The Indian edition states: St Pauls is an activity of the members of the Society of St Paul who proclaim the Gospel through the media of Social communication.

The Australian edition states: St Pauls is an activity of the priests and brothers of the Society of St Paul who place at the centre of their lives the mission of evangelisation through modern means.

It is otherwise identical to the First Revised Edition 2011 sold in India.

It would be difficult for the writer to do a page by page comparison of the Revised Edition with the 2008 edition, but we will try to make a fairly detailed record of the “revisions” that were made.

Bishop Agnelo Gracias‘ rebuttal — see NCB report number 22 — of most of the objections raised by us in our critique did not hold out much hope that there would be any real “revision”, but we find that while many errors persist, there have been around 50 revisions in the 2011 First Revised Edition, thus vindicating our campaign against the Hinduised, syncretized, heretical bible.

The titles and links of our 23 reports preceding the present one are at the end of this document.

For the record, despite Bishop Agnelo Gracias‘ dismissal of our critique and his scholarly defense of the NCB from a liberal standpoint, it was pulled from the bookshops. And heavily revised!!!!!

So what’s different in the First Revised Edition 2011 vis-à-vis the 2008 edition?

2008 EDITION

1. The front cover says “The New Community Bible – Catholic Edition”.

2. The Nihil Obstat was given by Most Rev. Thomas Dabre, Bishop of Vasai, and Chairman, Doctrinal Commission, CBCI.

3. The Imprimatur was from Most Rev. Percival Fernandez, Auxiliary Bishop of Bombay, Former Secretary-General, CBCI.

4. The Imprimi Potest was given by Father Varghese Gnalian SSP, Provincial Superior, Society of Saint Paul.

FIRST REVISED EDITION 2011

1. The front cover says “The New Community Bible – Catholic Edition” (REVISED).
2. There is no Nihil Obstat.
3. There are five bishops who have given the Imprimatur and they are, in the following order:

Most Rev. Albert D’Souza – Secretary General C.B.C.I.
Most Rev. Joseph Kallarangatt – Chairman, Commission for Doctrine
Most Rev. George Punnakottil – Bishop of Kothamangalam
Most Rev. Abraham Mar Julios – Bishop of Muvattupuzha
Most Rev. Thomas Dabre – Bishop of Poona, Former Chairman, Doctrinal Commission of the CBCI
4. The
Imprimi Potest is given by Rev Fr. Varghese Gnalian SSP, Provincial Superior, Society of Saint Paul.

I have come across soft cover copies of the 2011 First Revised Edition with brown and with white imitation leather finish that look different from the 2008 hard bound edition mainly because the colour scheme of the art work on the cover has been modified.

With its reputation tarnished, the colour combination of the art work of the 2008 edition (and the first lot of the 2011 edition) which was on both front and rear outer covers has been subtly changed so that a potential buyer who is familiar with the 2008 NCB will not associate the 2011 edition that he is looking at, with the former. This was suggested to me by a Catholic stockist who had taken all the copies of the 2008 NCB off of his bookshelves. He is now selling the 2011 Revised Edition believing that it has been thoroughly revised as assured to him by St Pauls. St Pauls’ ruse, if indeed it was one, has worked!

The 2008 NCB on page viii states that it has “twenty-four delicate yet powerful line drawings”.

The 2011 First Revised Edition on page viii states that it has “twenty-two“.

Two illustrations have been removed. But Bishop Agnelo had defended them both in his “rebuttal” of my critique, in Section IIC, The Illustrations in the NCB, of his rebuttal.

One illustration which has been removed from the 2011 Revised Edition of the NCB was on page 2263, that of a bindi-wearing woman performing the arati with a coconut and a flame on a (thali) plate. One of the four persons who the Bishop had consulted for an opinion, a lady, had opined that “the woman with the bindi … had a Hindu connotation“. But two other line drawings of women with bindis, those on page 1557 and page 1645 – which is Mary, the mother of Jesus — have been retained.

The other one that was excised was a very contentious one that was on page 92 and was in conjunction with the one on page 93… AND A BOX ON PAGE 94.

The Bishop fails to mention in his “rebuttal” that page 94 was to be removed, most certainly on his instruction; it is missing from the 2011 Revised Edition.

Page 94 was an important — from their perspective — inclusion, being a preemptive justification of the line drawings on pages 92 and 93, that of describing the temple, the mosque and the gurdwara as “sacred” or “holy ground” as in the case of Moses in the presence of the Living God Yahweh in Exodus 3:5. Page 94 carried two excerpts from Vatican II Documents including Nostra Aetate #2 as well as one from Ecclesia in Asia. With the offensive illustration on page 92 pulled, there was no reason to still have the box on page 94!

Despite all the justification given by the Bishop, see our report 22, the illustrations of the larger temple and mosque with the diminutive church in the foreground which collectively the NCB regarded as “holy ground”, as well as of the woman with the bindi, have been removed from the First Revised Edition 2011.

In his rebuttal, in Section I, RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL REMARKS OF MR. MICHAEL PRABHU, Bishop Agnelo rejects all our concerns regarding the absence of a committed focus by the Indian church on evangelization (he maintains that it is “being carried out silently without much publicity“), and the omission of discussion of burning moral issues such as abortion in the commentaries.

In this section, he includes his very weak explanation against my objection to the mention of “prana” and Yoga in the commentaries, saying, “I do not enter into the question of the compatibility of Yoga with the Christian faith, nor the question of whether homeopathy, acupuncture etc. are “New Age” therapies. These are complicated issues which would need much more study than has been done till now. I realize that a study of these topics would need to be done but it goes beyond the scope of the present Response and, perhaps, that could be a task undertaken by the CBCI Doctrinal Commission to study and give guidelines to the Church in India.”

Seven years have elapsed since my critique (and even more since I first began sending my reports to the CBCI) and the Bishop’s rebuttal, and I ask him and his fellow Bishops when, if at all ever, is the Indian Church going to bring out a white paper on yoga, the New Age, etc.?

In Section II B, Explanations of certain passages, he adds, “Commenting on Gen. 2:7, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, NCB says: “God infused into the human body an immortal soul, the atman (derived from the root and meaning ‘to breathe’), the principle of life (prana) which vivifies and pervades the human being. Every person’s life is a gift from God”… Mr. Prabhu objects to this interpretation on the grounds that prana is a pagan concept, an essential component of yoga, the same as chi, qi, or ki in Taoism-Buddhism-Chinese-Japanese. As I mentioned above, I have no desire to enter into a controversy over Yoga or New Age.”

Obviously he wouldn’t. New Age and Yoga are pandemic and institutionalized in the Indian Church, especially in the Archdiocese of Bombay where it is propagated by religious orders and powerful, rich priests.

In his rebuttal, in Section II A, Reference to Indian scriptures/practices, Bishop Agnelo broadly rejected all our objections concerning (see the first paragraph on page 1) “the introduction, in the commentaries, of Hindu scriptures on the pretext of contextualization for the Indian reader; the drawing of parallels between Biblical figures and Hindu mythological figures and deities; bringing in Surya Namaskar and the Gayatri Mantra for no valid reason; (and) the equation of yoga and prana (which are New Age) with Christian theological concepts.”

In his rebuttal, in Section II B, Explanations of certain passages, Bishop Agnelo commented, “To my mind, none of the objections of Mr. Prabhu on the NCB scriptural interpretations has any validity. It would be good, perhaps, if Mr. Prabhu were to enlighten himself a little more on the interpretation of Scripture.” These include what I mentioned in the first paragraph on page 1: “apparently heretical explanations about the Annunciation (“[It] is not to be read as a literal report of what happened, but as a dramatization of the inner experience of Mary’s call to be the mother of the Messiah.“), the parting of the Red Sea (“it is not a factual, historical account“), the Creation story of Genesis, the plagues narrative of Exodus, etc.” If the reader examines my reports on the NCB, s/he will find that conservative theologians have disputed these liberal theological arguments by citing passages from Church Documents.

In his rebuttal, in his Conclusion to Section A, Bishop Agnelo Gracias writes, “The root problem underlying Mr. Prabhu’s critique is that he regards
religious pluralism
as an “error” and hence he is against inculturation which he regards as a “Hindu-isation” of the Church. Religious pluralism is not an “error” – it is a reality in this world. (Emphasis mine) The error lies in relativism, regarding all religions as equally good, all paths to the divine.”

Religious pluralism is not an “error”? Technically, the Bishop is right (after all I am no theologian). Catholics indulging in it and promoting it is. I meant it as a danger to our Faith. I must guard my choice of words.

On Religious Pluralism, read these:

1. In 2001, Belgian India-based Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis signed a statement of doctrinal principles after the Vatican’s Doctrinal Congregation criticized ambiguities in his 1997 book ‘Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism‘.

2.
The Vatican Document ‘Dominus Iesus’
released on 5 September 2000 emphasized the “exclusive, universal and absolute value” of Jesus Christ, taking aim at the notion that “one religion is as good as another“. The text criticized the tendency to… elevate other religions as pathways to salvation and to downplay Scripture. “The Old and New Testaments are the only such writings inspired by the Holy Spirit,“ it said. “The Church’s missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism.“ Source: The New Leader, October 1-15, 2000

3.
“Religious Pluralism
is an essential feature of Hinduism,” in his book, Christian Openness to the World Religions…, 1988, Fr. Zacharias
Paranilam, page 131.

4.
“The pressure of a
multi-faith
society, and the need to recognize pluralism
in religious education in schools means that some Christians seem to have accepted meekly that any and all religious approaches are equally valid” wrote Ajith Fernando in Jesus and the World Religions, Is Christianity Just another Religion? 1987, page 9.

5. “The kind of experiment Vandana Mataji [an RSCJ nun] has been undertaking needs to be recognized as opening a new chapter in religious pluralism,“
according to Fr. T. K. John SJ in Find Your Roots and Take Wing, Asian Trading, 1991, page xiii.

“We are at the close of the era of ‘religions‘… Now we stand at the threshold of an era of ‘spirituality‘,“
says the nun on page 108. That is New Age!

10. Cardinal Ivan Dias speaks of “today’s context of religious pluralism, indifferentism and relativism, which is prevalent even in some theological circles…” The Examiner, January 22, 2005

15.
“It must be noted that relativist explanations of religious pluralism, which state that the Christian faith is of no different value than any other belief, in fact empty Christianity of its defining Christological heart: faith alienated from our Lord Jesus, as the only Savior, is no longer Christian, no longer theological faith,” he said. “An even greater misrepresentation of our faith occurs when relativism leads to syncretism: an artificial ‘spiritual construct’ that manipulates and consequently distorts the essential, objective, revelatory nature of Christianity,” John Paul II added.

According to Fr. Mulloor, “Bible reading must finally lead to the formation of authentic Christian and inter-religious communities. The New Community Bible is a valuable instrument for promoting this Biblical culture by facilitating the formation of authentic Christian communities and advancing the growth of inter-cultural and inter-religious harmony and communion.”

At all of these interreligious meetings, the religious texts of all faiths are given equal status by the Catholic Church in India. The reading from their scriptures is supplemented by readings from ours. That is all. Meanwhile, having adopted and adapted all that we could from the philosophies, symbols and rituals of the majority religion, Hindus, (in some cases their scriptures have replaced the Readings at Holy Mass), our clergy are bending over backwards to convince them that we are one of them and that they need not fear us as we do not intend to evangelize (we truly don’t!); after all, we accept their religions and their scriptures on par with our Christian faith and our Bible.

The statement “The New Community Bible is a valuable instrument for promoting this Biblical culture by facilitating the formation of authentic Christian communities and advancing the growth of inter-cultural and inter-religious harmony and communion” is cleverly worded and can be defended by these theologians, but knowledgeable Catholics can see that it is a smokescreen for the emergence of an autonomous Hinduised church. Dozens of reports at the web site of this ministry will attest to my statement.

4. LEXICON

This is a new inclusion in the Revised Edition, pages 2261 to 2278.

5. MAPS

There are 6 pages with illustrations and maps in the 2008 NCB but there are 4 in the Revised Edition 2011.

6. THE COMMENTARIES

We will now examine the revisions made by comparing the two editions. The excised portions will be in red colour, retained portions in purple, and new inclusions in blue. My statements are as always in green colour.

1. and 2. Genesis 1/2 – The Priestly Account of Creation, page 8 (in the 2008 edition)

1. Even in the Upanishad, e.g. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.2.1; 1.4 ff., Aitareya Upanishad 1.1 ff., Tattiya Upanishad 2.7, some creation accounts open with the word agre, (that is, at the beginning).

It is replaced by “Even in
other religious traditions (for example in the Rig Veda)“.

2. …as in some Indian Scriptures is replaced by “as in some other religious scriptures“.

The upper case S which we had objected to is substituted by a lower case s.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had defended the inclusion stating, “This is a very apt reference to Hindu scriptures. In any Scripture commentary, the Biblical creation account is compared to the Babylonian and other myths. It is fitting that in a commentary meant for India, we ask whether there are any creation accounts in India. Very appropriately, the NCB commentary has drawn out the difference between the Biblical account of creation and its Hindu counterparts.” Yet, they were excised in the revision.

The Babylonian myths pertain to extinct religions that thrived in the region where Judaism later developed; referring to them is proper historical exegesis. The Hindu myths are of India’s majority religion. By constantly drawing Biblical parallels with them, aren’t we saying to them that we are not unique and no different, “Your religion is as good as mine”? I can argue at length on this.

The duplicity of our theologians is evident here. There is no such entity as “Indian Scriptures”. What they are citing are HINDU scriptures. Similarly, I maintain that their so-called “Indianisation” is really “Hinduisation”.

On the same page, there is a quote from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The revisers have removed all the major offending references that we had objected to but retained “minor” ones, e.g. pages 20, 1900, etc.

3. and 4. Genesis 1/2 – The Priestly Account of Creation, page 11 (in the 2008 edition)

1. The Bible does not hold with the Hindu thinking that the creation/creature is identical with or an emanation from the creator bimbapratibimba or atman is brahman.

2. Then: But the Bible holds that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen. 1:26).

Now: Despite certain similarities, Christian anthropology is different from others.

5 and 6. Genesis 1/2 – The Priestly Account of Creation, page 12 (in the 2008 edition)

1. On God’s day of rest, One may perhaps compare it to the Indian samadhi which is the eighth and last stage of Yoga and denotes a state of peace, tranquility, equanimity, self-absorption, concentration, contemplation and emancipation. It can also mean completion, accomplishment and fulfilment.

Once again, there is no such thing as “Indian samadhi”. What they are describing is HINDU samadhi.

The crooked commentator Fr. Rui de Menezes contrived a yoga explanation for God’s day of “rest”!

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had written, “The idea of rest as denoting a celebrative joy expressing a sense of fulfillment is a beautiful one. The comparison to the Indian Samadhi is in order, though few may understand it. (I leave aside Mr. Prabhu’s strong reservations with regard to Yoga).”

But the reference to Yoga and its eight stage samadhi was removed during the revision.

2. A few paragraphs ahead these words are removed: As the mystic Kabir says, “He is the ultimate rest unbounded.”

7. Genesis 2 – The Yahwist Account of Creation, page 13 (in the 2008 edition)

The concept of Adamah seems to be similar to that of the Indian Bhumidevi (goddess earth)… It is the basis of life and is considered a divine being (bhumidevi, prithvidevi) and occupies a special place among the gods.

It is replaced by “The earth is indeed an object of awe and veneration and not of domination and exploitation (Ref. Gaudium et Spes, 34).”

I note that my accusation of the commentaries’ citing of numerous Hindu religious texts but very few of Church documents has had an impact on the revisers.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had written, “I feel this is not a very appropriate reference to Indian scriptures, and may be open to an understanding that the earth is divine. The emphasis of Genesis is the opposite: to make the Earth and everything in it (sun, moon, etc.) creatures. This was affirmed already in the NCB commentary on p.8 when it says that the earth is not an emanation of God. But the comment here weakens that and I suggest it be eliminated.” It was.

8. and 9. Genesis 2 – The Yahwist Account of Creation, page 14 (in the 2008 edition)

1. Every person lives because he is linked to God. Kabir defines God as “the breath of all breath”.

2. On Eden, three words deleted: This mythical garden

Most unfortunately, the Hindu concept of “The principle of life (prana) which vivifies and pervades the human being“, equating it with the “breath of life” breathed into man by God (Gen. 2:7), is retained in the Revised Edition.

Since no Hindu text is cited to support the contention and since the Bishops have retained it, it means that they believe in the existence of this occult energy that is the essence of yoga and other esoteric disciplines.

10. Genesis 28 – Jacob’s Dream of Bethel, page 52 (in the 2008 edition)

Two Sanskrit terms, svarthata, prasada

11. Genesis 32 – Jacob wrestles with God, page 59 (in the 2008 edition)

Non-biblical folklore speak of such divine-human combats. The Mahabharata epic recounts the fight of Arjuna with god Shiva who has assume the form of a despised Kirata (III: I 63).

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had written, “Not a very illuminating comparison, and though the NCB commentary points out that the fight between Arjuna and Shiva is “folklore” it may be misunderstood, I suggest omitting it. The theological significance of the encounter between Jacob and God is well explained in the NCB commentary and hence there is no need of referring to Arjuna and Krishna.” It was expunged.

12. Exodus 1 – The Hebrews oppressed, pages 88-89 (in the 2008 edition)

Mahatma Gandhi would term this satyagraha – soul-force or truth-force. The term satyagraha literally means “holding on to truth”. It consists in fighting for truth and justice through non-violent means. Truth and non-violence become the most powerful weapons in the hands of a satyagrahi, the one who clings to truth and uses it as a force to resist evil. “Satyam eva jayete” “Truth alone conquers” (Mandaka Upanishad 3.1.6).

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had defended the inclusion, stating, “This seems to be an apt reference to Hindu scripture. The words “Satyam eva jayete” are well known – they form part of India’s National Emblem. (Many may not know that the words are from a Hindu scripture!)” Yet they were excised.

13. Exodus 3 – The Divine Name, page 91 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: The Indian sages named God – Brahma, Atman, Saccidananda, etc.

Now: The various religion traditions have tried to name God in their own way, e.g. Brahman, Isvara, Bhagavan, Kadavul, Allah, etc.

14. and 15. Exodus 3 – pages 92, 93, 94 (in the 2008 edition); two illustrations and a box

1. and 2. Removed: One illustration on page 92, and a full page explanatory box on page 94 against the illustrations on pages 92, 93.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias had defended the inclusions, stating,

“To take the two illustrations objected to by Mr. Prabhu:

The first one is on pages 92-93 of NCB of Moses and the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:1-12): Mr. Prabhu states: “Though the steeple is in the foreground, one may just miss it at first glance, as we did. The mosque and the temple are more prominent, especially the temple which is fairly eye-catching“. This is reading too much in a picture. The fact that Mr. Prabhu almost missed the steeple is revealing – one sees what one is looking for!

Further, Mr. Prabhu objects to the commentary accompanying the picture:

94: In asking us to take off our sandals, Scripture is telling us that every place or manner in which God manifests himself is sacred and, therefore, every religion is deserving of our respect, even if we do not accept all of their cultural and social wrappings. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “Respect for other religions helps us to understand our own religion better”.

On p.4 of his Critique, Mr. Prabhu states that this commentary is a “lie, a deliberate misinterpretation of the Word of God” spoken in a specific context, manipulating it “to apply to the Ashtoreths and Baals of Moses’ time.”

Is that so? Or is it a legitimate application of what God told Moses? Is not every place where God manifests himself sacred? Is not every religion deserving of our respect?”

“Sacred” and “deserving of our respect” are two very different things. A Gita or a Koran are definitely deserving of our respect but not necessarily sacred — as in how Catholics hold the Bible — to non-believers.

Despite all the defensive arguments of the Bishop, the illustration — that of the larger temple and mosque with the diminutive church in the foreground which collectively the commentators regarded as “holy ground”, — has been removed and is not included in the First Revised Edition 2011.

Page 94 is a defensive justification of the line drawing on pages 92, that of describing the temple, the mosque and the gurdwara as “sacred” or “holy ground” as of Moses, on page 93, in the presence of the Living God Yahweh in Exodus 3:5. Page 94 carried two excerpts from Vatican II Documents including Nostra Aetate #2 as well as one from Ecclesia in Asia. With the offensive illustration on page 92 pulled, there was no reason to still have the box on page 94. It, too, has gone.

16. Exodus 5 – Moses confronts Pharaoh, page 97 (in the 2008 edition)

The liberation-leader must himself undergo an inner liberation, and learn the art of complete surrender to God, to Truth. As Gandhiji says, “One has to appear before Him (God) in all one’s weakness, empty-handed and in a spirit of full surrender, and then He enables you to stand before the whole world and protects you from all harm.”

One of the most recurrent themes/words across the NCB commentaries is “liberation”. Please see my critique. The preaching and writing of today’s Indian theologian is all about liberation and social justice.

I do not expect Bishop Agnelo Gracias and his collaborators to appreciate my perspective.

In his rebuttal, he wrote, “Mr. Prabhu accuses the commentary of focusing too much on “liberation”.”

The Bishop uses an argument from the NCB commentary itself, pages 1861-1862, “For the Hindus, the human person is essentially a soul imprisoned in the body. The body is a sort of container for the soul, not essentially linked to it. Salvation consists in liberation from the body through a series of rebirths in which different bodies are assumed and discarded. In biblical thinking the human person is an animated body. Body and soul form an invisible whole. …Salvation does not consist in the liberation of the soul from the body, but in the liberation of the whole human person.”

The focus today is so much on a “gospel” of “liberation” purely through social action that evangelization is precluded. Jesus Christ is more a reformer than a Saviour and Redeemer.

In the NCB, even an exorcism narrative, page 1745, is converted into a platform to preach social justice and deftly avoid any mention of the Devil and his works.

One more thing; about 50% of the commentary content of pages 1861-1862, the very pages cited by the Bishop to defend his stand, has been excised from the Revised Edition!

17. Exodus 5 – Moses confronts Pharaoh, page 98 (in the 2008 edition)

Martin Luther King himself confessed that he was shocked and saddened by the indifference of the Blacks.

18. Exodus 7 – First Plague: Water turns into Blood, page 101 (in the 2008 edition)

Perhaps, one may compare the narrative with the Mahabharata epic: the Kauravas under the leadership of Duryodhana symbolize the forces of evil and the stubbornness of the evil-doer, leading to total defeat.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “As a comparison, it is OK, though it seems a bit far-fetched. I suggest omitting it.”

It now reads as: The struggle between the forces of evil and the powers of good is found in all religious traditions. Such struggles have a symbolic meaning. They all depict that the powers of good will ultimately prevail over the forces of evil and the wiles of the Devil.

Yes, the devil, Satan. He was particularly missing from the NCB commentaries whereas he is mentioned dozens of times in the Bible. The same with “hell” which appears 23 times in the New Testament alone.

19. Exodus 14 – Crossing the Sea of Reeds, pages 112-113 (in the 2008 edition)

The Parting of Waters: Motion pictures have used this narrative for box-office effect. This narrative, however, is not a factual, historical account. … The great Indian thinker Shankara in his Atmabodha (v.50) speaks of this crossing of the ocean of delusion (teertva moharnavam). The Sanskrit word for the incarnation of the gods, ava-tara, comes from the same root and denotes the crossing of the incarnated god down into our world for the purpose of salvation. Mukti or moksha which is the final emancipation or liberation is a state of supreme bliss and freedom from bondage. It is the highest goal of human life. … We have to leave behind our alienated lives, our fettered existence, and move over to a life of true awareness.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “I think this is an apt allusion to explain in the Indian context the idea of “crossing”. The words from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: “Lead me from the unreal….” were quoted by Pope Paul VI during his 1964 visit to Bombay on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress. The reference to ‘ava-tara’ may confuse people and does not add anything to the previous references and I suggest it be omitted.” And so about 30% of that Sea of Reeds commentary was dropped. This again was one of the objections that I had raised in my critique.

20. Exodus 16 – The Manna and the Quails, page 117 (in the 2008 edition)

The Taittiriya Upanishad (III.1) understands food as “a symbol of Brahman”.

21. and 22. Exodus 20 – The Ten Commandments, pages 121-122 (in the 2008 edition)

1. The Indian Scriptures speak of ten basic precepts (sila): ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truth), brahmacharya (chastity), asteya (non-stealing/honesty), aparigraha (voluntary destitution, poverty), saucham (purity), samthosha (contentment, tapas (austerity), swadhaya (study of the sacred texts), and Ishwarapranidhana (devotion to God) (cf. Yoga Sutra II, 30.32).

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “The NCB’s commentary gives us this comparison by way of information. Though comparison may not help to enlighten very much the personal nature of the biblical 10 commandments, no open minded person could find fault with the comparison to the 10 basic precepts of Hinduism.”

The reviewers were so open-minded that the entire passage was eliminated from the Revised Edition!

As I said earlier, there is nothing such as “Indian Scriptures”. They are HINDU scriptures but the theologians and their Bishops obstinately refuse to recognize them as such. For what reason? By the same logic, the theologians’ and Bishops’ so-called “Indianisation” is really “Hinduisation”.

2. According to the Indian texts, the Ultimate Reality or Brahman is arupa, agrahya, adrsya, acintya, that is beyond all senses and imagination.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “Good – a good meeting point between classical Hinduism and Biblical thought.” Good, a good meeting point, but the sentence was lopped off.

23. Deuteronomy 1 – The First Discourse of Moses, page 260 (in the 2008 edition)

By contrast, ancient Indian law books (the Manusmriti, for instance) validate law by relating it to the inherent order or dharma of the universe.

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “The recital of historical events stresses the experiential dimension (anubhava) of the call of Israel. By contrast, ancient Indian law books (the Manusmriti, for instance) validate law by relating it to the inherent order or dharma of the universe“. “Quite in order – in fact, the emphasis is on contrast between the Bible and the Manusmriti.” ‘Quite in order’ for the Bishop, yet the sentence was expunged.

24. Deuteronomy 10 – Love and Service of God, page 275 (in the 2008 edition)

The Bhagvata Purana (7.5.23) summarizes the religion of love in the following ten “limbs”: darshan (seeing), shravanam (listening), smaranam (remembering), kirtanam (praising), vandanam (prostration), padasevanam (worship), arcanam (cult), atmanivedanam (self-dedication), dasyam (slave service), and sakhyam (friendship).

In his rebuttal, the Bishop wrote, “The comparison to the Bhagvata Purana does not throw any light on Deuteronomy’s command of love and service. Seems out of place and I suggest it be dropped.” It was.

25. Joshua 1 – The Lord Commands Joshua, page 317 (in the 2008 edition)

Similarly in the Gita although the deity is shown to control all things, yet Krishna orders Arjuna to fight the battle of righteousness – yudhyasva bharata (Bhagavad Gita 2:18).

In his rebuttal of my critique, Bishop Agnelo Gracias wrote, “The reflection on blending the spiritual with the social dimension of life is a good one – but the reference to Krishna’s advice to Arjuna hardly seems to be in place. It gives the impression of being a bit far-fetched and could be dropped.” It was.

26. Joshua 10 – The Sun Stood Still, page 329 (in the 2008 edition)

Here, the modernist commentary has been carefully re-worded in the Revised Edition which indicates that someone was unhappy with the original arrangement. It is pointless for me to reproduce them here.

27. 1 Samuel 2 – Hannah’s Magnificat, page 397-398 (in the 2008 edition)

But God,
who is daridranarayan,
the Lord of the poor,
and dainyapriyatvat, the lover of the lowly
– to borrow the vocabulary of Hindu Bhakti literature (Narada Bhakti Sutras, 27) – will never tolerate such a situation.

In the opinion of Bishop Agnelo Gracias, “An apt reference to the Lord of the poor, the lover of the lowly.”

Why then was the Hindu portions (red colour above) of the “apt reference” dropped in the revision?

28. 1 Samuel 18 – David and Jonathan, page 421 (in the 2008 edition)

It reminds us of the most famous friendship in Indian literature – that between Ram and Lakshman.

“Indian literature” indeed! Ram and Lakshman are characters from HINDU literature. Is the bishop not aware of the Ram mandir (temple) controversy, the Ram Lila festival, that Hindus greet each other with “Ram, Ram” and that Gandhi died to an assassin’s bullet invoking his deity with “He Ram”?

In his rebuttal, Bishop Agnelo Gracias was confident that the sentence was “A good comparison which even children will be familiar with since it forms part of what they learn in school.” But the defended sentence was excised from the Revised Edition.

29. 2 Samuel 12 – Nathan condemns David, page 456 (in the 2008 edition)

As the Narada Bhakti Sutra says, one of the characteristics of true devotion is deep sorrow over one’s forgetfulness of the Lord.

Bishop Agnelo Gracias wanted to know, “Could any sensible person find fault with this reference to the Narada Bhakti Sutra?” Someone most certainly did, because the reference has gone missing in the revision.

30. 2 Samuel 16 – Shimei curses David, page 462 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: The way David bears with these curses astonishes us. We may find in him (David) the traits of samatva, i.e., being even-tempered in pleasure or suffering, in success or failure before friend or foe (Gita, chapters 2 and 12).

Bishop Agnelo Gracias opines, “This is a passing reference to the Bhagavad Gita – in fact, it is really a reference to the word ‘samatva’. Hardly anyone could find fault with this!” Well someone did. It now reads:

Now: David did not react to the curses of Shimei. He put his trust totally in Yahweh, and refused to defend himself or take revenge (vv. 10-12).

31. Tobit – The Good Example of Tobit, page 693 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: Tobit walked in dharma and practiced samabhavana (relating well to all), even if at times with righteous anger (dharmarosha) (cf. Tobit 2: 11-14). The word dharma has a rich variety of meanings such as righteousness, virtue, integrity, justice, equity, piety, morality and ethics. It comes from the root dhr which means “to uphold, support, nourish”. It is dharma that upholds and supports the whole universe. Dharma vishvasya jagata pratishtah (Dharma is the foundation of the whole world).

Now: Tobit walked in righteousness (dharma) and was friendly with everyone. (But righteousness is NOT dharma!)

32. 1 Maccabees 3 – In Praise of Judas Maccabeus, pages 755-756 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: One may qualify their warfare as darmayuddha (a battle to establish righteousness). The Maccabean resistance and warfare has a parallel in the great war of the Mahabharata Epic. Krishna, the incarnate god, who motivated a dejected and despondent Arjuna to fight a just war describes his (Krishna’s) mission as the establishment of righteousness (dharma samsthapanartham) by protecting the good and by destroying the wicked (cf. Bhagavad Gita IV, 7).

Now: One may qualify their warfare as a battle to establish righteousness.

Bishop Agnelo Gracias recommended, “The war may be described as ‘darmayuddha’ but the comparison to Arjuna and Krishna does not seem to be at all an apt comparison. I would suggest it be dropped.”

33. Job 42 – Epilogue, pages 868-869 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: But somebody came into the editorial process, and spilt the whole poetic drama as it had unravelled up to now. Like in modern TV soap operas and box-office films from Bollywood, “God” re-enters in the form of a “deus ex machina” who, with a word and a magic wand, restores everything…

Now: In the prose epilogue, God re-enters and restores everything…

34. Psalm 5 – Prayer at Daybreak, pages 876-877 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: Early morning is considered a favourable time to meet God in various religious traditions: Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. In Hinduism, the dawn is personified as a deity by the name Ushas. The traditional morning prayer of a Hindu consists in the reciting of the famous Gayatri-mantra (Rig Veda 3.62.10) at daybreak facing the rising Sun, Om bhur bhuvgah svah/…
Bhargo devasya dhimani / Dhiyo yo nah pracodayat. (May we meditate on the most excellent lustre of the sun-god that he may illumine our intellect). During the day we have to find the straight path of the Lord amidst the crookedness and temptation of life (v.9)

Now: In various religious traditions, early morning is considered a favourable time to meet God.

Bishop Agnelo Gracias had defended the commentator’s bringing the Gayatri Mantra into the NCB: “The NCB commentary refers to the morning prayer of thousands, perhaps millions, of Hindus; but contrary to what Mr. Prabhu claims, it does not in any way oblige us to read the Gayatri Mantra. One is made aware of the traditional prayer of the Hindu if one chooses to read the NCB commentary.

It is unfortunate that the commentary has capitalized the word ‘sun’, though it did not do so when it referred to the ‘sun god’. The capital in ‘Sun’, apparently a typing error, should be dropped.” And it was.

35. Isaiah 50 – The Obedience of the Servant, page 1301 (in the 2008 edition)

Retained in the Revised Edition 2011: Listening is shravana which comes from the Sanskrit root shru which means “to hear, listen”. It is the attentive and devout hearing of the Word in the Scriptures as well as that of the words of a teacher (guru). The liberative knowledge of the spirit (atman) is to be attained through “seeing, listening, reflecting and meditating” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.5.6).

Bishop Agnelo Gracias’ argument: “I think this is a good example of explaining something in Indian categories and terms.” So it was retained.

New inclusion: In the Christian tradition, we have the Lectio Divina method of reading the Scriptures with contemplative listening. It comprises four steps in sacred reading: lectio (a slow thoughtful reading); oratio (quiet prayer inspired by it); meditatio (application to concrete life); dilectio (a blissful silent resting in the word).

In vv. 4 and 5, the servant of the Lord speaks of the Lord opening the servant’s ear to listen to Him. These verses emphasize the Lord’s initiative and the disciple’s submissive listening.

36. Daniel 2 – Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream, pages 1508-1509 (in the 2008 edition)

Excised portions: Isabhakti paramjnanam: the love of God is the highest wisdom… brahmavidya sarva-vidyapratishthah

Bishop Agnelo Gracias’ argument: “An apt allusion to Indian scripture – fits in well with the comment on the dream.” But the Sanskrit terms were removed. And, for God’s sake, Bishop Agnelo Gracias, the Upanishads are not INDIAN scriptures, they are HINDU scriptures!

37. Daniel 6 – Daniel in the Lion’s Den, page 1520-1521 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: Gandhiji spoke of Daniel as the ultimate satyagrahi.

Now: Referring to the story of Daniel, Gandhiji said, “When Daniel disregarded the laws of Medes and Persians which offended his conscience and meekly suffered the punishment for his disobedience, he offered satyagraha in its purest form… (Young India, 5 November 1919).

38, 39, 40. Matthew 1 – The Birth of Jesus, page 1642-1643 (in the 2008 edition)

1. Deleted portion: The reading of the genealogy will have warned us not to take this and the following stories of Matthew’s infancy narrative as historical reports about what really happened at Jesus’ birth.

They are popular stories about the infancy of Jesus, current in early Christian circles, which may have been based on historical events but which have been greatly touched by the storytellers’ imagination. …

Now reads as: (Matthew’s narrative) is based on popular accounts about the infancy of Jesus, current in early Christian circles, which have a historical core around which the narrative has been constructed.

2. Deleted portion: Matthew’s story of the birth of Jesus does not read at all like a report.

Now reads as: Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus does not give us all the details.

3. Deleted portion: They introduce to us a typically Christian way of reading the OT, for the OT passages quoted did not in their original meaning necessarily refer to Jesus nor have the meaning which Matthew gives them.

Now reads as: They introduce to us a typically Christian way of reading the OT which the OT writers themselves naturally could not have envisaged.

In the 2008 edition, the commentator has given a liberal and modernist twist to the correct interpretation.

The writer of this commentary is Fr. George Soares Prabhu SJ who also wrote the commentary to the Gospel of St. Luke which has an even more serious problem than what we just encountered as we shall see shortly.

When that comes up, I will use an orthodox Catholic theologian’s rebuttal of these distorted interpretations.

See page 13 of this report.

The fact that the above cited portions of Fr. Prabhu’s commentary had to be written is evidence of the deplorable state of Indian theology and our seminaries.

It is important to note that Fr. George Soares Prabhu SJ did not make the changes for the Revised Edition. He died prior to the release of the NCB in 2008. The re-writing was done by someone else.

The most references to Hindu religious texts in the commentaries are in those on the first two books of the Bible (Genesis and Exodus) and in that of the Gospel according to St Matthew.

Matthew 2 – The Return from Egypt, page 1647 (in the 2008 edition)

In Matthew, Fr. Prabhu commented that “(Jesus’) miracles are eruptions of charismatic power, not the result of yogic techniques. All that he said and did fits in well with the picture not of a yogi but of a Jewish Galilean teacher in pre-seventy Palestine.” Sadly, these lines are retained in the Revised Edition 2011. It is anybody’s guess as to why the Jesuit priest would, in a Bible commentary, even think of comparing or contrasting Jesus with a yogi and His Divine miracles with the occult phenomena that sometimes accompany the use of yogic techniques.

41. Matthew 5 – The Sermon on the Mount, page 1651 (in the 2008 edition)

(Mahatma Gandhi’s disciple) Vinoba Bhave, presented it as “the essence of Christianity”.

Matthew 5 – The Beatitudes, page 1652 (in the 2008 edition)

Retained: Such happiness is not to be confused with ‘contentment’. For where contentment is often the outcome of mere sense gratification (pleasure) and material achievement, the happiness promised by the beatitudes is the joy and satisfaction that come from true human fulfillment. As the Upanishads say: the good is not to be identified with the pleasant (Kathopanishad 2:1).

Bishop Agnelo Gracias said, “A good reference to the Upanishad!“

42. Matthew 6 – The Lord’s Prayer, page 1660 (in the 2008 edition)

Then: …as the Hindu Scriptures say.

Now: …as the Hindu scriptures say. The upper case S is reduce to a lower case s as called for in our critique.

43. Matthew 13 – The Parables, page 1681 (in the 2008 edition)

…like the stories frequently used by religious teachers like Sri Ramakrishna.

44. Matthew 25 – The Last Judgement, pages 1718, 1719, 1720 (in the 2008 edition)

Some scholars have identified these ‘least of my brothers and sisters’ with members of the Christian community… ..Such interpretation would turn Jesus into a narrow sectarian preacher. ….This would be far inferior to the generous ‘mission command’ of the Buddha who sends his disciples ‘for the profit of many, for the happiness of many, out of compassion of the world, for the good and profit and happiness of gods and men’ (Samyutta Nikaya 1:105); or to the marvelous ideal of the Bhagvad Gita, in which the person who has attained enlightenment is one who has ‘a passionate desire for the welfare of all beings (sarva bhuta hite ratah) (BG 5:25) or for ‘the integral well- being of the people’ (lokasamgraham) (BG 3:20)

From Bishop Agnelo Gracias’ rebuttal, “To my mind, a good comparison bringing out the true significance of Jesus’ teaching.” Despite that, the sentences have been removed.

45, 46, 47. Luke 1 – Announcement of the Birth of Jesus, pages 1796, 1797, 1798 (in the 2008 edition)

Bishop Agnelo Gracias, in his apparently first-time detailed examination of the NCB commentaries and lengthy rebuttal of my critique, (he flippantly described my critique as “long, 9-page, closely-typed”), appears not to have noticed a MAJOR problem with the commentary by Fr. George Soares Prabhu on the Annunciation narrative. He did not say a single word about it in his rebuttal.

It is not one of the issues included in my critique. Had it been, my critique would have been even longer!

The Annunciation controversy was communicated by me to the Bishops only in February and March 2009, by email and through my NCB reports nos. 3 and 5, seven months following my July 2008 critique, after a French theologian brought them to my notice. (I was not looking for and never in the least expected a heretical twist to the traditional understanding of a historical event like the Annunciation.)

I have now come across a few more problems in the (revised) NCB that will necessitate further reports.

On the previous page, I had said that I would use an orthodox Catholic theologian’s rebuttal of the distorted interpretations such as the one on the infancy narrative of Matthew 1, the parting of the waters in Exodus 14, etc. where certain Biblical events are regarded by some Indian theologians as “not historical”, as “not factual” or as not having really occurred in history. While taking pains to state that certain Biblical accounts were mythical (some of them were excised or modified during the revision), these same commentators include completely mythical accounts from Hindu religious texts as if they had occurred in historical time.

The commentary on the Annunciation required a major makeover by the revisers as we will now see.

1. Then: The use of these patterns shows that the story of the annunciation (Note the lower case a for a major Biblical event and Church feast) is not to be read as a literal report of what happened, but as a dramatization of the inner experience of Mary’s call to be the mother of the Messiah. The story interprets this experience as a call to a special mission in salvation history.

Now: Behind this account is Mary’s experience of a divine call to a special mission in salvation history.

2. Then: Rather, Mary’s question is part of the literary device of commissioning stories where the person being commissioned raises an objection to which the messenger responds by giving a sign (cf. Exodus 3: 11-12; 4: 10-12; Jeremiah 1:6). Luke is not reporting factual details but is communicating a religious experience and message through existing Biblical patterns.

Now: Rather, Mary’s question is part of the literary device of call narratives where the person being called raises an objection to which the messenger responds by giving a sign (cf. Exodus 3: 11-12; 4: 10-12; Jeremiah 1:6).

Luke is keen on communicating a religious experience and message through existing Biblical patterns.

3. Then: Just this much. Catholic tradition has always affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary even after the birth of Jesus, but it is impossible to trace this to any particular text in Scripture.

Now: At the outset of the Gospel Jesus is introduced in his identity as Son of David, fulfillment of the Messianic promises, and Son of God in unique relationship with the Father. Catholics have always believed in the continued virginity of Mary, even after the birth of Jesus.



I am reproducing here a portion of the French summa cum laude theologian’s analysis of the above problem in Luke 1 and that of Matthew 1 on page 12 above. He also deals with another problematic commentary, that on Isaiah 7:14, NCB page 1239, which is point no. 15 of my critique (colour emphases mine):

Some remarks about the errors in the New Community Bible narration of Jesus’ Infancy in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew

I read attentively the commentaries of St Matthew 1: 18-25, pp. 1642-1643 of the New Community Bible, and also the commentary of St Luke 1: 26 – 2: 52, pp. 1795-1797; both commentaries are written by the Jesuit Fr. George Soares Prabhu. They are absolutely unacceptable from the Catholic point of view.

They sound very much like neo-liberalist Protestant interpretation, making a distinction and even sometimes an opposition between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history about whom they claim we don’t know much. From their view, the four Gospels are describing the Jesus of faith, which doesn’t help much in order to understand the historical Jesus.

But, for us Catholics, there is no difference between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of Faith. He is the same and one Person, the Word of God incarnated.

For example, the NCB on Matthew’s Gospel, p. 1642 says:

“The reading of the genealogy will have warned us not to take this and the following stories of Matthew’s infancy narrative as
historical reports about what really happened at Jesus’ birth. They are popular stories about the infancy of Jesus, current in early Christian circles, which
may have been based on historical events but which have been greatly touched up by the storytellers’ imagination. They are told in a style common among the Jews of the time in which historical fact is so embellished with creative interpretation, that it is no longer possible to separate the two… for the purpose of these stories is not to satisfy our curiosity by giving us information about the infancy of Jesus, but to nourish our faith by telling us who Jesus is. The stories of the infancy are not biographical but theological in purpose and content, and must be read as such.”

So, the commentator insists again, “because the purpose of the infancy narrative is theological and not historical,
the reader must not ask historical questions (Where did the magi come from? What did Mary feel when the Angel spoke to her?) but [only] theological ones (What does the story of Jesus tell us about who Jesus is?)…“ p. 1642

It is clear that according to the notes of NCB (p. 1642), “Matthew’s story of the birth of Jesus
does not read at all like a report.”

Regarding the dreams of St Joseph, the commentator (p. 1643) does not believe in the historical authenticity of these dreams, when he says:

“The whole narrative is a skillfully constructed piece of theological writing through which Matthew wishes to communicate two truths: …”

The commentator of the NCB considers the narratives of the Gospel of Matthew and those of the Gospel of Luke as non- historical reports, only stories cooked by the imagination of the early Christian circles. It is no longer historical fact as such but embellishment and creative interpretation.

According to him, the narratives of the Gospel are no longer authentic (historically speaking).

This doctrine has been condemned so many times by the teaching authorities of the Church.

– Let us quote Dei Verbum 19, Vatican Council II:

§ 19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on
what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus (vera et sincera).
For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1: 2-4).

– Cf. also the Instruction of the Biblical Commission “Sancta Mater Ecclesiae” (21st April, 1964) about the historical truth of the Gospels.

But let the Catholic exegete always be disposed to obey the magisterium of the Church, and not forget that the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, preached the good news, and that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from all error.