This study is anchored upon the historical-cultural-materialist metho- dology of reading the Bible, particularly its paradigm of struggle. The method utilises the Marxist tools of sociological analysis to read and interpret biblical texts, particularly on the class struggles and the role of religion in social organisation. Thus, the methodology is sometimes referred to as social scientific approach, sociological or materialist exege- ses of the Bible. The methodology builds upon the revolutionary insights of the historical-critical methods about the production of the Bible. The historical critical methods, contrary to the then prevalent fundamentalist perceptions in Church and society in general demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Bible cannot be conceived of as a divine production, au- thored by God himself through inspiration but that it had come into being as other pieces of literature available. Historical critical methods revealed that the Bible was made up of a multiplicity of sources, forms and often contradictory traditions that apart from revealing a long his- tory over which they were produced, preserved and edited, reflect also the different societies from which these sources, forms and traditions were produced.
Until mid 20th century A.D. which saw the rise of the historical-
materialist methodology of reading the Bible, historical critical method
39
Nadine Gordimer, ‘New Introduction’, in Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2003, pp. 27-44, (27).
40
ruled the day. Unlike historical critical methodology, sociological exege- sis attributed the existence of contradictory and conflicting traditions in the Bible to socio-economic and political class interests/struggles, even within the same society, in which the production of the biblical texts took place. With this new development, the Bible is metaphorically looked at as a parliament where different and often conflicting socio- economic, political, cultural and religious interests, views and opinions
are expressed and debated.41 The readers of the Bible today have the
luxury to pay more attention to other texts in the Bible than others de- pending on their (readers) context. History has shown that readers re- spect and value those texts which they interpret as representing their cultural, religious, socio-economic and political interests. It is this reali- sation that has led to the proliferation of biblical exegeses that appropri- ate the Bible in the class, culture and gender struggles of their particular contexts: Liberation Theology of Latin America, Black Theology, African
Theology, Asian Theology and Feminist Theology42 among others that
appeal to the Bible to protest against oppression.
Assumptions of the Method
The method assumes that the historical, cultural and material existential situations of the people affect in every way how they read, interpret and understand particular texts of the Bible or any other literature for that matter. While the forms of the historical materialist methods vary in that there are important historical, cultural, racial and gender variations in
the way the historical-materialist method is appropriated,43 particularly
important in this study is the ‘class, cultural, racial and gender struggles as part of the material relationships that the historical-materialist
method undertakes to analyse’.44 Thus, for this method, the reader’s
history, culture, class, gender and race are important hermeneutical tools to unpack the meaning of particular texts of the Bible since the Bible is the product of a similar context. The implication of such a posi- tion is that the meaning of the texts of the Bible is not the same from
41
Cf. Joachim Kügler, Hände Weg!? Warum man die Bibel nicht lesen sollte und warum doch. Würzburg: Echter, 2008, pp. 15-26, (18).
42
Cf. Mosala, Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology, p. 3.
43
Cf. Michael Clevenot, Materialist Approaches to the Bible. New York: Orbis Books, 1985.
44
one individual to another and from one context to another; it is condi- tioned by the nature of the struggles of the society in which the reader is situated.
Situating the Bible in the life struggles of the society of the reader is not at all out of place. The historical-materialist method presupposes that behind both the Bible and our context are communities engaged in struggles and networks of relationships that must be brought to the fore before engaging any biblical text. These struggles could be gender, socio-
economic or political.45 Only such an exposure of the underlying strug-
gle in relationships can throw light on the problems of which the biblical texts are intended to be a solution. It is only after such an undertaking to expose these historical struggles that a theology of liberation dealing with a specific group of people become the kind of critical discourse that is capable of contributing meaningfully to the liberation struggle of such a selected group. The category of struggle provides the lens for reading the text in a liberating fashion as well as the codes for unlocking the possibilities and limitations of the biblical texts. This assumption allows us to engage Exo 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-18, Lev 25:39-54, Luke 4:18 and Gal 3:28 in our context of struggle between the exploited domestic workers and their employers, since these texts are responding to a similar strug- gle between the peasant class and the elite classes. And the struggle between these classes is represented by the struggle between the slaves and masters.
From this standpoint, I agree with Mosala that to engage biblical texts (such as Exo 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-18, Lev 25:39-54, Luke 4:18 and Gal 3:28) in the light of the black (domestic workers) struggle for liberation may be to take sides in and to connect with kindred struggles that were being waged in very ancient communities. Doing this may be one way of tak- ing sides in and connecting with contemporary struggles. For this rea- son, it is liberating to recognize that since the Bible is like a parliament (as I have indicated above), not every biblical text is on the side of the poor, nor is every God of every biblical text on the side of the poor, nor is
it desirable that this should be so.46 The Bible as a witness to the strug-
gle in the society in which it was produced contains both voices; that of the oppressors and that of the oppressed.
45
Mosala, Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology, pp. 4-6.
46