Global Hermeneutics? - International Voices in Biblical Studies ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Global Context and Its Consequences for Old Testament Interpretation LOUIS C. JONKER INTRODUCTION: WHO AM I? My participation in a session on global hermeneutics is for me no small occasion. Coming from the southern tip of the African continent as well as from a very specific part of South African biblical scholarship (namely white, male scholarship) makes my inclusion in this seminar no self-evident decision. My social location could potentially have silenced my voice in any debate on global hermeneutics. I am well aware of the fact that any voice with a more Western inclination advocating a global hermeneutics could very easily be interpreted as another imperialising or colonising endeavour. It seems to me that the term “global hermeneutics” has different overtones in traditional Western scholarship, on the one hand, and non-traditional scholarship in non-Western and marginal contexts, on the other hand. 1 I am starting my contribution with this ideological-critical appraisal of my own participation, because I am convinced that we cannot (and may not!) talk of global hermeneutics if we do not know ourselves. 2 It seems to me that issues of identity cannot be separated from our discussions on global hermeneutics. In an international conference at my university early in 2006 which was intended to bring African and European scholarship into conversation around the theme “Exegesis and Actualisation”, I was challenged to reflect on my own identity as a biblical scholar. 3 There I shared from my own biography the fact that I am living in different worlds simultaneously. Because of my more Western training as a biblical scholar, I have come to appreciate the rigour of traditional Western scholarship. But 1 Ukpong, for example, emphasises in his work that for a long time in the history of biblical scholarship globalisation has been a vehicle for the propagation of European and American interpretations. See J. Ukpong, “Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa: Historical and Hermeneutical Directions,” in The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends (eds. G. O. West and M. W. Dube; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 11–28. 2 See R. C. Bailey, “The danger of ignoring one’s own cultural bias in interpreting the text,” in The Postcolonial Bible (ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 66–90. 3 See L. C. Jonker, “Living in different worlds simultaneously. Or: A plea for contextual integrity,” in African and European Readers of the Bible in Dialogue: In Quest of a Shared Meaning (eds. J. H. de Wit and G. O. West; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 107–119. 47
48 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? being born and bred on the African continent, I also have great appreciation for the sensitivity of African biblical scholarship to flesh-and-blood contexts (such as poverty, oppression and the HIV/Aids pandemic) within which the Bible is interpreted. My identity as a biblical scholar and reader of the Bible is a quilt of different—sometimes harmonious and sometimes conflicting—dimensions. My contribution in this seminar stems from this hybrid identity that I am—an identity that I have come to accept and that I would like to nurture. I therefore also call on you to interpret my contribution within this condition of hybridity. REDEFINING “GLOBAL CONTEXT”? I would like to start my contribution by reflecting on our understanding of “the global context” that determines our global hermeneutics. It seems to me that in the literature and in our deliberations here “global” is often understood as “contemporary geography”—an understanding which seeks the locus of our interpretations exclusively in the fact that we live in different parts of the world. Our seminar session was introduced by a paper exploring the geographical and institutional aspects of global Old Testament studies (Holter). The case studies that followed were presentations from different parts of the world—Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe—and deliberately so. These perspectives are, of course, indispensable and valuable for our understanding of and discussions on global hermeneutics. However, I am wondering whether we should not widen our understanding of “global context” by also including a temporal dimension in our definitions. 4 Our understanding of “global” lets us ask the question: how should we interpret the Bible together with our brothers and sisters all over the world? And rightly so! However, should we not also include a temporal perspective which makes us aware that we are not only interpreting the Bible together with our brothers and sisters, but that we also do so in conversation with our mothers and fathers? Should we not show greater awareness that all contemporary interpretative communities are embedded in traditions of interpretation? 4 I deliberately avoid the terms “synchrony” and “diachrony” here, because these notions are often misunderstood within a dichotomy which puts them in opposition to, and in tension with, one another. See L. C. Jonker, “Reading with one eye closed? Or: What you miss when you do not read biblical texts multidimensionally,” OTE 19/1 (2006), 58–76. See also J. Barr, “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A debate on method in Old Testament exegesis (ed. J. C. De Moor; OTS 34; Leiden: Brill), 1–14; D. J. A. Clines, “Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A debate on method in Old Testament exegesis (ed. J. C. De Moor; OTS 34; Leiden: Brill), 52–71.
Page 1 and 2:
International Voices in Biblical St
Page 3 and 4:
International Voices in Biblical St
Page 5 and 6:
Copyright © 2010 by the Society of
Page 8 and 9: Introduction The XIXth Congress of
Page 10: List of Contributors DR. GERLINDE B
Page 14 and 15: Geographical and Institutional Aspe
Page 16 and 17: HOLTER 5 The first set of tables ou
Page 18 and 19: HOLTER 7 list. Then in 2005 there a
Page 20 and 21: HOLTER 9 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s To
Page 22 and 23: HOLTER 11 collaboration is concerne
Page 24 and 25: HOLTER 13 research in France, or wh
Page 26: Part II CASE STUDIES
Page 29 and 30: 18 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? women. On t
Page 31 and 32: 20 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? which integ
Page 33 and 34: 22 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? Testament t
Page 35 and 36: 24 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? canonical a
Page 37 and 38: 26 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? BIBLICAL HE
Page 39 and 40: 28 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? the root of
Page 41 and 42: 30 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? The land is
Page 43 and 44: 32 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? perceived a
Page 46 and 47: Reading the Old Testament from a Ni
Page 48 and 49: OBIORAH 37 prerequisites for undert
Page 50 and 51: OBIORAH 39 It is a society where th
Page 52 and 53: OBIORAH 41 Those without formal edu
Page 54: OBIORAH 43 level of literacy among
Page 60 and 61: JONKER 49 It seems to me that Prof.
Page 62 and 63: JONKER 51 textual reception in the
Page 64 and 65: JONKER 53 anthropological definitio
Page 66 and 67: JONKER 55 basis of the inter-contex
Page 68 and 69: The Global Context and Its Conseque
Page 70 and 71: MOJOLA 59 global ambitions: we find
Page 72 and 73: MOJOLA 61 ability to express themse
Page 74 and 75: MOJOLA 63 specific. It only places
Page 76 and 77: MOJOLA 65 God’s name in Kiswahili
Page 78 and 79: MOJOLA 67 with the above when he ob
Page 80 and 81: MOJOLA 69 Nevertheless it could be
Page 82 and 83: MOJOLA 71 Iraqw/Gorwa tongue for th
Page 84 and 85: MOJOLA 73 For many years ever since
Page 86 and 87: MOJOLA 75 of purification is normal
Page 88 and 89: MOJOLA 77 Jacob Milgrom held in a c
Page 90 and 91: MOJOLA 79 two systems. These differ
Page 92 and 93: MOJOLA 81 categories discussed abov
Page 94: Part IV AFTERWORD
Page 97 and 98: 86 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? “GLOBALIZ
Page 99 and 100: 88 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? biblical in
Page 101 and 102: 90 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? example (Le
Page 103 and 104: 92 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS? role of bib
show all

Global Hermeneutics? - International Voices in Biblical Studies ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?