Sunday, February 5th, 2023 01:11:13


Updated: February 14, 2015 4:15 am

India that is Bharat

AS a devout devotee of the holy religion of Secularism, Satiricus pays special attention to its illuminating Islamic essence. At the same time he is catholic-minded enough to accept the concept of Sarva-Semitic-Dharma-Sama-Bhaava. As a result, doubly secular Satiricus was not so stunned as stunningly happy to read the other day a big bold newspaper headline declaring: “UP’s Bible-reading Hindus tell VHP they won’t give up the ritual.” My, my! Satiricus knows—and forgives—some of his Hindu-cum-communalist friends who follow the ritual of reading Hanuman Chalisa or Guru Charitra or what have you, but it was really ‘Glad Tidings’ for him to read this report, according to which a group of Hindus in a village in UP gathers together every Sunday to read the Bible.

Satiricus is a book-lover, so he loves these people who read a book whose title itself means “Book”. For when the original Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, the Greeks wrote it down in the Phoenician script on papyrus reed imported from Egypt into the city of Byblos in Phoenicia, and papyrus and Byblos were so closely identified in those days that the Greeks gave the translated work the city’s name—Byblos, the Greek origin of Bible, meaning “Book”.

Here, however, Satiricus rather idly wonders….Was the Bible lost in translation? Satiricus wouldn’t know, for he knows neither Hebrew nor Greek, but he has read Bible scholars writing that during the successive translations of the Bible in various European languages often times the translators seemed as if drunk. Oh well, Satiricus hopes that the King James Bible, the current version in India, was not the result of king and courtiers having more than a peg or two.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that facts don’t matter in the case this book called the ‘Book’. Why? Because Western scholars of Christianity, like, for instance, Peter Stanford, author of The She Pope, kindly informs this Indian ignoramus that the Bible is about a concocted religion and so is itself a piece of fiction—rather, a string of pieces of fiction. Well, now, Satiricus is a fiction-addict, and whenever he can spare time from writing this particular piece of fiction, he would like a fictional book like this ‘Book’. Then why should these villagers not read it?

Now according to the news report these Bible-readers have told VHP people that they were “just Hindus who read the Bible” and “they had no intention of becoming Christian”. Here they are telling the truth, the Bible truth, because, believe it or not, the Bible itself was not Christian to start with. This is the truth told by Truth Seeker editor Charles Smith. He writes: “For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred book of the Jews, and the New Testament was not formed until the latter part of the second century.” And what was the central, most important, part of this Bible? Of course the four gospels of the “gospel truth” fame. But why four gospels instead of one? Because, says Charles Smith, a fellow by name Irenaeus had selected them from around forty or more gospels existing at the time, again because “there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds.”

Could there be a clearer explanation? Of course not. And if a dimwit like yours truly cannot distinguish between what is divine and what is dumb, he has to thank his intelligence for it—or the lack thereof. Unfortunately, it takes all sorts of communal cusses to make this world, so there could indeed be some dastardly doubting Thomases who would ask: if 4 of the 40 gospels stand for gospel truth, do the other 36 gospels tell 9 times more untruth?

Oh well, whether or not the Catholic Bible current in India, which our UPian Hindus read, contains gospel truths or “true lies’ a la Hollywood, Satiricus would like to warn them against being maliciously misled by pernicious Protestants who denounce the Catholic Bible as a “popish imposture”. Then again, they should not question why a holy scripture containing gospel truth should at the same time contain the Apocrypha, which literally means imaginary stories? Nor should they be crazy enough to recall what Thomas Jefferson said about the Book of Revelation in the Bible—“It is between 50 and 60 years since I read the Apocalyps (Revelation), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac.”

And finally a dire, secularly severe warning: When these simple-minded villagers read the Bible they must not read between the lines, because then they would suffer the shock of a very different type of revelation—that the Christian Bible’s first man named Adam was borrowed from the much earlier Babylonian scriptural tablets according to which the Babylonian first man was named Adami—and this Adami was borrowed straight from Sanskrit Ādima, the First. See? If you read Christianity unnecessarily closely, you are in danger of finding that you are reading borrowed Hinduism.

Comments are closed here.