The Secretary,
International Society for
Krishna Consciousness,
3764 Watseka Avenue,
Los Angeles, California U.S. 90034.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am forwarding this letter regarding particular assumptions made by the late Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. These assumptions were published in ‘Science of Self-Realization,’ (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Los Angeles, s.a., pp. 129 – 33). These assumptions in part, are as follows:
“We have to accept all the injunctions of the scripture as they are given, not only those that suit us. If we do not follow the first order, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, then where is the question of the love of God?”
“There is killing, and there is murder. Murder refers to human beings. Do you think Jesus was not intelligent enough to use the right word – murder – instead of the word killing? Killing means any kind of killing, and especially animal killing. If Jesus had meant simply the killing of humans, he would have used the word murder…”.
Bhaktivedanta makes astonishingly desultory assumptions about Jesus’ ‘intelligence’ in the ‘use of right words’. And peculiar suppositions as to their ‘meanings’, based primarily, upon general abstract reasoning, absent of any· text-based evidence; from reliable Judaic-Christian sources. These assumptions are perplexing, ambiguous, and distort demarcations between the factual and fanciful; particularly to the unwary.
Bhaktivedanta’s assumptions, scil., his “first order”, quotation “Thou shalt not kill”,’Jesus’ use of”… the right word – murder – instead of… killing “, will be examined in context of English language translation from reliable Greek text.
Firstly, Bhaktivedanta erroneously prioritized; the Sixth word ‘ού ϕονεύσεις / You shall not commit murder’ (Exodos, xx: xiii) as “the first order” id est., the first Word. The first Word, ‘ούκ έσονταί σοι θεοί έτεροι πλήν έμού / You shall have no other gods before me’ (Exodos, xx: iii), forbids the worshipping of anyone or anything but Yahweh. This Word is concerned with monolatry. That is to say man’s relationship to the monotheistic Yahweh; quite apart from the sixth Word (Exodos, xx: xiii). That is appertaining to socio-moral requirements, particularly the sacredness of human life; this Word does not equate with “animal killing”.
Furthermore, he suggests that: “We have to accept all the injunctions of the scripture as they are given, not only those that suit us”. Whilst he himself contextually misappropriates the sixth Word and omits the first Word Exodos, xx: i – iii second xx: iv; third xx: vii; fourth xx: viii – xi; fifth xx: xii; seventh xx: xiv; eighth xx: xv; ninth xx: xvi; and tenth xx: xvii Words. Where indeed then, is integrity to Sacred Text, Yahweh’s Words? “… the acceptance of all the Injunctions of Scripture as given”?
Secondly, Bhaktivedanta quotes: “Thou shalt not kill” from the Δεκάλογος (Decalogue) in Elizabethan English which is unique to the so-called ‘Authorized Version’ (AV) [ formerly in Middle English; published in 1611]. Although the AV is a masterpiece of literary form, the most prestigious, of all the English translations, it does not have the advantages of modern textual scholarship of recent times. It was based upon the unreliable ‘Textus Receptus’ (T.R.) Greek Text (circa. 1550). In modern English versions of the Bible (NKJV, NASB, and NIV) “Thou shalt not kill”; now translates as “You shall not murder”. Evidently, Bhaktivedanta’s assumptions were not deduced from these modern versions.
In the ensuing years, textual scholars, through varia lectio, have established original text, e.g ., the AV has the word “νηστεια / fasting” interpolated into Mark ix: xxix, yet excluded from the superior Greek text, id est., S*, B, P 45 ; pre-dating the T.R. And the discoveries, from 1947 onwards, of sequens manuscripts; at Khirbet Qumrân: I, II Vasilion; (I, II Samuel) (4Q), pors., of Exodos (7Q 1); Levitikon (4 QLXX Lv a,b); and Arithmi (4 Q LXX Num); confirming that the LXX translation was based upon an earlier independent source than the surviving Textus Masoreticus (Mas.). Modern scholarly English language versions feature apparatus criticus at the foot of the page indicating varia lectio.
These versions cannot give a precise translation of early Hebrew or Greek text. The contextual circumstances in any particular language will only partially translate across to another. Bhaktivedanta himself acknowledges this principle in his commentary on the Sanskrit root verb ‘bhaj’. And the English word ‘worship’ in the Atmasanyamayōg, vi: xxxxvii in his translation of the Gîtâ (Bhagavad-Gîtâ As It Is, Los Angeles 1983). Translations are only a representation of original text and are by no means simplistic as Bhaktivedanta’s assumptions suppose; outside the Vedic religious text.
Thirdly, Bhaktivedanta’s asserts that: “Killing means any kind of killing, and especially animal killing,” and “If Jesus had meant simply the killing of humans, he would have used the word murder …”. This view is in default of support from both Exodos, xx: xv and Mathaon vi: xx1a, et alibi., e.g., Διδαχή (Didache) i: iia, and Ρώμη (Romans) xiii: ix. The Greek and Hebrew words: ‘ϕονεύσεις’ and ‘ךצת’ (‘râtsach’), in these text means either to kill or to murder a human being ( vide: Bauer.W, Griechisch-Deutsches örterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen estaments und der übrigen urchristlichen literatur , 4th ed. (Germany 1952), and Strong.J, The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible , (U.S. 984). Therefore “killing” i.e., ‘ϕονεύσεις’ and ‘ ךצת ‘ ; does not refer “…especially [to] animal killing ” [brackets mine]. cf. ‘ahimsâ’ (‘non-violence’, ‘non-hatred’, and ‘gentleness’) in the Gîtâ, Vibhuti, 10. 5 and Sraddhatrayavibhâgayôg16. 2.
Bhaktivedanta’s opinions are based upon provisions of ancient Hindu legal codes that recognize the sacredness of both human and non-human life, which diminishes the sacredness of human life. A survey of the Gospel material for every occurrence (and context) of Jesus’ use of the word ‘kill’ will furnish further evidence in refuting Bhaktivedanta’s assertions (vs.). The word ‘άποκτενο’ means, ‘kill,’ or ‘put to death’.
There are seventeen occurrences which are attributable to Jesus in the four Gospels. They are as follows: three occasions of “άποκτενοῦσιν”, and three occasions. “Άποκτείν” are pertinent to discourses in which Jesus foretells of those who seek to kill him: “τί με ζητεῖτε άποκτεῖναι; / why do you seek to kill me?” Mathaon, xvii: xxiii. Markos, ix: xxxib, x: xxxiv. Ioannes, vii: xix, viii: xxxvii, viii: xxxx. Three occasions of “άποκτείνωμεν”, and one occasion of “άποκτέννοντες” concerning the vine-dressers killing the heir (and servant): “άποκτείνωμεν αὐτὁν / let us kill him, Mathaon, xxi: xxxviii. Markos, xii: v, 1xii: vii, Lookas, xx: xiv. Two occasions of “άποκτεννοντων” and one of “ἀποκτεῖναι” concerning killing in relationship to the soul and body: “τών άποκτεννοντων τò σώμα / Those who kill the body” Mathaon, x: xxviiia, (cf. ibid.b), Lookas, xii: iv. Three occasions (“άποκτενεῖτε”, “άποκτενοῦσιν”, and “ἀποκτείνας”) concerning the killing of the prophets, wise men, scribes; and the Apostles: “έξ αύτών άποκτενεῖτε / some of them you will kill” Mathaon, xxiii: xxxiv, xxiv: ix. Ioannes, xvi: ii; and one “άποκτεῖναι” on the theme whether “Ψυχῂνσᾠσαι ἢ άποκτεῖναι; / to save life or to kill?” Markos, iii: ivb.
Furthermore, the word ‘ϕονεύω’ means ‘kill’, ‘murder’, ‘slay’ and appears four time in the New Testament. Jesus uses it in recalling the sixth Word of the Δεκάλογος (v.s.): ‘ού ϕονεύσεις / you shall not commit murder’, Mathaon, v: xxi, xix: xviii, Markos,x: xix; Lookas, xviii: xx.
Bhaktivedanta argues that ” Jesus was… intelligent enough to use the right word -murder- instead of the word killing… ” which he circumscribable defines as: “especially [ to ] animal killing ” [ brackets mine ]. Jesus uses the word ‘θύσῃ’ twice, meaning: ‘kill’, ‘slay’, ‘sacrifice’. Firstly, in the parable regarding the thief who comes … “ἵνα κλέψῃ καὶ θύσῃ / to steal, and to kill” Ioannes, x: x, and secondly, the parable of the father, seeing his lost son return, ordered his servants to “…φέρετετὸνμόσχοντὸν σιτευτόν, θύσατε / bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry” Lookas, xv: xxiii.
These are the sole occurrences, in the entire Gospel material, of Jesus having mentioned the word ‘kill’ (‘θύσῃ’) in reference to an animal. The context here, et al.,focuses upon human obligations, and from a theological perspective; Yahweh’s compassion for mankind; quite apart from Bhaktivedanta’s assertions, viz., “… the first order … thou shalt not kill.. especially animal killing’,” having relevancy to the Δεκάλογος, and what Jesus said or supposedly “meant” having any relevancy to the Gospel material is, at best; pure conjecture.
Bhaktivedanta’s views regarding ‘animal killing,’ also fails dismally in his own ‘Purports’:
“Nâty-asnatas tu yogo sti na caikântam anasnatah na câti-svapna-sîlasya jâgrato naiva cârjuna / There is no possibility of one’s becoming a yogi, O Arjuna, if one eats too much or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough” (Atmasanyama-yôg vi: 16).
Bhaktivedanta, A. C, Bhagavad-
Gîtâ As It Is, Los Angeles 1983.
“Patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktyâ prayacchati tad aham bhakty-upahrtam asnâmi prayatâtmanah / If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it” (Râjavidyârajaguhyayôg ix: 26).
op. cit.
Likewise, his arguments are unsupported in: the Karma-Yôg iii: 12,13,14, Atmasanyama-yôg vi: 17, Sraddhatrayavibhâgayôg xvii: 7, and Mokshasan-yâsayôg xviii: 51 – 53.
The internal evidence above, from both Biblical and Hindu text, suggest quite clearly, that Bhaktivedanta’s assumptions are in default of even a soupçon of technical understanding, particularly of Judaic-Christian texts. It’s palpable that he’s not referred to Hebrew or Greek biblical sources, nor Lexicons. His views are based upon Hindu ‘monism’ and has no relevancy to Judaic-Christian text. He’s demonstrated a gross naïvety towards Jesus’ words, their context, and the language in which He spoke [Koine Greek was the universal language of the Mediterranean world. Latin was the official language of the Roman Government, and Aramaic the local language that Josephus referred to as “Hebrew”. The inscription on the Cross (Jn. xix: 20) was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Jesus spoke in Koine Greek to the Graeco-Syrophoenician woman at Phoenicia (Mk. 7: 26), and in His ministry at “…Γαλιλαία τών έθνών / Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matt. iv: 15).
In conclusion, I invite you to refute the evidence I have provided above, by responding with a text-based rationale free from Hindu ‘Monism’ (‘Advaita’), exempli causa :- ix ocss in Chândogya Upanishad vi, 13f and throughout the Mândukya Upanishad.
If I receive no response to this letter, it will be safe for me to assume that you concede that the arguments I have put forth, ut supra, are correct in refuting Bhaktivedanta’s wild and extravagant assumptions.
The text used in this letter are from
The Septuaginta (LXX), (Germany 1935),
Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece,
21th ed., and The New King James Version
(U.S. 1983).
Rev. Father A. Maximiadis.
NO REPLY