Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 101 (July 1998) 35-48
REPORT
The Influence of African Scholars on Biblical Studies:
An evaluationNancy R. Heisey
A B S T R A C T
From a prominently North American point of view, the author presents the results of her research on research done on Africa, the conversation between African and African-American scholars, and methodological insights coming out of these areas in biblical studies. Basing her conclusions mainly on the publications in the Journal of Biblical Literature, but also including the African Theological Journal, the Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center, and the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, Heisey argues that is mainly due to African-American and African biblical scholars that the "Africanness" of the biblical literature is being acknowledged and that the newer methods used in the guild are producing a fruitful intersection between biblical studies and African studies.
Nearly two thousand years after African theologians such as Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius and Augustine lived and wrote, modern African theology has reemerged as a conversation partner with other Christian theologies around the world.[1] This paper, however, proposes to investigate the influence of African and African American scholars who focus particularly on Africa-related questions within biblical studies, a sister discipline to religion and theology. The field of biblical studies is defined to include historical, literary, textual, cultural and theological research on the materials in both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. In order to assess the impact that this scholarship from Africa and by Africans has had on biblical studies, this paper will consider three broad areas. First, it will observe the use of research on Africa in antiquity as it relates to topics in biblical studies. Next, it will present research on the conversation between African and African American biblical scholars and the broader community of biblical scholars. Finally, it will assess the use of insights from research in Africa on methodologies which have emerged recently for the analysis of biblical texts.
In all three areas, this research will use as one point of reference the contents of the Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL), the "flagship" periodical of the Society of Biblical Literature—perhaps the largest and most prestigious learned society for North American biblical scholars, which also includes some international scholars. JBL issues between 1942 and 1990 were included.[2] The choice of this journal as a point of reference indicates that the most prominently represented perspective here is that of the biblical studies scholarly community in the United States, and to a certain extent in Canada.
This paper will show that research on Africa in antiquity and on ancient African languages has historically been important for biblical studies, but that only recent work, much of it by African American scholars, has insisted that such research consider the "Africanness" of the data. Further, it will suggest that at present the involvement of African and African American scholars in the discourse of North American biblical scholarship is still in its infancy. Finally, it will suggest that the most significant intersection of biblical studies with African studies is in the realm of the newer methods of biblical criticism.
Africa in antiquity
The 1992 Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD) provides several important intersections between biblical studies and African studies. First, it includes numerous articles providing background information on the history of African regions mentioned in the Bible. Extensive articles trace the history of Egypt from prehistoric times to the Greco-Roman period. Brief references to Ethiopia, Cyrene, and Put (possibly Libya or Somalia) are made. Second, and of greater importance if length of articles is any measure, is the matter of African languages used in early translations of Hebrew and Christian scriptures. With the original texts in Hebrew and Greek, the first biblical translations were made into three languages used in Africa: Greek (from Hebrew), Coptic—a descendent of Egyptian—and Latin. In fact, it is almost universally acknowledged that the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek was undertaken by the Jewish diaspora community in Egypt. Further, "the form of the Latin version (of the Christian Bible) which survived in Africa appears to be the most primitive," and the significance of comparisons between the Alexandrian (Greek) text and those of the Sahidic (Coptic) text of the New Testament is noted. Indeed, Coptic literature known to modern scholars is "almost exclusively religious and largely Christian."[3] Among the four ancient "secondary" versions is included Ethiopic, another African language. The scholarly consensus reflected in the ABD classifies Ethiopic in the Western Semitic branch of the Semitic language group and Egyptian as the other (non Semitic) group within the Afroasiatic language family. Meroitic is noted as an ancient African language which remains undeciphered because available inscriptions cannot be shown to be "related to any other" languages.[4]
In JBL, most interest in studies of African antiquity is in the area of African/biblical languages—likely because the scholarly work in that journal concentrates on textual and linguistic questions.[5] At least sixteen articles and reviews on linguistic and philological topics related to African languages, often comparisons with biblical textual materials, were published. The Ethiopic manuscripts of the Book of Enoch, Sahidic Coptic fragments of both Hebrew Bible and New Testament fragments, and Egyptian wisdom literature, in particular love poetry, are considered.
The identification of biblical characters of African origin has also been part of biblical studies. The ABD includes such articles, as does the JBL. In the JBL, however, this interest in identification is quite limited, since in the fifty years surveyed only four such titles were identified. These articles all represent biblically obscure figures, such as characters listed in the genealogies, and parallels between biblical characters and those from Egyptian literature and history, such as Joseph and Sinuhe or Ezra/Nehemiah and Udjahorresnet.[6]
A much more intensive identification of biblical characters of African provenance, however, can be found in two study Bibles edited by biblical scholars and other church leaders for African American readers. Indeed, as will be noted at several points below, the identification of African presence in the Bible has been a central area of research for African American biblical scholars. While the intention of these Bibles is to appeal to popular audiences, both have drawn on scholarly research about Africa in antiquity, and have acknowledged the influence on their scholarship of Afrocentrism as a paradigm. Indeed, The African heritage study Bible, whose introduction notes that "in biblical times ‘Africa’ included much of what European maps have come to call the ‘Middle East’, "lists among its editors Molefi Asante of the African American Studies Department of Temple University in the United States, and Cheikh Anta Diop of Senegal, both preeminent leaders of the Afrocentric school.[7] The notes to this Bible argue for an "African/Edenic" presence in the text and use highlighted printing to draw readers’ attention to it.[8]
Among the characters who have elicited much discussion throughout the biblical scholarly community is the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8. Commentators have no trouble locating the provenance of this royal official as "Nubian territory between Aswan and Khartoun."[9] Several scholars indicate that the importance of this region to first-century readers comes from the "Hellenistic fascination with ... exotica."[10] Yet the primary debate among scholars has been whether the Ethiopian official was a Jew or an Gentile, rather than over his African identity or official role in an African government. The account has been discussed alongside that of the conversion of the God-fearing Gentile, the centurion Cornelius, by Peter in chapter ten, which indicated the acceptance of the Gentile mission by the Jewish-Christian church at Jerusalem. Johnson and Pervo believe that for Luke the Ethiopian official was Jewish. "Whoever the ‘historical Ethiopian’ might have been..., Luke clearly wants his readers to see him as part of the ‘ingathering of the scattered people’ of Israel.[11] Munck, on the other hand, believes the Ethiopian is a Gentile, but raises the discomfiting question, for those pursuing the priority of the Peter thesis, about the reason for the later’s emphasis on Cornelius.[12] Haenchen suggests that there were two rival accounts of the origins of the Gentile mission—one tracing it to Peter (the mainstream view) and the other to Philip. He therefore leaves the identity of the Ethiopian official deliberately ambiguous in order to include a fascinating story but preserve Peter’s place of honor.[13]
Recently, however, Clarice J. Martin, an African American scholar, has argued that the "ethnographic identity" of the official as "a recognizable black African from ancient Nubia" plays a role in Luke’s broader account. That is, the "conversion of an ‘Ethiopian’ eunuch provides a graphic illustration and symbol of the diverse persons who will constitute the Church of the Risen Christ." Still further, she suggests that the geographical constructs of the time would lead the readers of this story to believe that "the Gospel had reached the end of the earth... and hence fulfill the prophetic statement at the beginning of Acts 1:8."[14]
Thus biblical scholars generally acknowledge the place of the study of African languages in antiquity as well as the existence of biblical characters from various geographical regions of the continent now known as Africa. It may be suggested that the "Africanness" of these languages and characters, however, has been very little acknowledged until recent times. The central role of African and African American biblical scholars in challenging the ahistorical presuppositions of such traditional scholarship is noted.
African and African American scholars
The second aspect of the research of this paper was to observe the level of interaction between African and African American biblical scholars and other scholars in their field. The inclusion of African American biblical scholars was indicated by the published record of their interest in African studies for their research. The names of all the scholars included in the research of this paper were obtained by recording the authors of published titles indicating a biblical studies content in several theological journals, including two published in Africa. Theological journals were used because they included a large number of African scholars and because no biblical studies journal was known which has published many African scholars.
The journals studied are African Theological Journal (ATJ), Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center (JITC), and Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (JTSA). Names of all authors whose titles related to biblical topics were noted. Because the contents of the JITC were largely theological rather than specifically on biblical studies topics, the list was expanded to include those whose biblical articles were published in three books of collected articles on African American theology and religious experience.[15]
This paper’s narrow focus on biblical studies sharply reduced the number of women scholars considered. Two women biblical scholars were included in JITC publications, one in JTSA, and none in ATJ. As has already been noted, theology as a sister discipline was not part of this study, and thus this analysis did not include the internationally recognized work of theologian Mercy Amba Oduyoye and the recent collection of writings of the interfaith Circle of Concerned African Women Theologians.[16]
The method of listing African biblical scholars was also limited by not being able to identify those scholars whose names or particular topics did not indicate African connections. For example, the listing method did not identify the work of Ethiopian scholar Ephraim Isaac. Isaac, director of the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, a fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary and Harvard has published a translation of the Ethiopic history of Joseph,[17] as well as articles on the Ethiopic manuscripts of the Book of Enoch.[18] Further, a text-critical article by Isaac in the JBL, which included comparative notes to Ethiopic texts, was not picked up in this survey since the title made no reference to the language or the geographical setting.[19]
The African Theological Journal included articles by twenty-five persons writing on biblical topics. These authors included faculty members at the Lutheran Theological College in Tanzania, ATJ’s publisher, as well as scholars from other institutions across the continent. The Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, from the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Cape Town, published articles on biblical topics by thirty-two authors, the majority of whom were working in South Africa but also including scholars from elsewhere in Africa. The limited interaction between the scholarly communities represented by the two African journals may be observed in the fact that only two authors, Itumeleng Mosala of South Africa and Justin Ukpong of Nigeria, published articles in both journals. Nineteen biblical scholars were identified from the Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center, based in Atlanta, Georgia, and the three additional books surveyed.[20]
The significant work of the scholars included in this survey can, however, be affirmed. Of the seventy-six persons surveyed, thirty-eight have published five or more articles listed in the Religion Database of the American Theological Libraries Association (ATLA). This database surveys articles, multiple author-works, and book reviews (both of the author reviewed and the author writing the review). These publications demonstrate a wide range of competence, in biblical studies and in other areas. In addition to text-historical biblical studies, the authors in the two African journals write about theological topics such as ecumenism, christology, the role of the ancestors, and polygyny from an African perspective; as well as about ethical issues related to race and liberation. The authors whose work appears in American-published journals and books deal with text-historical, literary critical, and womanist biblical interpretation, as well as with historical topics such as the African roots of Christianity and early Christian asceticism.
The inclusion of these scholars in the discourse of the JBL is both recent and somewhat limited. None of those published in the ATJ were listed in JBL indices.[21] Among the other scholars included, they have published either articles or reviews, or have been reviewed in JBL. All of these publications, except for two reviews, have appeared since 1980. The publications by these scholars in the JBL indicate expertise in specific biblical fields, in particular Pauline and Johannine studies. They do not reveal by title any particular connection to African studies.
The potential for greater interaction between scholars from African or African American perspectives with the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) may be found in its journal Semeia, whose editorial information identifies it as "an experimental journal devoted to the exploration of new and emergent areas and methods of biblical criticism." The records surveyed for this paper noted that five articles by the scholars included in this review have appeared in Semeia, which began publishing in 1974. These articles include topics on reader-response criticism liberation hermeneutics and historical/biblical characters. Three of these scholars have also published papers in the seminar collections of the SBL and one in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (JAAR), the periodical of the sister organization to the SBL.
Several of the scholars surveyed have also published articles in biblical studies journals such as Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Novum Testamentum, Vetus Testamentum and Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. These journals, representing especially the European scholarly community, may be more accessible to African scholars because of other historical, educational and economic links between their countries and those European contexts.
The contents of published articles suggest that for many of the scholars included in this paper’s survey, biblical studies in a narrow textual sense is not the end but rather a means to the discussion of historical, ethical and theological matters of concern to them. It may not be surprising, then, that their scholarly discourse more often finds its way into channels other than those reflected by the JBL.
New methods of biblical criticism
From the beginnings of Christianity and the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, debates over biblical texts have been part of the reality of the religious communities who have used those texts. For example, perhaps the earliest Christian biblical scholar, the Egyptian Origen, questioned the apostolic authorship of certain texts used by the church. Origen also prepared the Hexapla, a collection of differing manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures and their Greek translations which included a "system of symbols indicating variants, omissions and additions", for the purposes of comparative study.[22]
In the seventeenth century, however, biblical texts began to be examined sceptically rather than only theologically, following scientific discoveries which challenged biblical perspectives on the universe and creation. Not only science, but also the modern notion of history as "systematic knowledge of the past... [of] man’s [sic] activities in time, space, and society, expressed in a coherent report (usually written)"[23] has come to define the work of many biblical studies scholars. Despite much struggle and resistance in religious contexts, historical biblical criticism by which "the Bible is studied critically with the same methods used on all ancient literature", has come to define the field of biblical studies in the twentieth century. In the process the discipline has also moved from being the exclusive province of theological institutions to being pursued in secular university settings.[24]
In order to evaluate the degree of intersection between African studies and biblical studies as it is now being practiced, it is important to survey the various methods which have emerged within the secular study of the Bible. Two of the earliest approaches to biblical criticism were textual and form criticism. Textual criticism pursues the research begun by Origen in the third century, comparing manuscript traditions and noting a variety of scribal errors which both expand and shorten texts. The goal of textual criticism is to determine the most defensible earliest reading of any text of which divergent witnesses exist, recognizing that no single original manuscript may exist and that the record is preserved only in "copies of copies."[25]
Form criticism emerged through efforts to understand "the historical Jesus". Textual problems aside, the existence of four canonical gospels as well as other ancient records of the life and sayings of Jesus led to efforts to determine the most original and historically authentic record of the life of Jesus. Research efforts were made to establish the sources (hence source criticism) behind the gospels in their final textual forms. Among the scholarly assumptions which emerged, for example, was that of a common source, Q, which lay behind the gospels of Matthew and Luke.[26] The work of Hebrew Bible scholars, based on a hypothesis that oral traditions underlying written texts could be ascertained, built a path for New Testament scholars to delve beneath established gospel texts in search of the forms they contained: such as parables, songs and miracle accounts.[27] As will be seen below, the channel of form criticism has been one source of the confluence of African and biblical studies.
Emerging from form criticism, redaction criticism, also based in life-of-Jesus research, assumes a background of traditional materials in any ancient text. It then studies "the theological motivation of an author (of the final text) as... revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of traditional material", as well as in "the creation of new forms..."[28]
As has already been noted, the various historical-critical methods applied in biblical studies were strongly shaped by the understandings of the western Enlightenment. It is not possible within the framework of this paper to pursue the implications of the philosophical and historical assumptions of that scholarship since the eighteenth century on the field of biblical studies. It may be suggested, however, that the search for scientific evidence demanded by those assumptions has traditionally questioned the credibility of both biblical materials and African oral histories and literatures. The intersection between these two fields has recently become methodologically interesting to biblical scholars, as will be further discussed below. The significance of the intersection between biblical and African studies as fields which call for approaches less dependent on "assured scientific results" merits further investigation.
In recent decades literary critical methods have come to the fore in biblical scholarship. Narrative criticism uses current literary theory to evaluate biblical texts, for example, reflecting on the gospels as story within the framework of fiction analysis. Reader-response criticism assumes that fundamentally at issue for understanding the text is what any reader takes from that text. Rhetorical criticism focuses on the structure of biblical texts, interpreting textual wholes in terms of their parts, for example the "discourse unit".[29] Recently all of these efforts have been further redefined by the challenges of post-modern biblical criticism.[30]
It is when this paper turns to the field of social scientific critical methods, however, that the visible intersection with the interests of African studies emerges. Biblical studies has drawn deeply from the wells of anthropology in the pursuit of comparative analysis which might shed light on ancient biblical materials. To some extent such comparative uses have been present for decades, albeit often in a casual manner. For example, a note in a 1955 JBL article on Ps 45 quotes an 1880 report about marriage customs in Usambara territory in East Africa.[31] By the 1980s, a bibliography of hundreds of articles could he published, collecting efforts to apply anthropological theories of kinship and marriage, economy and politics, ritual, myth and world view, literary forms and material culture to biblical research.[32] European, American and African scholars have all found comparative anthropological insights useful. Africanist Franz Steiner, for example, uses the work on lineage patterns of Evans-Pritchard and Fortes to discuss the various blessings given by Jacob to his sons in Gen 47 and 48. Isaac Schapera, who did field work among the Khoi and San peoples of Southern Africa, uses their approaches to fratricide in discussing the Cain and Abel story in Gen 4. N. I. Ndiokwere compares the role of prophets in African initiated churches with those in biblical traditions.[33]
Oral literature research has recently offered a focussed combination of anthropological and literary methods to biblical research to which scholarship from Africa has largely contributed. As was already noted, biblical scholars at the turn of the twentieth century began the search for oral forms which lay behind written biblical texts. Apparently the early uses of this methodology emerged from research on German and Scandinavian folklore. An early summary on folklore research, however, also cites the since then oft-quoted warning from Plato’s Phaedrus in which Socrates refers to the criticism of writing by the Egyptian god Thamus (Ammon). Writing, the god tells its divine inventor, will discourage language by destroying memory.[34]
More recently, Susan Niditch has pursued and expanded the application of folklore research to narrative and wisdom texts in the Hebrew Bible. Her overview of this methodology cites the doyenne of African oral literature research, Ruth Finnegan, as well as oral historian Jan Vansina and anthropologist Victor Turner. While research contributing to interpretation of specific forms such as proverbs has been helpful, perhaps the most important contribution coming through Finnegan’s work to the field of biblical studies has been the observation "that there is no simple evolution in societies from oral to written, but rather feedback between the two throughout a culture’s history."[35]
Another specific application of anthropological research to New Testament studies is found in the work of John Elliott. His work in New Testament has pursued a more sociological orientation, focussing on communities represented by specific books in the New Testament. For Elliott, the concept of the circum-Mediterranean culture of antiquity, a "preindustrial, advanced agrarian" society, is central. This construct can be applied to "synchronic analysis of Christian groups attested in the New Testament." Among such groups, Elliott lists those in Palestine, the Transjordan, Damascus, Antioch-on-Orontes, and Crete, but not in Alexandria and Cyrene.[36]
One specific area of work Elliott has pursued is research on "evil eye", "a typical cultural phenomenon of Circum-Mediterranean and biblical antiquity.[37] References to the evil eye can be found throughout both Jewish and Christian scriptures. Elliott applies this construct specifically to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 20:1-15. He asserts the significance of this belief for controlling expressions of envy by groups living in "close geographical and social proximity where formal means of adjudicating competing claims and conflict are absent." His Circum-Mediterranean construct does not seek to determine origins of the belief, or refer to the presence of evil eye concepts in ancient Egypt.[38]
Criticism of the application of social scientific methods to biblical studies has been quick in coming, as has also been the case in their applications within African studies.[39] In biblical studies, "anthropologizing" has become one of the more ready-to-hand accusations for attacks on the work of colleagues. A review of a book by Bruce Malina, whose work has been influential for Elliott and other New Testament scholars, notes his dependence on anthropologist Mary Douglas, declaring, that he "does not seem to have been affected by the process of self-critical reflection in the social sciences."[40] More lengthy methodological critiques have been made by several Hebrew Bible scholars. Burke Long, for example, reprises the work on Hebrew Bible by folklorists. He challenges the search for oral forms, noting that "a fixed version, cultivated and passed down by memorisation, is more the exception than the rule." Further, he points to the variations that appear in oral texts, such as those available in the work on African literature by Finnegan, and the problems such variations raise for assumptions about different strands of transmission in the Hebrew Bible.[41] Patricia Kilpatrick also works with questions related to oral traditions. Tracing the work of biblical form critics as well those of folklorists from various traditions, again including Finnegan and Vansina, she concludes that "no general rules of oral transmission can be promulgated", and that hence oral traditions are not trustworthy for the establishment of biblical historicity.[42]
Approaching another facet of African anthropology, David Fiensy takes on the application of Evans-Pritchard’s concept of segmentation in Nuer society as a model for exploring biblical lineage patterns. He collects the anthropological discussion on Evans-Pritchard’s research and concludes that it has been found "flawed" because of its base in "structuralist equilibrium." He cautions Hebrew Bible specialists to "follow the current debate in anthropology to ensure that biblical research is not based on discredited ethnological theories.[43]
Among the most sustained criticisms of social-scientific methodologies has been the liberationist critique of South African scholar, Itumeleng Mosala. Although he recognizes that social scientific methods have freed biblical studies from individualized interpretations of the texts, he suggests they have not gone far enough in creating a theoretical break with the ideological underpinnings of past research. In comments which sound equally directed against post-modern criticism, he continues:
It would appear that [a] sense of the inability or powerlessness to break the structures of monopoly capitalism on the one hand, and the feeling of strength and enthusiasm about ransacking and subverting the social systems and social worlds of literacy [sic] texts, on the other hand, remains the defining characteristic of modern criticism.[44]
Mosala’s call for a new paradigm of biblical scholarship is carried further in his materialist readings of the Hebrew prophet Micah and the early chapters of Luke. Here Mosala himself does not hesitate to draw on archaeological and sociological evidence from the ancient biblical world. Such background allows him to describe the book Micah as a "ruling-class" document. He then turns to unearth the inherent textual contradictions which allow the interaction of those "in the struggle for liberation today... [with] the kindred struggles of the oppressed and exploited of the biblical communities." Luke, likewise, suppresses "Jesus’ unacceptable low-class origins" by invoking "the Davidic royal connection." In response, "oppressed and exploited black people must liberate the gospel so that the gospel may liberate them."[45]
Recent publications by scholars using anthropological and sociological methods indicate that they have taken note of the criticisms of their approaches. Thomas Overholt, who earlier published an article in Lang’s collection on anthropology in the Hebrew Bible, agrees with Fiensy when he warns against "uncritical dependence on studies based on outmoded or controversial presuppositions", such as evolutionist anthropological theories. He further asserts that no social scientific methodological consensus exists among biblical scholars, thus requiring an eclectic approach to biblical criticism. However, "insights derived from anthropology can often allow us to make inferences that at least provisionally fill some of the gaps" in knowledge about the society which gave birth to the Hebrew scriptures.[46] Elliott too underlines the need for caution in order to avoid scholarly application to the interpretation of ancient texts of modem models (such as "middle class") with no ancient counterparts. This comment may indeed be a partial response to Mosala, whom he elsewhere names as an important partner in the debate over his methodology.[47]
A cursory review of the research this paper has collected from the JBL indicates that social scientific methodologies in particular have not taken a large place in the dialogue of that society. At least seven articles over the fifty-year period surveyed discussed some aspect of Ancient Near Eastern society. A careful reading of these articles would be required to determine the understanding represented by that label. It is likely, however, that traditional western understandings defined by "orientalists" rather than more recent constructs are the basis of most such articles.
In the past decade, JBL has reviewed the work of scholars such as Niditch and Elliott, as well as other titles reflecting aspects of social scientific methodology. Such approaches, however, are still considered "experimental" by the journal’s editors. Further, neither these approaches nor their criticism may at present fit comfortably in the center of North American biblical scholarship. It may be suggested that because of the freedom from dogmatic strictures obtained by the emergence of biblical historical criticism, current mainstream scholars could be as troubled by the liberation(s) called for by the newer methodologies, with their possible theological and ideological implications, as their dogmatic forebears were by historical criticism.[48]
As this survey has demonstrates nevertheless, it is in the new approaches to biblical studies that a real conversation has begun to take place which considers insights coming from African studies. While specific methodologies may be more or less fruitful, and subject to criticism which emerges from scholarship from Africa or from those seeking to represent African perspectives, the challenge to the hegemony of historical criticism in which liberation hermeneutics, social scientific research and Afrocentricity join is likely to have long term impact on the discipline of biblical studies. The words of Steven Feierman, in his discussion on recent changes in the writing of African history in Africa and the disciplines, may be prophetic for the field of biblical studies as well: "Historians have no choice but to open up world history to African history, and having done so, they find that the problems have just begun."[49]
Notes
[1] Orbis Books, the publishing arm of the Roman Catholic Maryknoll community, has taken the lead in bringing African theology to international attention. Among significant titles are: Kwame Bediako, Christianity in Africa: The renewal of a non-Western religion (together with Edinburgh University Press; 1995); F. Eboussi Boulaga, Christianity without fetishes: an African critique and recapture of Christianity (1984); Jean Marc Ela, African cry (1986); Emmanuel Martey, African theology: inculturation and liberation (1993); Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Hearing and knowing: theological reflections on Christianity in Africa (1986); Lamin Sanneh, Encountering the West: Christianity and the global cultural process (1993).
[2] This paper does not claim to have completed a fail-proof list of all materials in the issues of the JBL surveyed. The index published in 1987, covering issues up to 1981, was assumed to be complete and correct. My own reading of issues between 1982 and 1990 did not allow time for cross-checking, and thus may include errors.
[3] J. Neville Bridsall, "Versions, ancient," ABD, Vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 789; Watson E. Mills, "Versions, ancient (Coptic)," ABD, Vo. 6, 803; Stephen Emmel, "Languages (Coptic)," ABD, Vol. 4, 182.
[4] John Huehenergard, "Languages, ancient (Coptic)," ABD, Vol. 4, 155-170.
[5] The research in this paper did not include material on Alexandrian Judaism, or on Coptic Nag Hammadi documents which have been an area of major scholarly interest in the biblical studies community. While these textual materials have unmistakable Egyptian geographical origins and must represent the influence of Egyptian cultures and religion of the periods, the specialization they require may remove them from serious consideration by most biblical scholars for their African provenance. One reviewer, in fact, failed to comment at all when noting that the author of a work on Ethiopian Book of Enoch posed the possibility of "influences from early Babylonian (and possibly Egyptian) [my emphasis] sources..." See G. W. E. Nickelsburg’s review of Otto Neugebauer, The "astronomical chapters" of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (72-82), in JBL 103 (1984) 457.
[6] See M. C. Astour, "Sabtah and Sabteca: Ethiopian pharaoh names in Genesis 10," JBL 84 (1965) 422-425; Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah," JBL 106 (1987) 409-421; A. R. Green, "Solomon and Siamun: a synchronism between dynastic Israel and the 21st dynasty of Egypt," JBL 97 (1978) 353-367; J. Robin King, "The Joseph story and divine politics: a comparative study of a biographic formula from the ancient Near East," JBL 106 (1987) 577-594.
[7] "Afrocentrism" may be identified as a paradigm which assumes the priority of ancient African civilizations in the history of world civilizations. Further, it seeks to demonstrate that ancient Egyptian civilization is most accurately characterized as an African civilization. This paradigm is closely associated with the work of Diop and Asante, as well as that of ThJophile Obenga, of the People’s Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), formerly a professor at Temple University.
[8] The original African heritage study Bible, ed. Cain Hope Felder (Nashville: James C. Winston Publishing Company, 1993) ix. An interesting example of sharing between African and African American communities who use the Bible are the illustrations of biblical scenes in the OAHSB, which come from the Mafa people of Cameroon, albeit transmitted through a European distributor. Illustrations were provided by La Vie de JJsus Mafa, Rue MarJchal-Joffre, 78000 Versailles, France. The African cultural heritage topical Bible (Bakersfield: Pneuma Life Publishers, 1995) 11-28, offers a list of twenty biblical characters of African heritage, including Hagar, the Egyptian concubine of Abraham (Gen 16), Aseneth, Joseph’s Egyptian wife (Gen 41:45), Ebed-Melech, Jeremiah’s rescuer (Jer 38), and Simon of Cyrene, who carried the cross of Jesus (Mt 27:32 and parallels).
[9] Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles: introduction, translation and notes, rev. William F. Albright and C. S. Mann (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967) 78.
[10] Johnson cites the discussions about Ethiopia in Pliny the Elder, Heliodorus, Pseudo-Callisthenes, and Philostratus. See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 154; see also Richard I. Pervo, Profit with delight: the literary genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 70, who describes Ethiopia as "a foreign place much in the news during the latter half of the first century C.E."
[11] Johnsons, Acts, 158; see also Pervo, Profit, 70.
[12] Munck, Acts, 78.
[13] Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: a commentary, tr. Bernard Noble, Gerald Shrimm, Hugh Anderson, and R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971) 314-315.
[14] Clarice J. Martin, "A chamberlain’s journey and the challenge of interpretations for liberation," Semeia no. 47 (1989) 110, 116, 119.
[15] The recovery of Black presence: an interdisciplinary exploration, eds. Randall C. Bailey and Jacquelyn Grant (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995); Black theology: a documentary history, Vol. 2: 1980-1992, eds. James H. Cone and Gayraud S. Wilmore (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993); Stony the road we trod: African American biblical interpretation, ed. Cain Hope Felder (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). Black theology: a documentary history, Vol. 1: 1966-1979, eds. James H. Cone and Gayraud S. Wilmore (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979) was not covered because it did not include biblical studies articles.
[16] Oduyoye’s first title is noted in footnote 1. More recently, she has published Daughters of Anowa: African women and patriarchy (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995), as well as editing and contributing to several collections of articles. See also Groaning in faith: African women in the household of God, eds. Musimbi R. A. Kanyoro and Nyambura J. Njoroge (Nairobi: Acton Publishers, 1996).
[17] Ephraim Isaac (ed. and tr.), "The Ethiopic history of Joseph: translation with introduction and notes," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha no. 6 (April 1990) 3-125.
[18] Ephraim Issac, "The oldest Ethiopic manuscript (K-9) of the Book of Enoch and recent studies of the Aramaic fragments of Qumram Cave 4," Working with no data: Semitic and Egyptian studies, eds. David T. Golomb with Susan T. Hollis (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987). This book was reviewed in JBL 108 (1989) 173. See also Ephraim Isaac, "New light upon the Book of Enoch from newly-found Ethiopic MSS (K-9; EMML 2080)," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (April-June 1983) 399-411.
[19] Ephraim Issac, "Another note on Luke 6:1," JBL 100 (1981) 96f.
[20] Rather than seeking to determine citizenship or ethnicity of the authors included, this study took into account the location of the institution at which the author worked. The majority of authors in the ATJ are of African ancestry, while the majority of writers in the JTSA are of European ancestry.
[21] While this research did not systematically review the mass of footnote material in the JBL volumes surveyed, one note was observed in a JBL article on the Sermon on the Mount which referred to an article published earlier in the ATJ. Cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., "The structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 428, fn. 16.
[22] Edgar Krentz, The historical-critical method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975); Justo Gonzalez, The story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1984) 78.
[23] Krentz, The historical-critical method, 34.
[24] Krentz, The historical-critical method, 4.
[25] P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual criticism: recovering the text of the Hebrew bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 11. McCarter’s work offers examples of scribal difficulties and rules to guide textual critics.
[26] While the "Q hypothesis" has reigned as an "assured result" for many decades in German and American biblical scholarship, the existence of Q is again being questioned by some scholars. See Michael D. Goulder, "Is Q a juggernaut?,"JBL 115 (1996) 667-681.
[27] Edgar V. McKnight, What is form criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969).
[28] Norman Perrin, What is redaction criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969).
[29] Daniel Patte, Structural exegesis for New Testament critics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990).
[30] See Edgar V. McKnight, Post-modern use of the Bible: the emergence of reader-roiented criticism (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988).
[31] Theodore H. Gastor, "Psalm 45," JBL 74 (1955) 241. This article also refers to marriage customs of Morocco, Palestine, Egypt, and Norway.
[32] Bernhard Lang, "Old Tesmanet and anthropology," Biblische Notizen 20 (1983) 37-46.
[33] Franz Steiner, "Enslavement and the early Hebrew lineage system", in: Anthropological approaches to the Old Testament, ed. Berhard Lang (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 21-25 (originally published in 1954); Isaac Schapera, "The sin of Cain," in: Anthropological approaches, 26-42 (originally published in 1954); N. I. Ndiokwere, Prophecy and revolution: the role of prophets in the Independent African Churches and in biblical tradition (London, 1981); cited in Anthropological approaches, 43.
[34] Eduard Nielsen, Oral tradition: a modern problem in Old Testament introduction (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1954) 22.
[35] Susan Niditch, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 19; See Ruth Finnegan, Oral literature in Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).
[36] John H. Elliott, What is social-scientific criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 24, 118f.
[37] Elliott, Social-scientific criticism, 67.
[38] John H. Elliott, "Matthew 20:1-15: a parable of invidious comparison and evil eye accusation," Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (Summer 1992) 61; see also the introduction Evil eye, ed. Clarence Maloney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976).
[39] Sally Falk Moore, "Changing perspectives on a changing Africa: the work of anthropology," in Africa and the disciplines: the contributions of research in Africa to the social sciences and humanities, eds. Robert H. Bates, V. Y. Mudimbe, and Jean O’Barr (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 3-57, notes the post-colonial critique of anthropology in Africa, adding: "The general framework of historical awareness in anthropology has recently undergone substantial metamorphoses. Anthropologists who study African lives at first hand have become caught up in the broad stream of interpretive, reflexive, and critical thought that has pervaded the social sciences and the humanities. No longer conceiving of themselves as simply producing ‘literary’ and ‘descriptive accounts of others,’ anthropologists see themselves as implicated and self aware interlocutors whose work, whatever its specialized content, engages two focal themes: power and meaning." She further locates questions of power and meaning in the "world economy, world politics, worldwide systems of communication, and the World Bank..." See 33-34.
[40] Susan R. Garrett, review of Bruce J. Malina, Christian origins and cultural anthropology: practical models for biblical interpretation, JBL 107 (1988) 532.
[41] Burke O. Long, "Recent field studies in oral literature and their bearing on Old Testament critcism," Vetus Testamentum 26:2 (April 1976) 192, 194.
[42] Patricia G. Kirkpatrick, The Old Testament and folklore study (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 72 and throughout.
[43] David Fiensy, "Using the Muer cu;ture of Africa in understanding the Old Testament: an evaluation", Journal for the STudy of Old Testament no. 38 (1987) 79f.
[44] Itumeleng J. Mosala, "Social scientific approaches to the Bible: one step forward, two steps backward," JTSA no. 55 (June 1986) 16, 20.
[45] Itumeleng J. Mosala, Biblical hermeneutics and Black theology in South Africa (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) 121, 171f.
[46] Thomas Overholt, Cultural anthropology and the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 4, 7.
[47] Elliott, Social-scientific criticism, 97, 99.
[48] One wetsern scholar who has attempted to integrate a liberationis perspective with social scientific methodology is Walter Brueggmann. See his "Theodicy in a social dimension," A social reading of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994) 174-196.
[49] Steven Feierman, "African histories and the dissolution of world history," in Africa and the disciplines, 199.