GENERAL INTRODUCTION
2.4. Dialoyiea! Reading
The term dialogical is used here in a very broad sense and not as a specific hermeneutical approach in order to define how we have read the Moses narrative. Therefore we consider it not as an additional methodology to our contextual reading but as a part of it. As said earlier, contextual reading is but a framework, which covers such a variety of approaches that it is important for each interpreter to define his/her own procedure. We have chosen
27
not to stick to the procedure of ineulturation hemieneutie as defined by Ukpong, in which different elements of both the context of the reader and the context of the text are analyzed in steps and separately.60 It is true that even before approaching the text we are already influenced by some of steps defined by Ukpong, such as our context, and we also have a hint of what the biblical text is roughly all about. However, we found it difficult to maintain the five steps as separate from one another. In our approach to the narrative we have incorporated Ukpong's steps in an integrative dialogieal framework that engages the two contexts (reader's and text's) into full interaction. They are no longer taken as separate items, but they become part of a flow of dialogue in our hermeunitical process.
We will come back to this point in more detail as we locate our hermeneutics. In this study we have adopted a way of reading which allows a real dialogue between the reader and the text that stretches beyond a simple comparison. This requires a mutual action, which embraces the reader and the text. I think this kind of relationship is at the basis of the dialogieal hermeneutics as conceived by Martin Buber."The advantage of the dialogieal reading in this study is that as we progress in reading critically the narrative we find ourselves caught into a flow of questions going back and forth between our context and the text. Our own context is progressively challenged by what we discover and in return we raise more questions to be answered by the text. Although some of our questions remain unanswered, our understanding of both our own context and the text become enriehed. An infonned view emerges that enables the reader to apply critically the biblical message to leadership issues in today's context.
60 Justin S. Ukpong, "Rereading the Bible with African Eyes" in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 91 (June 1995), 3-14. The steps of the interpretation process are as follows: Step 1 : identifying the interpreter's specific context. Step 2: analysis of the context of interpretation in four level, phenomenological analysis, anthropological analysis, historical analysis and social analysis. Step 3: analysis of historical context of the text. Step 4: analysis of the text. Step 5: gathering together the fruits of the discussion.
61 Martin Buber, land Thou. Second edition, trans. By Ronald Gregor Smith (New York:
Charles Schibner's Sons, 1958). According to Buber I-Thou relationship includes human beings with God, with other beings and with things. This mutuality or reciprocity in this relationship can be reflected in what happens in interpretation between the reader and the text. See Stevens Kepnes, The Text as Thou: Martin's Buber's Dialogieal Hermeneutics and Narrative Theology (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992).
Given the nature of our study, which is more than an analysis of a single text but somehow a survey of part of the life of Moses as a biblical character, we need a hermeneutical tool that can be used confidently through the change of circumstances, time and events. We have found this free interaction or dialogieal reading quite fruitful and suitable to accommodate any variation in the story. Each new event in the narrative finds its echo in our situation as we allow our context to dialogue with the text. It is important to try to locate this reading in African hermeneutics.
2. §. Location of My Hermeneutics
This study locates itself in the ongoing effort of African hermeneutics to participate in the wide spectrum of interpretations which are intended to shape the life of people in our society. As stated above, this study has adopted a contextual reading as a framework. The question raised by many scholars using a contextual reading concerns the starting point, in other words what comes first between the text and the reader's context. The reader's context may thus become subject or object of one's interpretation depending on what informs the interpretation. According to Justin Ukpong the context of the reader constitutes the point of departure for inculturation.
The starting point is analysis of the contemporary context against whieh the text is to be interpreted, and analysis of the context of the text. The text is read dynamically within the contemporary context that has been analysed. This involves entering into the text with a critical awareness about the contemporary context and allowing it to evoke in the reader appropriate reactions, responses and commitments about the context.62
For Ukpong the context is the starting point, therefore the Afriean context forms the subject of inculturation interpretation of the Bible. Although, this study has taken into account elements of the inculturation approach, moving between the second phase (reactive-proactive) and third phase (proactive and contribution of ordinary reader) of Ukpong," we cannot limit ourselves within inculturation. Our reading has adopted a more
sa Justin Ukpong, "Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa", 25.
" This study has discussed the three phases of the development of biblical interpretation in Africa earlier in the introduction. Namely, reactive and apologetic—reactive-
29
HHHHHHI mHHHHHHHB^ • MMHHHHI
pluralist approach as explained in this chapter. In our reading of the Moses narrative we have realized, as have many other scholars before us, that the question of the starting point is not a crucial element in the interaction between the text and the reader. My assumption is that living in Africa today after centuries of missionary work and because of my background as a person reared in a Christian family, there is overlap or influence between my African socio-cultural context and my biblical pre-understanding. The result is that when 1 read the Bible, I engage a continuous interaction between my context and the text. The concept of hermeneutical circle or hermeneutical spiral renders better the interplay and interaction that takes place between the text and the reader in our interpretation. Grant Osbome notes,
The hermeneutical spiral takes plaee not only at the level of original intended meaning, as our understanding spirals upward to the intended meaning of the passage, but also at the level of contextualization, as our application spirals upwards to a proper understanding of the significance of the passage for Christian life today. **
I agree with Bungishabaku Katho as he dismisses the starting point as being a major problem in contextual reading. He argues that,
I posit that the starting point alone, though important, should not be a big issue. And that African Biblical interpreters should rather start their interpretation by thinking and reflecting on the questions they want to address to the text, questions that can help their interpretation to be relevant for their African contexts.65
For Katho the reader should be preoccupied with questions to be answered by the text rather than the starting point. I think Katho has a point in showing that one may start anywhere provided the end result gives answers to questions raised by the reader.
However, my experience in this study is that a limited set of questions does not work and proactive—proactive recognition of the ordinary reader. See Ukpong, "Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa", 12.
64 Grant R. Osborne: The Hermeneutical Spiral; A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991),14.
65 Bungishabaku Katho, To Know and Not to Know YHWH: Jeremiah's Understanding and its relevance for the Church in DR. Congo. PhD Thesis (University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg 2003), 415-416.
BBlllll
not all of them find an answer in the text under investigation, The reader may start with some preoccupations but as the dialogue continues more questions, not even envisaged before, emerge and our horizon is enlarged beyond what we expected.
In my opinion whatever the reason that draws the reader to the Bible, he/she will later realize that the interpretive process leads to an unexpected and broader understanding.
John Goldingay has the right words to express the process as he argues,
Interpretatien of scripture involves letting parts of scripture that immediately speak to us be our way into grasping scripture as a whole, of which those parts are but part, our point of entry to us on the road of understanding and appropriating other aspects of scripture.66
Goldingay describes interpretation as a process that engages the reader and a portion of the Scripture into a dialogue that leads to appropriation of broader aspects. The point of entry in interpretation may be narrow but the outcome is wider. The argument is that the appropriation should go in both directions. The reader appropriates new aspects of the Scripture but also his/her own context is enriched through the interpretive process.
The mutual influence or action that occurs between the reader and the text is clearly captured by H.G. Gadamer. In his view, Gadamer sees the reader and the text as existing in two separate horizons that are brought together or in confrontation in the process of interpretation: "The encounter between the two horizons, that of the inquiring
reader and that of the text, in attempt to understand the sense of the text leads to a real fusion of horizons"67 Shillington expands Gadamer's concept of horizon as he argues,
The horizon of the text becomes evident when we find the text prompting questions in our mind as we read. Without the question from the horizon of the text there cannot be an answer regarding the meaning of the text.
With the raising of one question that leads to another and we find
66 John Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: W.B.
Eerdmans, 1995), 242.
61 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed and Ward 1979), 273.
31
ourselves encountering the horizon of the text from within our own horizon.68
Shillington states that the way to enter into the horizon of the text is when the text prompts more and more questions in the mind of the reader, which facilitates the encounter of the two horizons. It is important to suggest that in dialogical reading, as we experienced it in this study, questions do not eome only from the horizon of the text but the reader brings also his/her own questions to the text. What happens in this encounter of the two horizons is a real dialogue in which each part plays an important role. At the end there is some sort of consensus or appropriation of understanding by the reader. I think the notion of horizon reflects well the expanding world surrounding the text and the reader as they engage in dialogue. H.G. Gadamer has appropriate words to define this notion: "A horizon is not a rigid frontier, but something that moves with one and invites one to advance further."*9
The complexity of the process by which a reader gets meaning out of a given text has generated many theories. Jonathan Draper proposes a tri-polar model in which appropriation constitutes the climax of the interpretive process.70 The three steps of this exegesis are: Distantiation, Contextualization and Appropriation. Without discussing the model in detail the reader should briefly note the following: At the level of Distantiation the text is allowed to be different while the reader keeps distance from the text. During Contextualization the context of the reader is taken into account because of its influence
68 V. George Shillington, Reading the Sacred Text: An Introduction to Biblical Studies (London: T & T Clark, 2002), 54.
69 H.G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 217.
70 Jonathan Draper, "Old Scores and New Notes; Where and What is Contextual Exegesis in the New south Africa" in McGlory T. Speckman and Lary T. Kaufmann, Towards an Agenda for Contextual Theology: Essays in Honour of Albert Nolan (Pietermaritzburg:
Cluster Publications, 2001), 148-168. Draper's model is an adaptation of a tri-polar model developed by Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (eds), Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations: Romans through History and Cultures (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000). Read also, J.
Draper, "Reading the Bible as Conversation: A Theory and Methodology for Contextual Interpretation of the Bible in Africa" Grace and Truth Vol. 19 (2002/2), 12-24.
it^HHHHH^^^^^^^BHHHMMHIHHHHMBHHMHHHN^
en the interpretation of a text. Draper underlines that, "Contextualization involves spending time analyzing who we are and what our location in society and history is.""
The third stage in Draper's model is Appropriation, when the contexts of both the text and the reader or the community of faith are brought to an agreement. Draper envisages that this stage should lead to changing behavior or action.72 Appropriation corresponds to what Gadamer calls the "fusion of horizons.""
The important thing is that Draper is aware of the struggle of keeping these stages of interpretation separate and he acknowledges that,
It is not important whether distantiation or contextual analysis comes first, provided that each is given due weight. We could begin with the text, with the context or with the questions of the faith community relating to the formulation of its faith.74
In this study 1 argue that terms such as appropriation and fusion may not render fully what is the climax of the dialogical reading since they assume that the interpreter will always bring the two contexts into agreement. Our experience in reading the Moses story is that in the end the reader finds points of agreement and disagreement between the two contexts engaged in dialogue. To be able to handle areas where our context disagrees with the biblical context is, in my own opinion, the climax of a dialogical reading because it means that the analysis of both contexts has critical depth. Appropriation or fusion may be reached at the point of convergence where agreement is established between the two contexts, while the interpreter strives to understand the disagreements.
The change or transformation that this new understanding brings will be an informed and responsible action because the reader is able to discern and explain both the agreements and disagreements between the horizon of the text and the horizon of the reader. The emphasis on how to handle elements of disagreement or dissimilarities is significant because as a community of faith we believe in the sacred text as normative. We should
71 J. A. Draper, "Reading the Bible as Conversation: A Theory and Methodology for Contextual Interpretation of the Bible in Africa" Grace and Truth Vol. 19 (2002/2), 16.
72 Draper, "Reading the Bible as Conversation", 18,
73 Draper, "Old Scores and New Notes", 152.
n Draper, "Old Scores and New Notes", 155.
33
therefore be able to explain why we cannot apply fully every situation from the horizon of the text to our own horizon. But even where there seems to be disagreement, the Scripture still has a message as the word of God to humanity. The outcome of our interpretation should lead to keeping in balance the appropriation of the new fused horizon and responsibly handling the disagreements. The reality is that the two horizons do not fuse completely; there are often some 'leftovers' to deal with. We should therefore be able to explain why we cannot apply hundred percent every situation from the horizon of the text to our own horizon. But even where there seems to be disagreement, the Scripture has still a message as the word of God to humanity since disagreement encourages the reader to engage critically in dialogue with the text.
Dialogieal reading sometimes shakes our dominant theology as we make a new encounter with God through the medium of His word. At this point I think that I agree with Ekblad, though his audience is different from potential readers of this work. He reads the Bible with immigrants and prisoners from Latino-Ameriea. Gur people are suffering from bad leadership among other misfortunes. What we share in eommon is that we all hope that a changing encounter may happen as we confront the Scripture. Ekblad argues,
My role involves deliberately subverting as many of the barriers to hope and empowerment as possible, while at the same time inviting life-giving interpretation that replaces the old, paralyzing theology. I seek to help people directly identify and confront the dominant negative theology.75
In order to illustrate what we are trying to communicate let us turn to the finding of our own study. After wrestling with the struggles of and challenges to Moses* leadership in the exodus narrative we realized that there are significant issues of leadership in the narrative that if taken into consideration might impact our community. On the other hand, we found that the narrative context of Moses required some choices in teamwork and punishment of contenders that, although understandable in the context of the narrative, cannot be applied in today's context. The fact is that the economy of Israel's covenant with God and the socio-political environment of the pentateuehal Moses are different
n Bob Ekblad, Heading the Bible with the Damned, 100.
l i i i i i i i
from that of my community today. Therefore, the reader should not expect that God's dealing with people at different epochs remains the same, although He does not change in His nature. Reaching the point where the reader is able to go into the text and come out with not only what is determinative to his/her context but also what does not apply to his/her own context, should be the ultimate outcome of contextual reading. The application therefore becomes possible because the reader knows to what extent the two horizons converge or diverge. More important is the fact that by the end of the interpretation, the reader of the Bible is able to locate himself/herself in the narrative after being subverted by the encounter with the transforming power of the Scripture. There is therefore a way of remaining critical even when the various steps of contextual hermeneutical, as presented by Draper or Ukpong, are taken in a more integrative and dialogical approach, as it clearly appears in the following evaluation.
2.6. Evaluation of Contextual Reading
The contextual reading in this study is not chosen by chance, because it seems to be the only appropriate tool to be used in order to unearth meaningful results from the text that address our eontext. People find themselves in various contexts that need to be addressed by the liberating message of the Scripture. Members of the faith community turn to the Bible for guidance and solution. Therefore, contextual reading is fundamental to those who are seeking meaning and truth for their life or community. The contextual reading holds onto the fact that there is no neutral reading. Quoting David Tracey, West affirms,
"There is no innocent interpretation, no innocent interpreter, no innocent text."76 If this assertion can be taken seriously then contextual reading has to be seen as a universal and perpetual process. From the early Church, the Scripture has been read and interpreted against a specific eontext. The reader of the Bible notes that Old Testament prophecies recorded in the gospels and in other writings of the New Testament reflect an
76 David Tracey, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Franciseo:
Harper and Row, 1987) quoted by Gerald.O.West, "Contextual Bible Study in South Africa: A Resource for Reclaiming and Regaining Land, Dignity and Identity" in G.O.
West and M.W. Dube (eds.).TheBible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and Trends.
(LeidemEJ.Brill, 2000), 395.
35