*4.4. Gandhi and the Hebrew Bible*

Gandhi's well-known ambivalent relationship with the Hebrew Bible highlights the problematics of reading the Bible "with Christian spectacles" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 63, p. 92). The ambivalence originated from two sides. In the first place, he was influenced by Christian views that subordinated the Hebrew Bible under the New Testament, resulting in statements that the Hebrew Bible "did not deserve the same honour as the New Testament," and that "the God of the Hebrews was quite different from the God of Jesus Christ" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 25, p. 85; vol. 78, pp. 6–7). Secondly his own readings resulted in a view that "the Old Testament which is part of Christian teaching is full of blood and thunder" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 33, p. 358). In *Satyagraha in South-Africa*, Gandhi admired the Boers as strong fighters in their battles against the British. The Boers being "religious

minded Christians" know "the New Testament only by name. They read the Old Testament with devotion and know by heart the descriptions of battles it contains. They fully accept Moses' doctrine of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', and they act accordingly" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 29, pp. 17–18). In his portrait, Gandhi maintained without any hesitation the *lex talionis* of Ex 21:23–25 as characteristic not only for the Boers, but for the Hebrew Bible as well.33 When confronted with the explosive situation after the Chauri Chaura incident34 Gandhi made a remarkable statement: "Indeed I am not sure that we do justice to Moses when we impute to him the doctrine of retaliation in the sense that he made it obligatory on his followers to exact tooth for a tooth...I do think that in an age when people were unrestrained in their appetite for the enemy's blood, Moses restricted retaliation to equal measure (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 22, p. 363). There is a *caveat*. This view could be his own wish, and he does not want to lead the reader into a religious discussion. However, due to the threatening situation of possible retaliation from both sides, imprisonments, and death sentences, he understands the *lex talionis* as a limitation of blood revenge. Fifteen years later, the name of Moses has now gained a place together with Jesus, Mohammed, and Zoroaster as representatives of the different religions, but branches of the same tree. They are equally true and equally imperfect because of their interpretation by humans (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 326). In Hinduism, there is room for them, as there is for other prophets (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 75, p. 375). In light of Gandhi's ambivalent relationship with the Hebrew Bible, a question about the equality of Jesus and Moses is important. Gandhi confirmed: "all prophets are equal" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, pp. 419–20). Finally, Moses appears in the claim that wisdom had come from the East to the West, not from the West to the East. Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed came from the East, as well as Moses, who—though born in Egypt—belonged to Palestine (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 87, p. 192). On the formal level of the equality of all religions, Moses, the Hebrew Bible, and Judaism are all present. However, as seen at the beginning of this paragraph, in the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, reception history has done its work.

Though Emilsen counted that, in his writings, Gandhi referred to nine books of the Hebrew Bible and later enjoyed the Prophets and the Psalms (Emilsen 2001, p. 81), there is no intensive engagement comparable with his work on the New Testament. There is one big exception: the book of Daniel (Smith-Christopher 1993). After Jesus, Daniel is probably the most important biblical character for Gandhi. Daniel is the exemplary *satyagrahi*, the civil servant who disobeys unjust laws. Gandhi's focus on Daniel is important for several reasons: 1. Gandhi has sought different practices and strategies to shape his nonviolent resistance. He found an example of this behaviour in Daniel. 2. Gandhi was deeply convinced that *ah. imsa¯* as active love evoked something in the violent opponent. He finds this confirmed in the attitude of the king, who regrets the execution of his law. The exegetical literature dealing with biblical texts and the question of violence nearly always focuses on texts of violence, on the image of God, or on visions of peace. Daniel is not included. In his study of Daniel, Gandhi opened a topic that has gone largely unnoticed until today.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Gandhi's method of using scriptures displayed a remarkable freedom with one constant drive: transforming tradition for the practice of nonviolence. The aim of the study of scriptures should be to put their principles in practice in both personal and societal life and to illuminate the search for truth. Scriptures of all religions are equally perfect and imperfect. Therefore, a canon of interpretation including the tests of reason, truth, and ahim. sa is required. ¯ *Ahim. sa¯* means active love, and the reversal of God = Truth into Truth = God intertwines faith-based inspiration with social and political action. The interpretation of scriptures requires a living faith (*bhakti*). Principles that sustain the theme of a book overrule a single expression or sentence. Gandhi found a key for interpreting scriptures with the quote of 2 Cor 3:6: "The letter kills, the Spirit gives life." Paul interpreted the concepts of a new covenant and a "heart of flesh" from the eschatological visions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel with a different focus, but in a similar way to the communities of the Qumran: living in the already-present new covenant. The killing letter in 2 Cor 3:6 does not mean the literal interpretation of the Torah against a spiritual reading. The life-giving Spirit refers to Paul's ministry of Spirit and the killing letter to the ministry of Moses, according to Duff's proposal. Elements from reception history demonstrate how an intra-Jewish polemic mutated into an anti-Jewish polemic, with catastrophic consequences for Jews and Judaism.

In practice, Gandhi often balanced 2 Cor 3:6 with a literal and figurative reading. A reader is free to add meanings different from those of the original author, tradition, or reception. History and its reconstruction serves as a guideline for the present and the future. The examples of the first mantra of the *Isha Upanishad* as a summary of the Gita, the allegorical reading of the Gita, and *anasakti* as the centre of the Gita demonstrate the need for a contextual interpretation. In the first case, the spiritual and political unity of all Hindus was at stake, and in the second, the reclaiming of the Gita using a nonviolent interpretation was used against the interpretation of the revolutionaries who read it as legitimising violence. The example of Galatians demonstrated how Gandhi mobilised Paul for an active interpretation of *doing* the teachings of Jesus. He even used Paul's two covenants allegory for distinguishing between the "dry knowledge of scripture" and a living faith. The last section on Gandhi and the Hebrew Bible shows how reception history influenced Gandhi's readings of the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, he found his own access with the character of Daniel as the ideal *satyagrahi*. From the view of Gandhi's use of scriptures, the thesis may be upheld that "the formation of his religious identity was part of his ethico-political identity—and vice versa" (Cox 2010, p. 18), and that his political action was never without a devotional or *bhakti* focus (Gray and Hughes 2015).

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank my colleague Andy Sanders for his thorough comments on an earlier version of this article and the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for their suggestions. Many thanks to my colleagues and co-fellows Louise du Toit, Wolfgang Palaver, and Ephraim Meir for the intensive discussions during our common research at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study in 2021. Deep-felt thanks to the staff of STIAS for creating a vibrant academic climate during our stay in Stellenbosch!

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
