I would like to begin with a general outline of the theoretical orientation that underlies historical criticism itself. First, the critic assumed neutrality and objectivity in relation to the text and used a variety of so-called scientific methods in the search for the meaning of the text. 2The standpoint or perspective of the biblical texts and their original readers had long been a center of attention within historical criticism itself and is indeed also the case in the newer models of interpretation.
While social methodologies emphasized the social location of biblical texts (with minimal attention paid to the social location of contemporary readers of such texts), literary methodologies did not focus solely on rhetoric*. In other words, the question of attitude or perspective is thereby fully brought to the surface in the discipline, with the interpretive task now seen as directly shaped or influenced by the social location of the individual concerned. The stone road as the road of the future 141 Euro-American perspective, a perspective that does not recognize·.
Second, the project as a whole needs a greater sense of theoretical and methodological awareness, as can be seen from several studies in the book (Weems; Martin). Within the profession, I would call for ongoing dialogue with contemporary currents of biblical interpretation both in the Third World and among minority groups in the First World. Such a road gives its own readings of biblical texts and as such cannot be subordinated.
In this way, the "rocky road" of the volume becomes the road of the future, the road of liberation, not only for African Americans, but for all readers and interpret*.
Review of Cain Hope Felder, ed·
Ideological Blindspot
Having offered a critique of the volume as a whole, I would now like to focus on what I see as an ideological blind spot in some of the authors. Many Marxist literary theorists have moved away from Marx's own understanding of ideology as "false consciousness" and have extensively studied the operation of ideology, which Althusser defined as the "representation of the imagi". According to Frederic Jameson, ideologies function as "strategies of containment" that enable a society or group to interpretation of itself, while at the same time suppressing or "withholding" those historical events that would reveal contradictions.
Several contributions to this volume have successfully exposed the Eurocentric ideologies that emerge in the history of biblical interpretation. Nevertheless, in advocating for the black presence in the Bible, these scholars are also guilty of an ideological suppression of certain contradictory connections to history. In affirming the black presence in the Bible, there are other things these authors “don't say” about this black presence.
For example, both Charles Copher and Randall Bailey have convincingly demonstrated that Egypt, Kush, and Sheba were black African civilizations that actually had enormous influence in the ancient Near East (Chapters 7 and 8). I certainly applaud these scholars for raising these important points and providing a more balanced picture of the power relations in the area. Review of Cain Hope Felder 151 Nevertheless, I was disturbed by the fact that, apart from Renite Weems (p. 75), none of the scholars in the entire volume acknowledged, much less examined, the small details that the black African civilization of Egypt was the very one who he enslaved the Israelites.
These scholars repeatedly point out in the volume the special meaning that the Exodus story had for African-Americans (cf. And yet, when Pharaoh and the Egyptians are mentioned, in the volume they simply become the enemies of God and of God's chosen people and their blackness and Africanness are suppressed and not talked about. In the description of black African nations in the Bible as the origin of African Americans, emphasis is placed on their prominence and prestige in the ancient world.
Both Copher and Bailey cite Judah's invasion by the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak and the Ethiopian leader Zerah (p but pass over their militarism and expansionism in silence. Given the utter humiliation and subjugation of African slaves in America and the ever-present racism that still exists in our society, it is understandable that these African-American scholars would want to highlight the positive and glorious aspects of their ancestors, otherwise they would be guilty of an ideological blind spot that has characterized other civilizations and nations: Roman, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, and our own Eurocentric American.
Response to the Responses of Stony the Road We Trod
One of the reasons we concentrated on African presence is the need to demythologize historical portraits of the African presence in the Salvine history of the biblical text. Professor Grant would rather say that black history determines the relevance of Jewish history. Where one stands in society in relation to the social scale determines one's view of what liberation actually is and of what the scriptures actually say.
A written culture tends to value the authenticity of the printed word more than the oral spoken word. These quasi-canonical texts may actually favor the Talmud and Midrash in the Jewish community. The question to be raised is whether this quasi-canonical canon is one of the people or of the scholars.
This is one source of what Gale Yee considers one of the biblical interpreters' blind spots in this volume. Clarifying the obvious is many times more important than discussing the obscure. Thus, the mention of Hagar acts as a mechanism to raise the veneration of the ancestors.
Professor Segovia and most reviewers agree that one of the strengths of this book is its role and treatment of Africa in the development of ancient Judaism and early Christianity; plus the historical analysis of the long tradition of biblical interpretation among African Americans in this country. The words of interpretation do not take place in a vacuum, but are expressed in a cultural setting, as reflected in the interpretation of the translation of The Song of Songs. Although the participants in this book are aware of and mention the many biblical critical models, it was not the intention of this book to adopt them, as we were much more interested in getting our own statement on the agenda, which has been neglected. way too long.
We emphasized the question: What was the functional myth in the life of the African American community that gave meaning in the context of suffering. As such, our affinity has been for reader response criticism, although some of the contributors to this volume may not have called it that. A response to the responses 167 allegiance, sociocultural conventions, educational levels, ideological stance and religious affiliation." In fact, all of these factors were integral to the development of the book, as we talked about who we were with before we entered into dialogue with the text and to criticize it and each other.
In matters of social science, we are told that a paradigm shift is underway, the emergence of a science that is no longer caught up in the great surge of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on rationalism. The fact that we assembled such a diverse group of panelists in the context of one of the most prestigious gatherings of biblical scholars tells us that something of a landmark has been achieved.
