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

54 GLOBAL HERMENEUTICS?
which I would like to suggest an exegetical model which could be helpful for doing
biblical interpretation in a global context.
I have argued in many previous publications that a multidimensional approach
to biblical interpretation can help us escape the looming dangers of exclusivity in
our global exegetical endeavours. A multidimensional approach wants to steer
away from exclusivism, advocating the adoption of another attitude in biblical
interpretation. This alternative attitude is one of communality. 18
We (especially those of us trained in a Western model of scholarship) value
individuality in biblical scholarship. Individual scholars specialise in certain textual
corpora, exegetical methods, or related fields of study. And from these positions of
individuality we try to make our contributions to biblical scholarship. Actually, we
should rather speak of biblical “scholarships”. Many conferences bear witness to
the fact that there is no communality in our hermeneutical endeavours. Rather, it
seems that we all compete to win some or other coveted prize. Should we not try to
create a liminal space of communality before any dialogue can start?
I have expressed this elsewhere 19 as follows: “In a communal approach the
desideratum is to keep striving for contextual integrity. Contextual integrity can be
achieved where justice is done to each one of the different contextualities involved
in the process of biblical interpretation. Or, to put it in the inverse: Contextual
integrity cannot be achieved where one type of contextuality is over-emphasised to
the detriment of other types of contextuality. The communality of the approach
suggested here opens up the liminal space where scholars with different life
interests can start sharing their scholarship on the different interpretative interests
involved. Or to put it in yet another way: A communal approach moves away from
the binary oppositions that the quest for contextual authenticity would necessitate.
When contextual authenticity 20 is the norm, it is inevitable that interpretive
contextuality (i.e. who I am) and didactic contextuality (i.e. for whom I am
interpreting) should coincide. Within this scheme of thinking these two types of
contextuality are either in congruence, or they are not. ... A communal approach
would rather appeal to the diversity of … scholars to come to the liminal space of
community in order to share, to contradict, to influence, to change one another’s
interests in terms of the whole spectrum of contextualities involved in biblical
interpretation. Within such a community of biblical scholarship the individual
interpreter (of African origin or otherwise) could interact with one another on the
18 See Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety; idem, “Towards a ‘communal’ approach for
reading the Bible in Africa,” in Interpreting the Old Testament in Africa (eds. Getui et al.;
Nairobi: Acton Press, 2001), 77–88; idem, “‘Contextuality’ in (South) African exegesis:
Reflections on the communality of our exegetical methodologies,” OTE 18/3 (2005), 637–
650; idem, “Reading with one eye closed?”; Jonker and Lawrie, Fishing for Jonah (anew).
19 See Jonker, “Contextuality”, 644–645.
20 See J. N. K. Mugambi, “African and Africanist Scholarship,” BOTSA 14 (2003),
9–12.