On Prof. Romila Thapar

Here is a piece of news item from The Hindu. 

Historian Romila Thapar asked a full house of Delhi’s intelligentsia on Sunday why changes in syllabi and objections to books were not being challenged. 

Prof. Thapar was delivering the third Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture here on Sunday, titled ‘To Question or not to Question: That is the Question.” 

“There are more academics in existence than ever before but most prefer not to confront authority even if it debars the path of free thinking. Is this because they wish to pursue knowledge undisturbed or because they are ready to discard knowledge, should authority require them to do so,” the eminent historian asked. 

... When it comes to religious identities and their politics, we witness hate campaigns based on absurd fantasies about specific religions and we no longer confront them frontally. Such questioning means being critical of organisations and institutions that claim a religious intention but use their authority for non-religious purposes,” she said. 

Prof. Thapar rued the fact that not only were public intellectuals missing from the front lines of defending liberal values, but also alleged a deliberate conspiracy to enforce what she termed a “Lowest Common Denominator” education. 

“It is not that we are bereft of people who can think autonomously and ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming,” she asked. 

Her audio lecture is available here. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 6

Chapter 6 is titled ' Locating That to Which We Have Rights'. The previous post on chapter 5 is here. This chapter 6 is a shift from the biblical trajectory that was there in the previous chapters. This brings the concept of right back to theoretical discourse. In this chapter and the following few chapters, Nick is going to argue that given this idea about right that everybody, so to speak, acknowledges, there are certain theories that cannot accommodate this concept of right. Since these theories cannot accommodate this concept of right, we have to discard these theories. (Nick does not really put it like this though!) 

We all  have certain sorts of right -- not necessarily legal right. Sonya has a right not to be captured with a hidden camera while she takes bath. Sunny has a right to his son not being run over by a speeding bus while going to school. If Sonya is spied on, her right is violated even if the one who spied on her keeps the picture all to himself and no one else, including Sonya, never comes to know about this. If Sunny's son is run over by a speeding son, his right is violated. This right is a condition and/or event in a person's life; it's a life-good of a person. Moreover, even on her funeral day, Kim has a right not be demeaned for what she did not do. This means to say that even a dead person possesses certain sort of right. Can we also say that future generation -- not yet born now -- have a right to clean air, such that cutting down all the trees now would amount to violating the right of the future generation? Anyway, the point is that there are certain sort of rights a person can claim for his life and history (something that happens even after her death); the sort of right that will contribute to her well-being.

There are three concepts of a good life, says Nick. First, experientially satisfying life (hedonistic kind of life).  Second, Happy life... the eudaimon life (of Aristotelian kind). Third, flourishing life. Nick argues that an experientially satisfying life cannot serve as a framework for the kind of right we possess. Meaning, an experientially satisfying life kind of a concept of life cannot account for the different kinds of rights that a human possesses. Suppose, someone speaks ill of you behind your back, and you never get to know about it nor does that alter your condition of life at all; you remain experientially satisfied as you have been without this particular episode. Or suppose, someone accuses you of having siphoned of a huge sum of money ten years after your death just to malign your reputation. On both these counts, your experientifally satisfying life is not harmed at all. Yet, on both the counts, your right is being violated. Thus, an experientially satisfying life as a theory for a good life cannot really take into account the kinds of rights an individual possesses. We have to search an alternative theory for a good life that can take into account  the right that an individual possesses. 

Amos 4

God chastises Israel by sending diseases that will strike down both humans and non-human world. He did not give them enough water to drink and food to eat. All because He wanted Israel to return to him. Yet Israel refuses to return. The people would go to worship centres, like Bethel and Gilgal, and performed the rituals; they offered tithes, sacrifices and offerings and then brag about them.  Their worship is superficial, not genuine. They love to show-off! So God said that destruction is at hand. The people of Israel will be carried away as captives.

Here God was particularly not happy with the religiosity of the people. Going to the church, singing choruses with guitar, giving money in terms of thousands, attending Convention/Fellowship/Conferences, Church dedication and various programmes and then bragging and make a boastful pose is what God is not pleased with. The Israelites giving tithes and then bragging is like our present day Christians giving tithes to be considered as a highest giver by the church and his name being read out in public. God hates it! Is the church perpetrating such practice, eliciting a kind of competition among church members so that maximum fund comes about for the church? God hates it! For such hypocrisy and oppression of the needy, God charges Israel in this chapter, and tells them that He, the creator of the world, is coming to bring judgment on the people.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 5

Here is chapter 4, where Nick gives a preliminary response to those who argue that justice is virtually absent in the New Testament. In this chapter, Nick argues from the New Testament to demonstrate that justice is very much part of what Jesus teaches and demonstrates; and thus leaves behind a legacy, a command, for his disciples to continue.

But first a brief remark about terminology. In Greek literature, say, Plato's The Republic the Greek term 'dikaiosune' would be consistently translated into English as justice. However, in the Bible it is not consistently translated like that. In the New Testament, which is originally written in common Greek,  the same word 'dikaiosune' is not always translated as 'justice'; it is more often translated as 'righteousness'. For example, as in Matthew 5 & 6 -- Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for dikaiosune (v.6); and Blessed are those who are persecuted for dikaiosune (v.10); Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his dikaiosune (6.33). All these verses have dikaiosune translated as 'righteousness' instead of 'justice'. Why such a difference between New Testament and The Republic, which are both Greek literature? The Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, which possibly was translated in the second century BC translates the Hebrew word tsedaqa as dikaiosune and  mishpat as krisis which is more of a legal terminology.  Thus Tsedaqa becomes dikaiosune in Greek and righteousness in English; while mishpat becomes krisis in Greek and justice in English. However, it has to be said that this translation is not 100% accurate, and whether the verse has to be translated as righteousness or justice has to depend on context too. Nick would thus hold that Mat 5.10 should have 'justice' instead of 'righteousness', provided we assume that 'righteousness' is more about moral status of the individual and 'justice' as denoting inter-personal relationship. 

Nick uses NT scholar Richard Hays' commentary to argue for his case. Nick argues that Mary's song in Luke 1 is about anticipation of justice that the Messiah would usher in. Luke 4 where Jesus reads out Isaiah's text and declares the arrival of the promise then and there is about justice -- justice for the poor, the weak and the prisoners. Furthermore, Nick argues that Jesus' ministry includes those who are left out of the society -- the deaf, dumb, blind, paralytics etc. -- besides lifting up those who were at the bottom-- the poor, widows, orphans, aliens, imprisoned. Jesus remakes a society that is inclusive, and this is about justice. 

Does Jesus consider human being to have worth? He does, argues Nick. 'How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?' asks Jesus, indicating that humans have worth. Furthermore, Jesus says that human is worth more than a sparrow! Nick opines that it seems fair to conclude that Jesus' belief in equal human worth is the reason for showing no partiality between  thosewho are ritually clean and unclean or between those who are rich and poor.

As is the case with any good thinker, to fend off criticism, Nick does hair splitting of his arguments at various points. I am not going into the detail in these posts. Any objection to his arguments should be held back before reading his book. 

Amos 3

Through Amos, God continues to speak words of destruction that will descend upon Israel. He reminds Israel of how she was brought out of slavery from Egypt, and yet not do the right thing now. Instead her people store riches in their fortresses... The rich ones have summer house and winter house, adorned with highly decorated pieces like ivory. And from the previous chapter, we learnt that such wealth often than not comes at the expense of the poor. But here we need pause and ask if there is any problem with being rich. Why did God say that the mansions will be destroyed?

God was not against a person being rich. But then there are two things we should remember about riches. First, how does one become rich? God is not pleased when a person becomes rich using unfair and wrong means. He does not want that a person gathers riches through exploitation, cheating, robbing etc.; he does not want that riches come through bribery or corruption. Second, what does one do with the wealth one has? God does not want the wealth to be used for luxurious and extravagant lifestyle. I think we can make a difference between living a simple, comfortable and beautiful life and luxurious, extravagant and wasteful life. He wants us to use wealth to help those in need. This may take the form of investing in ways to create jobs, for example; not using wealth in ways that will make the needy dependent and parasitic, but lifting them to stand on their own feet. 

God's judgement on Israel came true in 721 BC when she was conquered by the Assyrian empire and her people taken as captive to foreign land. Within a span of 20-30 years of Amos' prophecy, God's judgment came on Israel.

Chapter 13: The Lost World of Genesis One

The thirteenth chapter is titled as 'The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature'. Chapter 12 is here. Chapter 13 argues that Science as an academic discipline does not deal with certain category as much as Scripture, at least as it is in Genesis 1, does not deal with certain topics. For example, scientific inquiry is about the world or the nature that can be observed and can be verified or falsified. Scientific inquiry does not ask question like 'what is the purpose of human existence?' This sort of question lies outside of the domain of scientific inquiry. Likeness, at least in Genesis 1, the author is not really interested in dealing with the question of the material origins of different objects/living organisms; the author is rather concerned with something else. Thus, whether evolutionary theory is correct or incorrect, the author is not really concerned with such ideas. The Bible does say that God is the author of all, yet it does not really say how God authored it. His handiwork is thus not really opposed to the way scientific process describes it. 

I think it's fair to put it this way: God is the author of the world and the Word, and the two are not going to be contradictory.

Amos 2

In the first chapter of Amos, God speaks to the neighboring nations of Israel/Judah. In the second chapter, God speaks to Judah and Israel though there is small passage that is addressed to Moab. To Moab, God expresses his anger and judgment because of what she did to the remains of Edom's king. The bone of Edom's king, not the dead body as such, was burnt by Maob. Since it was a sign of extreme hatred and cruelty, God promises that Moab will be punished. 

To Judah, the kingdom of Amos comes from, God says that he will send fire to destroy the fortress because the people rejected God's law...because they refused to keep God's command. 

To Israel, God has different issues. Israel was morally corrupt. The poor people were oppressed and taken advantaged of. God had reminded them again and again that widow, orphan and the aliens were to be cared for because they were vulnerable. Instead the people of Israel oppressed them, and God was not please with it. They would take garment from the poor as a pledge for the money borrowed and yet used the same garment during their immoral activities. God had told them as a nation that the poor man's garment cannot be kept with the lender at night because the poor man needs it to cover himself; yet by keeping the poor man's garment with the money lender, the poor remained in cold throughout the night. This is oppression of the poor people. In spite of having done so much for the people of Israel, even those dedicated to serve the Lord were abused and dishonoured. Thus God says that he will crush the people and there won't be none to rescue them! 

The idea of taking advantage of the poor and creating life difficult for them is now no longer the way it used to be in Amos' era. Our social and economic context has changed a lot. The poor does not give his garment as a pledge for the money borrowed; it is now his field or house or something of that sort. God did allow taking of a pledge so that the poor man remains responsible for the loan taken. But God did not allow making his life miserable by keeping the garment with the money lender. When do we make the life of the poor man miserable when his house/field has been kept as a pledge? I think when the interest rate is so high so that instead of being able to pay back the loan, he is driven to sell the pledge to pay back the loan, it amounts to making his life miserable. What God is upset about is making the life of the poor man miserable. This may work out in different ways in different context. But in certain context, high interest rate is that which makes the life of the poor ones miserable. This is oppression of the poor men, and the Spirit of God is not pleased!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 4

This is chapter 4 and it is titled 'On De-justicizing the New Testament'. Chapter 3 is here. This chapter is more of a polemic, in that Nick challenges what he understood as an attempt by certain thinkers to undermine the idea of justice in the Bible. Nick is not yet advancing the idea that justice is a key theme in the New Testament. Nick is kind to those thinkers he disagrees with. But still he will argue for the point that justice is a central idea in the Bible in the next chapter.

Stanley Haurwas says that justice is a bad idea for Christians. What Nick understood Stanley as saying is that justice has been misused and abused by the larger society and it is beyond redemption. So even if Christians care for the oppressed, the language of justice should not be employed; let it be something else. Nick disagrees!

Another challenge comes from Anders Nygren. Nygren argues that the central idea of the Bible is love; not justice. It is this love of God that results in sending his son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of human sinfulness. This love, however, is not any other kind of love but gratuitous benevolence or rather agape. Agape is different from other kind of love like eros. Eros kind of love is to enhance one's own well-being; whereas agape kind of love is to enhance the well-being of the other. And this agape is the kind of love found in the Bible. God's forgiveness of human sin is not because he has to demonstrate justice, but because he loves human being. Where love abounds, justice is obsolete. Is Nygren correct in his understanding of the Bible?

Nick answers this question in the next chapter. But in this chapter he takes Nygren's own idea to argue that the idea is not coherent. Nick argues that forgiveness can come about 'only if you have wronged me, and only for the wrong you have done me'. I cannot forgive Godse for what he did to Gandhi. I can forgive for the wrong done to me only. The idea of forgiveness emerges only when one is wronged – when justice is violated. If the concept of justice is not there at all, there can't be anyone who is wronged and there can't be forgiveness. When God forgives me, it is because I have sinned against him; or rather because I have wronged against him, say, by breaking the covenant between he and me. And because I broke the covenant, I need his forgiveness to restore the covenant. Thus, Nygren cannot really speak of love and forgiveness by abolishing the idea of justice. Justice comes as a part and partial of love and forgiveness. The attempt to erase justice from Christian theological enterprise will fail.That's the central idea of Nick in this chapter. 

 

Amos 1

In the first chapter, the word of God came to Amos concerning Israel's neighbouring nations. God's thunderous judgment through Amos came on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Ammon. And these were the reasons why God was pouring out his judgment on different nations. Damascus was so cruel that she 'threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth' (v.3). Gaza and Tyre were merciless, engaging in selling people who they conqured to other nation. They were not selling just the soldiers who fought them but the 'whole community', which would include women, children and the aged. Edom is Esau's descendants and are related to Jacob's descendant Israel/Judah by blood. Discounting this relation, Edom stifled compassion and pursued his brother... For this the Lord will send fire and consume her cities and fortresses. To extend its territory, Ammon ripped open pregnant women and committed heinous crime. On all these nations, the Lord is giving his judgment and for the sins they committed He will pour out his wrath and thus kings and cities will face stormy days ahead. 

One common feature different nations committed here was war crime. War was not uncommon then. Yet God expects fair conduct in war. The issue whether war is ever just or not is not the point here. War takes place; that God acknowledges. What God takes issue with each nation here is army excesses. And for the war crime the nations committed, God pours out his punishment!

The concept of war crime then and now, as acknowledged by international bodies, are different. The modern version of war crime is more refined and broader. For example, use of chemical agent to target civilians would be considered war crime today. Chemical agent was not there in the past. God's anger today would include gassing civilians, not just tear open pregnant women's bellies. God's command not to murder remains unchanged throughout centuries ( killing is different from murder; murder is not justifiable by definition, killing can be justifiable), yet in certain areas God's expectation changes-- as in war crimes that nation-states are to abstain from. 

Amos: Introduction

Amos comes from Tekoa, a small town not so far from Bethlehem. He makes his living by taking care of sheep and sycamore-fig tree.  He comes not from a royal family or priestly class, but God calls him to speak forth primarily to the people of Israel, and also to Judah. He speaks forth God's word during the time of Uzziah of Judah (792-740 BC) and Jeroboam II of Israel ( 793-753 BC). 

During the days Amos speaks forth God's word, Israel's religious life do not please God. People lead a lifestyle far away from that which would please God. Amos speaks forth God's fury against corrupt lifestyle. God words through Amos is relevant even today for people who profess to believe in Yahweh. But how do we conduct our lives now in ways that God hates? Reading through the book of Amos will bring out similarities between their corrupt lives then and our corrupt lives now.

Chapter 12: The Lost World

Chapter 12 is titled 'Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough'. Those who want to refer to chapter 11 can do so here. This chapter briefly discusses about other theories like Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Framework Hypothesis etc. 

What's the problem with Young Earth Creationism? YEC proponents argue that the universe is created somewhere between 6,000-20,000 years. Not everyone holds the same view, but compared to the current scientific understanding, YEC's view of the age of the earth is very young. They want to read the Scripture at face-value, yet their face-value reading is not really face-value reading. How do they reconcile current scientific finding with their interpretation of the Scripture? For example, current scientific understanding would say that the stars are millions of years old... after all the light from the star to reach the earth would have taken million of years, and this means that the existence of the stars would at least be millions of years. One solution for the YEC is to say that in reality God made the stars only recently yet HE made the stars look really old to the observers. John does not get into this much! But if we apply similar reasoning to other areas, the result would be devastating: God made our scientific enterprise fail to arrive at a correct understanding! If that is so, what kind of God are worshiping? A God who deceives human being? YEC's concept leads to a demon; not the God the of Bible! 

Old Earth Creationism like the view proposed by Hugh Ross too reads too much into the text. Framework Hypothesis is fine, provided it adds the component of 'functional reading' of the creation narrative into their view. Gap theory too has a flaw.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 3

This is Chapter 3, titled as 'Justice in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible'. The previous chapter is here. This chapter argues about the concept justice found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (I shall use only 'Bible'). The next chapter will argue from the New Testament.

Nick begins by stating the two positions as: justice as right order vis-a-vis justice as inherent right. In these posts, I am going to refer the proponents of the two positions as right order theorists and right theorists respectively. Right order theorists can endorse natural right; and one can say that this sort of right is conferred by God. But, Nick continues, right order theorists are not happy with the idea of inherent right or the idea that human right in an inherent right. So his attempt is to do an inquiry if the idea of inherent human right is found the Bible or it's not there. At the end of the chapter, he argues that one can fairly draw out the idea of inherent human right from the Scripture. But before he goes on to do that, he takes on Oliver Donovan and gives a counter-explanation from the Scripture about the nature of justice found in the Bible. This is how he goes about doing it. 

Nick argues that Oliver O'Donovan's understanding of justice found in the Bible is incomplete. O'Donovan's understanding does not take into consideration the concept of primary justice, says Nick; only the idea of rectifying justice is present in O'Donovan's thesis. How does one explain primary justice and rectifying justice? Primary justice is about the condition of a society where justice prevails. But when a robber breaks into a house and runs away with the loot, primary justice is impaired. Now rectifying justice will have to kick in by catching the thief and returning the loot to the owner. So rectifying justice is about seeking to rectify the primary justice that has been impaired. Now when O'Donovan gives the explanation of the concept of justice found in the Bible, Nick argues that O'Donovan thinks that biblical concept of justice deals only with rectifying justice. Nick finds O'Donovan's finding inadequate. Nick says the idea of rectifying justice can be there only when the idea of primary justice is there; it makes no sense to speak of rectifying justice without taking into account the idea of primary justice. And in the Bible one can find, says Nick, the concept of primary justice as well as  rectifying justice.

Thus in the Bible, Israel is called by God to live justly in its society. God also enjoins non-Israelite nations to live justly. Living justly is required not only of Israel, but of non-Israelite too. Why so? Because God is just and holy. This holiness of God (morality purity) is not something that obtains when God observes a law imposed on him from without; but holiness is rooted in God himself. He cannot be unholy just as God cannot cease to exist. (I am reminded of Plato's Euthyphro dillemma; but if one understands God's holiness as rooted in himself as Nick and others argue, the dillemma really dissolves. But this is not really part of the what the book says.) Nick does not delve much into this area, but goes on to the text to argue that Israel considers God rightly holding the people accountable for their actions. And when people sin, they seek God's forgiveness-- or must seek forgiveness. Thus God has right to hold the people accountable and that God has right to seek our obedience. Nick argues that that was the way biblical writers understand about God and human relations. I think this is a fair conclusion from the Bible one can gather. This is a key point about rights.

Right God has over the people are understood to be grounded by Israel's writers on God's excellence. "In that assumption by Israel's writers, that God has rights grounded in God's excellence, is to be discerned a recognition of inherent natural rights". This is another  key point Nick makes! I think the idea that God has inherent right is rather a strange but indisputable point.

From this concept of God possessing inherent natural right, Nick argues that human being as little gods possesses inherent right. Human being are created little lower than angels/ human being are created bearing the image of God; so humans have inherent right. 

Chapter 11: The Lost World

Chapter 10 is available here.  Chapter 11 is titled  "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis''. This chapter mainly argues about the kind of exegetical principle one should use while reading the biblical text. The author argues that in interpreting a text, it is important to understand what the author is trying to tell to the primary audience. Those in the 21st century are not the primary audience of the Genesis text, and therefore, we shall not be getting the meaning of the text right unless we plough through the historical context in which the text was first composed. Some readers try to read scientific truths in the Scripture saying that all truths is God's truth.There is a danger is doing such thing. For example, the scientific truth that we now consider is the truth may change few decades later. Moreover, such reading may be reading much more than what the author intended. Since God has spoken through human author, who is situated in a particular cultural and historical context, to read the Scripture correctly, it is essential to take this conditions into consideration while trying to get the meaing right. Concordists way of reading the text does injustice to the author's intention. (Concordists read the text such that the text will concord with the scientific finding of the day.)

Genesis text is in a way a response of the author to the prevailing religious view of the day. The general belief then was polytheistic; the Genesis author offers a monotheistic view. 

Even while reading religious text of the Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs, how important it is to try to understand as the author intended his audience to understand!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of the book, but the third post. The previous post is here. This second chapter is titled 'A Contest of Narratives'.

The right order theorists tell a story that says something to the effect that the idea of subjective right develops with the emergence of political liberalism. (Political liberalism is that strand of political thought that considers rights of an individual as the first virtue a state must protect.) Other writer would trace the source of the idea of subjective/natural right to the writing of Ockham. Now Ockham was a thinker belonging to the Franciscan order. After the death of St. Francis, who had voluntarily chosen a life of poverty, there was a dispute between the Pope and the Franciscan. The Pope was of the opinion that the Franciscan did have some sort of ownership of property. One of the effects of having to give up ownership of everything would mean that the church cannot own anything. Ockham and others went to make a case that it is lawful to give up right to own property, but one cannot renounce the 'natural right' to use properties that may belong to someone. Thus, argue right orders theorists, Ockham invented the idea of subjective right... Nick argues that the idea of such of kind of right goes much older than Ockham and political thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.

Nick counter-argues by saying that the right theorists narrative fail to adequately take into consideration the account of right that was already in use in the works of the jurists in the medieval period and also by the older thinkers. Nick cites research work by different modern writers to make a case that the Roman jurists were using the idea of subjective right in their work, and that those who argue that subjective/natural right emerged in Medieval period did not adequately take into consideration the different ways 'right' was employed For example, those in jurisprudence employed the idea in their work. Going beyond that, Nick also argues that when Ockham, the Medieval thinker, employed the language of right, he was not inventing the idea out of the blue; Christian thinkers (or Church Fathers) who were teaching and writing in the first 500 years were already using that sort of idea. The idea of natural right was unmistakably present in the work of John Chrysostom (347-407) , Ambrose of Milan (337-397) and Basil of Caesarea (329/330-379).

Based on the principle of correlative, a right theorist may accept that if there is natural right then it must imply that there is natural duty. But the difference between a right theorist and right order theorist goes deeper. And here is the difference: Does a person have inherent worth for which she/he possess an inherent right or is right conferred to a person by an entity/someone? Nick argues for the former, and this is something he will go on to develop in the following chapters. But if his argument stands, then the right order theorists argument that rights are conferred by state/law/contract etc, and it is not something that a person possesses as if it's an inherent property will be challenged.

I think Nick was convincing enough in his argument that the idea of subjective/natural right was already in use much before Ockham and others. Yet whether a right order theorists can still accept the idea of inherent right and remain a right order theorist is possible or not is something Nick will try to argue in the following chapters. And whether he is successful or not, the readers will have to wait.