Response to Michael Brown\'s Comments

168

Bellis & Brown

fact of history. This does not mean, however, that there is no degree of objectivity in the historical enterprise. The claim that the historical method is dead is fallacious. Proper historical investigation is the basis for all progressive and valid work in biblical scholarship. The establishment of historical context is important and primary to any textual investigation. Biblical scholars are always challenging the ancient principle: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (``What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all''). The goal is explanation and understanding. It is iconoclastic in the best sense of the term. Historical argument is much like legal argument; it depends on the soundness of the judgment of the historian who asks what explanation derives from the data, corresponds to generally accepted warrants or back-up statements, and what kind of assent it compels. It deals not with the logically possible, but with the likely or probable. This is precisely why it remains viable and cannot be dead. As Edgar Krentz said, ``... [N]o historian does, and no sensible historian claims to, communicate the whole truth. ... [T]here are many things about any man living or dead which no human being, not even that man himself knows. The full knowledge on which alone a final judgment is possible exists only in the mind of God'' (1975, 47). Thus, to dismiss it as no longer foundational (and I use the term intentionally) to biblical scholarship, and unnecessary to teach to African American students in an introductory (or foundational) class is to do them a grave disservice. In reality, the historical-critical method is the basis upon which much of her argument rests. We should acquaint all students with the historicalcritical method as an entree into opening their eyes to an alternative reality. That is, the historical method, when it is done properly and carefully, can foster a

truly multicultural moment for our students, regardless of their ethnicity. Students, particularly in introductory classes, need to realize that the biblical world was vastly different from our own. Too often we allow them to make cultural assumptions, stemming from our modern mindset, that are not applicable either to the first century or the time of the Israelites. ``Readers of the English Bible continue to have a difficult time with the notion that they are reading a book not written by or for them nor in their own language, and so, conveniently, they forget that inconvenient fact'' (Gomes 1996, 73). So, we allow them to read the text solely from their own social location without encouraging them to understand the social location of the people about whom they are reading. The sheer otherness of the biblical world should be brought home to these twentieth-century Americans. Yes, the ancients were not as color biased as we are today, but they also committed brutal acts of intolerance. They did not believe in the principle of ``one person, one vote,'' or the innate equality of all human beings, or that capitalism was the divinely ordained economic system, or any of a plethora of other assumptions we make about them based on reading the texts through the lens of our own concern. We cannot allow the text to become domesticated, and we cannot subvert our ability to see the Bible in its full panoramic otherness. If we could truly open up that other world to them ± where Egyptians and Israelites conduct cultural exchange, where Romans and Carthaginians mix and mingle with Greeks, where multilinguality was prominent, where women struggled for social recognition, where challenging the government's authority meant a sure sentence of death, and yet in the midst of all this there was God! ± then they can reflect critically on the successes and failures of our culture, and begin the project of correcting it.

Response to Michael Brown's Comments Alice Ogden Bellis

Michael Joseph Brown's response to my article indicates areas of agreement and disagreement. Our agreement is even greater than he believes, as I do not reject the historical critical method as foundational, contrary to his reading of my paper. We both also seem to agree that it is not as purely objective as once was thought, but still essential for biblical studies. Two genuine areas of disagreement do exist, one

minor and one major. The minor area is the place of the King James Version in the black church. Although it is quite possible, indeed likely, that economics has played a role in the dominance of the KJV, as Brown asserts, the reality is much more complex. The KJV reigns supreme in many affluent African American congregations where economics cannot be a consideration. I know of no predominantly European American ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998

African American Perspectives

affluent congregations where this is the case, although there may be some. Surely tradition plays a role in the place of the KJV in the black church, but tradition develops for a variety of reasons, of which economics is only one. Another of these reasons is surely the literary artistry of the KJV, a matter of concern to the highly developed aesthetic sensibility of black culture. Biblical scholars may prefer more recent translations for technical reasons, but the scorn heaped on the KJV strikes me as an arrogant and unexamined preference for accuracy over beauty. To the worshiper in the pew, the difference between the older translations and the newer ones is of no great import. To take a classic example, does it matter that Psalm 100:3 is translated in the NRSV as ``It is he that made us, and we are his'' rather than the KJV's ``It is he that made us, and not we ourselves?'' Both theological sentiments are correct, and since they are based on two Hebrew words that sound identical (low and lo'), a double-entendre may even have been intended. Although in other cases the newer translations are clearly technically superior, at least one verse of which I am aware (Gen. 3:16) is translated more accurately by the KJV than in most contemporary versions.6 My major disagreement is with Brown's statement: The real subtext has to do with a perceived need on the part of some scholars to legitimize African American Christianity by highlighting the presence of Africans in the biblical record. It is an attempt to revamp cultural self-definition by revising the historical record. (italics mine)

Some scholars, myself included, wish to undermine the historical attempts to de-legitimize African American religious experience and, even more fundamentally, African American humanity (not quite the same as legitimizing African American Christianity) by pointing to the historical record, not by revising it. It is true that Africa is not and never was one monolithic culture. Nevertheless, it is also true that in the United States, those with African ancestry were and still are lumped together (hence the term African American), regardless of which part of Africa was their ancestral home. That is the contemporary reality that we bring to the reading of the Bible. We should not pretend that our reality was theirs, but neither should we avoid allowing the two worlds to interact. Reading the Bible with modern racial eyes leads to surprising discoveries that destabilize modern conceptualizations. For example, by one modern western definition anyone with any discernible African ancestry is black. By this definition, virtually all the biblical characters were black. That does not necessarily mean we should label them in this way, ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998

169

although it makes as much sense as calling them white, as many have done explicitly or implicitly for years. Ultimately, it should prod us into scrutinizing contemporary notions. The fact that no biological concept of race exists in the Bible does not mean that it has nothing to say about the matter. We do not study history in a vacuum, but always in comparison with our own time, consciously or unconsciously. The lack of a concept of race in the Bible, coupled with the presence of persons of African descent and their high regard, is extremely important in our race-conscious society. As Cornel West puts it, ``Race matters.'' Modern conceptualizations are an amalgam of biological notions (which are totally discredited by modern anthropology and biology) and cultural notions (which in reality relate more to ethnicity than race). I may have an African ancestor in my family tree, but since I grew up as part of ``white culture'' that does not make me black. I have spent much of my adult life in the African American community. Yet that does not make me black either. (Most people would identify me as white, but I am uncomfortable with this designation; I prefer to think of myself as American and hope that some day all residents of the United States will view themselves this way. In that day, race will no longer matter.) The combination of obvious black ancestry and life-long participation in the African American community is what makes an American black today. This reality shapes the way Americans of various backgrounds read the Bible today. Brown points out that African Americans have historically identified with biblical characters not only on the basis of their African heritage, but also on the basis of the biblical characters' experiences with which their own life stories resonate. This is certainly true and it points to the reality that black readings of the Bible are not one dimensional, but rich and complex. Yet it does not undermine the validity of analyzing the African presence in the Bible. Finally, Brown is concerned with the lack of center and coherence in contemporary biblical studies. It is true that we live in a world of many and varied reading strategies, all of which have something to teach us. They are not so much competing with each other as they are voices in a chorus that may sometimes hit dissonant notes, but often produce beautiful harmony. I do not feel that biblical studies is either uncentered or incoherent. The center is, in spite of many denials, still the historical-critical method. As for coherence, another image comes to mind. Biblical studies today is like a mosaic made up of many colored stones from which, at a distance, an observer can discern a design. If different observers see slightly different designs, is that such a terrible problem?

170

Bellis & Brown

Notes 1. Even scholars in the dominant culture have moved away from the desire to demythologize every biblical image. For example, see Batto (1992). 2. The kingdom of Sheba was probably located on the eastern shore of the Red Sea and thus technically in what we call Asia today rather than Africa. Nevertheless, the latitude was the same and thus Sheba's monarch would presumably have been dark skinned. Modern residents of Yemen have dark complexions. The contemporary division between Africa, Asia, and Europe was unknown in biblical times. 3. Ellison says, ``I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allen Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids ± and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you sometimes see in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination ± indeed, everything and anything except me'' (1947, 3). 4. Edward Shils says this, but I do not want to apply the full force of his statement to Bellis' argument: ``...to go on teaching what has been shown to be false is a gross dereliction of duty and a danger to society'' (1983, 100). 5. Cf. what Shils says: ``To speak of knowledge is to accept the validity of methods of acquiring and assessing evidence; it is to speak of reason and of rigour in its exercise'' (1983, 41). 6. Carol Meyers (1988, 99±101) points out that the word translated as ``childbearing'' really means ``conception.'' Pain is associated with childbirth, but not with conception. In addition, the word translated as ``pangs'' often simply means ``labor'' in the common sense of the term. Furthermore, the two nouns which are usually understood as forming a hendiadys (one noun modifying the other), if read in the usual order would translate as ``labor-intensive deliveries'' rather than ``pangs in childbirthing.'' A more accurate translation of the line reads the two words as compound objects of the verb: ``I will greatly increase your labor and your conceptions,'' the contemporary equivalent of the KJV.

References Bailey, Randall C. 1991. ``Beyond Identification: The Use of Africans in Old Testament Poetry and Narratives.'' In Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Fortress. ± 1995. ``` Is That Any Name for a Nice Hebrew Boy?' in Exodus 2:1±10: The De-Africanization of an Israelite Hero.'' In The Recovery of Black Presence: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, edited by Randall C. Bailey and Jacquelyn Grant. Nashville: Abingdon. Batto, Bernard 1992. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox.

Blount, Brian. 1995. Cultural Interpretation: Reorienting New Testament Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Brauer, Jerald C. 1990. ``A History of the Divinity School: Creatively Out of Step.'' Criterion 29, no. 3. Brown, Michael J. 1991. ``The Fear of Assimilation Among African American Theology Students.'' AME Church Review, vol. 107, no. 334 (October-December): 38±51. ± 1998. ``Review of Cultural Interpretation.'' Journal of Religion 87, no. 1: 105±107. Carr, Edward H. 1961. What is History?: The George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures Delivered at the University of Cambridge, January-March, 1961. New York: Vintage. Copher, Charles B. 1991. ``The Black Presence in the Old Testament.'' In Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Fortress. Ellison, Ralph. 1947. Invisible Man. New York: Random House. Farajaje-Jones, Elias. 1993. ``Breaking Silence: Toward an InThe-Life Theology.'' In Black Theology: A Documentary History, Vol. II: 1980±1992, edited by James H. Cone and Gayraud S. Wilmore. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Felder, Cain Hope. 1991. ``Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives.'' In Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Fortress. ± , ed. 1993. The Original African Heritage Study Bible: King James Version. Nashville: James C. Winston. Gomes, Peter. 1996. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Minds and Heart. New York: William Morrow and Company. Hoyt, Thomas Jr. 1991. ``Interpreting Biblical Scholarship for the Black Church Tradition.'' In Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation, edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Fortress. Krentz, Edgar. 1975. The Historical-Critical Method. Guide to Biblical Scholarship Series, ed. Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Meyers, Carol. 1988. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press. Reid, Stephen Breck. 1990. Experience and Tradition: A Primer in Black Biblical Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon. Rice, Gene. 1995. ``Africans and the Origin of the Worship of Yahweh.'' Journal of Religious Thought 50: 27±44. Sanders, Cheryl J. 1995. ``Black Women in Biblical Perspective: Resistance, Affirmation, and Empowerment.'' In Living the Intersection: Womanism and Afrocentrism in Theology, edited by Cheryl J. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress. ± 1996. Saints in Exile: The Holiness-Pentecostal Experience in African American Religion and Culture. New York: Oxford. ± , ed. 1995. Living the Intersection: Womanism and Afrocentrism in Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress. Shils, Edward. 1983. The Academic Ethic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weems, Renita J. 1989. ``Gomer: Victim of Violence or Victim of Metaphor?'' Semeia 47: 87±104. ± l995. Battered Love. Minneapolis: Fortress. ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998