Reading the New Testament in the Manifold Contexts of a Globalized World E-Book
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Serie: NET – Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
This volume gathers the perspectives of teachers in higher education from all over the world on the topic of New Testament scholarship. The goal is to understand and describe the contexts and conditions under which New Testament research is carried out throughout the world. This endeavor should serve as a catalyst for new initiatives and the development of questions that determine the future directions of New Testament scholarship. At the same time, it is intended to raise awareness of the global dimensions of New Testament scholarship, especially in relation to its impact on socio-political debates. The occasion for these reflections are not least the present questions that have been posed with the corona pandemic and have received a focus on the "system relevance" of churches, which is openly questioned by the media. The church and theology must face this challenge. Towards that end, it is important to gather impulses and suggestions for the discipline from a variety of contexts in which different dimensions of context-related New Testament research come to the fore.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 722
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Eve-Marie Becker / Jens Herzer / Angela Standhartinger / Florian Wilk (Eds.)
Reading the New Testament in the Manifold Contexts of a Globalized World
Exegetical Perspectives
We acknowledge financial support for the publication of this book by the State Digitization Program for Science and Culture of Saxony.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24053/9783772057656
© 2022 · Eve-Marie Becker / Jens Herzer / Angela Standhartinger / Florian Wilk (Eds.)
Das Werk ist eine Open Access-Publikation. Es wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen | CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, solange Sie die/den ursprünglichen Autor/innen und die Quelle ordentlich nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons-Lizenz anfügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Werk enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der am Material vermerkten Legende nichts anderes ergibt. In diesen Fällen ist für die oben genannten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.
Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor:innen oder Herausgeber:innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich.
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG
Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen
Internet: www.narr.de
eMail: [email protected]
ISSN 1862-2666
ISBN 978-3-7720-8765-3 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-7720-0196-3 (ePub)
Inhalt
Introduction
1.“Context” as a Key Concept of Hermeneutics
The “New Testament” is a global book. The texts collected in the New Testament canon are read, studied, and interpreted both individually and in groups or larger communities (“Interpretationsgemeinschaften”) across the borders of countries, nations, cultures, languages, traditions, and churches.1 In different Christian churches and denominations, New Testament texts are the subject of personal scripture reading and meditation as well as preaching and pastoral care. In order to facilitate accurate reading, understanding, preaching, and application of New Testament texts, they are the subject of theological education at universities and colleges all over the world. Applying certain rules to interpretation enables “supra-individual understanding,” which at the same time recognizes the uniqueness of the early Christian texts and their divergence from the expectations of modern readers (“Fremdheit der Texte”).2
Throughout the history of scholarly analysis of the New Testament texts, philological, historical and hermeneutical methods have been developed and found widespread recognition, from Mediterranean and Near Eastern Christianity in antiquity to the modern European arts of exegesis. The 1960s saw the emergence of contextual hermeneutics (e.g. feminist hermeneutics, liberation theology, postcolonial studies), especially in America, and these approaches link the interpretation of New Testament texts to the task of understanding them as vehicles of cultural, social and political change. This is especially true for the “interpretive communities” (Interpretationsgemeinschaften) that are commonly linked to the “global south.” Meanwhile, it is broadly recognized that the New Testament texts were created in specific historical situations and contexts, and those who interpret these texts do so from their own specific historical situations and contexts. Thus, “context” is a key concept for hermeneutical theorizing.3
As scholars of Biblical studies, we owe our awareness of the historical contingency of texts to historical-critical exegesis. The awareness of the contextual framework in which text-reception and interpretation take place is the heritage of a centuries-old hermeneutical tradition, and contextual hermeneutics have emphasized the socio-political aspects of that framework.4 Are—in consequence—interpreters of New Testament texts solely concerned with reconstructing the historical situations in which those texts were written on the one hand and identifying the political or religious conditions in which they are read on the other? Will New Testament exegesis disintegrate into diverse and unconnected interpretive processes? Or is it possible to view the “New Testament” as a global book and establish a constant worldwide dialogue between different approaches to and settings for the interpretive task?
2.The Purpose and Outline of this Volume
This volume brings together sixteen contributions from five continents (Africa, Americas, Asia, Australia and Europe). The essays present the importance of the individual researcher’s perspective in New Testament teaching and research. All of the contributors have engaged in research in the field of New Testament studies, and many of them continue to be active (in their home countries) in research and teaching within this discipline. The essays explore the global impact of New Testament scholarship and its meaning for current theological and socio-political debates. As a collection of essays, the volume aims to raise scholarly consciousness regarding the global dimensions of New Testament research.
The contributors have organized their contributions around the following guiding questions: How does “context” matter in our readings of the New Testament and its theologies? What are the assumptions that govern our exegesis? How do different contexts and social backgrounds as well as individual needs and socio-political debates help to sharpen New Testament studies in the manifold contexts of today’s globalized world? More concretely, the essays were inspired by the following questions:
Please describe your academic career up to your current position, your research focus and interests and your long-term research goals.
How does the cultural, political, social, religious environment affect your research as a New Testament scholar?
What other ancient (or modern) texts, sources and material matter in and for your New Testament research? Is your choice related to the specific context you work in?
Is your exegetical work most influenced by
your teacher and his/her scholarly tradition or the universities from which you earned your degrees,
your denominational affiliations,
philosophical or political theories,
other influences?
What factors, ideas or people directed your ways in New Testament research and what has sharpened your specific academic profile?
Do you think of New Testament studies more in terms of “theology” or more in terms of “religious studies” or “antiquity studies”?
Or shortly: to what extent do you consider New Testament research in the context of the theological disciplines to be “systemically relevant”?
What other current challenges do you see as the most pressing ones in the long term for New Testament scholarship (medicine/health: see Corona crisis; questions of structural discrimination/racism/global justice, climate change or others…)?
Thus, the contributions in this volume ultimately address three kinds of questions: First, in what contexts do the exegesis and the interpretation of the New Testament texts operate on different continents and in different regions? Second, to what extent does the study of the New Testament texts help us to understand contemporary contexts, to live in them, and to be able to influence them constructively? To what extent are the geographically determined contextuality and the global dimension of New Testament scholarship in tension with each other? Third, what common problems and tasks of textual interpretation become apparent in the diversity of contextual readings—in other words, how much common ground and connection does the study of the New Testament provide and allow in a global community of scholarly based textual interpretation?
3.“Contexts” in the Light of Current Global Crises
In preparing for the publication of this volume, the term “context” has taken on a new meaning. Since February 2020, the Corona pandemic has been a global phenomenon that has required regional containment measures. Russia’s war against Ukraine is—in geopolitical terms—a regional conflict that has incalculable global consequences and already affects the well-being of humans all over the world. Both events describe crises that will not only influence the “contexts” in which New Testament texts are read and studied in the short term, but will affect them in the longer term. The Corona pandemic exposed the physical and social vulnerability of people living together. Russia’s war against Ukraine demonstrates once again that freedom and peace are under constant threat all over the world, including in Europe. What do the current crises mean for New Testament studies and New Testament scholars?
In the context of the current Corona pandemic many governments and countries have asked what subjects are most relevant for societies and what subjects have to step down in the time of this life-threatening disease. In many cases, the public has perceived religion, and even more theology, to play a minor or even ambivalent or negative role.1 Yet, this loss of influence and authority is not a new phenomenon, at least not in the so-called Western World. In times of crisis we have had to cope with embarrassing speechlessness. This volume intends to take up this challenge for New Testament studies, the church and theology. In reflecting on our own academic profession in a global perspective, we would like to invite readers to reflect about the current state of New Testament scholarship from their own personal and scholarly standpoint. This volume intends to provide impulse and gather suggestions for our academic field from the manifold contexts in which New Testament texts are read and interpreted in a globalized world. Can we as exegetes learn from each other’s experiences of crisis? Can we generate new questions and insights on how the interpretation of New Testament texts can succeed under the conditions of crises and create socio-political potential for freedom and liberty?
4.Brief Summary of the Essays
The contributions to this volume are designed as (auto-)biographical statements and/or surveys of the current tasks and challenges of the discipline of New Testament studies. The authors reflect on the task and purpose of New Testament exegesis and theology in their particular social, cultural, and ecclesial contexts. Some authors focus on specific texts or pericopes to develop and discuss their view of the New Testament texts and the significance of these texts for academia, society, and the church. The contributions as a whole far exceeded our expectations. Beyond providing valuable reflections on the questions they had been asked to address, the authors shed light on a wide variety of contexts, dimensions and even new avenues for New Testament scholarship, employing a diversity of theoretical, historical, and material approaches. As an added bonus, the contributions often interact with each other, sometimes in surprising ways.
Without intentional planning, the first eight articles draw a line through the New Testament canon from Jesus’s miracles and parables to Paul and the author of 1 Timothy. The essays that are grouped together in the second half approach the questions on a more theoretical level and also add non-canonical texts from early Christian, Jewish and so-called para-biblical literature to the discussion.
In “Appraising Exegetical Procedures in Reading the New Testament in African Context”, Faustin Leonard Mahali reads the theological topos of incarnation from an African (specifically, Tanzanian) theological perspective. In his view the incarnation means “God revealed in Jesus indwells humanity and the whole creation to save it and renew the corrupted creation because of human destruction” (p. 23). Despite several differences between Christians in antiquity and Tanzanian Christians today—i.e. experiences of persecution, expecting Christ’s second coming soon—there are important similarities that give Bible reading a firm home in African contexts. Mahali names the strong social attachment between living individuals and even the living dead and a “socio-divine worldview” (p. 25). Therefore, African Christian Theology contributes to the understanding of the New Testament by its holistic cosmic view of salvation represented in Jesus’ and the apostles’ healing practices in miracles. An African view of Early Christian miracles is highly relevant for today because it interprets health in not only a medical but also a more holistic sense.
In “Reading the Text Does Matter: Texts as Symbols of Personal and Social Transformation,” Ernest van Eck explains how the South African context matters for understanding Jesus’ parables. Despite the founding of the first rainbow nation in post-Apartheid times, the gap between the rich and poor is dramatically increasing. Van Eck distinguishes three periods of parable-interpretation in New Testament scholarship: A premodern allegorical-moralism resulted in “social one-sidedness; the parables only had something to say to the believer(s) and the church” (p. 42). The modern period read the parables in one way or another as a language event, and this resulted in a metaphysical one-sidedness, seeing the kingdom of God as something ‘out there.’ The most recent material turn in parable research reads the parables as symbols of social transformation. Van Eck demonstrates how the parables are realistic stories of peasant life in first-century Palestine, exploring “how human beings could break the spiral of violence and cycle of poverty of an oppressed society created by the power and privilege of the elite” (p. 45). Jesus addresses the inclusion of the impure, criticizes the exploitative political economy of his day and speaks against violence. In van Eck’s reading, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–26) shows that “the worlds of the urban elite and the peasantry drift[ed] so far apart that the gap between them eventually [could not] be closed” (p. 53). Instead of producing theology for the guild only, New Testament research today addresses social illnesses and in this way becomes ‘systemically relevant.’
Because the Tamil context is one “where more texts ‘live together’” Gregory Thomas Basker reads Matt 10:40–42 side by side with the Tamil literary work Tirukkuṟaḷ (Sacred Verses). In “Interpreting the Bible in the Tamil Context: Reading Matthew (10:40–42) in Light of Tirukkuṟaḷ (Ch.9),” Basker shows how the Tamil approach decenters the traditional Western reading of Matthew 10 as advice to Christian missionaries to proclaim individual salvation. Instead, the Tamil approach reads Matt 10:40–42 as a text on hospitality/viruntōmpal and an invitation to show hospitality to each other and to God. Tamil culture also broadens one’s view on the meaning of the saying: “whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones” (Matt 10:42). Offering water to a guest, when he/she enters the house, is important not only in a material sense. It also becomes a sign of welcoming or of approving a bond. In his essay, Basker demonstrates how intercultural biblical hermeneutics can unify disconnected groups within the Tamil community, and thus opens fresh avenues for understanding the gospel.
In “The Absolute Assurance of Giving. A Socio-Rhetorical Approach to the Parable of the Friend at Midnight in Luke 11:5–8,” Rospita Siahaan reads the Lukan parable with the method of sociohistorical interpretation from an Indonesian, more precisely a Batak, context. The SIR-analysis proves that the parable’s climax lies in verse 8. Whoever asks a friend will get what she or he asks for. The refusal of the request in verses 6 and 7 underlines the absurdity of any doubts about this social practice. Traditional Batak culture helps to explain more of the details mentioned in the text. In a context without doorbells where everyone sleeps on a sleeping mat, a visitor would awaken the children. Thus, the concerns of a friend coming at night have a legitimate basis, but such concerns are overwrought. An unexpected visit to a friend is a common and honorable practice in the context of hospitality and friendship. Thus, Siahaan does not read the parable—as most interpreters, including van Eck, do—in the context of patronage with its culture of honor and shame but rather as an assurance of giving and receiving. The disputed term ἀναίδεια (anaideia) means shamelessness, yet in a positive sense. Following the Lord’s prayer in Luke 11:1–4, the parable teaches the reader that humankind has every reason to approach God with confidence.
In her contribution, “A Japanese Ecofeminist Reading of John 1:14,” Yoshimi Azuma, from the perspective of the tiny minority of Christians in Japan, discusses whether the Johannine idea of incarnation has the potential to restore the voice of marginalized human beings, animals, and plants on earth and criticizes androcentric and anthropocentric reductionism. Eco-feminism can make the New Testament more systemically relevant, especially in Japan, a country that is highly challenged by gender inequality and environmental risks, for which the disaster at Fukushima has become a synonym. While the first mention of σάρξ (sarx) in Joh 1:13 contrasts human “flesh” with God, the λόγος (logos) becomes flesh in the next verse. Sarx includes not only human beings but all perishable and fragile creatures of this world. Likewise, the verb σκηνόω (skēnoō) not only refers to the tabernacle in the wilderness but also to the mutuality and vulnerability shared by all creatures. When God becomes flesh, he/she pitches a tent/tabernacle among all creatures, not humanity alone. The mortality and vulnerability of all earthly creature is not something to be overcome. Such a reading of John 1:14 implies a new understanding of sin as exemption from the human condition of vulnerability.
In his essay, “Transformative Reading of Women, Childbirth and Death in John’s Gospel from an African and Intercultural Perspective,” Kenneth Mtata begins with the death of the only 15-year-old Anna Machaya from bleeding after childbirth at a church shrine in Zimbabwe. Mtata discusses how reading and interpreting sacred texts matter in such cases of child marriage and abuse. In the midst of feminist and more conservative readings he calls for self-critical and reflective readings. By using birthing metaphors to convey religious ideas, the Gospel of John refers to processes that are familiar and natural to introduce higher, spiritual ideas. Interpreting John 1:13 and 8:41 against the background of Jewish sexual ethics, Mtata demonstrates how strongly Johannine metaphors depend on the concept of mothering. Sexual pleasure and the active role of both partners are endorsed and not shamed. Moreover, John presents strong women like the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene as agents of their own emancipation as they discover who Jesus is for them. A reading of the New Testament text that is informed by scholarship and critical thinking calls churches to stand up against the widespread practice of forcing women and girls into early marriage.
In “Reading and Teaching the New Testament: A Concise Contextual Diola Interpretation of Gal 3:26–29 under Empires”, Aliou Cissé Niang reflects on his biographical and intellectual journey from the Diola country in Senegal via Dakar to a university in New York. Niang’s approach is inspired by Senghorian Negritude. His teaching aims to free human beings from colonial objectification. Drawing on Diola poems recorded by a French ethnographer, Niang compares the life and message of the non-Christian female Diola prophet Aline Sitoé Diatta to the apostle Paul. A historical, empire-critical reading of Galatians reveals that for Paul the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμου (stoicheia tou kosmou, Gal 4:3, 8) are vanquished by Christ, and the baptismal confession (Gal 3:26–28) embodies this new reality. It activates a counter-conquest in shattering the binaries once empowered by the elemental spirits. Like the apostle, the prophet Aline Sitoé Diatta suffered from bodily impairment, had an encounter with the divine―i.e. Ala Emit, the creator and founding ancestor―who called her to her mission of emphasizing an egalitarian community and was arrested because a French colonial official saw a severe threat in her ministry. Yet, two questions remain: first, how far is Paul’s voice echoed in the available sources of Aline Sitoé Diatta’s messages? Second, do both―the apostle and the prophet―offer actionable ideas for a lasting interfaith engagement today?
In “Aussie Men, Roman Men, and Fashioning the Evangelical Man from 1 Timothy 2,” Lyn M. Kidson begins with the observation that “women are problematic in many evangelical circles”(169). To sustain this thesis, she offers a critical reading of three popular Australian evangelical readings of 1 Timothy 2. In all three readings, masculinity is the normative state for Christians, and masculinity is dominant in the public sphere. Yet, such a vision of masculinity is weak. It depends on the obedience of women who listen to men when they speak. Moreover, it does not concur with the text, which has both genders in view. Kidson interprets the text in the light of Roman debates on masculinity. For her, Timothy fights a threat to the community from other Christians. In this context, 1 Timothy 2:8–11 describes gender ethics for males and females in gender specific ways focusing on men and women in the public sphere. 1 Timothy 2:12–15, however, gives advice to elite couples in their private communications. Here the author tries to prevent men from being persuaded by their wives to listen to the other teachers. So, 1 Timothy has a far more robust view of masculinity than present-day Australian (evangelical) commentators, and others as well.
In the second section, contributors address the concept of context and the challenges of New Testament studies for today from theoretical and biographical perspectives.
In “Reading the New Testament in Manifold Contexts of a Globalized World: Exegetical Perspectives”, Armand Puig i Tàrrech analyzes – as one of ten million Catalan speaking people – the impact of New Testament studies in the 20th and 21th century in Roman Catholic churches, theology and global culture. While there was a growing consensus during the Second Vatican Council about the need to apply critical exegesis to the biblical texts in order to prevent the Creeds from being fossilized by the church’s traditions, today there is a gradual shift away from New Testament studies to religious studies, and there is less theological interest on the part of biblical scholars. Puig i Tàrrech proposes a new focus on the reconstruction of Jesus’ life and teaching in interdisciplinary and inter-confessional teams. As an example, Puig i Tàrrech proposes an intertextual relationship between the parables in Matt 22:1–14 and Matt 25:31–41. He argues that this relationship explains an apparent contradiction in Matthew 22: the bad are invited to the wedding banquet in Matt 22:10 but the one without a wedding robe is excluded in Matt 22:11–13. The wedding robe, he suggests, is a symbol for the good works that the Son of Man will call for on the Last Day according to Matt 25.
In “New Testament Interpretation in the United States: A Perspective from a Cultural Observer,” Francisco Lozada, Jr. uses U.S. immigration history as a filter to reflect critically on the history of New Testament interpretation. Through the ‘open door policy’ towards the south in the 1960s and 1970s, New Testament studies became more diverse. Historical methods were decentered and new methods like socio-cultural criticism or cultural anthropology shaped readings that served the cause of liberation. From 1986 onward new laws tried to stop unauthorized immigration, and narrative and reader-response criticism appeared around the same time. With gender and postcolonial criticism, readers began to interpret the text from their own standpoint. September 2001 led to a backlash to immigration rights, and the effects of this are still felt today. In New Testament studies, the role of flesh-and-blood readers remains disputed. Lozada challenges white exegetes who attempt to hide their role in the interpretive process behind claims to impartiality and historical objectivity. He suggests that an important future task for New Testament scholars is to become cultural observers in the act of interpretation who pay attention to the state of the field.
In her essay “Racism and New Testament Scholarship in Latinx California: U.S. Debates on Racism and Biblical Scholarship,” Kay Higuera Smith describes her personal journey as a biblical scholar. Starting from a Latina/o/x-Californiano/a/x-Roman Catholic background, she received her academic training in the tradition of twentieth century German historical-critical exegesis and currently holds a teaching position at a Pentecostal Institution dominated by white male scholars. These discursive, social, and cultural contexts make her aware of her own borderline existence. While biblical scholarship in both historical-critical and fundamentalist hermeneutical traditions claim to follow allegedly ‘neutral’ norms and practices, both traditions perpetuate the power play of othering and silencing scholars from outside the U.S.-American and European west. Postcolonial approaches help to overcome the logic of coloniality, yet sometimes fail to articulate the ethical implications of theoretical analyses. Higuera Smith describes how decolonial biblical hermeneutics, converging with liberation theology for shared epistemic goals, work to develop pedagogies against the ideology of power, hegemony, and White European normativity.
In his article “Die Erfahrung, im brasilianischen Kontext zum Neuen Testament zu lehren und zu forschen,” Marcelo da Silva Carneiro reflects on the task of teaching New Testament in both church and university contexts in Brazil. The broad range of relevant sources from antiquity, the theological needs of those who work in churches, the important legacy of Brazilian theology of liberation, and ethical decision making must be balanced. In order to enable students to make up their own mind, it is necessary to include opposing, even fundamentalist positions. As elsewhere, gender justice and homosexuality are pressing issues in the church. Yet, there are also specific Brazilian forms of racism against people of color, immigrants, and indigenous people. In addition, politicians, elected to office by evangelical fundamentalists, do not hesitate to use the Bible to legitimize their racist, homophobic, xenophobic and sexist messages. New Testament studies can respond to this situation by including decolonizing theories as analytic tools and by scrutinizing the strategies of subversion and resistance to structures of domination in the biblical texts and the message of Jesus.
In “Researching and Teaching OtherWise,” Ronald Charles reflects on wandering between his native land of Haiti and Canada, where he was trained in New Testament studies. Charles takes the apostle Paul as his example. He understands the missionary to the nations as a Diaspora person who navigates between Diaspora spaces and theological ideals, engaging in the intricacies of Diaspora life and politics and negotiating the social realities faced by different actors. Charles, having reflected on his own stance in society as well as his position as a teacher of New Testament in liberal arts colleges in Canada and the U.S., moved away from a symbolic or heroic view of Paul. As a minoritized scholar, he seeks to de-camouflage ideological and epistemological heuristics by asking disturbing questions, listening to those from the margins and reading their texts and stories alongside the texts of mainstream scholarship. Discussing Douglas Campbell’s book, “Paul: An Apostle’s Journey,” Charles insists that it is important to reflect on one’s own ideological agendas and avoid pretensions to ‘objective scholarship.’ Through the choices that scholars make about texts, sources, theories and the questions that are asked or ignored, New Testament scholarship proves to be eminently political work.
In “Reflections on a Lifetime of New Testament Teaching and Research in Australasia,” William Loader focuses on his life journey as an Australian raised with an evangelical background. As an international student, Loader travelled to Mainz in Germany to write his dissertation with Ferdinand Hahn. Back in Australia, he sought to establish and maintain academic New Testament scholarship. Loader succeeded in creating collaborative efforts between church run seminaries and universities in the early 1980s. This corresponded to the peak of the influence of German exegesis. Later, the constant decline of student numbers led to the collapse of most of the theological departments in universities. International scholarship, however, especially the international groups or Liaison committees of the SNTS (of which Loader was the secretary for many years), still gave hope. As gender-studies led to a broader and deeper understanding of New Testament studies than that of former years, scholars from outside of traditional demographics brought new perspectives and greater cultural diversity to the field. “The best practice is where preachers make connections between the tensions in the world of Jesus and the tensions in contemporary society and help people engage a spirituality in which they see their calling and the calling of the church to be ‘good news for the poor’” (p. 303).
In “Reading the New Testament in Aotearoa New Zealand,” Paul Trebilco, who got his PhD from the University of Durham, England, explains how the denominational plurality of Aotearoa New Zealand raises the questions of what theological factors might unify the church and whether there are limits to diversity in the church. These questions animated his studies on the plurality of Christian groups in Ephesus in the first and second centuries, their identities and their self-designations in relation to each other. One of Trebilco’s more recent questions is: “How do Christian groups practice the radical inclusiveness of Jesus, whilst also calling for repentance, transformation and justice? How do Christian groups today maintain their on-going identity so that they are authentically and distinctively ‘Christian,’ while also being open to and engaged with the wider context in which we live?” (p. 313) Trebilco expresses the challenge he feels in attempting to teach and do research in the global field of New Testament studies within the inherently individualistic tradition of Western Theology while living on the land of Māori people, who value deeply the spiritual dimensions of corporate life.
In “Reflections on Reading and Translating the New Testament in Contemporary Russia,” Alexey B. Somov, trained in both Eastern Orthodox Theology and non-confessional historical criticism, reflects on New Testament studies in post-Soviet Russia and Princeton. A central challenge for Biblical scholarship in Russia is that Eastern Orthodox Theology has never felt at home in modern biblical scholarship. Yet, some of the old conflicts with western critical approaches are now obsolete; in many institutions canonical approaches are now more prominent than the “demythologizing” paradigm that once held great influence. Furthermore, Patristic exegesis becomes more relevant and stimulating when it is studied alongside historical-critical approaches. Patristic exegetes like John Chrysostom provide important keys for understanding particular Greek expressions. Orthodox Synaxaria, martyrdom reports and the Palaea literature prove to be important para-biblical texts and traditions. In Russia, with regard both to liturgy and theology, there is a need for new translations as well as for uncensored scholarly study of the Bible. Somov provides an overview of institutions and cooperative endeavors that can meet these needs.
Acknowledgements
As editors of the NET series, our intention in this volume is to document the various perspectives on exegesis and interpretation entailed and promoted by reading the New Testament as a global book. As the essays demonstrate, context matters indeed. Interpretation of New Testament texts is confronted with multiple situations of crisis and conflict, and the authors tackle the emerging challenges with a keen awareness of the hermeneutical tasks necessary for those situations. The discipline of New Testament studies is thus in a constant test, provoked to a worldwide dialogue on hermeneutics, methods, and interpretations. At the same time, the New Testament remains a tremendous resource of religious, intellectual and socio-political hope. This volume, therefore, not only reveals the rich diversity of questions that are addressed and methods that are applied to the New Testament texts, but also shows that the corpus of New Testament writings remains underutilized. The New Testament affords potential interpretations, sometimes new and sometimes rediscovered, which help us as individuals and as communities of interpreters to understand our world in times of existential crisis and beyond. We hope that this will also hold true with regard to the Covid pandemic, the many wars waged against human beings and the problems posed by climate change.
We would like to thank all the contributors for their participation in the creation of this volume, Dr. J. Andrew Cowan for checking the English of this introduction, the Lutheran World Federation and the University of Leipzig for their financial support of the project, and Francke Verlag (Tübingen) for faithful and professional cooperation—from the idea for the book to the publication of the volume. We also thank Eva Maria Viziotis and Lena Setzer (both Leipzig) for compiling the indexes.
Münster/Leipzig/Marburg/Göttingen, May 2022
Eve-Marie Becker, Jens Herzer, Angela Standhartinger and Florian Wilk
1.Contextualization: Exegetical and biographical readings
Appraising Exegetical Procedures in Reading the New Testament in African Context
Biblical Hermeneutical Model in African Context
My interest in biblical theology goes back to my bush and primary schools. I had always attended Christian education classes and loved hearing and reading biblical stories from both Old and New Testaments. I was born in a village, on the highest plateaus of Livingston Mountains of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania, short after the independence of Tanzania. People of this place respect personal responsibility, human dignity and communal life. Even though the gospel had entered this particular place around 1900, many people are following African Religion.1 I had experienced fathers, mothers, grandparents, diviners and overseers from my kinspersons worshipping God and venerating ancestors. In my carreer, I have always related this context in interpreting biblical messages. This process has shaped my theological engagement and spiritual life.
At my primary and secondary education, I attended Christian education, where evangelists2 taught me biblical stories. These biblical stories made me encounter my local context where I occasionally participated and saw my parents attend and worship God in designated shrines, especially in dense natural forests. The hearing and reading of biblical stories inculcated in me a sense of a God-fearing person. Therefore, through these stories, I learned that the God of the Bible was the Highest, but not different from our local God, who would confront the fears and threats of lives expressed in religious, social, and cultural practices.
Contextually, I understood that human beings who had broken relationships with God and creation appeased the ancestors for reconciliation. This basic understanding prepared me for a deeper understanding of the Old Testament God’s covenant with Israel and the entire creation. It also made me understand the interpretation of the covenant by Old Testament prophets and its fulfilment in the salvific act of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ as narrated in the New Testament. God confronted our contexts reigned by beliefs in evil spirits and life-threatening conditions such as diseases and poverty through the power revealed to us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through this context, I envisioned interacting with the meaning and relevance of biblical stories in their contexts and my context.
After my secondary education, I joined theological education. I was always interested in biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew) in the introductions to biblical theology. At the university level, I researched The Concept of Eternal Life in the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John. Later, I studied The Concept of Poverty in Luke from a Perspective of a Wanji of Tanzania for my doctoral dissertation. In the latter study, I wanted to do biblical studies relevant to my Tanzanian context. This study was almost impossible in Germany since traditionally historical-critical exegesis was limited to biblical texts in their context. However, Augustana Hochschule, at this time, had already advanced in incorporating socio-scientific and cultural-anthropological methods in biblical studies in addition to historical-critical methods. This approach gave me a leeway to propose something that suits my context.
At the university, lectures and seminars moulded me to different discourses and methods of biblical interpretations. In addition, the Augustana Hochschule organised workshops with other international students on the church’s global mission. These seminars enriched my theological thinking in intercultural hermeneutics. These intercultural encounters added more paradigms in seeing biblical texts produced by Christians in a multicultural Jewish-Greco-Roman context. I think, in the background, the incarnation theology had taught me to respect all cultures as a creation of God. Through this point of view, I have learnt to carefully interpret the Bible through contextual exegesis with the awareness that this could also run a risk of ethnocentrism.
The roots of incarnation theology are biblical. However, classic systematic theology deals predominantly with God becoming flesh in the historical person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.3 Unlike the typical Christian interpretation of incarnation, the African Christian theological reflection of incarnation makes God’s indwelling (Shekhinah) in humans happen in the universe’s context.4 In this sense, the Christological emphasis is not the mathematical or quantitative presence of divinity and humanity in Jesus, but rather the divine is present in all aspects of life.5 This overarching consistency in African thoughts about the divine reality of God in Christ makes it inadequate to present Jesus Christ as either the “Living-Ancestor,” “Proto-Ancestor,” “Brother-Ancestor,” “Elder-Brother,” “Perfect-Ancestor,” “New-Ancestor,” or as “Mediator,” “Healer,” “Liberator,” “Chief/King,” or “Life-Rescuer.”6 One title is not enough to cover the dynamic movement of God’s divinity into the human Jesus Christ. In African thinking, God revealed in Jesus indwells humanity and the whole creation to save it and renew the corrupted creation because of human destruction.7 This model critiques the narrow thinking of personifying divine character and embraces the two natures of God in Jesus as united and dynamically meant for the liberation of the whole creation. In simple terms, God, who created heaven and earth in the Old Testament, dynamically manifests His godliness and reunites with His creation in Jesus Christ. He promises to transform it into a new creation as long as humanity trusts Jesus Christ.8
This theological framework has been a leitmotif in my biblical epistemological inquiries in finding out the relevance of the biblical text in the local African contexts. I still put more weight on how the interpreted biblical message could affect the wellbeing of humanity. The healing miracles of Jesus are essential because the teaching of the faith accompanies them and represents a holistic cosmic view of salvation in Africa. It was just before COVID-19 I had been granted a sabbatical to work on my proposed theme on “Rereading Healing Miracles in the African Context,” through a point of view of the biblical context in correlation with a point of view of especially a Tanzanian context. I am still working on this project, and I see COVID-19 and other pandemics challenging theologians to see health in a holistic sense rather than as a medical challenge only.
Reading the Bible Written in Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts in African Contexts
Since I am interpreting some aspects of healing miracles in the Early Church in Africa, it will also be necessary to sketch the two worlds. The Judeo-Hellenistic biblical context cannot be similar to the African context of the 20th century when Africans south of the Sahara began to write their history. Firstly, the Judeo-Hellenistic context of the two early centuries is almost 2000 years old, while Christianity grew in Africa at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. Secondly, in the first two centuries, Christianity spread while experiencing persecutions from some Jewish sects and some prefects and Emperors of the Roman Empire. On the contrary, Christianity spread in Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries together with the partition and colonisation of Africa. Thirdly, while Christian marital statuses in Palestinian-Hellenistic contexts were monogamous with some exceptions of serial polygamy through divorces, many African families before Christianity had been predominantly polygamous. Fourthly, another observable difference between the Christian Palestine-Greco-Roman context and the African context is the eschatological discernment. In the biblical context, the eschatological judgement and punitive measures to wrongdoers happen after death. In the African context, correcting those who have wronged the community and creation happens to individuals and communities in the present life.1 These differences affect heavily any contextualisation of the biblical message of the first two centuries.2 Therefore, studying and applying biblical messages in the African context must involve careful reading of biblical texts and decolonising the influence of mission and colonialism in the local contexts to avoid anachronistic interpretations.
Furthermore, there are apparent similarities between the two contexts that make reading the Bible at home in the African context. Socially, the Palestinian-Greco-Roman social context, like an African social context, embodies an individual’s identity.3 In both contexts, strong social attachments between living individuals and even with the living dead are comparable. Another evident similarity between the biblical context and the African context is the socio-divine worldview. Africans, like people of the Palestinian-Greco-Roman context, believe in monotheistic God through ancestral intermediaries.4 The hierarchical faith makes God the one and only Creator of the universe, and one reaches Him through respectable ancestors.5 When a human being disturbs or conflicts with other human beings, and when humans destroy the environment, such as forests, land, rivers, and homes, God intervenes by plagues, calamities, and diseases.6 Therefore, all people in the community with their given gifts of leadership, medical skills (medicine men and women), diviners, craftsmen/women, educators, midwives, and cultural (oral) literature composers and dancers serve the purpose of maintaining God’s creation and in times restoring the corrupted creation.7 I consider the healing aspect in the African context as comprehensive as possible since it deals with the holistic wellbeing of humanity and their environment. Many of the healing miracle stories in the New Testament restore the holistic wellbeing of the sick and the community surrounding them.
The reading of the Bible happened in the African context, where I grew to understand God as the Creator. However, early missionaries imposed a heinous stigma on African theological worldviews regarding their beliefs and practices and robbed people of their God-created identity.8 The questions raised by African Christian Theology brought new ways of reading biblical traditions and looked for the appropriate language and tools to contextualise the biblical message.9 The Bible is read from the point of view that God has revealed to the world through becoming human (incarnation) in Jesus Christ for the redemption of the whole creation, including Africa.
Historical-critical methods have dominated biblical studies in theological institutions since Enlightenment. In this positivistic era, the Bible became “the historical source of one of the many religions, and […] the religion of Israel [became] but a sector of the general history of religions.”10 Some biblical scholars maintained “truth” through historical-critical explanations and a “theological truth” through philosophical interpretation as separate disciplines.11 Advocates of this method still argue that the only way to discern the biblical message intended to reach a given context is through historical criticism. Then people communicate the biblical message to make it relevant in their contexts.12
In the third quarter of the 20th century, the historical-critical method has come under severe attack.13 Scholars argue that people can only develop the Old and New Testament truth by reconstructing biblical narratives in their respective contexts regarding dates, places, statuses of participants, composers, and effects.14 This view means that in the historical-critical method, people often overlook the development of biblical stories as part of a synchronic edification of texts by authors to reach their audiences in their given contexts.
Today biblical scholars consider both diachronic and synchronic analyses of biblical texts as indispensable in discerning their meaning in given biblical contexts.15 At the synchronic level of biblical study, including effective-history and socio-cultural realities of a text becomes an integral part of textual interpretation. Historical paradigms that see texts through the focal position of cultural-anthropological worldviews have to integrate narrative and literary/rhetorical criticisms to decipher proto-receptivity and the intended meaning of a text.16 Christian Strecker summarises three basic orientations, which he calls ‘cultural-anthropological exegesis, contextual exegesis, and the reflection of the use of biblical motives in cultural performances.’17 There is an attempt to say that “contextual exegesis,” if taken as a meeting point, should, apart from a search for proximal actual events in the stories under analysis “without bias,” relate those stories to the cultural-anthropological world views in the contexts in which characters produce texts.18
The African context as a space for reading biblical texts would also need to undergo critical analysis since the biblical context has received the Bible through Western “colonial” culture. The context requires liberating paradigms to deconstruct and decolonise some missionary teachings of the Bible to align them with the needs of the African context.19 This process allows the interpreter (subject) to have a pragmatic evaluation of a text that speaks directly to Africans.
Therefore, contextual exegesis requires eclectic procedures that allow a diachronic and synchronic analysis of a text. The approach gives powerful motivation to relate the text to one’s context. In this sense, reading the biblical text will inevitably require investigative procedures on how it resonates with Jewish-Palestinian and Greco-Roman contexts. From there, one can ask how the interpreted message could speak to our context today. In this quest, there should be both historical-critical and hermeneutical procedures to respond to the relevance of the biblical message in our micro (African) and macro (Global) contexts.
A New Testament Quest for Hermeneutic of Healing in the Early Church: Healing Stories in the Early Church
In the first place, historians and theologians have interpreted the Early Church from the classic mission perspective that perceives a conversion of Jews and Gentiles as a prerequisite into Christianity.1 This perspective on Christianity gives a narrow view of intercultural encounters among ethnic groups of the Palestinian and Greco-Roman contexts. It also overlooks praxeological aspects of Christianity within those contexts. In the latter’s case, a series of healing events in the New Testament indicates that the Early Church was concerned with increasing disciples into Christianity and their wellbeing.
The following texts serve the purpose of looking into healing practices in the Early Church as inevitably part and parcel of a missionary mandate to reclaim life from the corrupted world and to care for the wellbeing of Christians and humanity at large. The established Jerusalem Christian congregation through apostles healed people with different illnesses and resurrected the dead (Acts 3:1–10; 8:6–13; 9:34; 9:40–41; 20:9–12) as a continuation of Jesus’ immanent divine intervention against the kingdom of evil for the liberation of human beings and the whole creation (Luke 11:20). The congregations also held prayers to confront the threats of [life] to receive the mighty hand of God to heal and perform miracles in the Name of Jesus (Acts 4:29–30). The followers believed the disciples of Jesus had such power so much that even when they were in touch with their shadows, they could be healed (Acts 5:15–16). Paul and his co-workers also healed people through prayers, and healing also happened because of the faith of the sick themselves (Acts 14:8–10). When Paul touched clothes and other objects, disciples reinstituted them to heal the sick (Acts 19:12). In many of these events, faith, prayer and the laying of hands by the apostles/disciples on sick people had a healing effect to the sick, to the extent of healing even physical sicknesses such as high fever caused by many other things in the body including diarrhoea (Acts 28:8).
The healing and miracle performances were typical in the early church, and they usually were accompanied by the teaching and affirmation of faith. No formula had to begin first, but the aim is the physical benefit and spiritual growth whenever there is healing. Many churches established by apostles practised healing (2 Thessalonians 3:1–3; James 5:14–15). Through prayers and anointing, Christians restored the relationship of the sick person with the Lord (God), and the Lord (God) revitalised the life of the believer and forgave sins (James 5:15). The acts of anointing and praying are holistic physical and spiritual healing acts. In this case, physical and spiritual actions through faith are crucial, and they bring healing and reclaim the life and well being of people.
Palestinian and Greco-Roman Healing Context
There is a growing consensus that to understand the healing in the New Testament, one has to strive to understand the environment of the Palestinian and Greco-Roman world or the first and second-century Mediterranean world. The cultural-anthropological and religious value systems define the state of being sick or ill and their respective remedy.1 Pilch in his work says,
“… it is not always possible to separate medicine from the religious system as is routinely done … Religion can be viewed as a cultural adaptive response to a much wider range of suffering and misfortune, of which human sickness is only a small part.”2
This means that a holistic view of healing should see healing miracles from both a medical causal-effect point of view3 and through value systems that embody the socio-religious and cultural identities. In this respect, faith-related practices contribute significantly to people’s healing and wellbeing.
Healing in the Early Church as Holistic Commission
In the case of the healing that happened in the Early Church, it was not only the physical body that was important but also the spiritual life made a decisive integral part of the whole. The trust in the relationship with God, neighbour and the whole creation brought about healing. Some exegetes identify these miracle stories as happening within the contexts of congregations for planting and caring for the church.1 The understanding of miracle stories in this sense simplifies the power of the message of the gospel. It reduces this good news into something like a religious cult instead of a liberating message in all aspects of life. However, I think it is essential to see that Christians interpret healing miracles from the context of the incarnation of the Kingdom of God manifested in the life and deeds of Jesus Christ.2 The trust in the incarnation of God in Christ from the biblical and African-theological perspectives, as described above, renews/heals not only the life of human beings but also the whole creation.
Faithfulness in the powerful message of Jesus Christ embodies in itself a healing miracle that may be enough to overcome the threats of life in different forms (Acts 4:29–30). The commission to proclaim good news to the nations without discrimination of a Jew or a Gentile brings hope to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ brings liberation from colonial evils and suppression exacerbated by the Roman Empire and its hegemonic systems. In this context, Christianity helped give hope to the hopeless and redefined the meaning of life of different groups through the communion of believers (Acts 2:39; 9:42; and 19:17–20).
In this way, I also try to understand Pilch, who says that healing (medicine) is not always separable from people’s belief (divine) value systems in the New Testament context. Otherwise, we fall into the trap of anachronistic judgement and exotic experimentation of healing phenomena instead of letting them contribute and pose challenges to our own (conventionally understood as progressive) systems. At the same time, we cry for a disturbed ecosystem and climate change. The discussion of the texts above defines illness/sickness as a physical, social, political, and spiritual anomaly. All medical possibilities and spiritual means arising from trust and love in God manifested in Jesus Christ treat these ailments. Thus, the faithfulness in Jesus Christ becomes the source for us to participate in God’s salvific event and assures us wellbeing on earth and eternal life in the world to come.
The narratives about healing in the Early Church embody the entire commission of Christians to preach the good news that through faith and deeds, may reclaim the lost relationship with God and his creation and bring back life in abundance threatened by individual and systematic sin. This meaning of healing and its relevance in the context of the Early Church challenges us not to reduce healing to a mere perspective of biomedicine (or human science) as emphasised in these days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paradigm also compels us to act against any manipulation of God’s power that transforms lives by some medical doctors, medicine men and women, preachers and ministers. It guides us to resist those who pretend to have more spiritual power to heal and resurrect people. In fact, from the biblical point of view, it is our faith (all of us) in God alone and his means of grace that is enough to heal us. Steadfast faithfulness of believers in the Word of God invites a renewed relationship with God and neighbour through proclaimed love that promotes healthy co-existence among human beings in a communion of believers and neighbours. It also embodies healing power that affects the physical and spiritual life of a believer.
A Response to the New Testament Hermeneutic and Practice of Healing in Africa Context
It is important to note that when Africans discern cultural-anthropological concepts of life and practices, they also bring fruitful remedies to misconceptions of African worldview due to colonial and missionary misinterpretations. Firstly, the process helps them self-examine their socially full contexts of tensions and sometimes violent conflicts. Secondly, it allows them to see that, like any ethnic group in this world, God has also created Africans in his image, and therefore they have to adore and worship him alone. Lastly, from the reconciliatory metaphors available in the African context Jesus Christ embodies the divine power (incarnation of God) to bring back the distorted life, and therefore like “respected ancestors,” he presents the Heilsgeschichte (salvation story) for all humanity and creation.
From a contextual exegesis point of view, my reading of the Bible has never produced an African exegesis for apologetic sake. The attempt has been to see that elements I wholeheartedly believe could contribute and give more light to the reading of a document of first-century Christianity in the African context. I also do not buy the idea that the African context is similar to the New Testament context since I will be sinning by accepting that other cultures are progressive and others are not. Christians have to take each context seriously since we are all divinely consecrated by God as good creation. In this sense, no one should have a narrow and localised definition of a context. African context, like any other context, is dynamic and not static.
In the description of incarnation above, God in Jesus Christ comes to give new life to the corrupted world. In the African context, baptism in the Triune God, participation in the Eucharist and service to the communion of the Church through the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit reconcile Christians with God and with themselves and heal individuals and bring healthy relationships in the community.1 When they submit to God through faithfulness in Jesus Christ, they receive life in abundance. It means that the healing of illnesses/sicknesses happened in the Early Church through prayer, laying of hands, anointing, baptism, Eucharist, and participation in koinonia. The African context sees healing as holistic since Africans do not separate medical cure from divine healing.2 When Africans receive Holy Baptism, participate in the Holy Eucharist, pray, anoint, lay hands in the Name of Jesus, believe in the presence of God in Jesus Christ (incarnation), they also await blessings and healing from God at the same time.
There is a resurgence of much of what I presented from the Early Church in the African context. In the first place, apostles practised healing patterns (for physical and social ills) like the way Jesus healed his disciples. They also resurrected people who had died, bringing them back to everyday social life. The apostles also sometimes just prayed in the same manner as Jesus did, laid hands on (or touched) someone, or used oil to heal and anoint those who were ill or sick. There are also similar patterns of handling pieces of clothes or using them for healing. Some disciples even believed that contact with even a shadow of a faithful apostle could heal someone in touch with the shadow. In general, Christians trusted that faith in Jesus Christ and healing actions in his name confronted life and death threats. They believed, healing transformed the whole creation. This amalgamated healing ministry made a holistic growth of the church in membership, spiritual and diaconal care. Thus, when we see mushrooming healing ministries and churches in Africa, we should not negatively judge these trends quickly. On the contrary, we should study how these ministries and churches contextualise Christian healing in the African context.
