Introduction
The message of the Bible can have
different connotations as per the perspective and the context of the reader.
Such kind of perspectival reading is very crucial to address the plight of
subaltern community. Employment of biblical reading from subaltern viewpoint can
bring in care, concern and hope for better future in line with the words of
God. This can resulted into the establishment of Shalomic community where every section of the society enjoys their
rights. Therefore, the value of perspectival reading cannot be neglected in
biblical studies nowadays.
This
paper will try to identify Jesus and his disciples as am-ha-aretz (people of the land) from the eyes of adivasi. How they live below the
marginal line of the then Jewish society, and how they were subjugated by the
then existing elite class. By identifying Jesus and his disciples as am-ha-aretz (adivasi), it may be able to
bring out a relevant biblical massage to address and comfort the suffering of
today’s adivasi.
The concept of am-ha-aretz in the Hebrew Bible
The Hebrew phrase am-ha-aretz occurs frequently in the
Hebrew Bible. It is a combination of three Hebrew words viz. am (people), ha (definite article- the) and aretz
(land), which literally means people of the land.
The New Bible Dictionary specifies
three types of am-ha-aretz as under:[1]
(i)
Am-ha-aretz means in the earlier
books the common people of the land, as distinct from the rulers and
aristocracy.
(ii)
In Ezra-Nehemiah period, the phrase focus on those Palestinians whose Judaism
was mixed or suspect, with whom the scrupulous Jews could not intermarry (Ezra 9:1-2).
(iii)
In the rabbinic literature, the phrase came to mean specifically all those who
failed to observe the whole traditional law in all details.
The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary
also specifies two types of am-ha-aretz as
following:[2]
(i)
Especially in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, the phrase probably
designating the qualified male citizenry as opposed to the ruling class.
(ii)
In Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 10:2 & 11;
Neh. 10:30) it becomes a derogatory term aimed at those who were ignorant
and non-observant Jews by the standards of Ezra and Nehemiah.
From the above definitions, with reference to the Hebrew
Bible, we can say that am-ha-aretz
refers to the common people of the land who were dominated and ruled. They are
considered lower and unholy in compare to the typical Jewish citizen.
The adivasis as am-ha-aretz in the Indian context
The term adivasi is a combination of two Sanskrit words, adi meaning beginning or earliest times,
and vasi meaning inhabitant/resident
of. The idea is that the adivasis
were the original inhabitants of India.[3]
The Indians are grouped into five different racial origins, namely, Negrito,
Austrics, Dravidians, Mongoloids and Nordic Aryans. The first four groups are
regarded as the original inhabitants, and are known as adivasis. They are spread all over the country.[4]
There are many diverse
communities that have been grouped under the term adivasis. They numbered
about 85 to 90 million in the Indian population, and are also referred as Schedule
Cates and Schedule Tribes. India has 427 scheduled tribes that constitute about
8% of its population.[5]
We
can say that adivasi is an umbrella term
for a heterogeneous set of ethnic and tribal groups claimed to be the aboriginal population of India. They comprise a substantial indigenous minority of Indian population.[6]
The adivasis
or the so-called tribals are the aborigines, the first settlers of India while
the Aryans are considered as immigrants.[7]
The Aryans came to India aroung 1500 B.C. as invaders and conquered the
indigenous people as mentioned in the Rig Veda.[8]
Before Aryans’ invasion, adivasi people
lived freely, but with Aryans’ invasion and later on the colonizers, the adivasis are being deprived of their
culture, judicial system and are alienated from their land. The invaders became
their exploiters and masters.[9]
Then the adivasis have lived through exploitative, oppressive and
suppressive social and political structures in India. Mostly, they have been
alienated from their land both by greedy caste communities and by overzealous
governments, which takes away tribal land for mining and big industries. Thus,
poverty and estrangement from the means of their livelihood (land) threaten adivasi communities in India. Along with
this, there is a serious threat to their traditional culture and worldview from
the forces of both modernization and Hinduization.[10]
The adivasis are the am-ha-aretz of India, and the land originally belonged to them, but
till date they are facing chronic socio-political and economic problems.
Different tribes in different places go through marginalization and oppression
in various forms. Ever since India has started new economic policy since 1991,
the tribals have become the victims in the so called economic development and
industrialization. Every major dam since 1970s has been submerging adivasi land. Every wild life sanctuary
in India is on adivasi homelands.
Every national park is totally adivasis’.
Of the mines in India, 90% are on adivasi
land. Almost 50% of the mineral wealth of India comes from adivasi areas. Yet 85% of the adivasis are below poverty line.[11]
The adivasis
are the victims of patterns of development which displacing them from their
traditional habitat. They have been discriminated, rejected, exploited in every
set up of their lives. They are culturally separated, socially stigmatized,
economically exploited and politically powerless. They have no voice, ignored,
silenced and despised by the mainline society.[12] Therefore, the adivasis as am-ha-aretz need biblical reading form their own eyes; which will
be based on their own life experiences, and emerges from their own native
perspective.
The
concept of am-ha-aretz and adivasi are similar
From
the above discussion, we can come to the verdict that the Hebrew phrase am-ha-aretz and the Indian term adivasi has analogous connotation. Both
of them are the factual people of the land but they undergone oppression and marginalization
from the ruling elite class in almost all realms of life i.e. in society,
politics, economics, culture and religion. So, the
Bible tells us about the experience of the particular people in a context which
is comparable to today’s Indian arena. These contexts demand a new
hermeneutical paradigm that should meet the contextual demand.
The Galilean as am-ha-aretz (adivasi)
Geographically,
Galilee was the northernmost district of Palestine. It was a tetrarchy of Herod
the Great and after him, his son Herod Antipas. It is a tiny region
approximately 45 miles long north to south.[13]
This region is also called Galilee of the Gentiles that clearly describes a mix
population which affects their language and lifestyle.
The
Galilean is an inhabitant of Galilee. The regional accent of Galilean speech
apparently enabled others to identify their origin due to their mix population[14]
(Mat. 26:73). Jesus’ disciples except
Judas were from Galilee, and Judeans in Jerusalem looked down on them for their
regional pronunciations.[15]
Even the religious leaders Pharisees have been reflecting current bias against
Galileans (John 7:52). The Galileans
are am-ha-aretz (people of the land)
of Palestine. Like adivasi, they
suffered much alienation from their Judean counterpart culturally and
religiously.
Jesus the Galilean as am-ha-aretz (adivasi)
The Galilee constitutes the area in
which Jesus conducted the major part of his ministry. His youth and early
ministry took place in Nazareth in lower Galilee; much of his public ministry
was located at the northwestern end of the Sea of Galilee.[16]
Jesus was a Galilean, who suffered rejection and was despise by his Jewish
counterpart. He experienced the life of am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) throughout his life, from birth till death. The following
explanations may clarify Jesus as am-ha-aretz
(adivasi).
(i)
Incarnation is the first act of Jesus that shows his
solidarity with the down trodden and the rejected people (sinner/humanity). The
word that was God become flesh and lived among us (John 1:14). Paul said that Jesus was emptied himself, taking the
form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7). Identifying
with sinner involved self denial.[17]
As salvation requires incarnation of God, Jesus incarnated to human for the
salvation of sinner. He suffered much humiliation as a human, but bears it till
the point of death.
(ii) He was born in a manger. His parent laid him in a manger,
because there was no place for them in the inn (Luke 2:7). Jesus experienced the life of am-ha-aretz (adivasi) who are marginalized with no proper care from
the authority (inn keeper/owner of manger). He was born in a manger,
neglected by others. But ‘he lived and walks with am-ha-aretz (adivasi) of his time.
He talks with them in their languages, in time of suffering he also suffers.’[18]
(iii)
He was raised in Nazareth. He was called Jesus of Nazareth. Nazareth was a small rural village
that was not located in a major trade route but not far from it. Majority of her
people were very poor.[19]
It was an insignificant agricultural village.[20]
It was a tiny place without a past and with no anticipated future. Nathaniel’s
question ‘can anything good come out of Nazareth’ (John 1:46) indicates the dubious nature of any reputation it might
have had. Jesus was from this unknown village of the underside of history.[21] His home place is a
loathed. But, even from Nazareth, he was not accepted and rejected by his own
people like am-ha-aretz (adivasi) (Mat
13: 53-58; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:16).
(iv)
He was the son of Mary (Mark
6:3). This is skeptical, slightly derogatory
comment given by his own people. This comment may hint that Jesus was rumored
to be an illegitimate child. Because of the tension between his obvious wisdom
and power and simple origins, the people take offense at him.[22]
The description of Jesus as the son of Mary may be an insult, since the Jews
were customarily known by their father’s name. It indicates that Joseph was
dead or as alluding to the virginal conception of Jesus.[23]
The reaction of people to Jesus was turned to negative and rejection.
(v)
He was a Carpenter (tekton). Jesus was born in the family of
Carpentry; he was involved in this profession (Mark 6:3, Mat. 13:55). He was belonging to what would be called the
class of small producers who own the tools of their trade.[24]
But the way how his own people said about him was something like irony and
negative comment, ‘is not this the carpenter?’ This shows that Jesus shared the
life of less economically advantage of his time. He shared and he himself was
the am-ha-aretz (adivasi).
(vi)
He was homeless. Jesus abandons the security of family
and home to become itinerant preacher without shelter or means of subsistence.
He breaks with his family to join the family of heavenly father (Mark 3:31-35). He abandon himself to
the to the father’s providential care (Mat.
6:25-34), depending on casual help provided by sympathizing friends (Luke 8:1-2). He has nowhere to lay his
head (Mat. 8:20). He lives, that is,
by begging.[25] ‘He leads a risky, unsettled, itinerant way of life.’[26] Thus, he was the am-ha-aretz (adivasi).
(vii)
His pedagogy was non-elitist. Jesus going around
the towns and villages of Galilee (Mat.
9:35; Mark 6:6; Luke 13:22), teaching all who were ready to listen to him,
especially the uneducated, poor, sinners, and social outcastes. It is truly the
poor who were socially and economically deprived have the good news preached to
them by Jesus. Apart from Jerusalem, he appears to have taught in none of the
major cities of Galilee or Judea. Jesus was moving around obscure hamlets like
Nazareth, mentioned nowhere outside New Testament (Mat. 2:23; Mark 1:9), in a remote fishing village like Bethsaida (Mark 6:45; 8:22; Luke 9:10), and in a
small rural township like Capernaum (Mat.
9:1; Mark 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; Luke 10:15).[27]
He taught in the Palestinian country side, backward villages, primitive
townships and choose to be with the am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) rather than to the elite classes in Hellenized urban centers.
(viii)
He got no justice. No justice was carried out upon Jesus
when he was arrested and trialed by the authorities. The decision made upon him
was very unfair, there was no such decision in Jewish history before and after.
They did not find his guilt but his trial procedure was absolutely wrong
according to the Jewish tradition. The judges and the chief priests conspired against him;
they plotted the trial to make him guilty.[28]
They condemned Jesus who has no fault, guilt and wickedness (Matt 27:24-26). He was the am-ha-aretz (adivasi) who does not enjoy
their rights and duties as a rightful citizen.
(ix) He was crucified on the cross.
Jesus was crucified and died on the Cross. According to Jewish tradition,
crucifixion on the cross is a curse.[29]
Crucifixion is a form of punishment for conquered people and individuals
accused of particular heinous crimes like high treason and violent robbery.[30]
Slaves, provincials and the lowest types of criminals were crucified.[31]
The final symbol of Jesus as am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) is in his passion and on the cross, feeling totally forsaken,
even by God[32] (Mat. 27:46; Mark 15:34). Ultimately he becomes
a broken God for the broken people, and fulfilled his mission.
(x) No tomb to lay his dead body: Nowhere to lay his dead body. When the Sabbath was drawing near, it was only with the initiatives of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemas that his dead body was laid in a virgin tomb (Mt. 27:60, Mk. 15:46, Lk.
23:55, Jh. 19:42). Unless, his rejected corpse may hang on the Cross till its get rotten.
Jesus’ disciples as am-ha-aretz (adivasi)
The
disciples and followers of Jesus were the am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) of his time. He did not call wise men and aristocrats, ‘at least
seven of Jesus disciples were fisherman.’[33]
Simple fishermen and zealot who were look down by the Jews, and the hatred and
unclean tax collector were the disciples.
(i)
He and his followers were the marginalized people.
Not only Jesus becomes poor with the poor, but he was an outcast with the
outcasts, identifies himself with the am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) of his time. He touches a leper to welcome him back to human
fellowship (Mark 1:41), thus incurring
ritual defilement. He dines with tax-collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15; Luke 15:1), earning the
reprobation of religious elite (Luke
15:2). It is through such fellowship with the untouchables of his society
that he is identified and shown the unconditional love of God.[34]
There is no record that Jesus spent his time with the rich except Zaccheus and
Nicodemus who were repented rich men longing for Jesus Christ.[35]
(ii)
The professions of disciples were lowly.
Jesus’ disciples and close followers come from the same artisan class to which
he himself belonged; or are drawn from the social outcasts among whom he lived.
Four of the fisherman were called at one time (Mark 1:16-20), one an untouchable customs tax collector,
collaborated with the hated Roman regime (Mark
2:14), another a zealot, member of an outlaw group waging guerrilla war
against Rome (Luke 6:15), a healed
demoniac (Mark 5:20), and a blind
beggar whose sight was restored (Mark
10:52).[36]
By and large, the close followers of Jesus were like him, poor and despised am-ha-aretz
(adivasi) of his
time.
The Bible does not refer to fishing as
recreation.[37]
It is a tough work that requires a strong physique (Luke 5:2) in which elite classes would not involved in. During the
time of Jesus, tax-collectors were regarded as sinners, hypocrites,
prostitutes, robbers and etc.[38]
The Zealots were the people who were involved in the revolutionary movement
against Romans Empire because they opposed the payment of tribute by the
Israelites to a pagan emperor on the ground that this was treason to God.[39]
The disciples were from the lower section of the society like the adivasis of India. They did not enjoy
their rights but oppressed by the higher class, and are considered lowly,
unclean and sinner.
(iii) The disciples have no socio-economic
security. Jesus called the disciples to give up their wealth
and family (Mat. 4:18-22). ‘They
relinquished commitment to the family business and their livelihood.’[40]
Jesus has nowhere to lay his head; ‘his disciples can expect no better.’[41]
Thus, Jesus and his disciples
shared and experience the life of the poor, discriminated and the marginalized adivasi people of India. They were
rejected by their own people. When people say ‘you also were with Jesus the
Galilean’ (Matt 26:69), it carries
the impression of despise and provoke. The disciples were the am-ha-aretz,
suffering many plights with Jesus.
They were an adivasi of their time.
Conclusion
The life of Jesus, his death,
resurrection, his glorification and his elevation at the right hand of God
posed a fundamental question to am-ha-aretz (adivasi): Who is Jesus? Jesus was
an am-ha-aretz (adivasi), born,
lived, suffered and died as the most forsaken and despised, so also his
disciples, But gives living hope to all marginalized community as a liberator
from all forms of oppression and dehumanizing situation.[42]
The life, ministry and death of Jesus was liberation for the oppressed,
condemned and marginalized (Luke 4:18-19;
Mark 10:45; Matt 25: 40).
In the light of what has been discussed,
we can determine the need of re-reading and re-defining the Bible from a new
perspective by employing contrapuntal reading. There had been a paradigm shift
in Biblical hermeneutics. Nowadays, liberation for the marginalized and the oppressed,
upbringing the vulnerable section of the society became the principal
theological agenda in India. Further, the most essential task for the adivasi is finding a life-affirming and
empowering theological motif in the Bible. Thus, an adivasi reading of the scripture is the need of the day.
To conclude,
what is significant regarding biblical interpretation is, we should always keep
in mind subaltern concerns and drawing on subaltern life experience like the adivasis’. This will enable us to enter
into hermeneutical dialogue with the text, and discover the specificity of adivasi meaning to the Bible and its
passages.
[1] I.H. Marshall, et. al. eds., New Bible Dictionary, 3rd
Edition (Secunderabad: Authentic Books, 2000), 899. Hereafter cited I.H.
Marshall, et. al. eds., New Bible
Dictionary.
[2] Paul J. Achtemeier, ed., The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary,
Revised Edition (Bangalore: Theological Publications In India, 2009), 827.
Hereafter cited as Paul J. Achtemeier, The
Harper Collins Bible Dictionary.
[3] Christ
Summit Abhay Kerketta, Adivasi Theology,
Towards a Relevant Christian Theology for the Jharkhandi Adivasis (Ranchi:
Gossner Theological College, 2009), 3 & 4. Hereafter cited as C.S.A.
Kerketta, Adivasi Theology.
[4] Albert
S. Vasantharaj, A Portrait of India,
Vol. 2 (Madras: CGAI, 1992), 16. Cited in V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India, Issues and Challenges
(Malapuram, Kerela: Focus India Trust, 2014), 294. See also C.S.A. Kerketta, Adivasi Theology…140 & 141.
[5] Sathianathan Clarke, Viewing the Bible through the
eyes and ears of Subalterns in India, in http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2444 (access on 24.06.2013).
[7] R.K.
Sinha, “Contribution of Indian Tribals to Modern Civilization,” Social Change 23/2 & 3
(June-September, 1993): 51. Cited in C.S.A. Kerketta, Adivasi Theology…8.
[8] S.R.
Bakshi, ed., Advanced History of Ancient
India, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Anmol Publications, 1995), 9, 138-139. Cited in
C.S.A. Kerketta, Adivasi Theology…8.
[9] C.S.A.
Kerketta, Adivasi Theology…11.
[10] Sathianathan
Clarke, Viewing the Bible through the eyes and ears of Subalterns in India, n/p.
[11] B. Zirsangliana, Bible from the
Indian-Tribal’s perspective, in
http://zetesa777.blogspot.in/2008/09/bible-from-indian-tribals-perspective_18.html (access on 24.06.2013).
[12] Woba James, Major Issues in the History of Christianity
in India (Mokokchung: Tribal Development and Communication Centre, 2013),
20 & 21.
[13] Paul J. Achtemeier, The
Harper Collins Bible Dictionary…359.
[14] Revd. Chuau\huama, Zo\awng Bible Dictionary (Aizawl: Author, 2012), 298. Hereafter cited
as Revd. Chuau\huama,
Zo\awng Bible Dictionary.
[15] ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, Illinois:
Crossway, 2011), 1884. Hereafter cited as ESV
Study Bible.
[16] Paul J.
Achtemeier, The Harper Collins Bible
Dictionary…360.
[17] K. Thanzauva, Transforming Theology, A Theological Basis
for Social Transformation (Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 2002),
155. Hereafter cited as K. Thanzauva, Transforming
Theology.
[18] P.
Victor Premasagar in George Mathew Nalunnakal & Abraham
P. Athyal, eds., Quest for Justice (Delhi:
ISPCK, 2000), 112.
[19] Charles
R. Page II, Jesus and the Land
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 38.
[21] K. Thanzauva, Transforming Theology…155.
[23] Raymond
E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Bangalore: Theological
Publications in India, 2011), 608. Hereafter cited as The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
[24] George
M. Soares-Prabhu, S.J, Theology of
Liberation: An Indian Biblical Perspective (Pune: Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth,
2001), 177. Hereafter cited as George M. Soares-Prabhu, S.J, Theology of Liberation.
[26] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary…648.
[27] George
M. Soares-Prabhu, “The Liberative Pedagogy of Jesus, Lessons for an Indian
Theology of Liberation” in Felix Wilfred, ed., Leave the Temple, Indian Paths to Human Liberation (Tiruchirappalli:
Carmel Publications, 1996), 102.
[28] Revd.
Chuau\huama, Kalvari Tlang I Thlir Ang, 2nd
Edition (Aizawl: Author, 2011), 19.
[31] I.H. Marshall, et. al. eds., New Bible Dictionary…245.
[32] Michael
Amaladoss, S.J., Life in Freedom,
Liberation Theologies from Asia (New York: Orbis Books, 1977), 29.
[33]
I.H. Marshall, et. al. eds., New Bible Dictionary…370.
[35] K. Thanzauva, Transforming Theology…155.
[37]
I.H. Marshall, et. al. eds., New Bible Dictionary…370.
[38] T.E.
Schmidt, “Taxes”, in Dictionary of Jesus
and the Gospels (England: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 805.
[41] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary…648.
[42] C.S.A.
Kerketta, Adivasi Theology…110 &
111.
Comments