Gandhi’s Use of Scriptures: A Hermeneutic of Nonviolence against Letters That Kill

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good. The English is a bit stiff and sometimes wordy, but other than that, I can't find any areas (at least not in my knowledge) that could improve the article. Maybe identifying some sources where Gandhi's non-violence had a direct impact on Christian movements could demonstrate that his model influenced Christians would help a reader to explore further, but this is an optional extra. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you so much for your time and the willingness to read the manuscript. Your suggestion of identifying some examples where NV influenced Christian groups is an interesting one, but lies outside the scope of this paper. Some articles In our special issue will focus on these themes. 

For the revision I rewrote 3.2 and added 4.4. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article makes an interesting contribution to Gandhi's reception of Paul, but I am not sure what the point of the 3.2 is in light of the author's conclusions. There is great adumbration of a really debatable interpretation of Paul--Paul's communities included gentiles, and Qumran did not. Paul was in the diaspora; Qumran was in Israel. Is the point of "Early Christian Judaism" Paul's communities (not always Jewish), Paul (at one point Saul), or Qumran (completely un-renamed)? Additionally, the work I did to keep up with whether we were talking about Qumran or Marcion or Tertullian did not seem to be needed when I read: "Gandhi borrowed from Paul a mantra about the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit 470 without knowledge of the complex reasoning behind it. The similarity between the two 471 was their situation. Both tried to reformulate their religious heritage in a new way by 472 claiming that the now defended truth was already present in the scriptures. In need of a 473 hermeneutical key both found it in the killing letter and the life-giving Spirit." It seems like the author is coming down on the side of Tertullian. Moreover, the author's assertion in the conclusion that the Qumran community is contributing realized eschatology to readings of Gandhi, but that is nowhere in the paragraph on Qumran: "This Qumran community was one of the sects within Judaism (Baumgarten 1997; 438 Regev 2007), and Flavius Josephus21 distinguished between Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes 439 and Zealots, calling himself a Pharisee, as did Paul (Acts 23:6). The diversity around con- 440 cepts such as covenant, the descriptions from Josephus and the New Testament, and the 441 communities behind the Dead Sea Scrolls on the one side and the Hellenistic Jewish com- 442 munities on the other, demonstrate the pluriformity of the developments within the Sec- 443 ond Temple Period’s Judaism.22 The same can be said for emerging Christianity with its 444 different views on the role of Jesus. In this fermenting world of political and economic 445 tensions, from spectra from Hellenised Jewish communities to strictly halachic groups, 446 and from apocalyptic traditions to wisdom and gnostic thought, Paul made his statement 447 about the killing letter and the life-giving spirit." If the author must call the Pauline communities (with gentiles!) "Hellenised Jewish," perhaps they could include the non-Christian synagogues or Philo. Paul is simply not the end all be all of Hellenistic Judaism. Such a position elides non-Christian forms of Judaism in favor of Christianized Judaism.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you so much for your time and your suggestions.In light of your remarks I have rewritten 3.2 adding the main points of exegesis. The passage on the covenant is now a FN as well as the passage on Qumran. Qumran is important for me because in spite of its totaliter aliter it demonstrates how groups actualized the visions of Ez and Jer stating that live already in the new covenant. Some elements of the reception history  are a new section now and a short section 4.4. about G and the Hebrewe Bible has been added

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The essay's focus on Gandhi's use of Scriptures from an interreligious studies perspective is interesting and valuable. The author provides solid historical context to Gandhi's life and helpfully locates the method and metaethical framework for how Gandhi views Scripture and revelation across the world's faiths. Giving priority to his use of 2 Corinthians 3:6 was something this reviewer was not aware of--which is compelling—though also problematic (see below).

Because of the pre-eminence given to this Biblical passage, I suggest the following additions:

 

1. Expand section 3.2 and place earlier in the piece. I note an attempt made for a concise historical and biblical exegesis of the passage in terms of its context in the Letter, but would like to see more of its meaning and importance in light of Paul's other writing with expanded commentary on its interpretations, especially adding Jewish interpretations of the passage. Helpful here as a start would be the Jewish Annotated New Testament and the monographs of one of its editors, Amy-Jill Levine. This last point is tied in with the next important addition.
2. As 2 Cor 3:6 is such a problematic text in the history of Jewish-Christian relations (obviously there are worse ones like Matt 27:25), and while you mention "supersessionism" on line 468 and mention Marcion, I suggest you have a separate section, again early in the essay (or noting you will later do so in the beginning of the essay), touching upon the damage and violence committed against Jews aided if not inspired by Christian supersessionist views against Jews, the Jewish faith, and the Tanach. Noting Gandhi’s ignorance of the deeper history needs to go further. Helpful here would be to cite examples of Gandhi’s specific praise of the Jewish people and Tanach, especially in his work in South Africa – though there is division regarding Gandhi’s views and how he viewed Judaism (as in the Meir’s Religions article, which you cite).

Bringing this issue to the forefront of your paper will also raise interesting questions on how and whether someone outside a faith tradition can innocently use a passage that is problematic for another faith even if he or she does not mean to add to that negative legacy. There are also questions of how “innocent” the person is – perhaps using James Baldwin’s use of the term in regards to so-called white innocence. Was Gandhi passive or ignorant of Christian anti-Judaism? Can you quote where he challenged them, etc.?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you so much for your time and your substantial remarks. They are intriguing. I have rewritten 3.2 added a little bit of exegesis, and banned   the paragraphs on covenant and Qumran  to the FNs. I followed your suggestion and made a separate section on elements of the reception history. At the same time it is problematic because the focus is on Gandhi, not on Paul.  Therefore I did not follow your suggestion to place those sections earlier in the essay. How interesting it may be, it would change the scope of the paper and what is more important, it asks for much more work in reception history and changes the research question.  I surely intend to do  a paper in the direction you suggeswt, but for our soecial issue  it is already done by Ephraim Meir.  I am thinking a lot  about your question of "innocence" As far as I can see Gandhi was a "victim" of opinions that degraded the HB  but had his own approach when a real crisis asked for action. Therefore I added section 4.4. where the lex talionis appears two times. Thank you so much for the suggestions.