Perceptions of Jesus’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 83–93. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Raychaudhuri, T., Europe Reconsidered: Perceptions of the West in Nineteenth Century Bengal. Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1988. Robinson, Rowena, and Sathianathan Clarke, eds. Religious Conversion in India: Modes, Motivations and Meanings. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003. Schilpp, Paul Arthur, ed. The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1952. Sharma, Arvind. Modern Hindu Thought: The Essential Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

jesus in hinduism



—— Neo-Hindu Views of Christianity. Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill, 1988. Singh, Brijraj. The First Protestant Missionary to India: Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg 1683–1719. Oxford and New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. Sugirtharajah, Sharada. Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Trout, Polly. Eastern Seeds, Western Soil: Three Gurus in America. London, Toronto, and Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2001. van Rooden, Peter. ‘Nineteenth Century Representations of Missionary Conversion and the Transformation of Western Christianity’. Conversion to Modernities: The Globalization of Christianity, ed. Peter van der Veer, 65–87. New York and London: Routledge, 1996. Young, Richard Fox. Resistant Hinduism: Sanskrit Sources on AntiChristian Apologetics in Early Nineteenth-Century India. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981. Hindu Reflections on Jesus Abhedananda, Swami. Vedanta Philosophy: Why a Hindu Accepts Christ and Rejects Churchianity. New York: The Vedanta Society, 1901. Akhilananda, Swami. Hindu View of Christ. Boston: Branden Press, 1971 (1949). Amalodoss, Michael. ‘Images of Jesus in India’. Indian Journal of Theology (1996), 48–53. Basu, Arabinda. ‘An Indian View of Christ’. In Religion in the Pacific Era, ed. Frank K. Flinn and Tyler Hendricks, 179–87. New York: Paragon House, 1985. Bhaktipãda, Kîrtanãnanda Swami. Christ and Krishna: The Path of Pure Devotion. Moundsville, W. Va.: Bhaktipada Books, 1985.



jesus in hinduism

Prabhavananda, Swami. The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta. Hollywood, Calif.: Vedanta Press, 1992 (1963). Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree. Come Follow Me: Talks on Jesus. Pune, India: Rajneesh Foundation, 1976. Ravindra, Ravi. ‘Jesus is not an Idol’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 92–9. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. —— Whispers from the Other Shore: A Spiritual Search East and West. London, Wheaton, and Madras: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1984. —— The Yoga of the Christ. Shaftesbury, UK: Element Books, 1990; reprinted as Christ the Yogi. Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions International, 1998. Interfaith Explorations Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux). Hindu–Christian Meeting Point: Within the Cave of the Heart. Delhi: ISPCK, 1969. Aleaz, K. P. Christian Thought through Advaita Vedãnta. Delhi: ISPCK, 1996. —— ed. From Exclusivism to Inclusivism: The Theological Writings of Krishna Mohun Banerjee. Delhi: ISPCK, 1998. —— An Indian Jesus from Shankara’s Thought. Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1997. —— Jesus in Neo-Vedãnta: A Meeting of Hinduism and Christianity. Delhi: Kant Publications, 1995. Bharat, Sandy. Christ across the Ganges. Winchester: O Books, 2007. Braybrooke, Marcus. Together to the Truth: A Comparative Study of Some Developments in Hindu and Christian Thought Since 1800. Madras and Delhi: CLS-ISPCK, 1971. Clooney, Francis. Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

jesus in hinduism



—— Hindu Wisdom for All God’s Children. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005. Dutta, Abhijit. Nineteenth Century Bengal Society and Christian Missionaries. Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 1992. Frawley, David (Vamadeva Shastri). How I Became a Hindu: My Discovery of Vedic Dharma. New Delhi: Voice of India, 2000. Garbe, Richard. India and Christendom: The Historical Connections between these Religions. Trans. Lydia Gillingham Robinson. La Salle, Ill.: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1959. Goel, Sita Ram. History of Hindu-Christian Encounters ad 304 to 1996. Rev. and enlarged edn. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1996. Grant, Sara. Toward an Alternative Theology: Confessions of a Non-Dualist Christian. Notre Dame, Ind.; Notre Dame Press, 2002. Griffiths, Bede. A New Vision of Reality: Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith. Springfield, Ill.: Templegate Publishers, 1989. —— Return to the Centre. London and Illinois: Collins and Templegate, 1976. Hooker, Roger Hardham. ‘Hindu Impressions of Christ and Christianity’. In Faith Meets Faith, ed. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, 258–63. New York and Grand Rapids: Paulist and Eerdmans, 1981. —— Themes in Hinduism and Christianity: A Comparative Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989. Johanns, P. (SJ). To Christ through the Vedanta (in Two Volumes). Ed. Theo De Greeff. Bangalore: The United Theological College, 1996. Kersten, Holger. Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life before and after the Crucifixion. Shaftesbury: Element Book, 1986. Pannikar, Raimundo. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany. Rev. and enlarged edn. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1981.



jesus in hinduism

Robinson, J. A. T. Truth is Two Eyed. London: SCM, 1979. Samartha, Stanley J. The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ: Interreligious Dialogue Series No. 6. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1974. Staffner, Hans. Jesus Christ and the Hindu Community: Is a Synthesis of Hinduism and Christianity Possible? Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1988. —— The Significance of Jesus Christ in Asia. Anand, India: Gujarat Shatya Prakash, 1985. Sugirtharajah, R. S., ed. Asian Faces of Jesus. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Swarup, Ram. Christianity: An Imperialist Ideology. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1983. Thomas, M. M. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance. London: SCM, 1969. Torwesten, Hans. Ramakrishna and Christ: Or The Paradox of the Incarnation. Trans. John Phillips. Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, 1999. Vedantham, Major T. R., Ram Swarup, and Sita Ram Goel. Christianity: An Imperialist Ideology. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1983. Warrier, Maya. ‘Jesus Goes to Delhi’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 108–11. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Second Coming of Christ. California: Self Realization Fellowship, 2004.

CH A PTER IV

jesus in buddhism: the classic texts

This page intentionally left blank

BUDDHIST PERCEPTIONS OF JESUS Key Issues

Buddhism is frequently portrayed in the west as an atheistic philosophy and spiritual technology in contrast to ritualistic, dogmatic, and hierarchical forms of religious adherence. This view of Buddhist traditions has its roots in the culture wars of the nineteenth century when Buddhism was romanticized or vilified in opposition to traditional religious views. In other words, people found what they wanted to find in Buddhism in order to affirm or deny the validity of Christianity. This gave rise to sharply polemical pictures of Jesus and Christianity that claimed to be ‘Buddhist’ in a time before Buddhist communities in the west were established. Buddhism as it is actually lived across the world is a multidimensional religion of rich and sometimes conflicting approaches to philosophy, ethics, organization, meditation practices, social engagement, and rituals. Given this diversity, what can be said of Buddhist views of Jesus? There are many barriers that stand between this question and the lived reality of Buddhists across the world. These barriers are the reason that the readings of this chapter begin late in the history of Buddhism and why centres in which Buddhism has thrived are not evenly represented. The first barrier is geographical. By the time of Jesus, Buddhist traditions were moving to lands which were not destined to interact with Christianity for some time: China, Tibet, Japan, and other regions of Asia. In these places there was inter-religious activity with Confucian, Taoist, and Shinto traditions as well as a variety of indigenous traditions—but not with Christianity (see reading three). It was to be a very long time before a Christian presence would elicit Buddhist views of Jesus. Even when this possibility

218

jesus in buddhism

existed, the barriers of language and the lack of interest in Buddhist traditions amongst Christians resulted in a corresponding silence about Jesus. A related barrier has to do with the nature of inter-religious dialogue in places where colonization did bring about the type of interaction that gave rise to pronouncements upon Christianity. Unlike traditions already examined where Jesus could become a vehicle to establish religious and cultural identity, Buddhists frequently seized upon conceptual differences between the two religions as a way to promote the integrity of their beliefs: differences between the Christian doctrine of creation and co-dependent origination, sin and karma, heaven and nirvana, theism and Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality (see reading one). In these discussions and interfaith interchanges, both Buddhists and Christians largely ignored the figure of Jesus. This continues to be the case in those places where academic dialogue between representatives of these religions flourishes: North America, Europe, and Japan. Thus, there is much literature available comparing Christian and Buddhist conceptual categories, but not the life and teachings of Jesus. There is another barrier between the two religions that is even more difficult to quantify, an attitudinal barrier which may have much to do with the dearth of resources on Jesus from a Buddhist point of view. Because Buddhist approaches grew out of a Hindu religious context, Hinduism rather than Christianity is viewed as a more important area for reflection. In fact, Buddhists have approached Christianity as a lesser form of Hindu devotionalism. Under the umbrella of Hindu devotionalism there are non-dual views which, in their distance from a personalistic theism, may provide the basis for philosophical overtures with Buddhists. However, Christianity is often not perceived in this way: it is viewed as a degraded form of Hindu devotional tendencies and therefore beneath the concern of many Buddhists. Buddhists can therefore see Christianity as merely anthropocentric and highly egoistic (see readings two and six). When Christians respond to these attitudes, the interaction necessarily moves to conceptual categories, apophatic theology, mysticism, the thought of western philosophers, etc.; again, the figure of Jesus and his teachings is pushed to the periphery of discussion.

jesus in buddhism

219

The readings that compose this chapter show that, in spite of these barriers, there has been a lively discussion about Jesus in many lands reflecting a diversity of Buddhist viewpoints. In these discussions some general tendencies have arisen. These tendencies have both fascinated and frustrated those familiar with traditional Christian interpretations. The first tendency is to take a reserved approach to the teachings of Jesus (see readings six and nine). This is especially the case in Theravada traditions where the accent is upon a rigorous application of the teachings that are thought to be original to the Buddha. The historical Buddha is held to have taught for forty-five years and to have developed his teachings in a coherent and systematic manner as a gift to all those who would follow him. That Jesus only taught for three years (or less) in a manner that was anything but systematic presents a barrier to holding him in esteem as a teacher. Still, Buddhists who have examined Jesus’ teachings find resonances in the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as well as the theme that the purity of one’s heart is not guaranteed by ritual practice. Yet, there are many aspects of Jesus’ teaching that appear to be misguided—or even dangerous (see reading two). This has to do with Jesus representing theological traditions that appear to Buddhists as less sophisticated or evolved; this point brings us to the second tendency. Jesus is viewed as tainted by his association with a Judaeo-Christian cosmology. Some of the criticism of Jesus’ theological orientation arises from the colonial experience where Buddhists were compelled to compare their ‘ideal’ to the Christian ‘real’ (see readings one, four, and five). However, the Buddhist ‘allergy’ to Christian theological categories of ‘sin’, ‘God’, and ‘creation’ cuts across all Buddhist traditions. First of all, there is a deep reservation about Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament to whom Jesus prayed. To Buddhists this God appears to have many of the characteristics that bind supernatural beings to the cycle of life, death, and rebirth: jealousy, fickleness, emotionally driven decisions, self-conceit, etc. But even when Buddhists overlook these descriptions of God, there is a deep reservation about theism itself. Many Buddhists actually believe in a supernatural realm of metaphysical beings including gods, ghosts, and demons. Yet, these beings are seen as powerless to help one on the path

220

jesus in buddhism

to enlightenment. There is not, for Buddhists, a single all-powerful God who created the world and authors one’s salvation. Some Mahayana traditions stress the Buddha’s transcendent and salvific presence; yet, this is mediated through a plurality of Bodhisattvas rather than one single divine being. That Jesus prayed to a deity that is self-caused, self-existent, and independent of the created world conflicts with both the notion of co-independent origination as well as the nondualistic goal of a self merged with all consciousness. Furthermore, that Christians would absolutize Jesus and his God appears to Buddhists as spiritual bondage. Some Buddhists, following a parable attributed to the Buddha, might see theism as a raft necessary to cross certain rivers. Yet, when these rivers have been crossed the raft of theological doctrine must be laid aside in order for the spiritual journey to continue. A more positive tendency in some Mahayana traditions is to regard Jesus as a Bodhisattva (see reading ten). A Bodhisattva (literally, ‘wisdom being’) is one who takes vows, one of which is the vow not to reach enlightenment until this has been achieved by all sentient beings. Many such Bodhisattvas (based on historical and mythological figures) have inspired Buddhists to attain wisdom and compassion. Many Buddhists have interpreted Jesus according to the Bodhisattva ideal: one who willingly devotes himself to others, refusing to accept a more glorious existence until others had discovered the right path. Pure Land Buddhist traditions have at their centre a recognition of the futility of all human effort and a calling for divine aid (this is reflected in reading seven). These general tendencies—reservations about the teachings of Jesus, a dim view of the God Jesus prayed to, and the comparison of Jesus to a Bodhisattva—are not the only viewpoints of Jesus found in Buddhist traditions. An example of a different approach arises in Mahayana traditions where it is recognized that all concepts are, ultimately, empty. This is not the same as saying that ideas are worthless or that every thing is an illusion, but that final reality does not have any content in any of the ways with which we are familiar. In other words, many Buddhists became aware that people could become too attached to even intelligent and profound concepts. Taking pride in having the right ideas, the most

jesus in buddhism

221

advanced philosophical concepts or the most effective meditation practices could act as a barrier to liberation. This idea had a dramatic effect on understanding the attainment of enlightenment. Instead of holding to the right ideas and being committed to a certain set of practices, Zen Buddhist traditions have maintained that enlightenment can occur in a flash of insight, or whilst contemplating a paradox or riddle. It is not necessary to systematize one’s thoughts; it is necessary only to be shaken out of complacency in order to experience oneself and the world in wholly new ways. Zen traditions stress the unexpected, paradoxical, and immediate nature of enlightenment. Buddhists who emphasize these ideas are not concerned about the relatively small amount of teachings of Jesus. What does matter is whether or not Jesus shook people out of their complacency, inviting them to radically new ways of being in the world (see reading eight). Thus, Jesus can usher people into Buddhist enlightenment even within a Judaeo-Christian theological framework. There has been much fascination in the west with the figure of the Buddha and with Buddhist concepts. The same level of interest does not exist with Jesus in lands where Buddhist traditions have thrived. Will this change? Jesus is likely to remain a marginal figure in Buddhism given the barriers that exist between the two traditions. Yet, Buddhist views of Christianity’s central figure are causing no small amount of interest amongst westerners searching for new religious interpretations. G.A.B.

This page intentionally left blank

jesus in buddhism

223

1 jesus: son of a dubious deity Christianity flourished briefly in Japan in the mid-sixteenth century until political changes caused it to be viewed as a dangerous foreign influence. Fabian Fucan (c.1565–1621) was a Japanese convert to Christianity (via Jesuit missions), spending many years as a faithful Jesuit and defending Christianity against what he viewed as the falsehoods of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shinto. However, perhaps in part because his request for ordination as a Catholic priest was refused, Fabian turned against Christianity and reverted to Buddhism, writing a critique as polemical as his earlier Christian writings.

Deus Destroyed232 The adherents of Deus claim: The above-mentioned entry of Deus into this world occurred after some five thousand years had passed from the time when heaven and earth were opened up. His birth took place during the reign of an emperor named Caesar, in a village called Belem, in the country of Judea. His mother’s name was Santa Maria, and Joseph was the name of his father. But both Santa Maria and Joseph were virgem, by which is meant to say that throughout their lives they did not have marital relations; and in these circumstances he was conceived and born. But how did all this come about? How are we to understand this entry of Deus into the world? Well, first of all, this Santa Maria not only possessed the virtue of lifelong chastity but also, because she was endowed with the various good qualities and all the virtuous accomplishments, she paid zealous attention to devotional pursuits and to the recitation of 232 George Elison, Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 278–80.

224

jesus in buddhism

prayers. One day at dusk, as she had composed her mind toward the open window of spiritual contemplation, an anjo suddenly appeared before her. And he knelt down, his hands upraised and joined, and uttered: Ave, gratia plena. Dominus tecum. The meaning of these words is: ‘Hail Maria, full of Deus’ grace. The Lord is with you.’ And from that moment she conceived and after ten months were fulfilled she gave birth in the aforesaid Belem, at deepest midnight, in a stable. And angels descended from the heavens, playing music, and a wonderful fragrance pervaded the four directions. And marvelous signs were seen at this time, to testify that Deus had entered this world. Now the name of the Lord who was thus born is Jesus Christus. For thirty-three years he remained on this earth, to teach the way of goodness to all sentient beings. But because he claimed that he was Deus a group of people called Jews on hearing this said it was deviltry. And, swaying their judges, they heaped blows and tortures upon him, and then they suspended him upon a stake known as the cruz. And thus he crushed sin and gave effect to good for mankind, and by this merit he accomplished atonement for the sin of Adam and Eve. And thus in his thirty-third year he summoned forth death. But on the third day he rose again from the dead, and after forty days he ascended into Heaven. Some one thousand and six hundred years have passed since. To counter, I reply: So it took all of five thousand years after heaven and earth were opened up for Deus to enter this world! Was the atonement so late in coming because heaven and earth are so far apart? Were so many years expended along the way on this distant route? Or were all those years spent on fuss and preparation for the journey? Since atonement was not accomplished for five thousand years all the human beings in the world had to fall into hell—a measureless, countless number! All those people falling down to hell! Really, it must have been like a torrent of rain. And him who watched this and did not even feel sad, who for five thousand years was not disposed to find a way to redeem sentient beings—are we to call him the all-merciful, all-compassionate Lord? One simple look at this will make it clear that all the teachings of the adherents of Deus are fraud.

jesus in buddhism

225

And what they say about the total number of years is also extremely dubious. Five thousand years from the opening up of heaven and earth until the coming of Jesus Christus added to the one thousand and six hundred years since his coming make a sum of six thousand and six hundred years. In balancing this number of years against that recorded in the Japanese and Chinese histories one finds the number exceedingly short. But perhaps the heaven and earth of the adherents of Deus are somewhere outside this heaven and this earth, and came into existence at a later date. Perhaps there is yet another, a separate heaven and earth. Dubious, dubious! So Jesus Christus was born with lifelong virgins, the virtuous Joseph and Santa Maria, as father and mother. What sort of ideal virtue is this? ‘Man and wife have separate functions.’233 The universal norm of moral law is that one and all shall enter into marital relations. Actually, to counter the universal norm is evil; and evil may be defined as the departure from the Way. If marital relations were not completely the standard of moral law in the world, then what else could we expect but the extinction of the human seed in every province and district, down into the last village! So it is obvious now that the standard Way is virtuous and all outside it not virtuous. So Jesus Christus assumed the name of Lord of Heaven and Earth and because of this the group of Jews, saying that this was deviltry, sued him before their judges, suspended him upon a stake, and took his life. Now this, to be sure, is both plausible and proper! The Odes say: To hack an axe-haft an axe hacks; the pattern’s near.234 233 [Editor’s note:] i.e. sexual union is an natural aspect of the marital state, man and woman contributing each in their own way. 234 Shih Ching, Mao 158; Ezra Pound, The Classic Anthology Defined by Confucius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), 79. The full context is: ‘How cut haft for an axe? | Who hacks | holds a haft. | To take a wife | properly | one gets a notary. | To hack an axe-haft | an axe | hacks; | the pattern’s near. | Let who weds never pass | too far | from his own class.’

226

jesus in buddhism

And now, before our very eyes here in Japan, you adherents of Deus are preaching a doctrine wicked and contrary to the Way of the Sages; and therefore the wise ruler has decided to stamp out your doctrine, and the people also hate it and inform on it and denounce its followers, so that they are beheaded or crucified or burnt at the stake. The methods of government of the wise men of former and of latter days agree perfectly, like the halves of a tally joined. But the doctrine you adherents of Deus preach is a perverse faith; I shall unmask it later, point by point. Well, then: What you say about the resurrection and ascent to Heaven sounds quite splendid; but in a faith perverse from its very roots everything must be devilish illusion, magical trickery. The right and wrong of enlightenment, right or wrong, is all resolved as right. The right and wrong of delusion, right or wrong, is all resolved as wrong. The right and wrong of true doctrine, right or wrong, is all resolved as truth. The right and wrong of deviltry, right or wrong, is all resolved as devilish. There is no ground for indecision about this!

2 the founder of a passive religion Catholic Christian missionaries in sixteenth to seventeenth century China sought to establish Christianity as a complement to Confucianism and replacement for Buddhism. Prolific Buddhist monk and scholar Ouyi Zhixu (1599–1655) took exception to this programme. Basing his arguments on Confucian and secular grounds in order to avoid the charge of Buddhist defensiveness, Ouyi Zhixu sought to show that Christianity’s doctrines of a Creator-God and atonement robbed humanity of their moral responsibility.

jesus in buddhism

227

Ouyi Zhixu235 1. If the Lord of Heaven is embodied, then he, too, is created. But if he is disembodied, he is the same as tai ji 236 and will have no feelings. There are those who say: ‘The Lord of Heaven is the one, great ruler (zhu zai), who has brought forth (sheng) at the beginning heaven, earth, spirits, human beings and things.’ I am asking: Does this great ruler have a body (xing zhi) or is he without a body? If he has a body, then from what has he been created? Where was he living when there was no heaven and no earth? If he does not have a body, then he is what we Confucians call tai ji (the highest principle). The highest principle is itself without limits (wu ji, unconditional).237 How can one speak of loving and hating here, how can it want that human beings should serve it and obey its orders, what sense do blessings and punishments make here? This is the first incoherence (bu tong). 2. The decision for the good lies with human beings and not with the Lord of Heaven. The highest principle (tai ji) is only the foundation (ben), the principle (li), which contains yin and yang. When it moves, therefore, it is yang; when it is still, it is yin.238 Both yin and yang bring forth good and evil. This is why the tasks of distinguishing [between good and evil] and of supporting [the good] fall to human beings alone.239 Confucius says: ‘Human beings

235

Iso Kern, Buddhistische Kritick am Christentum in China des 17 Jahrhunderts (Bern: Lang, 1992), 225–30, paragraphs 1–2 and 5–12. The editors gratefully acknowledge Iso Kern and Ulrike Vollmer for providing this translation into English. 236 ‘The highest principle’. 237 This corresponds to the first sentence of Tai ji tu shuo by Zhou Dunyi (1017–73 ce) in the interpretation of Zhu Xi’s commentary (1130–1200 ce). 238 Zhou Dunyi, Tai ji tu shuo: ‘The tai ji moves and thus brings forth yang. Calm comes when the movement reaches its limit. When it is still, it brings forth yin.’ 239 Cheng Zhiyong: ‘The main point of the old, holy teaching lies here!’

228

jesus in buddhism

are able to extend the Dao. . .’ .240 He also says: ‘The realisation of humane actions (ren) depends on ourselves.’241 Zisi says: ‘Heaven and earth have their place, and the ten thousand beings their blossoming, in the realisation of the centre and the harmony.’242 The Book of Transformations says: ‘Where [the great human being] beats the Lord of Heaven to it, heaven will not prove him or her a liar.’243 If it is as they say, however, the ability to create lies entirely with the Lord of Heaven. Now, if the Lord of Heaven is able to create spirits and human beings, why did he not only create good ones, but also bad ones, thereby affecting ten thousand generations? This is the second incoherence. [ . . . ] 5. How could the Lord of Heaven allow bad things in his creation? Since heaven and earth and all beings have been created by the Lord of Heaven, he should have chosen; he should have created that which is useful and avoided that which is destructive, or, had the latter already been created, he should have eliminated it. Why has he created this body, these traditions and this devil as the three enemies, or why has he not managed to eliminate them?244 If a good craftsman makes a tool in this world, it 240

Lunyu XV, 28 (29). Lunyu XII, 1. 242 Zhong yong, 1. 243 Yijing, Wenyan to Qiangua; trans. R. Wilhelm, Das Buch der Wandlungen (The I Ching, or The Book of Changes/Transformations) (Köln, 1986 [1924]), 353. 244 In Sheng xiang lüe shuo by Xu Guangqi, we read the following about the ‘three enemies’: ‘There are three things in the world, which can tempt us towards evil. They are called the three enemies. The first enemy is the body. The ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs of our body are tempted by sounds, colours, smells, tastes and pleasant things, to do evil. The second enemy are the outer, worldly habits. These traditions and habits, which are valued by everyone, cause individuals to sink into them, so that individuals find it hard to liberate themselves from the traditions and habits, and are led towards evil. The third enemy is the devil. He has many tricks: He tempts human beings with the desires of the body and the worldly traditions, he tempts them with fame, riches and high standing, he tempts them with the arts and calculations of yin and yang and [other] deceptive fortune telling, in the belief that happiness can be caught and misfortune avoided, or he tempts them by producing false scriptures ( jing) and images, and by teaching that these should be made offers to and venerated as a way of obtaining blessing and avoiding misfortune. Human beings fall for his tricks and do evil. Because of the existence of these three enemies, it is very easy for us to do evil, but extremely difficult to do the good.’ (p. 3b/4a (= p. 554/5) ). 241

jesus in buddhism

229

has to be beautiful; if it has by chance not turned out beautiful, he has to reject it. The most venerable, most spiritual, most holy, most truthful Lord is therefore not even equal to a craftsman! This is the fifth incoherence. 6. ‘Heaven does not speak.’ Confucius says: ‘Does heaven speak at all?’245 Mencius says: ‘Heaven does not speak. It only manifests itself through its effects and its doings.’246 If one maintains that the Lord of Heaven has passed down the Ten Commandments in ancient times, how does this differ from the books of offerings (feng shan tian shu) of the Han-ancestors?247 Nothing is more deceiving towards the world and more fraudulent towards the people. This is the sixth incoherence. 7. If the Lord of Heaven is absolute, then he is identical with tai ji and cannot be born as a human being. ‘The Lord of Heaven was born and became a human being in order to spread the great Dao.’248 Where was his dwelling before he was born? If his dwelling was in the Hall of Heaven, then his dwelling was dependent on the Hall of Heaven. How can one say, then, that he created the Hall of Heaven? If one says that he has his dwelling in the Hall of Heaven because he created it as a human being builds a house and has his or her dwelling in it, then what did his dwelling depend on before he built the Hall of Heaven? If he is not dependent on anything, then he is equal to the highest principle

245

Lunyu XVII, 17 (19). Mencius V A, 5. 247 When speaking about the feng shan tian shu (‘divine scriptures on the offerings for heaven and earth’), Ouyi Zhixu is probably thinking of the so-called chanwei, divine scriptures of revelation, which had a wide circulation and served to legitimate political ends. One of the eight shu of the Shiji of Sima Qian (first century bce) is called Feng shan shu and is dealing with the offerings for heaven and earth at the Taishan. It is unlikely, however, that Ouyi meant these rites here, as they were recognized by the Confucians, but, rather, those ‘revelation texts’ which were rejected by most Confucians. 248 Sheng xiang lüe shuo, p. 4b (= p. 556). 246

230

jesus in buddhism

(tai ji). It does not suit the latter to have a dwelling that is dependent on the Hall of Heaven and to bless and punish in the human world; and it does not suit it, furthermore, to be born as a human being. That is the seventh incoherence. 8. Christians plagiarize the Buddhist teaching of the Trikaya, but are not able to truly acquire it. Is the Lord of Heaven, having been born down here, still in heaven with his original ‘body’ (shen)? If his original body no longer exists, then there is no longer a lord in heaven. If, however, his original ‘body’ still exists, then one is usurping the Buddhist teaching of the two ‘bodies’, namely the ‘body’ of truth (zhen shen) and the ‘body’ of retribution (ying shen). But one does not reach the wonderful radiance of the billions of ‘bodies’ of transformations (hua shen).249 This is the eighth incoherence.250 9. Why does the Lord of Heaven have to buy human beings free from their sins with his own body, rather than being able to forgive the sins directly? In addition, one believes that the Lord of Heaven, with his own body, is buying the ten thousand generations of the earth free from their sins. Considering, however, that the dignity of the Lord of Heaven is unequalled and his compassion and majesty is without measure, it is not clear why he does not forgive human sins directly, rather than having 249

[Editor’s note:] Ouyi is alluding here to the Mahāyāna doctrine of the ‘three bodies (trikāya) of the Buddha. They are: (1) the dharmakāya (zhen shen in Chinese), often translated as ‘truth body’, the cosmic principle of the Buddha’s enlightenment; (2) the sam.bhogakāya (bao shen in Chinese), often translated as the ‘body of enjoyment,’ a resplendent body that only appears in pure lands; and (3) the nirmān.akāya (hua shen or ying shen in Chinese), ‘often translated as ‘emanation body’ or ‘transformation body’, the body of the Buddha that appears in the world. Ouyi refers to the first and third here, saying that if the Christians claim that God simultaneously remains in heaven and appears on earth, they are plagiarizing the Buddhists, who assert that the dharmakāya remains transcendent while appearing in the world in myriad forms of the nirmān.akāya, including that of the historical Buddha. 250 Remark by Chen Zhiyong: ‘The wonderful radiance of the Buddha owns the highest truth. The erroneous talk and wavering of the foreign magi is without foundation.’

jesus in buddhism

231

to buy them free with his own body. It is not even clear from whom he should buy them free. This is the ninth incoherence. 10. Why is the Lord of Heaven not able to keep human beings away from sin? Since the Lord of Heaven is able to buy human beings free from their sins with his own body, why does he not manage to let them avoid sin in the first place? This is the tenth incoherence. 11. The purchase free from sins by the Lord of Heaven is incomplete. It is said that he buys free from their sins the human beings of the ten thousand generations. However, since there are still sinners today who will go to hell, the purchase is incomplete. This is the eleventh incoherence. 12. If the Lord of Heaven buys human beings free from their sins, they are free to do bad without scruples. We Confucians say that not even the holiness of Yao and Shun251 could cover up the evils of their children, and that pious children and compassionate grandchildren are not able to change the mistakes for which [their parents and grandparents] are atoning in the underworld. Therefore, ‘for the Son of Heaven (the Caesar) as well as for the common man, self-cultivation is the basis’.252 Since the Lord of Heaven can buy human beings free from their sins, they are free to do the bad without restraint and count on the compassion of the Lord of Heaven to buy them free. This is the twelfth inconsistency.

251 Yao and Shun are two kings of the third century bce, who are exemplary for Confucians. 252 Daxue (one of the ‘four books’ of the Confucians) 1st chapter.

232

jesus in buddhism

3 jesus: a teacher of morality Writing by Tibetan Buddhists about Christianity is virtually non-existent, until the ecumenical essays of the Dalai Lama and others beginning in the late twentieth century. However, there is a brief mention of Jesus in an authoritative philosophical work from the eighteenth century. Thuken Chökyi Nyima’s (1737–1802) The Crystal Mirror is a detailed and wideranging account of major traditions in India, Tibet, and China. Thuken did not see Christianity as presenting any threat to Buddhism; his view is a positive one, presenting the moral teaching of Jesus as compatible with Buddhism.

The Crystal Mirror253 The Teacher Jesus [Ye Su] or World-Protector is known to have had a miraculous birth. He composed a treatise that teaches a ten-limbed254 vow not to take human life, and so forth, and teaches that the experience of happiness arises as a result of virtuous actions, that one falls into hell through the ripening of evil acts and suffers agonies there forever, and that deliberately-committed misdeeds are not purified by confession.255

253

The translation of this excerpt is a slightly modified version of the text in Thuken Losang Chökyi Nyima, The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems: A Tibetan Study of Religious Thought, trans. Geshé Lhundub Sopa, ed. Roger R. Jackson (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2009). The editors are grateful to Michael J. Sweet for this fresh translation and annotations. 254 This is a reference to the Decalogue of the Hebrew scriptures. 255 Many key Christian tenets are absent from Thuken’s account: for example, Jesus’ passion and resurrection, the Trinity, and the transubstantiation of the eucharist. The reason for this probably lies in the ultimate sources of the information he presents, which was likely gleaned by Gombojab from the Jesuits at Qing Emporer Kangxi’s court. The Jesuits

jesus in buddhism

233

All of this is explained in the History of Buddhism in China.256 While it seems that these were excellent ways257 due to Buddha’s deeds, their spread [in China] was neither extensive nor long lasting.

4 a demon in disguise This Sinhalese Buddhist folk tale, inscribed on palm leaves in 1762, provided a sharp counter-narrative to the message of the Christian missionaries; it would have been told behind their backs. Perceptions of ‘Christian’ colonizers as violent, intoxicated meat eaters were extended to Christianity’s founding figure. In this tale, the death of the lawless Jesus is viewed as final and his resurrection portrayed as the mere trickery of demonic forces. More than mere criticism, this story sounds a note of hope for an oppressed people: Buddhist precepts will once again be established in the wake of those who have perverted or ignored the teachings of the Buddha.

generally emphasized in their teaching for beginners those elements of Christianity that were most compatible with Chinese culture, leaving more difficult doctrines for a later stage in the conversion process. 256

Gombojab wrote the History of Buddhism in China [Rgya nag chos ’byung (Chengdu: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983)] in 1736. For a detailed account of this work and its remarkable author see Guilaine Mala, ‘A Mahayanist Rewriting of the History of China by Mgon po skyabs in the Rgya nag chos ‘byung’, in Power, Politics, and the Reinvention of Tradition: Tibet in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Brian J. Cuevas and Kurtis R. Schaeffer (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 145–69. See also Michael J. Sweet, ‘Jesus the World-Protector: Eighteenth-Century Gelukpa Historians View Christianity’, Buddhist-Christian Studies, 26 (2006), 173–8. 257 The ‘ways’ referred to here include the teachings of Mozi and Zhuangzi, discussed immediately prior to Christianity.

234

jesus in buddhism The Carpenter-Heretic258 The Expulsion of the Carpenter259-Heretic260

‘The ruffians who are hiding in our forest must be thrown out,’ said the king of Portugal261 to his people after he returned. ‘Since they have settled here and are living in secrecy, our country is being oppressed.’ Thus, the Son of the Carpenter and his disciples were driven out of Portugal. As the Son of the Carpenter wandered from country to country, various kings and peoples were deceived into believing that he was the avataraya262 of a god who had disguised himself in the form of a human being who had come to save them. Wandering through thirty-two countries, he behaved like a thief and a charlatan in each but was unable to settle down anywhere. At last the Son of the Carpenter arrived in Sagala263 where he hid himself in the forest. While living there, he concocted a new illusion. What was that? ‘We’ll pretend we’re arahants,’264 thought the Son of the Carpenter. ‘First we’ll pluck the black feathers of fowls and hawks, and then we’ll attach them to our black cloaks and jackets.’265 258 R. F. Young and G. S. B. Senanayaka, The Carpenter-Heretic: A Collection of Buddhist Stories about Christianity from 18th Century Sri Lanka (Colombo: Karunaratne & Sons Ltd., 1998), 88–92. The editors thank Richard Fox Young for assisting in the annotation of this passage. 259 [Editor’s note:] In Sinhalese society artisans were of lower rank than cultivators. The repeated reference to Jesus as ‘Carpenter’ may have been a way to emphasize his unremarkable origins. The reader interested in historical nuances of key terms and concepts in this narrative is urged to turn to pages 209–33 in the above work by R. F. Young and G. S. B. Senanayaka. 260 [Editor’s note:] Section headings in italics are not a part of the original manuscript. 261 [Editor’s note:] Here, the king of Portugal is portrayed as wisely upholding Dharma by recognizing the heresy of Jesus and Christianity. 262 [Editor’s note:] Lit. ‘a descent’. In Hindu traditions this refers to a descent of Vishnu to the earth to bring order and spiritual guidance. In Buddhist traditions, Hindu avatars are either superfluous to (or hindrances of) enlightenment. 263 [Editor’s note:] A city in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent. 264 [Editor’s note:] A Pali term (Sk. arhat): one who has achieved enlightenment through practising the teachings of the Buddha and who has, through this, stepped off the cycle of rebirth. 265 [Editor’s note:] The black clothes might refer to Christian clerical garments.

jesus in buddhism

235

With the feathers attached to their garments, the Son of the Carpenter and his disciples used to rove around the villages in the countryside far from the city. When dawn broke, they would show themselves to the people and declare they were arahants. After sunrise, they would stop roaming around and remove their disguises, which they hid in houses during the day. [ . . . ] The Depredations of the Carpenter-Heretic At the same time a band of thieves was in Sagala, roaming around the city and the countryside at night. They would break into the pens where goats and cattle were kept, and drive the animals out. Day by day, the number of goats and cattle dwindled, but nobody knew why. The townsfolk would gather at the junctions and other public places to talk about what was happening. ‘A band of thieves must be stealing the goats and cattle from our pens,’ they would say. ‘Who besides thieves would roam about at night? The king must be informed of this calamity.’ One and all, the townsfolk assembled at the palace to inform the king. ‘Your Majesty!’ they said, prostrating themselves. ‘We are being troubled by the depredations of thieves. They steal our goats and cattle. Our goat pens and cattle pens are empty.’ ‘Have drummers sent around the city and keep sentries posted at the gates,’ said King Mihingu266 to his generals. ‘Be sure to apprehend the thieves and bring them here.’ Even as the drummers were being sent around the city and sentries posted at the city gates, the Son of the Carpenter and his twelve outcast disciples, who had been hiding, made a ladder of wood and put it against the city walls. Once they were up, they placed the ladder on the other side and climbed down. They went to each and every goat pen and cattle pen in the city and opened all the gates. First they killed the goats, and then they killed the

266

[Editor’s note:] A Bactrian-Greek monarch (known elsewhere in Indic sources as Melinda/Milinda, Menander in Greek sources) who according to semi-historical traditions had been converted to Buddhism by the learned Buddhist monk Nagasena.

236

jesus in buddhism

cattle. They tied the carcasses together and dragged them away. Then they cut the heads off and piled the carcasses in a heap at the foot of the wall. A guard was posted, while the others climbed up coconut trees and came down with big pots of toddy.267 Returning to the place where the meat had been piled, they lifted it to the top of the wall and climbed down with it to the other side. With huge slabs of beef slung over their shoulders, they returned to their camp and roasted the meat. Eating meat and drinking toddy—that was how they lived. [ . . . ] The Burial of the Carpenter-Heretic The following day, the putrefying body of the Son of the Carpenter was taken down from the Pillar of Indra and dragged to the maspettha,268 on which he was laid and nailed down by his hands and feet. On the third day, he was removed. A grave eight riyams269 deep was dug and the corpse was placed in it. After quartz had been piled on the corpse, and soil on top of the quartz, the grave was trampled down by elephants. Slabs of stone were placed on the surface, which were likewise trampled down by elephants until they were level with the ground. On top of that, masons erected more stone slabs. On each of the four corners of the grave, huge stone slabs and tree trunks were laid. And again on top of all that, even more stone slabs were laid. Having buried the Son of the Carpenter, who was a heretic, in this kind of grave, the soldiers went to King Mihingu and informed him that his orders had been carried out.

267

[Editor’s note:] This is an alcoholic drink. In this tale, the toddy is made of the fermented sap of the coconut tree. 268 [Editor’s note:] Lit. a slice or piece of meat or flesh. Here, the term appears to refer to the cross on which Jesus was crucified. However, the text states that Jesus was first on the ‘Pillar of Indra’ prior to the maspettha. Either the story is speaking of a double execution (i.e. in order to assure the audience that the Heretic was definitely dead), or that the first (on the Pillar of Indra) was the death-infliciting execution and the second (on the maspattha) was for postmortem humiliation. 269 [Editor’s note:] A cubit; the length of the forearm.

jesus in buddhism

237

The Resurrection and Ascension Seven and a half hours later, the forces of evil270 began to be disturbed by a burning sensation. ‘The hells that are the reason for our existence are being bolted shut by King Mihingu!’ they exclaimed to each other. ‘Now is the time for us to act. All sixty-three of our secret illusions, which will last until the end of the aeon, should be fully displayed.’ Hovering in the sky over the center of Sagala, the forces of evil said to each other, ‘Let the gates of our four hells be opened wide and our sixtythree secret illusions revived, so that King Mihingu will be driven out of all thirty-five of his countries!’ Hovering in the sky, the forces of evil shouted three times loudly, ‘I am he who is born from the grave of the dead!’ Then the vile rogue who had betrayed the Son of the Carpenter, that is, the Carpenter-Heretic, went to the place where the jackets with feathers attached to them had been hidden. Putting one on, he went to the execution ground where the body had been buried and climbed onto the shoulders of two disciples, who were likewise standing on the shoulders of two others. Clapping loudly, he shouted to the gods, ‘Our god, who was dead in the grave, is born again. On our shoulders, he is now ascending to the heavenly world.’ Having heard the voice, the inhabitants got their lamps and torches and went off to the cemetery to see what was happening. At their approach, the heretics dressed in feather jackets started flying off to the west. Going to the grave where the Son of the Carpenter had been buried, the people found that the mound of stone was fully intact and returned to their houses. Thus, the new story of the Heretic-Cemetary-Preta271 is complete. 270 [Editor’s note:] Earlier in this text Mara is named as the evil one attempting to pervert the Dharma though introducing heresy and lawlessness into the world. 271 [Editor’s note:] The term preta (Sk., peta in Pali) can have two meanings in Buddhist traditions: (i) the term can refer to anyone who has died (from the root ‘gone forth’, leaving the realm of the living) or (ii) a ghost, goblin, or ghoul who became such through either the violent nature of their death or by being consumed with lust, greed, and/or hatred whilst alive. As the finality of the death of Jesus is stressed in this tale, it appears that the first meaning is meant.

238

jesus in buddhism Epilogue

In the story as the Tamils tell it, the Son of the Carpenter is called the Nazarene; in the story as the Sinhalese tell it, he is called the HereticPreta; and in the story as the Gauras272 tell it, he is called Krisnaya.273 The Son of the Carpenter was born 485 years after the final emancipation of the Lord Buddha.274 Four hundred and ninety years later, King Mihingu commenced the Mihingu Debates, which lasted nine months and nine days. After that, King Mihingu received the Refuges and the Precepts at the feet of Nagasena the Elder. He built a great almshouse and provided for the daily needs of eighty-thousand monks for twelve years. The Son of the Carpenter was executed and buried in the year 513 of the Buddhist Era.

5 birth omens compared Sri Lankan Buddhists are proud to claim their land the first region outside India where the Buddha’s Dharma was preached; they refer to Sri Lanka as Dhammadipa, the Island of the Dhamma.275 This island was subjected to

272 [Editor’s note:] Whilst this can be a term with racial connotations in south Asian languages (i.e. fair skinned people usually of European origins), here it may be a non-standard form of gaurara (Sk. ‘guru’) meaning ‘heavy’, ‘weighty’ or, by extension, ‘respectable’ and ‘honorable’. This would, then, be a reference to the political status of Europeans in colonial society. 273 [Editor’s note:] This may be a Sinhalese form of Krishna. The partial illegibility of the text at this point makes a definite reading impossible. It has been suggested that the term meant by the text could have been Krista, an Indic derivation of ‘Christ’. ‘Krisnaya’ may have been a mistake of the scribe or the one who recited the story when ‘Krista’ was, in fact, meant. 274 [Editor’s note:] Whilst scholars debate the dates for the birth of the Buddha (dates range from the sixth to the fourth century bce), the length of Jesus’ life (28 years) referred to in this document corresponds exactly to the belief of the Catholic Church at the time of Sri Lanka’s colonization. 275 [Editor’s note:] The teaching of the Buddha.

jesus in buddhism

239

three periods of colonization: the Portuguese (1501–1658), the Dutch (1658– 1795), and the British (1795–1948). As a result of colonial laws antagonistic to Buddhist traditions, there was the widespread feeling that Christianity of any form had but two aims: seizing power and destroying Buddhism. In 1873, the Buddhist monk Migettuwatte Gunananda (1823–90) held a public debate with a Sinhalese Methodist clergyman, defending Buddhism and condemning Christianity.

A Full Account of the Buddhist Controversy Held at Pantura276 It was well known amongst Oriental nations, that good omens were invariably the harbingers of propitious events, and that ill-omens sufficiently indicated the nature of the events that would follow. He [Gunananda] could adduce various instances to prove the truth of this statement from several ancient books, but one would suffice. It was said of the wife of the Emperor Bimbisara277 that when she was conceived of a child the longing she had was to drink the blood of her husband. When this was satisfied, she gave birth to a Prince, who in time killed his father, the Emperor, and obtained the Crown. This showed that an ill-omen always prefigured an unpropitious event. And what were the omens close upon the birth of the being who came to save the world—the most beneficial thing that one could think of—why, a massacre of thousands of little innocents. Did not this incident demonstrate that Christ was an impostor who came to the world with the view of casting every one in hell? Let them therefore remember that no salvation in a future state could reasonably be expected by believing on such a being. It was also quite clear that Christ did not rise again, and that his disciples made away with his body at night, as was even then feared that they would do: to this part of

276

John Capper, A Full Account of the Buddhist Controversy Held at Pantura, In August, 1873 (between a Buddhist Priest, Gunananda Migettuwatte, and two Ministers of the Protestant Religion, the Rev. D. de Silva and the Rev. F. S. Sirimanne) With the addresses revised and amplified by the speakers (Colombo: Ceylon Times Office, 1873), 33–4. 277 [Editor’s note:] A contemporary of Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha.

240

jesus in buddhism

the subject he would recur on the next day. Now what were the signs that preceded Buddha’s ministry on earth? He will mention a few of the thirty two good and cheerful omens that are mentioned in the books as having appeared on the day that he was conceived of King Suddhodhana in the womb of the Queen Mahamaya, on the day of his birth, and of his attaining Buddhahood, namely, receiving the use of eyes, ears and legs by those who had been blind, deaf and cripple from their birth, the quenching of the fires in the several hells, the allaying of the pangs of hunger and thirst of those evil spirits that had been condemned to roam about in the universe, and the curing of all hitherto incurable diseases. Were not these signs sufficient to show that the object of Buddha’s ministry was to bring happiness and true bliss to this world, and to introduce into it a true religion? How unlike were these to those hideous omens that preceded Christ’s birth, which it was not even possible to mention without a shudder and doing violence to one’s kindly feelings. If his opponents are in a position to show that even an ant had died in consequence of Buddha’s birth, he will give them his word,—he was not speaking for his confreres—that he will renounce Buddhism as speedily as they have done so. This unusually stirring speech was brought to a close by the Priest in these words:—‘Christ is not our relation, neither is Buddha, weigh without prejudice the arguments that have been adduced on either side: consider which party has failed to answer the questions put to it, and hold fast the faith of the successful party. I may have introduced some warmth into the discussion of the subjects: why was that: why have I been so excited, simply because I see such an immense multitude, to whom I have to offer my best thanks for their patient attention.’

6 a man between egoism and universalism Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) gained international acclaim after his speeches at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. He was

jesus in buddhism

241

one of the founders of the Maha Bodhi Society, established with the goal of returning Bodhgaya, the site of the Buddha’s enlightenment, from Hindu to Buddhist control. He was also a Sri Lankan patriot against the British and continues to be revered in Sri Lanka as a national hero. Educated in Christian schools, Dharmapala saw value in some of the teachings of Jesus, but scorned the Old Testament and its ‘despotic deity’.

An Appreciation of Christianity278 For 1500 years Asia did not hear of the teachings of the prophet of Nazareth, and for the first time the Roman form of Christianity was forcibly established in certain parts of West India and Ceylon by the Portuguese. 158 years later a reformed Protestant Christianity was established in Ceylon by the Dutch, and in 1818 the British established denominational Christianity which now exists. There are three missionary religions; Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The two latter belong to the Semitic family, while Buddhism belongs to the Aryan family. It is called the Arya Dhamma. For nearly 100 years the British Christian Societies have been working in the island, especially in teaching Sinhalese youths, and the harvest had been great. The Buddhist temple schools were closed by order of Government in 1870, and Buddhist children for the first time were removed from their spiritual elders and entrusted to alien hostile teachers. The Sinhalese being loyal to discipline when it emanates from the rulers, allowed the long established order to be broken after a continuity of 2177 years. The moral foundations were shaken, and the results have been disastrous. Activity is the cosmic law, and our Lord Buddha made it the principal teaching of His religion. Love, self-sacrifice for the welfare of others, compassion for the weak, love for all, and analytical investigation of truth, the 278 From Anagarika Dharmapala, ‘An Appreciation of Christianity’, The Maha Bhodi Journal, 35 (December 1927; Lecture delivered in the Temple, 3 October 1927 at the City in London). The second part of this reading (after the first ellipsis) is from The Maha Bodhi Journal, 24 (April 1915). See also Ananda Guruge, Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmalpala (Ceylon: The Government Press, 1965), 443–6 and 448–50.

242

jesus in buddhism

evils of nihilistic beliefs, the unending re-evolutions of the cosmic process, the freedom from passions, and unswerving faith in the powers of righteousness were emphasised. For 49 years, that is from His 29th year to the 80th year, the gentle, Prince Siddhartha led the holy life, six years of which were spent in supreme self-sacrifice of both body and mind. The supremely holy life is of unending charm, and to the Christian who loves Jesus for his sacrifice during the period of his three years activity, to know something of the sublime teachings of the Buddha will be to strengthen his faith in the wondrous power of love and self-abnegation. From my infancy I was brought up in an atmosphere of religion. My earliest teachers were Roman Catholic fathers, and then I had two years training in a church missionary boarding school, where I was daily fed with Biblical stories, and Adam, Abel, Noah, Shem, Ham and Japhet, Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, Samuel, David, Absalom, Jonathan, Elisha, Elijah, Isaiah, Hezekaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Shadrech, Meshack, Abednego and other Hebrews for some time became my daily companions. Then I had five years, training in a Church of England school, and I remember when I was asked by Revd. Warden Miller to become a Christian, I told him that I didn’t like the Old Testament, but that I liked the New. For more than a quarter of a century the Bible accompanies me wherever I go. I compare the stories of the Buddhist books with the stories of the Bible. I compare the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of the Buddha, his parables with the Buddhist parables, his ethical and psychological teachings with the ethics and psychology of Buddhism. Thereby I have been greatly benefited in the intuitional acceptance of Truth. Sometimes I identify myself with Christian teachings so much so that I desire to make an effort to reform Christianity just as Paul did, who had not seen Jesus physically, but had the boldness to challenge and crush Cephas, the personal disciple of Jesus. I am in sympathy with Bishop Gore, and I would suggest to ignore the stories of the O.T. as divine scriptures. As folklore stories of a nomadic people we should treat the Old Testament. The pure teachings of the gentle Nazarene we have to sift from the later theological accretions, and then we can make Jesus a central figure in the universal church of truth. Science is progressive, while theology belongs

jesus in buddhism

243

to a decadent age. Buddhism is progressive because it did not touch on theological dogmatics, neither was it agnostic. It taught a discipline and enunciated generalized cosmic truths. The ethics of the sermon on the Mount is of universal application, the miracles we could easily ignore because Jesus himself repudiated them as we see in his answer to the man who prided himself in having worked them. ‘I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity.’ The witness of the prophets is not needed to show the divinity of Jesus, for the law and the prophets prophesied until John. Missionaries who work to forcibly convert children in Buddhist lands ought to learn the words of condemnation of Jesus as given in Matthew ch. 18, v. 1–6. Matthew chap. 15, v. 11–20 are in harmony with Buddhist ethics. Matthew ch. v. 18–21 have a verisimilitude. The command that Jesus gave to his disciples in Mark ch. 6, v. 7–9, harmonises with the discipline of the Lord Buddha. The civilized races of Asia trace their simple ethical economics to the influence of the Buddha’s gentle teachings. The scientific sensualism which is now spreading must be combatted by a higher science, not by theological dogmatics. To save Christianity we have to put new wine into new bottles; and when we change our immoral passions we become new, and then we can assimilate new truths. Modern science is the friend of the active worker. We must be active in changing our old nature, and Buddhists would be glad to work with Christian teachers. I am the first Buddhist missionary to England and our Maha Bodhi Society intends to erect the first Temple in London shortly. Come and see is the motto of the Lord Buddha. Self reliance, activity in doing good, renunciation of sensual passions and freedom from dogmas are the essential principles of Buddhism. [ . . . ] There was nothing especially sublime in the teachings of Christ. His parables show him to be a man of limited knowledge. He could not have been a student of agriculture. No sower in Asia would go sowing seeds on barren and rocky ground. In Asiatic countries the farmer first prepares the ground by ploughing, before he sows the seed. What precautions the sowers take when sowing the seed. It is evident Jesus had not seen cultivators working in a rice field. His parable of the sower is one instance of his ignorance. Similarly, no experienced agriculturalist

244

jesus in buddhism

would follow the example of Jesus who advised the men to allow the tares and the wheat to grow together. His reason was lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them. The wise farmer as soon as he sees the wild tares growing he would have them rooted out lest his crop should be lessened by the growth of the tares. The parable of the householder ‘it is not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own’ is opposed to all justice. [ . . . ] Jesus was not a friend of the rich. He ordered a certain man who wished to be perfect to sell all that he had and to follow him. The inconceivable is that Jesus should say that a rich man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 19. How different is Buddhism. The Lord Buddha had some of the wealthiest in the land as His disciples, and they gave away all that they had and followed the Lord. The blessed one taught the householders as to the manner that wealth should be distributed. He never expected impossible things from His disciples, and his ethics were within the range of human possibilities. Unworkable ethics we find in several places in the teachings of the Nazarene Carpenter. [ . . . ] When Jesus told the parable of the ten virgins, five of whom were foolish, what did he mean to convey? Surely a saviour comes to lead the foolish in the path of enlightenment. If the foolish are to be abandoned where is the necessity of a saviour. A compassionate saviour: what other work has he except to save the ignorant? In the Bhagavat Gita Krishna says that he appears to save the righteous and destroy the wicked. We say that the righteous need no saviour inasmuch as they can save themselves. If he came to destroy, the appellation of saviour is inapplicable to such a destroyer. The work of destruction belongs to the devil. No saviour should become the co-adjutor of the devil by giving him aid to increase his power. When a disappointed saviour threatens to send people to hell he only shows his weakness, and that he lacks patience and forgiveness. [ . . . ] What a merciless doctrine is that of Jesus that maketh men to go to an eternal hell because they have failed to believe that he is the son of the Arabian god, Jehovah. Neither he nor his god could be called merciful. No loving god would send countless millions to an eternal hell, even if he had the power.

jesus in buddhism

245

7 jesus, absolute and relative Tanabe Hajime (1885–1962) was a member of the Kyoto School founded by Nishida Kitaro which sought to present Buddhist philosophy in a European philosophical vocabulary. Having experienced a sense of guilt about Japanese involvement in the Second World War, Tanabe was wary of Buddhist thought when it stressed only self-redemption. Absolute reality and the unity of opposites testified to by some Buddhist traditions could not be apprehended apart from repentance, as advocated by the Pure Land traditions and Christianity. Tanabe believed that an experience of Jesus, if not separated from the self through dogma, could lead one to the ultimate truth.

The Demonstratio of Christianity279 This standpoint of religion we have just seen, of believing in immediate existence as something absolute, is displayed most clearly when a religion claims the absoluteness of its own roots or beginnings and believes the unique, absolute authority of its founder. It is common to all religions that the life of the founder from birth to death is sanctified and that therefore to a greater or lesser extent mythical legends are added and chronicled. There are quite a few examples that for that reason historical facts have been distorted. It is all the more natural that in a revelational religion like Christianity its founder, Christ, was converted into the Redeemer, and that as an unmovable, fundamental article of faith it was established that as the only Son of God He is the absolutely unique Redeemer. The fact, however, that a relatively long period was necessary

279 Makoto Ozaki, Introduction to the Philosophy of Tanabe: According to the English Translation of the Seventh Chapter of the Demonstratio of Christianity (Amsterdam/Atlanta/ Grand Rapids: Editions Rodopi and Eerdmans, 1990), 163–6.

246

jesus in buddhism

for Christ’s divinity to be proven and for the Trinitarian creed to be adopted, indirectly proves that this creed certainly was not, philosophically speaking, transparent or clear. If we would base ourselves on the Trinity of love that I proposed and apprehend the love of God, the love for God, and the love of our neighbours in mutual mediation, could we not then convert the uniqueness of the Son of God into the many-ness of the existential community and reduce it to ‘the one which is identical to the many and the many which are identical to the one’ of the Buddhist phrase ‘Only a Buddha with a Buddha can fathom the reality of All-Existence’?280 Of course this does not mean that we deny the unique character of Christ as the founder of a religion, or the revelational character of His resurrection as revealed in the self-awareness of the Christians. It is, however, in the establishment of the Kingdom of God, that the unique and undivided individual at the same time realizes His genus-like universality and, mediating all members of the human race one by one unto Himself, becomes Himself aware and makes others aware of the fact that the self is identical to the other and the other to the self and that therefore the one is identical to the many and the many to the one; this is nothing but the communal communication of the spiritual existence in the state of resurrected existence. Would not this be what is meant by the phrase that the characteristic of Christianity as compared to Judaism, and of Protestantism as compared to Catholicism, is that they are lay religions and not sacerdotal ones? This can be conceived of as conforming to the logic of ‘the individual is identical to the genus and the genus to the individual’, in which the species is the mediator. It seems to me that in so far as it insists on His absolute nature, abstracted from relativity, the insistence that Christ is immediately and unmediatedly the only Son of God and the Saviour of all other men, will inevitably have as its consequence that it degenerates itself into a relative standpoint. Thus we will have to conclude that, as a result of the insistence on the exclusive, immediate divine nature, i.e. the absolute nature 280

See W. E. Soothill, trans. The Lotus of the Wonderful Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930), 65.

jesus in buddhism

247

of the Son of God, who should be the revelation of self-negating love, this insistence degenerates into relativity. In actuality, [however,] this absolute nature is conferred on Him, not as such an objective fact but only as a belief, reflected in the self-awareness of the believers. Even if, as a result of proof of the salvation of believers by Christ, Christ in view of His heaven-given superiority is perfected as the prototype of man, the qualitative jump involved depends on the negative mediation of the resurrection, and therefore He must be regarded immediately and objectively as connected relatively with the imperfection and sinful nature of man in general, and His quantitative continuation [with man] must be possible. I cannot deny that the view that with His resurrection world history as the history of salvation began, is the starting point of the philosophy of history in the sense of an awareness of history establishing itself through the dialectical method in the temporal present, but this is a truth exclusively for the dialectical self-awareness, a truth, so to say, for the resurrected; it must therefore be, in other words, a universal truth to the extent that it is reflected in the rest of resurrected existence. If Christ’s resurrection is separated from this transmission and reflection in the existential self-awareness and is, singly and without mediation, changed into something that exists as a metaphysical fact, then it will be virtually impossible to prevent its degeneration into a myth. Thus we must interpret it as follows: Christ’s divinity as the Son of God is mediated by the divine nature of other men, in whom it must be reflected, and only in the relative, communal state can His absolute nature as the source on which His individual creation depends, be acknowledged. In other words, His absolute nature is throughout mediated by the relative totality of man. We could call this the identity of the absolute and the relative. To sum up, Christ’s divine nature as the Son of God originates through the mediation of our divine nature as sons of God, and mediated through Christ’s divine nature as the Son of God, our divine nature as sons of God originates. This mutual mediation is the absolute mediation; it is the core of the dialectical method.

248

jesus in buddhism

8 obliterating god consciousness Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki (1870–1966) is well known in the west for his books on Zen Buddhism and for his dialogue with western thinkers (such as Thomas Merton and Erich Fromm). Suzuki emphasized Zen not as a systematic philosophy or psychology but as the pre-eminent intuitive path to the realization of oneself as a spiritual unity. One did not reach enlightenment by reason but by intuitive insights that could not be confined to a single spiritual discipline or thought process—though training and discipline were certainly necessary. Jesus, for Suzuki, appears to have only partially travelled this path.

An Introduction to Zen Buddhism281 Jesus said, ‘When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth; that thine alms may be in secret.’ This is the ‘secret virtue’ of Buddhism. But when the account goes on to say that ‘Thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee’, we see a deep cleavage between Buddhism and Christianity. As long as there is any thought of anybody, be he God or devil, knowing of our doings and making recompense, Zen would say, ‘You are not yet one of us.’ Deeds that are the product of such thought leave ‘traces’ and ‘shadows’. If a spirit is tracing your doings, he will in no time get hold of you and make you account for what you have done; Zen will have none of it. The perfect garment shows no seams, inside and outside; it is one complete piece and nobody can tell where the work began, or how it was woven. In Zen, therefore, no traces of selfconceit or self-glorification are to be left behind even after the doing of good, much less the thought of recompense, even by God. Resshi (Lieh-tzu), the Chinese philosopher, describes this frame of mind in a most graphic manner:

281

D. T. Suzuki, An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, ed. Christmas Humphreys (London: Rider, 1995), 131–2.

jesus in buddhism

249

‘I allowed my mind without restraint to think of what it pleased, and my mouth to talk about whatever it pleased; I then forgot whether “this and not-this” was mine or others’, whether the gain or loss was mine or others’; nor did I know whether Lao-shang-shih was my teacher and Pa-kao was my friend. In and out, I was thoroughly transformed; and then it was that the eye became like the ear, and the ear like the nose, and the nose like the mouth; and there was nothing that was not identified. As the mind became concentrated, the form dissolved, the bones and flesh all thawed away; I did not know upon what my frame was supported, or where my feet were treading; I just moved along with the wind, east or west, like a leaf of the tree detached from its stem; I was unconscious whether I was riding on the wind, or the wind riding on me.’

This kind of virtue is called by the German mystics ‘poverty’; and Tauler’s definition is, ‘Absolute poverty is thine when thou canst not remember whether anybody has owed thee or been indebted to thee for anything; just as all things will be forgotten by thee in the last journey of death.’ In Christianity we seem to be too conscious of God, though we say that in him we live and move and have our being. Zen wants to have this last trace of God-consciousness, if possible, obliterated. That is why Zen masters advise us not to linger where the Buddha is, and to pass quickly away where he is not. All the training of the monk in the Zendo, in practice as well as in theory, is based on this principle of ‘meritless deed’. Poetically this idea is expressed as follows: The bamboo-shadows move over the stone steps as if to sweep them, but no dust is stirred; The moon is reflected deep in the pool, but the water shows no trace of its penetration.

Taking it all in all, Zen is emphatically a matter of personal experience; if anything can be called radically empirical, it is Zen. No amount of reading, no amount of teaching, no amount of contemplation will ever make one a Zen master. Life itself must be grasped in the midst of its flow; to stop it for examination and analysis is to kill it, leaving its cold corpse to be embraced.

250

jesus in buddhism

9 a man of contradictions Recently, some Buddhist teachers in the west have acknowledged Jesus as a figure of high spiritual development; the voice of Chinese scholar-monk Sheng Yen (1930–2009) provides a more critical view. Sheng Yen was a leading figure in Chinese Buddhism who attempted to demonstrate that Buddhism provides a superior metaphysic leading to social stability and inner peace. This reading is from an essay that first appeared in Taiwan in 1959.

Further Discussion of the Similarities and Differences between Buddhism and Christianity282 As a matter of fact, once we understand Jesus’ family background, we won’t need to make excessive demands of Christian doctrine. History tells us that Shakyamuni, the world-honoured one, grew up in the palace of a royal family. Shakyamuni was naturally superior to others both in terms of his scholastic education and his living environment. In addition, his powers of understanding were exceptional. Therefore the Buddhadharma, which flowed from the Buddha’s compassion and wisdom, contained no contradictions whatsoever. And Jesus? Jesus was born in a small and unknown town called Nazareth, in Galilee. His father and mother had no social status worth mentioning, and to support the family, could rely only on their carpentry skills. Jesus’ childhood and early youth were idled away in his father’s workshop. Naturally then, Jesus never received a good scholastic education. At the same time, although Jesus grew up near the Mediterranean Sea, and this sea was all that separated him from Greece, the Jewish people’s opposition to Greek culture was extremely deep. Consequently,

Xingshi Jiangjun 醒世將軍 (Sheng Yen 聖嚴). 1959. ‘Zai lun Fojiao he Jidujiao de tongyi 再論佛教和基督教的同異.’ Zhongguo Fojiao 中國佛教 3 (8): 6–9. The editors thank Scott Pacey for this fresh translation with annotations. 282

jesus in buddhism

251

although Jesus was born into this environment, he definitely could not have absorbed even a little bit of the nutriments of Greek culture. So it is not difficult for us to imagine that in those days Jesus, apart from being familiar with the Old Testament, was quite ignorant. Because Jesus’ knowledge was so superficial, he was not like the Buddha, who always systematically expounded upon the Dharma. In fact, scenes in which the Dharma was being expounded upon, such as when ‘the Buddha was in a certain place with an assembly of eminent monks, one thousand two hundred and fifty in all’,283 were out of reach for Jesus. In Jesus’ dissemination of his so-called ‘gospel of the kingdom’, the appeal of the Sermon on the Mount is unsurpassed. But when giving this sermon, he only convened four people from among his twelve disciples—Peter, Andrew, James, and John. This is somewhat like the events that occurred when the Buddha, having just attained the path, turned the wheel of the Dharma for the first time at the Deer Park in Sarnath, enlightening five monks. But when the Buddha first turned the wheel of the Dharma, it was just the beginning of the Buddha’s career of preaching the Dharma and of his wisdom-life. With the passing of time, the flavour of the Dharma became ever mellower, and the sea of the Dharma became ever deeper. As for Jesus, in the early stages of the preaching of his doctrine, during the period of the Sermon on the Mount, he was certainly extremely appealing. When this discourse of Jesus appeared, for the people at that time, it must have been like the rising sun in a harsh winter. The discourse was so heart-warming, comforting, and full of the loving care that exists between people. Because this appealing sermon has consoled many Westerners during the last two thousand years, at the same time, it has consequently enabled the history of Christianity to take place. Even so, and most unfortunately, due to Jesus’ superficiality, Jesus’ emotions frequently buried his rationality. Especially after he used spiritual healing methods to cure some sick people and used some minor magical

283 [Editor’s note:] Here, Sheng Yen paraphrases a common introduction to sutras in which the place of the Buddha’s discourse is given and the different members of his audience are enumerated.

252

jesus in buddhism

powers to produce a few miracles, his thought gradually became more extreme and he could not tolerate the outside world. Therefore, Jesus preached his doctrine for a total of less than ten years (of course it could not have been ten years).284 During this time, the [period] which was most worthy of respect, and which was the most appealing, however, was only the beginning stage of his preaching mission. Because Jesus’ emotions had conquered his reason, his discourses could not be expected to have any logical consistency. It is notable that in the so-called preaching of his doctrine, Jesus for the most part only made it known to a small number of intimate disciples. His responses to the needs of the masses were apparently expressed only through the curing of illnesses. After Jesus’ death, his disciples composed the four Gospels, embellishing and colouring the accounts and increasing Jesus’ mysterious aura. This was inevitable. But Jesus was a person who was constantly in a mental condition beset with numerous contradictions. Thus, not even the writers of the Gospels could clearly understand the mental state of this person, on the road from the Sermon on the Mount to martyrdom in Jerusalem. Hence, to the contradictions of Jesus were added additional contradictions by the writers of the New Testament (the disciples of Jesus were frequently perplexed and bewildered by his sentiments). The Christian New Testament therefore led to contradictions, in interpretations and institutions, for future generations of Christians. Religious wars also arose from this. This has truly been unfortunate for Christianity. It has also been unfortunate for the history of humanity! This kind of thing never happened with Shakyamuni, the world-honoured one. Nor has it ever happened with the Buddhism of Shakyamuni. Therefore, the Buddha did not need to demand martyrdom in order to arouse the religious fanaticism of believers. Followers of Buddhism also do not need to launch wars against external or internal elements as a way and means 284

[Editor’s note:] the comment in parentheses was not included in a subsequent reprinting. See Sheng Yen 聖嚴. 1999. ‘Zai lun Fojiao yu Jidujiao de tongyi 再論佛教與基督教的同 異.’ Shentong yu rentong 神通與人通. Taipei: Fagu wenhua shiye gufen youxian gongsi 法鼓 文化事業股份有限公司: 219.

jesus in buddhism

253

of expanding Buddhism. This clearly shows that problems cannot be solved through confrontation. The optimal channel for solving problems is through opening our hearts up to, and having an empathetic understanding of, each other. Of course, although Jesus’ discourses were not consistent from beginning to end, we should not deny his appealing facets. If Christians abandoned the weak points in Jesus’ character and adopted his strong points, practicing them in our world, this would truly be ‘good news’ for humanity.285 The widespread Christian performance of philanthropy and relief work is an expression of this strong point. [ . . . ] When we study the past deeds of the Buddha and of Jesus, it is easy to see that differences existed between them, both in their teaching and in the preaching of their doctrines. Although the fundamental task of both of them was one of religious reform, the Buddha opposed Brahmanism and yet did not go to extremes. The Buddha simply used a superior form of wisdom to refute the irrational areas of the original religious views, while accepting the rational areas of those original religious views. Therefore, the Buddha was able to not only satisfy himself; he also attained the sympathy of the broad masses of people, as well as those in intellectual circles, so that they accepted the flavour of the Buddha’s Dharma. Thus, among the Buddha’s disciples, though a large number of persons were from the lower social strata, there were also many who were kings, high ministers, or elderly, influential lay-people—those forming the circles of power and intellect in society at that time. The monastic disciples who followed the Buddha and listened to him preach the Dharma numbered one thousand and several hundred in all. And one thousand among them came from the religious order of the three Kashyapa brothers, who were originally fire-worshippers. This kind of event definitely never occurred among the past deeds of Jesus. Jesus grew up in a poor and lowly environment, preached his doctrine in a

285 [Editor’s note:] The word Sheng Yen uses here—fuyin—is the Chinese word for ‘gospel’. It also means ‘good news’. It has been translated literally here, and placed in quotation marks to indicate Sheng Yen’s pun.

254

jesus in buddhism

poor and lowly environment, and from amidst a poor and lowly environment headed towards a poor and lowly crucifix—to be crucified at Golgotha between two thieves!286 Jesus appeared in the mid-eighth century of the Roman era, and was active during the age of the Roman hero Caesar. However, not only did the rulers of the Roman government not know about this person called Jesus—even the Roman governors dispatched to the Jewish regions did not know of his existence! The great disciples of Jesus, such as the two sons of Jonah—Peter and Andrew, and the two sons of Zebedee—James and John, were all children of fishermen. Even the writer of the Gospel of Matthew—the Matthew regarded as a new Christian Xenophon (an ancient Greek historian and philosopher) by later generations—was also just a very minor publican. As for the followers in the exaggerated accounts of the Gospel writers— the five thousand people who were fed by Jesus’ five loaves and two fishes, and the four thousand people who were fed by the seven loaves and several fishes—apart from the group made up of women and children, they were truly poor, sick, and lowly persons. Because those who believed and followed Jesus were the poor, women, and children, and because Jesus had sympathy from very few (apparently virtually no) influential people and intellectuals from the upper social strata, Jesus often attacked the Pharisees and scholars. He was especially dissatisfied with the political system. The heaven he boasted about was really only a heaven for the poor and for children. Consequently, he said: ‘Verily I say unto you, except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven’.287 He also said: ‘Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven’.288 Because his ideal kingdom of heaven had no hope of being realised on earth, he was especially unhappy 286 [Editor’s note:] This sentence was not included in a subsequent reprinting. See Shentong yu rentong (224). 287 [Editor’s note:] Matt. 18: 3, English Revised Version (ERV). Sheng Yen drew his quotations from the Chinese Union Version of the Bible which was, in principle, translated with reference to the Greek source text underlying the ERV. 288 [Editor’s note:] Matt. 19: 14, ERV.

jesus in buddhism

255

with the men of wealth in our world, claiming that ‘It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God’.289 During the course of Jesus’ preaching mission, we only see him lead people to regard him as being holy, or be amazed, by healing illnesses. He dealt with the difficult questions put by outsiders by using clever, plausible arguments, and with all kinds of parables, but rarely (apparently, virtually never) using penetrating sermons that would cause other people to be moved or persuaded. The most difficult thing to understand is that Jesus would always use parables when speaking to the masses, and then explain them to his disciples. His reason for this was that he would only allow the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to be known by his disciples. He would not let the masses know, for fear that if the masses knew, they would turn around and gain forgiveness. From this it can be seen that Jesus was apparently very miserly regarding the dissemination of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. But he abhorred it when other people did not believe and follow him, so he spoke of the terror of judgment on the last day. He did not generate the great, universal vow, and whole-heartedly go forth to do the work of liberating each and every sentient being. So this simply cannot be compared with the breadth of the Buddha’s mind. From the four Gospels it can be seen that during Jesus’ lifetime, apart from the sympathy and encouragement given to him by John the Baptist, Jesus’ religious thought was quite isolated [and lacking in support]. Most unfortunate was that even his sole sympathiser, John, died at the hands of the ruling class due to his radical character and discourses soon after Jesus began to preach! This led Jesus to often feel as though he was besieged on all sides. At the same time, as the environment became increasingly unfavourable to him, his hostility and resistance towards the environment became more intense. He later became fully aware that if he continued in this way, it would only lead to death. Particularly as he wanted to identify himself with the 289

[Editor’s note:] Matt. 19: 24, ERV.

256

jesus in buddhism

Saviour from the prophecies of the Old Testament, in the latter half of the period of his preaching mission, he longed for an opportunity for martyrdom to arrive. He said to his disciples that ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me’.290 Finally, without being able to avoid it, he unfortunately died an early death upon the cross. However, on the eve of this disaster, his innermost being was filled with complex contradictions and a mood of extreme distress. In the Gospels it is recorded that ‘he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and sore troubled. Then he saith unto them, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”. . . and [he] fell on his face, and prayed, saying, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt”.291 This frame of mind is expressive of the fact that Jesus did not want to die, the misery of knowing that death was inevitable, and his state of being reluctant to leave the world. Actually, if he could have been more rational and moderate, then he need not have died. Nevertheless, the religious behaviour produced by this fanatical and irrational religious frame of mind has aroused the reverence of later generations, and, for the Christians of later ages, it has also established a model for the defence of their values, and for self-sacrifice. However, for Christians of later ages, he has also brought about a fanatical and irrational religious frame of mind. That Jesus died before reaching even the age of forty has been an especially great loss for Christian and human culture. If Jesus had rid himself of his characteristic fanaticism, which was actually demonic,292 and continued to develop his spirituality or humanity, then he could have enjoyed his natural lifespan. 290

[Editor’s note:] Matt. 16: 24 ERV. [Editor’s note:] From Matt. 26: 37–9, ERV. In the original text of this essay, ‘such’ or ‘this way’ (zheyang) was printed instead of ‘this cup’ (zhe bei). 292 [Editor’s note:] In an earlier section of the essay (page 7 of the original text), Sheng Yen wrote that both Jesus and the Buddha had confronted ‘demons’. Sheng Yen stated, ‘We can recognize such evil obstructions as being factual. They can also be explained as the manifestations of various kinds of internal delusions and erroneous thoughts. It is like how at the last moment, when we decide to do something, there is an internal struggle between our intellect and our emotions.’ 291

jesus in buddhism

257

Then contemporary Western history and culture would certainly have assumed a different look, and contemporary Christianity would never have been like this. We truly should feel sorry about this! Buddhism is vast and profound, and has been circulating for over two thousand five hundred years. Yet it has never experienced the tragedy of bloodshed—neither among ourselves, nor as a result of actions against others. This is because the Buddha’s character is lenient, sincere, and stable, as well as open-minded, bright, and perceptive. Therefore Buddhism, which flowed and developed from the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha, can thus avoid falling into a demonic mire.

10 the good heart of jesus Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama (1935–) is an advocate for Tibetan culture and independence. In the west he represents a face of Buddhism which has become enormously popular for its perceived compatibility with broadly held spiritual values. All religions, the Dalai Lama maintains, can function to produce the moral life of compassion and service described in Buddhist scriptures and therefore can be considered true. Jesus’ path is a way for Christians to develop a good heart; in fact, Buddhism and Christianity share a great deal when it comes to describing a fully realized, spiritually mature human being, notwithstanding differences at the conceptual level.

The Good Heart293 Now I will read from the Gospel. You have heard that they were told, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I tell you is this: Do not resist those who wrong you. If

293 Robert Keily, ed., The Good Heart: His Holiness the Dalai Lama Explores the Heart of Christianity and Humanity (London: Rider, 2002), 47–52.

258

jesus in buddhism

anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well. If someone in authority presses you into service for one mile, go with him two. Give to anyone who asks, and do not turn your back on anyone who wants to borrow. [Matthew 5: 38–42]

The practice of tolerance and patience which is being advocated in these passages is extremely similar to the practice of tolerance and patience which is advocated in Buddhism in general. And this is particularly true in Mahayana Buddhism in the context of the bodhisattva ideals in which the individual who faces certain harms is encouraged to respond in a nonviolent and compassionate way. In fact, one could almost say that these passages could be introduced into a Buddhist text, and they would not even be recognized as traditional Christian scriptures. You have heard that they were told, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who causes the sun to rise on good and bad alike, and sends rain on the innocent and the wicked. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Even the tax-collectors do as much as that. If you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathens do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds. [Matthew 5: 43–48]

This reminds me of a passage in a Mahayana Buddhist text known as the Compendium of Practices294 in which Shantideva295 asks, ‘If you do not practice compassion toward your enemy then toward whom can you practice it?’ The implication is that even animals show love, compassion and a feeling of empathy toward their own loved ones. As we claim to be practitioners of spirituality and a spiritual path, we should be able to do better than the animals. These Gospel passages also remind me of reflections in another Mahayana text called A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, in which 294

In Sanskrit, Siksasamuccaya. A seventh-century Indian Buddhist philosopher responsible for the important Mahayana text The Bodhicaryavatara (A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life). 295

jesus in buddhism

259

Shantideva states that it is very important to develop the right attitude toward your enemy. If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers because their presence provides you with the opportunity to enhance and develop tolerance, patience, and understanding. By developing greater tolerance and patience, it will be easier for you to develop your capacity for compassion and, through that, altruism. So even for the practice of your own spiritual path, the presence of an enemy is crucial. The analogy drawn in the Gospel as to how ‘the sun makes no discrimination where it shines’ is very significant. The sun shines for all and makes no discrimination. This is a wonderful metaphor for compassion. It gives you the sense of its impartiality and all-embracing nature. As I read these passages, I feel that the Gospel especially emphasizes the practice of tolerance and feelings of impartiality toward all creatures. In my opinion, in order to develop one’s capacity for tolerance toward all beings, and particularly toward an enemy, it is important as a precondition to have a feeling of equanimity toward all. If someone tells you that you should not be hostile toward your enemy or that you should love your enemy, that statement alone is not going to move you to change. It is quite natural for all of us to feel hostility toward those who harm us, and to feel attachment toward our loved ones. It is a natural human feeling, so we must have effective techniques to help us make that transition from these inherently biased feelings toward a state of greater equanimity. There are specific techniques for developing this sense of equanimity toward all sentient creatures. For instance, in the Buddhist context, one can refer to the concept of rebirth to assist in the practice of generating equanimity. As we are discussing the cultivation of equanimity in the context of Christian practice, however, perhaps it is possible to invoke the idea of Creation and that all creatures are equal in that they are all creations of the same God. On the basis of this belief, one can develop a sense of equanimity. Just before our morning’s session, I had a brief discussion with Father Laurence. He made the point that in Christian theology there is the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God—we all share a common divine nature. I find this quite similar to

260

jesus in buddhism

the idea of buddha-nature in Buddhism. On the basis of this belief that all human beings share the same divine nature, we have a very strong ground, a very powerful reason, to believe that it is possible for each of us to develop a genuine sense of equanimity toward all beings. However, we should not see equanimity as an end in itself. Nor should we feel that we are striving for a total state of apathy in which we have no feelings or fluctuating emotions toward either our enemies or our loved ones and friends. That is not what we are seeking to achieve. What we aspire to achieve is, first of all, to set the foundation, to have a kind of clear field where we can then plant other thoughts. Equanimity is this even ground that we are first laying out. On the basis of this, we should then reflect on the merits of tolerance, patience, love, and compassion toward all. We should also contemplate the disadvantages and the negativities of self-centered thinking, fluctuating emotions toward friends and enemies, and the negativities of having biased feelings toward other beings. The crucial point is how you utilize this basic equanimity. It is important to concentrate on the negativities of anger and hatred, which are the principal obstacles to enhancing one’s capacity for compassion and tolerance. You should also reflect upon the merits and virtues of enhancing tolerance and patience. This can be done in the Christian context without having to resort to any belief in rebirth. For example, when reflecting upon the merits and virtues of tolerance and patience, you can think along the following lines: God created you as an individual and gave you the freedom to act in a way that is compatible and in accordance with the Creator’s wishes—to act in an ethical way, in a moral way, and to live a life of an ethically disciplined, responsible individual. By feeling and practicing tolerance and patience toward fellow creatures, you are fulfilling that wish: you are pleasing your Creator. That is, in a way, the best gift, the best offering that you can make to the divine Creator. There is an idea in Buddhism of something called offering of practice (drupai chöpa): of all the offerings you can make to someone that you revere—such as material offerings, singing songs of praise, or other gifts—the best offering you can make is to live a life according to the principles of that being. In the Christian context, by living life in an ethically

jesus in buddhism

261

disciplined way, based on tolerance and patience, you are, in a way, making a wonderful gift to your Creator. This is in some sense much more effective than having only prayer as your main practice. If you pray but then do not live according to that prayer, it is not of much benefit. One of the great yogis of Tibetan Buddhism, Milarepa, states in one of his songs of spiritual experience, ‘As far as offerings of material gifts are concerned, I am destitute; I have nothing to offer. What I have to offer in abundance is the gift of my spiritual practice.’ We can see that, generally, the person who has a tremendous reserve of patience and tolerance has a certain degree of tranquility and calmness in his or her life. Such a person is not only happy and more emotionally grounded, but also seems to be physically healthier and to experience less illness. The person possesses a strong will, has a good appetite, and can sleep with a clear conscience. These are all benefits of tolerance and patience that we can see in our own daily lives. One of my fundamental convictions is that basic human nature is more disposed toward compassion and affection. Basic human nature is gentle, not aggressive or violent. This goes hand in hand with Father Laurence’s statement that all human beings share the same divine nature. I would also argue that when we examine the relationship between mind, or consciousness, and body, we see that wholesome attitudes, emotions, and states of mind, like compassion, tolerance, and forgiveness, are strongly connected with physical health and well-being. They enhance physical well-being, whereas negative or unwholesome attitudes and emotions— anger, hatred, disturbed states of mind—undermine physical health. I would argue that this correspondence shows that our basic human nature is closer to the wholesome attitudes and emotions. After you have reflected upon the virtues of tolerance and patience and feel convinced of the need to develop and enhance them within you, you should then look at different types and levels of patience and tolerance. For example, in the Buddhist texts three types of tolerance and patience are described. The first is the state of resolute indifference—one is able to bear pain or suffering and not be overwhelmed by them. That is the first level. In the second state, one is not only able to bear such sufferings,

262

jesus in buddhism

but is also, if necessary, prepared and even willing to take upon oneself the hardships, pain, and suffering that are involved in the spiritual path. This involves a voluntary acceptance of hardships for a higher purpose. The third is a type of patience and tolerance arising from a sound conviction about the nature of reality. In the context of Christian practice this kind of patience would be based on a firm faith and belief in the mysteries of the Creation. Although the distinctions between these three levels of tolerance are found in Buddhist texts, they are also applicable in the Christian context. This is especially true of the second type of tolerance and patience—deliberately taking upon yourself the hardships and pains that are involved in your spiritual path—which seem to come up in the next passage: the Beatitudes from the Gospel of Matthew.

jesus in buddhism

263

JESUS IN BUDDHISM Closing Reflection

According to a well-worn stereotype, Buddhism is a religion where all positions are tolerated, where philosophical speculation is discouraged as ‘questions that tend not toward edification’. For many, Buddhism is a religion that easily accommodates other religions, so much so that one can be a Buddhist and also be something else. But Buddhism arose in a cultural milieu of competition for the alms of lay people and the patronage of princes. It was thus necessary for the Buddha to demonstrate the superiority of his own teachings and the inferiority of those of other teachers, and he seems not to have demurred from doing so. As Buddhism spread across Asia over the centuries, it continued to encounter hostile ideologies and creeds. Thus, much more than interfaith dialogue, it is interreligious polemic that has held a central place in Buddhist literature over the entire history of the tradition, a history that stretches over two and half millennia. The opening text in the Dīgha Nikāya, the ‘long discourses’ of the Buddha in the Pāli canon, is entitled the Discourse on the Supreme Net (Brahmajālasutta). Here, the Buddha enumerates sixty-two wrong views propounded by his contemporaries. Among these is the belief in a creator god; the Buddha explains that no such god exists. Rather, a person who was reborn in heaven and dwelled there for a particularly long period of time has mistakenly imagined himself to be the eternal creator of the universe, and others, less long lived, have come to share his misconception and propagated his worship. Over the long course of the history of Buddhism in India—stretching from the time of the Buddha in the fifth century bce to its demise there in the fourteenth century, Buddhists continue to debate

264

jesus in buddhism

with Hindu opponents on a wide range of doctrines, with the question of the existence of God remaining particularly persistent. Over a millennium after the death of the Buddha, the eminent scholar Śantaraks.ita composed his Compendium of Principles (Tattvasaṃ graha), yet another catalogue of the philosophical errors committed by the Buddhists’ opponents. Here, the logical fallacies of a creator God are enumerated; among them: if God is eternal, he can never change; he must always create or he must never create; occasional creation is infeasible. The demise of Buddhism in India was brought about in part by successive waves of Muslim armies moving from west to east across northern India. The attack on Buddhism in this case extended beyond the realm of polemics, to the destruction of monasteries and the murder of monks. The Buddhists were unable to retaliate in kind. But a text called the Kālacakra tantra, composed in the tenth century, condemns the Muslims as barbarians who engage in such abominations as the butchering of cows and the cutting off of the ends of their penises (that is, circumcision) and predict a time when Buddhist armies will sweep out of the Himalayas to reclaim India for the true dharma. Buddhists would engage in verbal battle with opponents beyond India, mostly notably with Confucians, in China, Korea, and Japan. Thus, as one reads the selections in this chapter, it is important to recall that, long before their encounter with Christianity, Buddhists were well practised in the polemical arts, intent on exposing the fallacies and faults of those perceived as a threat to the dharma. Despite the medieval tales of Prester John, the pious king who ruled a Christian nation somewhere in the Orient, Buddhist interactions with Christians remained relatively limited through the first millennium of the Common Era. The most widespread contact was likely in China, where a community of Nestorian Christians was established during the Tang Dynasty, until its suppression (along with Buddhism) by the Emperor Wuzong, a patron of Daoism, in 845. In 781, the Nestorian monk Jingjing (‘Adam’ in Syriac) composed a Chinese inscription in the Tang capital of Chang’an (modern Xian). In 1,800 characters, it describes the tenets of the ‘Luminous Religion’ ( jingjiao) and its establishment in China (which it dates to 635) and concludes with a list, in Syriac, of bishops and monks.

jesus in buddhism

265

Here is the description of Jesus that appears on the stele, as translated by the eminent Victorian Sinologist and missionary, James Legge: Hereupon our Tri-une (Eloah) divided His Godhead, and the Illustrious and Adorable Messiah, veiling His true Majesty, appeared in the world as a man. Angels proclaimed the glad tidings. A virgin brought forth the Holy One in Tâ Ts’in. A bright star announced the felicitous event. Persians saw its splendour and came with tribute. He fulfilled the Old Law, as it was delivered by the twenty-four holy ones. He announced His great plans for the regulation of families and kingdoms. He appointed His new doctrines, operating without words by the cleansing influence of the Tri-une. He formed in man the capacity of good-doing by the correct faith. He defined the measures of the eight (moral) conditions, purging away the dust (of defilement) and perfecting the truth (in men). He threw open the gate of the three constant (virtues), thereby bringing life to light and abolishing death. He hung up the bright sun to break open the abodes of darkness. By all these things the wiles of the devil were defeated. The vessel of mercy was set in motion to convey men to the palace of light, and thereby all intelligent beings were conveyed across (the intervening space). His mighty work being thus completed, at noonday He ascended to His true (place). He left behind Him the twenty-seven standard books. These set forth the great conversion for the deliverance of the soul. They institute the washing of His Law by water and the spirit, cleansing away all vain delusions, and purifying men till they regain the whiteness of their pure simplicity.296

One notes the absence of any mention of crucifixion or resurrection. This is not the only evidence of Christianity in China during this period. A number of Christian texts from the Tang Dynasty, in Chinese (sometimes referred to as the ‘Jesus Sutras’), were discovered at the cave temple complex at Dunhuang in western China in the early twentieth century. Yet, despite reference in the Nestorian stele to Buddhist opposition to the Luminous Religion, condemnations of Christianity in Chinese Buddhist works from the period have not been discovered.

296 James Legge, Christianity in China: Nestorianism, Roman Catholocism, Protestantism (London: Trübner and Co., 1888), 5 and 7.

266

jesus in buddhism

Condemnations of Jesus, however, do appear in Buddhist literature from later periods, in China and across the Buddhist world. Some of these were based on an understanding of Christian doctrine, some were based on an unfortunate coincidence, as occurred in Thailand. One of the most famous villains in Buddhist literature is the Buddha’s evil cousin Devadatta, who tried to assassinate him and take control of the order of monks. For his sins, he was consigned to the most tortuous of the Buddhist hells, where he was impaled for aeons. When French missionaries showed the crucifix to Thai monks in the seventeenth century, it recalled for them the Buddha’s nemesis, whose condition in hell was described by Simon de la Loubère, emissary of Louis XIV to the court of Siam: Moreover a great Iron Spit which reaches from the West to the East, pierces through his Shoulders and comes out at his Breast. Another pierces him through the sides, which comes from the South, and goes to the North, and crosses all Hell. And another enters through his Head, and pierces him to the Feet. Now all these Spits do stick at both ends, and are thrust a great way into he Earth. He is standing, without being able to stir, or lye down.297

The Thais were puzzled as to why anyone would worship a being whose evil deeds had caused him to suffer such a fate. Yet by this time Christian missions had already been established in some of the lands of Buddhist Asia, and others would soon follow, all proclaiming the crucified figure as lord and saviour. The selections included here, Buddhist responses to the figure of Jesus, are the result of that encounter. Space limitations do not permit a full engagement with each of the passages and their authors, an engagement that would contextualize their arguments, identify their allusions, and analyse their claims. However, despite the fact that the passages date from both a wide range of periods and a wide range of locales, a simple typology might be suggested, according to which each of the passages falls into one of

297 Simon de la Loubère, A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 156. Reprint of 1693 London edition. Originally published in Paris and Amsterdam in 1691 as De royaume de Siam.

jesus in buddhism

267

three categories of response to the person of Jesus: hostility, disinterest, or incorporation. Each of those categories can be correlated rather simply to the degree of threat—as judged by the author—that was posed to Buddhism by the Christian missions in his nation. Thus, Sinhalese authors, whether in the eighteenth (reading four), nineteenth (reading five), or early twentieth (reading six) centuries, were strongly moved to defend the dharma against the Methodist missions and their converts on the island of Sri Lanka. A similar hostility can be found in China, whether they were written from the mainland in the Ming Dynasty (reading two) or from Nationalist Taiwan in 1959 (reading nine). For a Buddhist monk writing in Tibet in the eighteenth century (reading three), Jesus is described with indifference; he is merely another religious figure whose life and teachings must be catalogued. Although Roman Catholic missions were established in Tibet in the eighteenth century, they had little success. For another set of authors, Jesus and his Gospel pose no threat. Thus for Japanese authors writing during the triumphal days of the Japanese Empire and even after its demise, Jesus becomes a figure to be incorporated into an expansive Buddhist philosophy, from the perspective of Zen or Jodo Shinshu. For the Dalai Lama in exile from his native Tibet (reading ten), certain passages in the Gospels inspire comparisons with a famous poem by Śāntideva, a Buddhist monk of eighth-century India, who explained how to achieve ‘the perfection of patience’. The similarity of the texts matters more than their source. The authors in the hostile camp adopt a number of approaches. The Ming Dynasty master Ouyi (reading two) follows a long-established Buddhist tradition of identifying the logical contradictions of theism, adapting it to the Christian case. He raises a series of questions that have occurred to many Christians in moments of doubt: if God created everything, why did he create evil? If God can forgive all sins, why did he allow sin in the first place? If all sins were cleansed through Christ’s atonement, why does sin persist? Writing some three centuries later, the modern Chinese Chan master Sheng-yen (reading nine)—who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Ouyi—departs from the theological approach of the Ming master to

268

jesus in buddhism

provide a more modern psychological profile of Jesus. Having encountered Christian missionaries both in mainland China before the Pacific War and in Taiwan after it, Sheng-yen is quite familiar with the events of the Gospels, yet finds little to admire. Jesus did not come from a good family and did not receive a good education. His followers were few (the Sermon on the Mount was delivered to only four people) and were drawn from the poor and the uneducated, including women and children. Although the Buddha regularly conversed with kings, Caesar never heard of Jesus, and he died flanked by thieves. Master Sheng-yen is particularly interested in Jesus’ mental state, which he says was fraught with contradictions, contradictions that would manifest themselves in his teachings, with deleterious effects redounding through the centuries, including religious wars. Indeed, prior to his crucifixion, Jesus exhibited clear symptoms of depression. He writes, ‘Actually if he could have been more rational and moderate, then he need not have died. . . . If Jesus had rid himself of his characteristic fanaticism, which was actually demonic, and continued to develop his spirituality or humanity, then he could have enjoyed his natural lifespan.’ The Japanese apostate, Fabian Fucan (reading one), found similar problems to those enumerated by Ouyi, wondering why God waited so long to send Jesus to atone for the sins of the world, casting so many into perdition in the meantime. His text provides a fascinating glimpse into how the life of Jesus was understood in sixteenth-century Japan, ‘For thirty-three years he remained on this earth, to teach the way of goodness to all sentient beings. But because he claimed that he was Deus a group of people called Jews on hearing this said it was deviltry. And, swaying their judges, they heaped blows and tortures upon him, and then they suspended him upon a stake known as the cruz.’ Fucan concludes that it was, in fact, ‘deviltry’, and that the execution of Jesus was thus fully justified, as was the arrest, torture, and execution of Christians by the Tokugawa government of Japan during his own day. Two other Japanese authors, writing in the twentieth century, have none of the antipathy of an apostate. Writing at a time when Japan was no longer threatened by Christian missions, Jesus could become an element

jesus in buddhism

269

of a new Buddhist theology, referred to as the Kyoto School. For Hajime Tanabe (reading seven), friend and colleague of the school’s founder, Kitaro Nishida (1870–1945), Jesus could be understood in light of a Buddhist saviour, the Buddha of Infinite Light, Amitābha, focus of devotion in the Jodo Shinshu sect of Japanese Buddhism. But for Tanabe, Jesus primarily offers a point of comparison, without a whiff of the scandal of particularity. ‘It seems to me that in so far as it insists on His absolute nature, abstracted from relativity, the insistence that Christ is immediately and unmediatedly the only Son of God and the Saviour of all other men, will inevitably have as its consequence that it degenerates itself into a relative standpoint.’ Another friend of Nishida was D. T. Suzuki, the person most responsible for the popularity of Zen Buddhism in the west. Suzuki wrote about Christianity in works like Mysticism, Christian and Buddhist (1957), showing particular interest in the thirteenth-century German theologian, Meister Eckhart. But in the passage here (reading eight), Suzuki declares that there is no place for God in Zen, stressing that Zen is above all a personal experience (a view that subsequent scholarship has called into question). The three Sinhalese authors clearly possess varying degrees of information on the life and teachings of Jesus. The anonymous author of the story of the Carpenter-Heretic (reading four), whose palm leaf manuscript dates from 1762, places Jesus within the Buddhist world, not as the son of god, but as the human incarnation of one of the minions of Māra, the Buddhist deity of death and desire, and the antagonist of the Buddha; it was Māra who attacked the Buddha on the night of his enlightenment, seeking to deter him from his goal. Buddhist authors repeatedly contrast the humble origins of Jesus with the noble birth of the Buddha; here the demon enters the womb of a low-caste woman. This demon (called the Son of the Carpenter) and his disciples go to Portugal, where they win the support of credulous peasants, before being expelled, going next to Sri Lanka, where they drink liquor and eat the flesh of animals, abominations to the Sinhalese; in early accounts, the Portuguese are described as eating stone (bread) and drinking blood (wine). The Son of the Carpenter

270

jesus in buddhism

is eventually captured by the troops of a righteous king, identified as the famous Bactrian king (and, according to Buddhist sources, Buddhist convert) Milinda (here Mihingu). The criminal is flogged and then hanged. Only after he is dead is he nailed to a cross and then his corpse is sealed in an inescapable tomb. Soon, his followers claim that he has been resurrected, but upon close inspection the tomb is found intact. The second piece from Sri Lanka (reading five) comes not from a Buddhist text but from a journalist’s account of a famous debate that took place on 26–7 August 1873, between a Buddhist monk and a Sinhalese Methodist clergyman, in the town of Pandure, before a crowd of several thousand. The debate, held outdoors on a platform specially constructed for the event, stretched over two days, with the interlocutors taking turns identifying fallacies and foolishness in each others’ sacred scriptures. Here, Gunananda, the Buddhist monk, compares the events that surrounded the births of the respective founders: the healing of the lame and the halt in the case of the Buddha, the slaughter of the innocents in the case of Jesus. At the end of the debate, Gunananda was declared the winner, by the acclamation of the crowd. Present in that crowd was the young Anagarika Dharmapala. Educated in Christian churches, he impressed his own audiences by his ability to recite passages from the Gospel. By the time of Dharmapala’s London address in 1927 (reading six), race science was rampant; in his lectures and essays from this period, he would regularly note that the Buddha was an Aryan, while Jesus was a Semite, as he does in the second part of the selection here. He begins by decrying the disastrous effects of the Christian missions on the character of his fellow Sri Lankans. He then displays an impressive knowledge of the Bible, citing numerous passages from the Gospels. Those that he finds inspiring are those that resonate most closely with Buddhism, a religion that is both more ancient than Christianity and more modern. As a self-proclaimed Buddhist missionary to the west, Dharmapala offers the assistance of the progressive religion of Buddhism to help Christianity adapt to the challenges of the modern world. Over the course of its long history, Buddhism has not been a tradition to claim that all paths lead to the same mountaintop. The Buddhist view

jesus in buddhism

271

might be more accurately described as: all religions lead to Everest Base Camp. That is, part of Buddhism’s famous accommodation of the traditions that it has encountered, or that have encountered it, over the centuries, has been to determine the relative value of that tradition—most often in its teachings of morality—and then concede that following that tradition will lead to a happy rebirth in the future, during which they might have the good fortune to encounter the salvific teachings of the Buddha. Some Buddhist figures, such as the great Japanese master Kūkai (774–835), even created a hierarchy, along which each religion could be assigned its place. It is agreed across the Buddhist traditions, however, that Buddhism stands at the top, that only by following the teachings of the Buddha can one be finally liberated from suffering and rebirth. Indeed, there are even polemics as to which particular form of Buddhism leads to the highest state.298 Over the course of Buddhist interactions with Christianity—so many of which occurred in the context of colonialism—Buddhist valuations of Jesus have varied widely, his estimation rising in reverse proportion to the degree to which Buddhist authors felt threatened by his followers, as the selections here so clearly demonstrate. Donald S. Lopez Jr.

298

For a discussion of Buddhist attitudes toward other religions, as well as a typology of Christian responses to Buddhism, see Donald S. Lopez, Jr. and Steven C. Rockefeller, eds., The Christ and the Bodhisattva (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), 29–40.

This page intentionally left blank

jesus in buddhism

273

questions for discussion * Fabian Fucan sees a dangerous contradiction in Christianity. On the one hand, Christians would have to agree that to stray from universal moral law is evil. Yet, both the Christian God in the birth narrative of Jesus as well as priests with their celibacy transgress normal social boundaries. Would all Buddhists agree that this is a contradiction? (Reading one) * According to Ouyi Xhixu, Christianity’s creator God (a) did a poor job with creation given the amount of evil, immorality, and ugliness still in the world and (b) has initiated a plan of redemption that foolishly ignores the need for the hard work of self-cultivation. How might Christians respond to these charges? Has Christianity been more morally passive than other religions? (Reading two) * Many people claim to be good without God. Are moral values across the religions essentially the same? Is the threat of punishment in the after-life an effective deterrent for immorality? (Reading three) * What conditions might need to exist in order to make it compelling to demonize Jesus? What features of Jesus’ life in the Gospels might lend themselves best to this demonization? (Reading four) * Founding figures of religions often have lofty birth narratives. How might some Buddhists find accounts of the birth of Jesus both foreboding and promising? (Reading five) * Dharmapala’s rationalist approach takes exception to the Old Testament, the extreme ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, and the antiscientific dogmas of Christianity. Is it also at odds with other forms of Buddhism? How might it be argued that Buddhism is / is not a rational philosophy? (Reading six)

274

jesus in buddhism

* Is the only way for a Christian to embrace the quality of love manifested by Jesus to abandon literal adherence to the historic Creeds and embrace the divine potential within? (Reading seven) * Do specific teachings of Jesus lend themselves to the experience of feeling startled or awakened, losing a sense of external reward/punishments and gaining a sense of living only in the present? (Reading eight) * What evidence does Shengyen give to show that the force of Jesus’ teaching was diluted by his emotional states? How convincing are his arguments? (Reading nine) * The Dalai Lama states, ‘One of my fundamental convictions is that basic human nature is more disposed toward compassion and affection. Basic human nature is gentle, not aggressive or violent.’ How might this be argued for/against? Would the fully emotional Jesus of the Gospels have agreed with this? (Reading ten) * Do the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels form a consistent whole or are they incomplete and inconsistent? (Readings five and nine)

jesus in buddhism

275

guide for further reading The following list, though not comprehensive, provides readers with many places to pursue questions that have arisen in this chapter. Historical and Contemporary Studies Abe, Masao. Zen and Western Thought. Ed. William R. Lafleur. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985. Almond, Philip C. The British Discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Amstutz, Galen. Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997. Arthur, Chris. ‘Maitreya: The Buddhist Messiah?’ In The Coming Deliverer: Millennial Themes in World Religions, ed. Fiona Bowie, 43–59. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997. Batchelor, Stephen. The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture, 543 bce–1992. London: Thorsons, 1995. Field, Rick. How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America, 3rd rev. edn. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1992. Gethin, Rupert. ‘The Resurrection and Buddhism’. In Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa, 201–16. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996. Glüer, Winfried. ‘The Encounter between Christianity and Chinese Buddhism during the Nineteenth Century and the First Half of the Twentieth Century’. Ching Feng 11, no. 3 (1968), 39–57.

276

jesus in buddhism

Green, Dierdre. ‘Buddhism in Britain: Skilful Means or Selling Out?’ In Religion, State and Society in Modern Britain, ed. Paul Badham, 275–89. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989. Gross, Rita. Buddhism after Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis and Reconstruction of Buddhism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992. Holth, Svere. ‘The Encounter between Christianity and Chinese Buddhism during the Nestorian Period’. Ching Feng, 11, no. 3 (1968), 20–9. Lai, Whalen, and Michael von Brück. Christianity and Buddhism: A Multicultural History of their Dialogue. Trans. Phyllis Jestice. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001. Lopez, Donald S. Jr. ‘Belief ’. In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor, 21–35. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. McRae, John R. ‘Oriental Verities on the American Frontier: The 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions and the Thought of Masao Abe’. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 11 (1991), 7–36. Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Pye, Michael, ed. The Cardinal Meaning, Essays in Comparative Hermeneutics: Buddhism and Christianity. Mouton: The Hague, 1973. Thelle, Notto R. Buddhism and Christianity in Japan: From Conflict to Dialogue 1854–1899. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987. Tweed, Thomas A. The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844–1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1992. —— and Stephen Prothero. Asian Religions in America: A Documentary History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Welbon, Guy Richard. The Buddhist Nirvana and Its Western Interpreters. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968.

jesus in buddhism

277

Young, Richard Fox, and G. V. P. Somaratna. Vain Debates: The BuddhistChristian Controversies of 19th Century Ceylon. Vienna: Institute of Indology, University of Vienna, 1996. Buddhist Reflections on Jesus Bloom, Alfred. ‘Jesus in the Pure Land’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 31–7. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Candasiri, Ajahn. ‘Jesus: A Theravadan Perpsective’. In Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Scholars and Leaders from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning, ed. Gregory A. Barker, 25–30. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Gross, Rita, and Terry C. Muck, Buddhists Talk about Jesus and Christians Talk about the Buddha. New York and London: Continuum, 2000. Hanh, Thich Nhat. Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers. London: Rider, 1999. —— Living Buddha, Living Christ. London: Rider, 1995. Leong, Kenneth S. The Zen Teachings of Jesus. Rev. and expanded edn. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Lopez, Donald S., and Stephen C. Rockerfeller, eds. The Christ and the Bodhisattva. New York: State University of New York Press, 1987. Schmidt-Leukel, Perry, Thomas Joseph Götz OSB, and Gerhard Köberlin, eds. Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus: Papers of the Third Conference of the European Network of Buddhist-Christian Studies (St. Ottilien 1999). St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 2001. Interfaith Exporations Berger, Peter. A Rumour of Angels. London: Allen Lane, 1970. Borg, Marcus. Jesus and the Buddha: The Parallel Sayings. Berkeley: Ulysses Press, 1999.

278

jesus in buddhism

Brauer, Jerald C., ed. The Future of Religions. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Buri, Fritz. The Buddha Christ as the Lord of the True Self: The Religious Philosophy of The Kyoto School and Christianity. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. Clasper, Paul. Eastern Paths and the Christian Way. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1982. Cobb, John B. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. —— and Christopher Ives, eds. The Emptying God: A BuddhistJewish-Christian Conversation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990. Corless, Richard, and Paul Knitter. Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity. New York: Paulist Press, 1990. Cornille, Catherine. Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002. Edkins, Joseph. Religion in China: Containing a Brief Account of the Three Religions of the Chinese: With Observations on the Prospects of Christian Conversion amongst that People. London: Trubner and Co., 1877; reprint edn.: Boston: Adamant Media, 2001. Edmunds, Albert J. Buddhist and Christian Gospels Now First Compared from the Originals. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Innes and Sons, 1912 and 1914. Elinor, Robert. Buddha and Christ: Images of Wholeness. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2000. Endu, Shushako. Life of Jesus. Trans. Richard Schuchert. New York: Paulist, 1973. Everding, Ulrich, ed. Buddhism and Christianity: Interactions between East and West. Colombo: The Goethe Institute, 1995. Fonner, Michael G. ‘Toward a Theravada Christology’. Buddhist-Christian Studies, 13 (1993), 3–14.

jesus in buddhism

279

Garbe, Richard. India and Christendom: The Historical Connections between these Religions. Trans. Lydia Gillingham Robinson. La Salle, Ill.: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1959. Hanh, Thich Nhat, and Daniel Berrigan, The Raft is not the Shore: Conversations Toward a Buddhist-Christian Awareness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2001 (1974). Houston, G. W. ed. The Cross and the Lotus: Christianity and Buddhism in Dialogue. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985. Ingram, Paul O., and Frederick Streng. Buddhist Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986. Inoue, Yoji. The Face of Jesus in Japan. Trans. Hisako Akamatsu. Tokyo: Kindai Bungeisha, 1994. Ives, Christopher. Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A BuddhistJewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. Jeanrond, Werner G., and Aasulv Lande, eds. The Concept of God in Global Dialogue, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Keel, Hee Sung. ‘Jesus the Bodhisattva: Christology from a Buddhist Perspective’. Buddhist Christian Studies, 16 (1996), 169–85. Keenan, John P. The Gospel of Mark: A Mahayana Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995. —— The Meaning of Christ: A Mahãyãna Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989. Lefebure, Leo D. The Buddha and the Christ: Explorations in BuddhistChristian Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993. May, John D’Arcy. Measuring Consensus and Dialogue in BuddhistChristian Communication: A Study in the Construction of Meaning. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994.

280

jesus in buddhism

Mitchell, Donald W. Spirituality and Emptiness. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Moule, Arthur Christopher. Christians in China Before the Year 1550. London: SPCK, 1930. Mullins, Mark R., and Richard Fox Young, eds. Perspectives on Christianity in Korea and Japan: The Gospel and Culture in East Asia. Lewiston, NY, Queenston, Ont., and Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1995. Norbu, Thinley. Welcoming Flowers from across the Cleansed Threshold of Hope: An Answer to the Pope’s Criticism of Buddhism. New York: Jewel, 1997. Pieris, Aloysius. Fire and Water: Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996. Reuther, Rosemary Radford, and Rita Gross. Religious Feminism and the Future of the Planet: A Buddhist-Christian Conversation. London and New York: Continuum, 2001. Sherwin, Byron L. John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999. Smart, Ninian. Buddhism and Christianity: Rivals and Allies. London: Macmillan, 1993. —— Lights of the World: Buddha and Christ. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1997. Suzuki, D. T. Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist. London: Unwin, 1979. Thelle, Notto R. ‘Relation, Awareness and Energy: Three Languages, Three Worlds’. In The Concept of God in Global Dialogue, ed. Werner G. Jeanrond and Aasulv Lande, 48–62. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005. Thundy, Zacharius P. Buddha and Christ: Nativity Stories and Indian Traditions. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993.

jesus in buddhism

281

Tillich, Paul. Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1964. Wei-hsin Fu, Charles, and Gerhard Speigler, eds. Religious Issues and Interreligious Dialogue: An Analysis and Sourcebook of Developments Since 1945. New York and London: Greenwood Press, 1989. Willson, Martin. Rebirth and the Western Buddhist. London: Wisdom Publications, 1984. Yagi, Seiichi, and Leonard Swidler. A Bridge to Buddhist–Christian Dialogue. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990.

ack now ledgements

Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders prior to publication. The publisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions in subsequent impressions. Chapter I. Jesus in Judaism: The Classic Texts [I.1] Maccoby, Hyam, ed. and trans. Judaism on Trial: Jewish Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages. London and Washington: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1993. (See pp. 102–3 and 119–22.) Permission granted by the Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Note: this volume was first published in 1982 (Oxford and Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982). [I.2/I.3] Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. (See pp. 34–5 and 41–2.) Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press: SCHÄFER, PETER; JESUS IN THE TALMUD. Princeton University Press. [I.4] Berger, David. The Jewish Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzachon Vetus with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979. (Sections 155, 145, and 181.) Permission granted by David Berger. [I.5] Isaac ben Abraham Troki. Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta [from the Hebrew] (London, n.p., 1851). For a more recent source see: Isaac of Troki, Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta (New York: Ktav

acknowledgements

283

Publishing House, 1970), 87–93 and 264. See World Karaite Movement http://faithstrengthened.org (15 October 2009). [I.6] Falk, Harvey. ‘Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Christianity’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 19, no. 1 (Winter 1982), 105–11. Permission granted by the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. This work is copyrighted by the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 1982. [I.7] Mendelssohn, Moses. Jerusalem and Other Jewish Writings. Ed. A. Jospe. New York: Schocken, 1969. (See pp. 113–22.) [I.8] Geiger, Abraham. Judaism and Its History in Two Parts. Trans. Charles Newburgh. New York: Bloch, 1911. (See pp. 130–6.) [I.9] Kohler, Kauffman K. Jesus of Nazareth from a Jewish Point of View. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1899. (See pp. 2–3 [pamphlet].) [I.10 and I.11] Montefiore, Claude G. The Synoptic Gospels, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan, 1927 (1909). (See xxiv–xxvi, cxxxvi–cxxxviii, cxliii, and cxx.) [I.12] Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Trans. Herbert Danby. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1925 (1922, in Hebrew) (See pp. 371–3, 376, 390, 393, and 396–7.) [I.13] Baeck, Leo. ‘The Gospel as a Document of History’. Judaism and Christianity. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Atheneum, 1981. (See pp. 98–102.) Reprinted from Judaism and Christianity, © 1958 by Leo Baeck, published by The Jewish Publication Society, with the permission of the publisher. [I.14] Flusser, David. Jesus. Trans. Robert Walls. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969 (1968 in German: Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten). (See 65–7, 69–70, 71–2, and 74.) Chapter II. Jesus in Islam: The Classic Texts [II.1–5] Haleem, Abdel, trans. The Qur’an. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Portions from Surahs 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 19, 43, 57, 61, 66.) Permission granted by Oxford University Press.

284

acknowledgements

[II.6] Robinson, Neal. The Sayings of Muhammad. London: Duckworth, 2003. (See pp. 35–6.) This text has been included by permission of Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. [II.7] Khalidi, Tarif. The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 2001. (See pp. 51–94 [portions].) Reprinted by permission of the publisher from THE MUSLIM JESUS: SAYINGS AND STORIES IN ISLAMIC LITERATURE, edited and translated by Tarif Khalidi, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. [II.8] Perlmann, Moshe, trans. & ed. The History of al-Tabari Volume IV: The Ancient Kingdoms. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, ©1987. (See pp. 115–17.) [II.9] Jeffery, Arthur. A Reader on Islam: Passages from Standard Arabic Writings Illustrative of the Beliefs and Practices of Muslims. ’S-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1962. (See pp. 590–1.) [II.10] Mahmoud, Samir, trans., ‘A Rationalist Examines Christian Claims about Jesus’ This is a fresh translation for this volume based upon ,al-Tafsīr ,al-kabīr (Mafātīh∙ ,al-Ghayb): lil-,Imām Fakhr ,al-Dīn ,al-Rāzī. 16 Volumes, Published: Mis∙r: ,al-Mat.ba‘ah ,al-Bahīyah ,al-Mis∙rīyah, 1938, VII, pp. 61–2. [II.11] Al-Ghazali. The Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God. Trans. David B. Burrell and Nazih Daher. Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1992. (See pp. 153–4.) Reproduced by kind permission of the Islamic Texts Society. Copyright © Islamic Texts Society 1992, 1995. [II.12] Jalálu’ddín Rúmí. The Mathnawí of Jalálu’ddín Rúmí. Ed. Reynold Nicholson. London: Printed by Messrs. E. J. Brill, Leiden, for the Trustees of the ‘E. J. W. Gibb memorial’ and published by Messrs. Luzac & Co., 1925–40. (This is an eight-volume work. See Vol. I, Book I, lines 219–22, p. 15, Vol. I, Book II, lines 141–55, pp. 229–30 and Vol. II Book II, lines 1850–61, pp. 316–17.)

acknowledgements

285

[II.13] Qasidah Burdah, chapter 3, lines 29–32. Translation for this publication by Abdal Hakim Murad. For an accessible version of the poem see Zhanqah-e-Sheikh Zakariyya, trans. Qasidah Burdah. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2008. [II.14] Ibn al-Arabi. Ibn Al Arabi: The Bezels of Wisdom. Trans. R. J. Austin. London: SPCK, 1980. (See pp. 174–9.) Permission granted by SPCK. [II.15] Mahmoud, Samir, trans. ‘Who Died on the Cross?’ This is a fresh translation for this volume based upon Tafsīr ,al-Qur,ān ,al-,Az. īm / lilImām ‘Imād ,al-Dīn Abū ,al-Fidā, Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. Published: Cairo: Dār ,al-Turāth ,al-‘Arabī, 1980, 4 V, VI, p. 576 and Tafsīr ,al-Qur,ān ,al,Az. īm / lil-Imām ‘Imād ,al-Dīn Abū ,al-Fidā, Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr. Cairo: Dār ,al-Turāth ,al-‘Arabī, 1980 4 V, VI, pp. 365–6. [II.16] Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Jesus in India: Being an Account of Jesus’ Escape from Death on the Cross and of his Journey to India. Trans. Qazi Abdul Hamid. Rabwah, Pakistan: The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Foreign Missions Department, 1962 (1899) (See pp. 9–10, 17–18, and 21–2.) Permission granted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, UK. [II.17] Parwez, Ghulam Ahmad. Islam: A Challenge to Religion. Lahore: Idara-e-Tulu-e-Islam, 1968. (See pp. 286–8.) Permission granted by the Tolu-e-Islam Trust Note: though this book was originally published in Pakistan, copies are also available in the UK at the following address: Bazm London, 76 Park Road, Ilford, Essex. IG1 1SF; Email: bazm.london@ talktalk.net. [II.18] A Common Word between Us and You. Jordan: The Royal Aal alBayt Institute for Islamic Thought © 2007 ce, 1428 ah. See: www.acommonword.com. Reprinted by kind permission of HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad. Chapter III. Jesus in Hinduism: The Classic Texts [III.1] Ghose, Jogendra Chunder, ed. The English Works of Raja Ram Mohun Roy Vol I. Calcutta: Srikanta Roy, 1901. (See pp. 287–90.)

286

acknowledgements

[III.2] Roy, Ram Mohun. The English Works of Raja Ram Mohun Roy Vol. III: The Precepts of Jesus—A Guide to Peace and Happiness; Extracted from the Books of the New Testament, Ascribed to the Four Evangelists with Translations into Sungscit and Bengalee. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1820. (See Part I, pp. 172–5.) [III.3] Sen, Keshub Chunder. Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. II. Cassell and Company Ltd: London, Paris, New York & Melbourne, 1904. (See pp. 25–7.) [III.4] Sen, Keshub Chunder. Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. II. London, Paris, New York, and Melbourne: Cassell and Company Ltd, 1904. (See pp. 32 and 55–6); and Sen, Keshub Chunder. Keshub Chunder Sen’s Lectures in India Vol. I. London, Paris, New York & Melbourne: Cassell and Company Ltd, 1901. (See pp. 33–4.) [III.5] Prasad, Durga, ed. and trans. English Translation of the Satyarth Prakash: Literally Exposed of Right Sense (Vedic Religion) of Maharshi Swami Dayanand Saraswati ‘The Luther of India’ Being a Guide to Vedic Hermeneutics. Lahore: Virjananda Press, 1908. (See pp. 471, 473, 481–2, 479, and 474–5.) [III.6/III.7] Nikhilananda, ed. & trans. The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: Translated into English with an Introduction by Swami Nikhilananda. New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1984 (1942). (For III.6 see pp. 34 and 606; for III.7 see pp. 837–8.) Permission has been granted by the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York to reprint this material from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, as translated into English by Swami Nikhilananda and published by the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York, Copyright 1942, by Swami Nikhilananda. [III.8] Vivekananda. The Complete Works of Vivekananda Vol. VIII. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 12th Impression 1999. (See pp. 159–60 and 214–19.) Permission to reprint this work has been granted by Advaita Ashrama. [III.9] Vivekananda. The Complete Works of Vivekananda Vol. IV. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 13th Impression 1995. (See pp. 140–52.) Permission to reprint this work has been granted by Advaita Ashrama.

acknowledgements

287

[III.10] Hingorani, Anand T. The Message of Jesus Christ by M. K. Gandhi. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971. (See pp. 108–11.) First published in The Modern Review (Calcutta and New York, 1941). Permission granted by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. [III.11] Hingorani, Anand T. The Message of Jesus Christ by M. K. Gandhi. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1971. (See pp. 64–7 and 97–9.) Permission granted by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. [III.12] Sri Aurobindo. Essays Divine and Human: Vol. 12 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition. (See pp. 75–6.) Permission granted by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. [III.13] Sri Aurobindo. Essays on the Gita: Vol. 19 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition. (See p. 165.) And Sri Aurobindo. Savitri: A Legend and a Symbol: Vols. 33 & 34 Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1997, CD ROM Edition. (See pp. 444–6.) Permission granted by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. [III.14] Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. East and West in Religion. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1933; Second Impression: 1949. (See pp. 66–7 and 57–60.); Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Eastern Religions and Western Thought. London: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition 1940. (See pp. 172–3.) The selection from Eastern Religions and Western Thought has been provided by permission of Oxford University Press. Chapter IV. Jesus in Buddhism: The Classic Texts [IV.1] Elison, George. Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ©1973. (See pp. 278–80.) Reprinted by permission of the Harvard University Asia Center. [IV.2] Vollmer, Ulrike, trans. ‘The Founder of a Passive Religion’. This is a fresh translation for this volume into English from: Kern, Iso.

288

acknowledgements

Buddhistische Kritick am Christentum in China des 17 Jahrhunderts. Bern: Lang, 1992. (See pp. 225–30, paragraphs 1–2 and 5–12.) Reprinted by the kind permission of Iso Kern. [IV.3] Sweet, Michael J. ‘Jesus: A Teacher of Morality’. This is a fresh translation for this volume of a slightly modified version of the text in Thuken’s The Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems. Trans. Geshé Lhundub Sopa and ed. Roger R. Jackson. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2009. [IV.4] Young, R. F., and G. S. B. Senanayaka. The Carpenter-Heretic: A Collection of Buddhist Stories about Christianity from 18th Century Sri Lanka. Colombo: Karunaratne & Sons Ltd., 1998. (See pp. 88–92.) Reprinted by kind permission of Richard Fox Young. [IV.5] Capper, John. A Full Account of the Buddhist Controversy Held at Pantura, in August, 1873 (between a Buddhist Priest, Gunananda Migettuwatte, and two Ministers of the Protestant Religion, the Rev. D. de Silva and the Rev. F. S. Sirimanne) with the addresses revised and amplified by the speakers. Colombo: Ceylon Times Office, 1873. (See pp. 33–4.) [IV.6] Dharmapala, Anagarika. ‘An Appreciation of Christianity’. The Maha Bhodi Journal, 35 (December 1927; Lecture delivered in the Temple, 3 October 1927 at the City in London); Dharmapala, Anagarika. The Maha Bodhi Journal, 24 (April 1915). See also Guruge, Ananda. Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmalpala. Ceylon: The Government Press, 1965. (See pp. 443–6 and 448–50.) [IV.7] Ozaki, Makoto. Introduction to the Philosophy of Tanabe: According to the English Translation of the Seventh Chapter of the Demonstratio of Christianity. Amsterdam/Atlanta/Grand Rapids: Editions Rodopi and Eerdmans, 1990. (See pp. 163–6.) Reproduced by the kind permission of Editions Rodopi Tijnmuiden 7, 1046 AK Amsterdam, USA / Canada: 248 East 44th Street New York, NY 10017 / USA Website: www.rodopi.nl. [IV.8] Suzuki, D. T. An Introduction to Zen Buddhism. Ed. Christmas Humphreys. London: Rider, 1995. (See pp. 131–2.) Reprinted by kind

acknowledgements

289

permission of The Society of Authors on behalf of the Buddhist Society (London, UK). Permission for An Introduction to Zen Buddhism Copyright © 1964 by D. T. Suzuki in North America has been granted by Grove/Atlantic, Inc. [IV.9] Pacey, Scott trans., ‘A Man Tortured by Contradictions’. This is a fresh translation for this volume of Sheng Yen 聖嚴. 1959. ‘Zai lun Fojiao he Jidujiao de tongyi 再論佛教和基督教的同異 Zhongguo Fojiao 中國佛教 3 (8), 6–9. Permission has been granted by the Dharma Drum Mountain Cultural and Educational Foundation. [IV.10] Keily, Robert, ed. The Good Heart: His Holiness the Dalai Lama Explores the Heart of Christianity and Humanity. London: Rider, 2002. (See pp. 47–52.) For the UK and Commonwealth (excluding Canada): The Good Heart by the Dalai Lama, published by Rider. Reprinted by permission of The Random House Group Ltd. For North America: © H.H. the Dalai Lama, 1996. Reprinted from The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus, with permission from Wisdom Publications, 199 Elm Street, Somerville, MA 02144 USA. Wisdompubs.org

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX

Aaron 90 Abahu, Rabbi 70 Abd al-Jabbar 101 Abraham 97, 110 in Qur’an 84, 87, 90, 96 Abu Yazid (Bayazid Bastami) 110, 110–11 n.118, 118 Abyssinia (Ethiopia) 138 Acts of the Apostles 61 Adam 87, 90, 98 Advaitic Hinduism 156, 192, 204, 205 Aggadah, Book of 18 ahimsa (non-violence) 130 Ahmadiyyah, Muslim group 123 al-Busiri 115 al-Ghazali 110–12, 138 al-Razi 107–10, 138 al-Tabiri 103–5, 119, 132, 139 al-Tha‘labi 105–7 Alexandria, Egypt 19 Amitābha, Buddha of Infinite Light 269 Amos 51, 52, 72, 73 Anagarika Dharmapala 240–4 Andrew, disciple 251, 254 angels 88, 91, 95, 95 n.78, 96, 104, 108, 117, 124 Anglican Church 197 Antichrist 98, 141, 180 Antigonus of Socho 64, 65 anti-Judaism 9, 12, 38, 75 apostles see disciples Appreciation of Christianity, An (Anagarika Dharmapala) 241–4 Aqiva, Rabbi 21 Arahat, Mount 234, 235

Arya Dhamma 241 Arya Samaj movement 156–7, 168 Aryan family 179, 241 asceticism 110, 199 Jesus and 86, 99–102, 139–40, 143, 196, 198 Asiatic/Oriental Christ 155, 166–8, 177, 181, 207 Assyrians 54 atheism 217 atonement 156, 162, 163, 185, 202, 224, 226, 267 Atonement, Day of 22 n.24, 65 Aurobindo Ghose 156, 157, 191–5, 207 Christian precepts and practice 203 and incarnation theology 203 Jesus as avatar of sorrow 193–5 Jesus’ crucifixion 192, 193, 194–5 Babylonian Exile (Jewish) 53 Babylonians 54 Baeck, Leo 60–3, 71 baptism 26 Berger, David 24 n.30 Bernier, François 127 Bethany 24 Bezels of Wisdom (Ibn al-Arabi) 116–19 Bhagavad-Gitâ 177, 179, 185, 191, 194, 244 Bible 125, 126, 157, 189–90, 191 see also New Testament, Old Testament Bimbisara, Emperor 239 Blessed Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament 133 Bodhgaya, India 241

292

index

Bodhisattvas 220, 258 Bonnet, Charles 32, 34, 37 Book of Changes/Transformations 228 Borgia, Alexander 192, 192 Brahman 173 Brahmanism, Buddhist opposition 253 Brahmo Samaj movement 155, 156, 157, 159, 165 British and Foreign Bible Society 189–90 British Christian Societies 241 British Imperialism 167, 197, 239 Buddha 194, 238, 241–2, 250, 251, 253 as Aryan 270 asceticism 199 Dharma 185, 250, 253 Jesus’ birth omens compared 238, 239–40, 270 Jesus’ education compared 251 Jesus’ origins compared with 269 Jesus’ teachings compared 242 ministry 240 opposition to Brahmanism 253 Buddhism 5–6, 127, 182, 217–71 and attachment to intelligent and profound concepts 220–1 Buddha-nature 260 and Christian spiritual bondage 220 Christianity seen as Hindu devotionalism 218 compassion 259, 260, 261 Controversy, Pantura 239–40, 270 and creation 219 equanimity 259–60 and God/theism 217, 218, 219–20 Mahayana 220, 230 n.249, 258 meditation as barrier to liberation 221 as missionary religion 241 morality 271 and the ‘People of the Book’ 92 n.70 Pure Land 220, 245 reincarnation/rebirth 259, 260 religious polemic 264 ritual practice and purity of heart 219

and the roots of Sufism 85 and the Sermon on the Mount 219 sin and Christianity 218, 219, 231 Theravada 219 Tibetan 232, 257–62 at the time of Jesus 217–18 tolerance and patience 261–2 Trikaya (‘three bodies of the Buddha’) doctrine 230, 230 n.249 view on Judaeo-Christian cosmology 219 states of mind and physical wellbeing 260, 261 Zen 221, 248–9, 267, 269 Buddhist/Hindu debate 263–4 Caitanya 206 Carpenter-Heretic, The (Sinhalese Buddhist folk tale) 234–8, 269–70 Catholicism see Roman Catholicism Cephas, disciple 242 Chen Zhiyong 230 n. 250 Children of Israel 87, 96 China Christian missionaries 226 early Christian contact 264–5 Chökyi Nyima 232–3 Christian Church 1, 4, 13, 45 attempted conversion of Muslims/ Jews 83, 180 early 11 growth of 10 revolt from the Gospel 197, 202–3 viewed as heretical by Judaism 25–8 see also: Roman Catholicism; Church of England; Protestantism Christian missionaries 141, 166, 243, 266 China 226 India 153, 154, 156, 178, 179–80, 201 Sri Lanka 233, 267, 270 Christian/Hindu dialogue 154–8, 159 Christian/Jewish dialogue 12, 43, 73–4 obstacles to 69 Christian/Muslim dialogue 137

index al-Razi 107–10 Islamic consensus statement 130–5 Christianity in China 264–5 claims about Jesus examined 107–10 creation doctrine 166, 218 ethical ideal divorced from everyday life 57, 58, 59 Hindu 201–6 in India 153 and Jesus’ divinity 111, 112 Messianic values 15, 16 as missionary religion 241 non-violence 128–9 offering of practice (Buddhist) compared 260–1 Religion of Humanity 165–6 religion of nationalism 197 relationship with God through New Testament 47–8 romanticism comparison 60 and sin 218, 219, 231 Unitarian 47, 48, 159–64 Christmas 190 Church of England 242 circumcision 26, 29 colonialism 201, 203, 204, 206, 218, 271 Common Word between Us and You, A 130–5, 142 Compendium of Practices (Shantideva) 258 Compendium of Principles (Santaraksita) 264 confession and purification 232 Confucianism 217, 223, 226, 227, 264 Confucius 35, 167, 227–8, 229, 231 Constantine, Emperor 57, 122, 192 Corinthians 29 Council of Chalcedon 122–3 n.147 creation doctrine 219 and evil 228–9 Creator 124, 125 n.152, 166, 168, 202, 226, 260, 261, 263, 264, 273 crucifixion 1, 43, 84, 85, 93–4, 109, 119–23, 124, 138, 139, 190, 192, 193, 194–5, 224, 225, 252, 256, 265, 266,

293

Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Systems, The (Chökyi Nyima) 232–3, 232 n.253 Dakshineswar temple complex, India 172 Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) 232, 257–62, 267, 274 Damascus 119 Minaret 124 Daoism 228, 229, 264 Dasya Bhakti 179 David, King 69 in Qur’an 90 Day of Atonement 22 n.24, 65 Day of Judgement 52, 96 n.80, 102, 124–5, 141 deism 202, 205 see also theism demons 219, 256 n.292 Demonstratio of Christianity, The (Tanabe Hajime) 245–7 Deus Destroyed (Fucan) 223–6 Deuteronomy 10 Devadatta 266 Devil (Iblis) 103–4, 125 see also Satan Dhamma Adipa, Island of the Dhamma 238 Dhanwantry (Dhanvantari, avatar of Vishnu) 170 Dharma 185, 250, 253 Dhruva 174 Dïgha Nikāya (‘long discourse’) 263 disciples 61, 62, 92, 120, 170, 176, 235, 251, 255 as Asiaitics 168 see also individual disciples Dunhuang cave temple complex, China 265 Dutch colonization of Sri Lanka 239 East India Company 154, 179 Ecclesiastes 24 Eckhart, Meister 269 ego/egoistic/egoism 218, 240–4 Egyptians 54 Eliezer, Rabbi 21–3 Emden, Rabbi Jacob 28–31

294

index

emptiness 220 enlightenment 220, 221, 226, 234 n.264, 241, 248, 269 equanimity in Buddhism and Christianity 259–60 Esau, Mount 163 eschatology 85, 97, 99, 141 Essenes 13, 44, 45 semi-Essenes 67 ethics 75, 79, 156, 157, 159, 162, 192, 196, 197, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 217, 219, 242, 243, 244, 260–1, 273 Euclid 190 evil, problem of 64, 228–9, 267 Examination of the Proofs of Christianity (Bonnet) 32 Exodus 27 exorcism 170 Ezekiel 51 Ezra 93 feng shan tian shu 229 n.247 Flusser, David 13, 63–8, 71–2 Fucan, Fabian 223–6, 268, 273 Gabriel, Archangel 100, 117 Galilee 38, 42, 61 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand 129–30, 153, 155, 185–91, 203, 207 and the crucifixion 190 rejection of incarnational theology 203 and the Sermon on the Mount 188–9 Ganges 173 Gaur 174 Geiger, Abraham 38–43, 71 Gentiles 29, 30, 182 Ghulam Ahmad 123–7 gnostic Christianity 85 God consciousness, obliterating 248–9 Golden Rule 45, 59, 66 Good Heart, The (Dalai Lama) 257–62 Gore, Bishop 242 ‘Gospel as a Document of History, The’ (Baeck) 60–3

Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, The 172–4, 175–7 Gospels 21, 28, 38, 47–8, 75, 76, 91, 96, 103, 132, 197 Buddhist view of 252, 266, 268, 270, 273–4 Jewish understanding 73 non-canonical 139 and the Pauline Christ 12 and the Torah 29, 30 value for Jews 46–51 see also individual Gospels; New Testament; synoptic Gospels Great Commentary on the Qur’an, The (al-Razi) 107–10 Greeks 54, 198 Guide to the Bhodisattva’s Way of Life, A (Bodhicaryavatara) 258–9 Hadith 84, 97–9, 119, 125, 128, 138, 139 Halakha 29 Hanina, Rabbi 66, 67 Hanuman 173 harlots 22–3 Hawariyyuni (Qur’anic term for disciples) 120 n. 135 heaven 93, 101, 104, 109, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 166, 170, 183, 184, 218, 224, 225, 226, 244, 254, 263 Lord of Heaven 227–31 see also Kingdom of Heaven Hebrew Prophets 47, 53, 54, 71, 72, 73, 163 Hebrew University 63 hell 91, 95, 98, 116 n.132, 124, 164, 224, 231, 232, 239 Buddhist 237, 240, 244, 266 Hellenistic prophets 61 Hildebrand, warrior king 192 Hillel the Elder 40, 68, 71 and the Law 39, 52, 58–9, 66 Hindu Christ see Asiatic Christ Hindu Christianity 201–6 Hindu/Christian dialogue 154–8, 159 Hinduism 5, 6, 125, 141, 153–206, 218, 241 Advaitic 156, 192, 204

index Advaitic view of Jesus 205 image worship 202 and the ‘People of the Book’ 92 n.70 reincarnation 202 Sen’s reform 165 theistic and non-dualist traditions 204–5 History of Al-Tabiri 103–5 Hitler, Adolf 60 Holocaust 12 Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit 161, 169 Hosea 72 human family ix–x, 36 Iblis (Devil) 103–4, 103 n.10, 125 Ibn al-Arabi 115–19, 138–9 Ibn Kathir 119–23, 139 Ibn Qatan 98, 98 n.87 Imran family 87 incarnation of Jesus 156, 159, 173, 202 Hindu acceptance of 173, 185, 203 Hindu rejection of 156, 159, 203 Islamic view 116–17 Judaic rejection of 70 India British colonialism 167 Christian missionaries 153, 154, 156, 178, 179–80, 201 Christianity in 153 Danish Lutheran missionaries 154 Muslims 264 nationalism and independence 185, 191–2, 203 Inge, Dean 129 Introduction to Zen Buddhism, An (Suzuki) 248–9 Isaac 90, 97 Isaac of Troki 25–8 Isaiah 47, 51, 52, 73 Ishmael 90, 97 Islam 5, 45, 81–135, 190 ascetic/esoteric approach of Jesus 86, 99–102, 139–40, 196, 198 birth of Jesus 104 and Christian claims about Jesus 107–10 coming of the Messiah 17–18

295

and Jesus’ crucifixion 84, 85, 93–4, 109, 119–23, 124, 138, 139 141 and Jesus’ divinity 84, 86, 108–10, 112, 138–9 and Jesus’ miracles 104–5 Jesus and non-violence 127–30 Jesus and the Fool 112–14 Jesus and the Spirit of God 117 Jesus as end-time figure 84, 141 Jesus as Messenger of God 94–5 Jesus as Mirror of God 110–12 Jesus as prophet 83–4, 86, 87, 105, 124 Jesus realizing God 115–19 as missionary religion 241 Muhammad and Jesus contrasted 140 praise of a human being 115 see also Muslim/Christian dialogue; Muslins; Qur’an; Sufism Islam: A Challenge to Religion (Parwez) 128–30 Isra’iliyat (traditions from the nation of Israel) 139 Israel, establishment (1948) 13 Israelites 26, 27 ten tribes 126–7 Jacob 90, 97 Jacob, House of 34, 35, 53, 54 Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah 22 James, disciple 251, 254 James I of Spain 15 Jehovah, Buddhist view 219 Jeremiah 47, 72, 73 Jerusalem 9, 19, 52, 61 conquest of 61 Jesuits 232–3 n.255 Jesus art, culture and nation 55–6 as ascetic 86, 99–102, 139–40, 143, 196, 198, 199 and the Asiatic Christ 155, 166–8, 177 avatar of sorrow 193–5 birth 17, 139, 169 birth (Islam) 104 as Bodhisattva 220

296

index

Jesus (continued ) Buddha’s birth omens compared 238, 239–40, 270 Buddha’s education compared 251 Buddha’s origins compared 269 Buddha’s teachings compared 242 in Buddhism 5, 217–71 Buddhist condemnation 266 as charismatic Hasid 13 crucifixion 1, 43, 109, 124, 138, 139, 190, 192, 193, 194–5, 224, 225, 252, 256, 265, 266, crucifixion denied (Islam) 143, 84, 85, 93–4, 109, 119–23, 124, 141 ‘Deceiver Path’ 10–11, 13–14 as demon in disguise 233–8 as divine teacher 162–4 divinity 47, 70, 75, 84, 86, 108–10, 112, 138–9, 246–7 divinity (Hindu views) 157, 165–6 divinity testified against (Judaism) 10, 13, 23–5 as Eastern seer 196–9 emotions and rationality 251–2 as end-time figure 84, 141, 143 as Essene 13 ethical interpretations and understanding 75, 79, 157, 159, 196, 203 fig tree incident, Judaic view 24–5 and the Fool 112–14 founder of a passive religion 226–31 giving alms 248 and Greek culture 250–1 in the Hadith 97–9 in Hinduism 5, 153–206 historical 189 historicity in the Talmud 19 n.5 Incarnation 116, 156, 159, 173, 202, 203 incarnation of brotherhood 165–6 and innocence of children 254–5 in Islam 5, 83–142 as Jewish evangelist to the Gentiles 28–31 Jewish post-holocaust and contemporary studies 12, 13

Jewish silence upon 31–7 on Jewish soil 60–3, 71 in Judaism 5, 9–74 Kingdom of Heaven 38–9, 42, 43, 44, 52, 109, 183, 217, 229–30, 244, 254, 255 loving kindness 72–3 loving one’s enemies 63–8, 71–2, 259 ‘mask’ of Chalcedon 84 Messiah 16, 44, 93 Messiah (Islamic view) 95, 133 Messiah (Judaic view) 9, 10, 16, 17–18, 39, 69 as meeting ground for Islam and Christianity 137, 139 as Messenger of God 95–6, 98, 108, 137, 138 miracles 86, 104–5, 105–7, 128, 139, 143, 169, 243, 252 miraculous conception 87–90, 138 as Mirror of God 110–12 mission 42, 47–8, 90–3, 251, 252, 255 moral teaching 232–3 Muhammad contrast 140 natural lifespan 256–7 non-violence 127–30, 196 oriental nature of 181–5 parables 243–4 as Pharisee 13, 38, 39, 71 poverty and the poor 40–1, 249, 254 as prophet (Islam) 83–4, 85–6, 97, 105, 124 as prophet (Judaism) 11, 12, 13, 51–2, 69, 71, 72, 75 and the Qur’an 83–4, 90–3, 105 as Rabbi 12 realizing God 115–19 as reform Jew 43–6 resurrection 1, 39–40, 43, 44, 61, 62, 169, 237, 246, 247, 265 resurrection, Buddhist view 239–40 revelations and power of God 47–8, 103–5 and the rich 254–5 ‘Righteous Teacher Path’ 11–12, 13, 14 the Semite 270

index separation from ‘Christians’ and the ‘Church’ 157 as servant of Islam 85 simple, honest and ignorant 168–72 and sin 230–1 Son of God 93, 95 n.78, 122, 124, 166, 171, 183, 186–7, 188, 191, 194, 204, 245, 246, 247, 269 son of man 38, 126, 173 as Unitarian 47, 48, 159–64 Universal 155–6 as unoriginal Pharisee 38–43 Jesus (Flusser) 63–8 Jesus in India (Ghulam Ahmad) 123– 7, 141 Jesus of Nazareth (Klausner) 53–9 Jewish/Christian dialogue 12, 43, 73–4 obstacles to 69 Jewish Law 16, 27, 45, 63, 72, 75 ceremonial laws 53–4, 55 Mosaic Law 26–8, 34, 66, 163–4, 189 Seven Noahide Commandments 29, 30, 31, 34 Pharisaic 73 Ten Commandments 11, 34–5, 52, 53, 229 Jewish nationalism 53, 197 Jewish reform movement 11–12, 13, 43, 76 Jews and conversion 10, 43, 180 13. and the crucifixion 109, 124, 224, 225 and the Gospels 46–51 in India 127 Messianic movement 10, 16, 29 nation and belief as inseparable 57–8 national and human history 54 national world outlook 56–7 persecution/ghettoization 9 reasons for silence on Jesus 31–7 rejection of crucified Messiah 44–5 relationship with God 47–8 Sadduccees 12, 39, 45, 192 synagogues 197

297

tolerance of different systems of morality 35–7 Jingjing, Nestorian monk 264–5 Jinnah, Muhammad Ali 128 jizya 92 n. 73 Joan, St 197 Job, Book of 64, 90 Jodo Shinshu 267, 269 John, disciple 251, 254 Gospel 163 John, son of Zechariah 101 John the Baptist 51, 61, 199, 243, 255 Jonah 90, 126, 127 Joseph, husband of Mary 169, 223, 225 Judah of Gaulonitis 43 Judaism 5, 9–80, 190, 246 and the arts and sciences 54–5 ceremonial laws 53–4, 55 Christian Church seen as heretical 25–8 Jesus, post-Holocaust and contemporary studies of 12, 13 Jesus as part of Hebrew prophetic tradition 11, 12, 13 Jesus as Rabbi 12 Jesus on ‘The Deceiver Path’ 10–11, 13–14 Jesus on ‘The Righteous Teacher Path’ 11–12, 13, 14 and Jesus’ deity 23–8 and loving kindness 72 loving one’s neighbour 66–7 in the Middle Ages 70 New Testament and Gospel studies 49–51 Pharisaic 40–1, 56 and proselytising 34–5 and the resurrection 44 righteous/sinners division 65–6 Talmudic 55 Trinitarianism, rejection of 70–1 see also Jewish Law; Jewish reform movement; Jews Judea 42, 61 Judgement Day 52, 96 n.80, 102, 124–5, 141 see also Atonement Day Julius Caesar 254

298

index

Kaaba 98 Kafirs 125 Kālacakra tantra 264 Kali 172, 173, 174 temple 173 karma 217 Kashmir 126, 127, 141 Khalidi, Tarif 99–102 Kingdom of Heaven 38–9, 42, 43, 44, 52, 109, 183, 217, 229–30, 244, 254, 255 Kings 2 163 Kitaro Nishida 269 Klausner, Joseph 10–11, 51, 52–9 Kohler, Kauffman 43–6 Krishna 173, 185, 191, 205, 238, 244 Kūkai 271 Kunti 169 Kyoto School of Buddhism 245, 269 Last Judgement see Atonement Day; Judgement Day Laurence, Father 260, 261 Lavater, Johann Caspar 31–2 Law see Jewish Law; Mosaic Law Lazarus 175–6 Legge, James 265 Lindbeck, George 205 Logos 167 Long, Dr. 179 Lord’s Prayer 45 Loubère, Simon de la 266 Louis XIV 266 Luke, Gospel 27, 65, 67 ‘Luminous Religion’ (Jingjiao) 264–5 Lutherans 154 Lyudas Zcarya Yuta (Judas Iscariot) 120–1 Maccoby, Hyam 15 n.1 Madhva 206 Maha Bodhi Society 241, 243 Mahadev (Shiva) 125 Mahamaya, Queen 240 Mahayana Buddhism 220, 230 n.249, 258 Mahdi 123, 124, 125

Mahendranath Gupta 174 n.102 Maimonides 28, 30 Mallick, Sambhu Charan 172–3 Māra 269 Mark, Gospel 39, 40, 67, 132, 243 Martha 175 Mary, Mother 91, 94, 98, 104, 105, 117, 138, 139, 169, 225 annunciation 108, 223–4 in Qur’an 87–90 Mary, sister of Lazarus 175 ‘mask’ of Chalcedon, and Jesus 84 Massacre of the Innocents 239 Mathnawi, The (Rumi) 113–14 Matthew, Gospel 26–7, 126, 128, 129, 164, 169, 170, 171, 243, 244, 254, 257–8 beatitudes 262 Maya 185 Melchite sect 122 Mencius 229 Mendelssohn, Moses 31–2 letter to Johann Caspar Lavater 32–7 Messiah Christian view 16, 44, 93 Islamic view 17–18, 95, 133 Judaic view 9, 10, 16, 39, 69 Methodist mission in Sri Lanka 267 Migettuwatte Gunananda 239–40, 270 Mihingu, King 235, 235 n.266, 236, 237, 238, 270 Milarepa 261 Miller, Reverend Warden 242 Milton, John 48 Ming Dynasty 267 miracles 104–5, 105–7, 128, 139, 143, 169, 243, 252 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 141 Mishna 54 n.43 Montefiore, Claude 46–51, 51–2, 71 Mosaic Law 34, 66, 163–4, 189 Christians and 26–8 and incestuous relationships 27–8 see also Jewish Law; Seven Noahide Commandments; Ten Commandments Moses 24–5, 29, 39, 97, 108, 113

index in Qur’an 84, 90–1, 94 Muhammad, Prophet 83, 84, 85, 86, 97, 115, 124, 131, 137, 138, 139, 173, 191 contrasted with Jesus 140 Sayings of (Hadith) 84, 97–9, 119, 125, 128, 138, 139 Muslim/Christian dialogue 137 al-Razi 107–10 Islamic consensus statement 130–5 Muslim Jesus (Khalidi) 100–2 Muslims 112, 182 attempted Christian conversion 180 emigration to Abyssinia 138 in India 141, 264 Nachmanides, Rabbi 15, 69 Debate 15–18 Nagasena the Elder 238 Nazi Germany 60 Holocaust 12 Nehemiah 163 Neoplatonism 85 Nestorian Christians 264–5 New Testament 5, 10, 23, 26, 47–8, 67, 74, 128, 129, 130, 184, 188, 242 Buddhist view of contradictions 252 and individualism 50–1 Jewish authorship 49 research 13, 38 see also Gospels Nicene creed 197 Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God (al-Ghazali) 110–12 nirvana 218 Nishida Kitaro 245 Nitai 174 Nizzachon Vetus (‘Book of Victory’) 10, 23–5, 70 Noah, in the Qur’an 84, 87, 96 non-canonical Gospels 139 non-violence 128–9, 130, 185, 196 Numbers 70 Obadiah 163 offering of practice (drupai chöpa) 260–1

299

Old Testament 27, 45, 48, 49, 51, 72, 251 Buddhist view 219, 242, 273 Hindu view 188 prochecies 256 righteousness in society and State 50–1, 64, 65 teaching 46, 47 see also individual Books Orissa, India 201 Ouyi Zhixu 267, 268, 226–31, 273 Pakistan 128 Palestine 105 Pāli canon 263 parables 243–4 Paradise 98 Parwez, Ghulam Ahmad 127–30 Paul, St 27, 29, 99, 242 Paul, Fray (Friar)15, 18 People of the Book 92, 92 n.70, 94, 96, 131 Peter, disciple 44, 61, 174, 251, 254, 256, Pharisaic Judaism 40–1, 56 law 73 Pharisees 12, 38, 39, 40, 45, 53, 56, 58, 68, 72, 74, 163, 192, 254 Pilate, Pontius 42, 192 Pillar of Indra 236 Platonism 116 see also Neoplatonism Portuguese colonization of Sri Lanka 239 Prahlada 174 prayer 106, 106 n.112, 197, 261 Prester John 264 Precepts of Jesus, The (Roy) 156, 162–4 private property and national community 58 Prophets see Hebrew Prophets; Jesus as prophet; Muhammad Protestantism 246 in Sri Lanka 241 Proverbs 21 Puranas 169, 170 Pure Land Buddhism 220, 245 Qasidah Burdah (al-Busiri) 115 Quakers 197

300

index

Qur’an 83–4, 101, 116, 125, 128, 137, 138, 139, 143, 191 al-Razi’s Great Commentary 107–10 and Christian Trinity 94–7 Ibn Kathir’s commentary 119–23 and Islamic-Christian consensus 130–5 Jesus’ crucifixion 93–4 Jesus as Messenger of God 108 Jesus’ miraculous conception 87–90 Jesus’ mission 90–3 Jesus as prophet 97 Rabbinic teaching 46, 50 discouragement of proselytzing 34 first century 51–2 racial prejudice 36, 37 Radha 173 Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli 4, 155, 157, 196–9, 208 Church in open revolt against the Gospels 197 Eastern and Western approaches to religion 197 Jesus’ asceticism 198–9 Jesus’ ethics 156, 196 religious ceremony and ritualism 198 Rajarajesvari 174 Rama 173, 191 Ramakrishna, Paramahamsa 172–7, 201, 207 Christ as Incarnation of God 173 and incarnational theology 203 likened to Jesus 174–7 Math and Mission 172 Ramanuja 206 Rav Hisda 23 Raymon of Pennaforte, Fray 15 reincarnation/rebirth 202, 219, 234 n.264, 259, 260, 271 religion, and the roots of arts and sciences 54 religious wars 252–3 Renouncer Christ 177 Resshi (Lieh-Tzu) 248–9

resurrection 1, 39–40, 43, 44, 61, 62, 169, 237, 246, 247 Buddhist view 2, 239–40 Rig Veda 167 Roman Catholicism 242, 246 missions 267 in Sri Lanka 241 Romans 54, 60–1, 192, 198 Rome, ancient 16 Roy, Ram Mohun 156, 157, 159–64, 168, 201, 206, 207 Jesus and the perfection of Mosaic law 164 Jesus and the unity of God 202 Jesus as atoning saviour, rejection of 162–4 Jesus as Unitarian 159–62 Jesus’ ethical framework 162–4 rejection of incarnational theology 162, 202, 203 religious irrationalism 202 ruh Allah (spirit of God) 139 Rumi, Jalaluddin 112–114, 140 Russian Orthodox Church 197 Sabbath conflicts 52 Jesus’ violation of 73 observance 26 Sadducees (‘Temple Jews’) 12, 39, 40, 45, 192 and resurrection 39 Sai Baba 204 Sakya Muni Buddha 167 salvation 182, 220, 239, 247 and loving one’s neighbour 73 Samadhi 173 sampradayas, Hindu traditions 206 Sanhedrin tractate (Babylonian Talmud) 18–19 Santaraks,ita 264 Sāntideva 267 Saraswati, Dayananda 156–7, 168–72, 174, 201, 203, 207 exorcism of devils 171 miracle/myth distinction 170 Jesus’ miracles 169

index and the resurrection 169 virgin birth 169 Satan 61, 87, 96, 98, 103 n.110 Schäfer, Peter 19 n.6, 21 n.15 Scribes 54, 56, 72, 74, 163 Second Temple period, Jerusalem 9, 52–3 Semitic family 241 Sen, Keshub Chunder 155, 165–8, 207 Asiatic Christ 166–7 disciples as Asiatics 168 Divine Humanity 165 the Logos-Christ 167 and the Trinity 165 Sergius, Jesus substitute 120, 121 Sermon on the Mount 45, 73, 85, 86, 99, 144, 181, 188–9, 219, 243, 251, 252, 273 Seven Noahide Commandments 29, 30, 31, 34 Shakespeare, William 48 Shalmaneser, King of Assur 126–7 Shankara 204, 206 Shantideva 258, 259 Shema 20, 70, 130 Sheng Yen 250–7, 267–8, 274 Shintoism 217, 223 Shiva 205 Shun, King 231 Siam 266 Siddur (prayer book) 30 Sijjin (Hell) 116 Similarities and Difference between Buddhism and Christianity (Sheng Yen) 250–7 Sinai 29, 30 Sinhalese Buddhism 267, 269 Sirach 66 Socrates 167 Solomon, King 90 Solon 35 Son of God 93, 95 n.78, 122, 124, 166, 171, 183, 186–7, 188, 191, 194, 204, 245, 246, 247, 269 son of man 38, 126, 173 Spanish Inquisition 57 Sri Lanka 233, 241

301

British colonization 239 Christian missionaries 270 Methodist missions 267 Suddhodhana, King 240 Suez Canal 179 Sufism 85–5, 110, 110–11 n.118, 124 n.151 asceticism of Jesus 86, 99–102, 139–40, 196, 198 Jesus and the fool 112–14 Jesus as prophet 85–6 rejection of materialism 139–40 Western sources 85 Sunnah of the Prophet 140 Sunni Muslims 141 Suzuki, Daisetsu Teitaro 248–9, 269 Swaraj (‘Self-Rule’) movement, India 155 Synoptic Gospels 46–52 Synoptic Gospels, The (Montefiore) 46–51, 51–2 Syrian Christian community, India 153 tafsir 132 Tafsīr’al-Qur’an ‘al-’Azīm of Ibn Kathir 119–23 tai ji (highest principle) 227 Taiwan 267, 268 Tales of the Prophets, The (al-Tha’labi) 106–7 Talmud 5, 10, 21–3, 58, 69 Babylonian 18–19, 19–20 burnings 9, 15 Halakhic portions 18 n.4 historicity of Jesus 19 n.5 Talmudic Judaism 55 Tamils 238 Tanabe Hajime 245–7, 269 Tang Dynasty 264, 265 Tannaim, Rabbinic sages 53, 55 Taoism see Daoism Tauler, Johannes 249 Temple Jews see Sadducees Ten Commandments 11, 34–5, 52, 53, 229 theism 156, 217, 218, 219–20 see also deism

302

index

Theresienstadt concentration camp 60 Therevada Buddhism 219 Thomas a Kempis 178 Thomas, disciple 153 ‘three enemies’ (Buddhism) 228 n.244 Thuken Chökgi Nyima 232–3 Tibet 126, 267 Christian missionaries 267 Tibetan Buddhism 232, 257–62 Tokugawa government, Japan 268 Tolu-e-Islam movement 128 Torah 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 69, 73, 74, 87, 91, 96, 130 Trikaya (‘three bodies of the Buddha’) doctrine 230 n.249 Trinity 1, 49, 75 and Advaita 156 incompatibility with monotheism 70–1 of love 246 and Qur’an 94–7 Roy’s criticism 202 Sen’s repudiation 165

virgin birth 108, 169, 223, Vivekananda, Swami 155, 157–8, 177–85, 201, 204, 207 Christian precepts and practice 178, 179 and The Imitation of Christ 177–81 and incarnational theology 203 Voltaire 25–6

Ummah, community of believers 140 Unitarian Christianity 47, 48, 202 Unity of God 4, 18, 130–1, 132, 202 in Hinduism 164 Universal Church of the future 44 universal ethics 203, 204, 205 Universal Jesus 155–6, 172 Upanisads and asceticism 199

Zebedee 254, 256 Zechariah 87 Zen Buddhism 248–9, 267, 269 traditions 221 Ziegenbalg, Bartholomaeus 154 Zion, mount 163 Zionism 52 Zisi (Zhong yong) 228 Zoroaster 191 Zoroastrianism 92 n.70, 190 Zurich 37

Vedanta Societies 177 Vedas 191

Wahabis 124–5 Way of the Sages 226 What Jesus Means to Me (Gandhi) 186–8 World Parliament of Religions, Chicago 155, 177, 240 Wuzong, Emperor 264 Xu Guangqi 228 n.244 Yannai, King 19 Yao, King 231 Yehoshua b. Perahya 19–20 yin/yang 227