The Bible and Asia: From the Pre-Christian Era to the Postcolonial Age by R. S. Sugirtharajah (review)

The study of Christianity outside Europe has typically been treated as a movement from West to East, with the peoples of Asia as recipients rather than agents. The Bible and Asia by the biblical scholar R. S. Sugirtharajah is therefore a welcome corrective. In countering Western dominance of biblical hermeneutics, he tracks the various ways in which Asian and European individuals have read the Bible and the cross-cultural conversations generated by Asian interrogation of Christian scriptures.

Following a brief introduction, the book is divided into seven semiindependent chapters. In the first Sugirtharajah highlights an often neglected aspect of the Bible: the references to localities, goods, animals, and plants that can lie only in Asia. Although he acknowledges that the depth of ancient connections remains speculative, trading connections meant the exchange of ideas and cross-fertilizing influences, especially with India. However, early Christian writings did not view Asia and Asians sympathetically, and the Acts of Thomas (omitted from the New Testament) saw India—idolatrous, poor, and intolerant—as ripe for evangelism.

Chapter 2 introduces us to two men, John Holwell (1711–1798), a surgeon and employee of the East India Company, and Louis Jacolliot (1837–1890), a judge in the French East Indies. They were convinced that traces of Vedic texts were present in the Old Testament, and that even the depiction of Christ revealed links to Hindu deities. They thus disagreed with other European commentators, who contended that Indian religions were derived from biblical traditions. In Sugirtharajah’s opinion, however, the two men were fundamentally Orientalist in outlook. Despite their conviction that Christians should look beyond the Semitic heritage, they were preoccupied with the stereotype of a “pure” Indian religious past that in their view had been degraded by Brahmin priests.

Chapter 3 analyzes Asian interpretations of the Bible as exemplified by the Hindu reformer Raja Rammohan Roy (1772–1833), the Chinese Taiping leader Hong Xiuquan (1814–1864), and the Indian economist and nationalist J. C. Kumarappa (1892–1960). Roy sought to extract from “doctrinal entanglements” the essential ethics of Christian teaching, but his rejection of the concept of the Trinity generated missionary antagonism. Hong Xiuquan fared better, even though he claimed to be a younger brother of Jesus, primarily because of his monotheistic belief in a “true God.” By tapping biblical scriptures, he could both justify opposition to the Manchus and validate his new Heavenly Kingdom on earth. Nearly a century later Kumarappa, a highly educated Christian, understood the Gospel message as supportive of Indian aspirations and implicitly critical of British colonialism—a position that predictably aroused the ire of the church hierarchy. As Sugirtharajah points out, all three men envisaged the Bible as a spiritual tool for Asian peoples, but they read the scriptures selectively in relation to their own goals and interests.

Chapter 4 concentrates on a single individual, the Sinhalese nationalist Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933), who dismissed the Bible as a mythical, irrelevant, and misleading text, unsuited to Asian societies. Although he roundly denounced colonialism’s missionary allies, he also maintained that a drastically revised version could bring biblical teachings closer to Buddhist ideals. Nonetheless, Sugirtharajah reminds readers that the nationalist Buddhism Dharmapala promoted left little space for cooperation with Sri Lanka’s Hindus and Muslims.

The departure point for chapter 5 is Paul’s dominance in the evolution of Christian theology in the West. In Asia, by contrast, Paul has received much less attention. For colonial missionaries his loyalty to Rome and his evangelism among both Jews and Gentiles paralleled their own goals, especially in India; Asian converts were attracted by Paul’s direct experience of a risen Christ, while some Japanese felt that Paul embodied the values associated with samurai culture. Conversely, Asian feminists deplored his misogynist attitudes, while for others his insistence on social hierarchies and his allegiance to Rome provided implicit support for colonialism and the imperialist project...