Text layers in the Gita

[Martin Gansten]

I haven't been following the Gita thread, but judging from the tone of
Michael Witzel's latest post, I assume that it has (like most discussions
on this list) already generated a good deal of heat. Not wishing to be
dragged into one of these pointless back-and-forths, I will refrain from
further posting after this one. I simply wished to make two points: that
Witzel's comparison with the Hebrew Bible was an inapt one, and that
scholars are not unanimous in considering the Gita historically multi-layered.

>Mine was merely given to drive the point home, comparandum: reading ANY
>text as unitary, not to dissect/interpret the Bible.

I am not sure I understand this. Do you really mean to say that,
axiomatically, NO text can ever be unitary? This is what it sounds like to
me; but the idea seems rather a fantastic one -- especially if we are
discussing a text that fills only some 30-40 printed pages.

>Not the same style, as far as I am concerned:
>Old fashioned (Vedic)   VS.  common North Indian Epic Koine.
>No time to check exact examples. You can find them easily enough if you wish.

Having just completed a Sanskrit-to-Swedish translation of the Gita (the
first for nearly a century: Stockholm, forthcoming), I am aware of the
examples. It would be easy to satirize over this by 'reconstructing' a text
where the passages containing maa + augmentless aorist make up the earliest
strata, but I'll refrain. The argument, in my opinion, carries little
weight. Surely it is not necessary to point out that archaic turns of
phrase frequently survive changes in grammar? We all use such archaisms in
everyday speech.

>Then, all 4 points of view are contemporary? Fine, but even then it can be
>shown that one at least, (Ksatriyas')  killing with no "guilt" attached,
>is quite old, and seen in the Veda.

Nobody is denying (or at least I am not) that the Gita builds on and
attempts to harmonize older sources and ideas. The question I was
addressing is whether the Gita itself (those 30-40 pages) was composed in
'layers', over time -- something I find highly unlikely. The Gita is a
synthetic text: it starts out with conflicting points of view and tries to
synthesize them. But synthesis doesn't always sit well with the scholarly
community, which makes its living chiefly by analysis!

>Of course it is bad:  yet,  note that I merely called it "bad" only from
>the point of view of the authors'  *original* intent.

Then you would deny that a later text could throw any light on the original
intent of an earlier text (by dealing with the same subjects, proceeding
from the same sort of experiences, etc)? I disagree with that, though I
wouldn't go to the extent of saying that 'of course' you are wrong...

That's it. Nothing further from me on this subject.

Regards,
Martin Gansten