58 LAS RUTAS D E SAN PABLO

The historical-critical method arose in the Enlightenment era of the 18th

century where the emphasis in Biblical Studies on the supernatural gave way to human reason (Davidson 2000:24, Togarasei 2009: 80). This was also the time when the colonisation of Africa started to take place. Africa and Africans had negligible contributions to Biblical Studies. So this hermeneutic which has persistently remained dominant up to the 21st

century arose in the setting of European universities among the elite. Ukpong (2002:14) and Dube (2004:50) are probably right in accusing such scholarship of having colonising and modernistic tendencies by assuming that there is only one way of seeing reality. This reality claims to be bias free and objective, with the possibility of unearthing the original meaning. While this argument may seem appealing to some scholars, it has a severe limitation in that the interpreters had forgotten their own ecclesiological, cultural, racial backgrounds and gender and how these may bias their interpretation (Togarasei 2008:80).

The historical-critical method is a wide umbrella, which includes Source criticism, Tradition history, Redaction history and Form criticism. Source criticism deals with the written documents underlying the present written text. Tradition history deals with the oral phase. Redaction criticism deals with the question of how redactors edited the text before it was transmitted in the present canonical form, whereas Form criticism is concerned with the classification of materials in the form of hymns, genres, and parables (Stern 2008:182-188; Bray 1996:396-410). The next section discusses further the major aspects of historical criticism.

2.2.1 Source criticism

Davidson (2000:52) defines Source criticism as, ‘an attempt to hypothetically reconstruct and understand the process of literary development leading to the present form of the text, based on the assumption that scriptures are the product of the life setting of the community which produced them.’ Matthewson (2002:3) defines source criticism comparatively based on age as ‘the great-grandparent of historical criticism – the one first on the scene, whose progeny can easily be traced: Source criticism to Form criticism to Redaction criticism, with all that goes in between.’

According to source critics, the books of 1 and 2 Samuel were written by an anonymous author (or authors), called the Deuteronomist (Nelson 2005:319-337). This author is said to be responsible for the authorship of the books of Joshua to 1 and 2 Kings. The criteria used in Source criticism include but are not limited to similarities in writing styles, ideological assumptions, word choice, particularity with regard to divine names, and any number of other differences (Stern 2008:182). The assumptions of authorship by the Deuteronomist are postulated by scholars in the theory called the Documentary hypothesis (2008:183). However, there is another camp of scholars who contend that the Deuteronomist was the redactor not the author. Whatever the position on origins, this study means to concentrate on the finished text and its relevance in the AIDS context.

While Source criticism has enjoyed applause in the academy, some fundamentalist academics are not comfortable with its assumptions because they view it as an attack on the authority and the integrity of the

Hebrew text. In favour of this stance, Stern (2008: 183) argues that Source criticism sees reality as accounting for only a fraction for the total evidence, ‘especially when analysing a literary corpus as bulky and complex as an elephant.’ Stern further argues that, it is a ‘system which fails to consider all the evidence, and wherein scholars shape the data into the configurations of their own imagination.’ I generally agree with Stern, but believe that these facts do not disqualify the basic premises of the method. It should however be supplemented by other approaches. In an endeavour to re-read the book of 2 Samuel in the context of AIDS among persons with HIV and Christian scholars in the academy, it becomes problematic to limit one’s focus to Source criticism and the text horizon only. The study has therefore endeavoured to fuse the horizons of ordinary readers with the horizon of the ancient Hebrew text to bring about empowerment in the AIDS era (Hasel 1991:16; Osborne 2006:24- 26; Canale 2005:450-451).

2.2.2 Redaction criticism

As explained earlier, Redaction criticism is concerned with the ‘supposed redactors’ who edited the Hebrew text before it reached the present canonical text (Morrow 2008:113). Studies in the New Testament indicate that Redaction criticism includes ‘an activity of collecting, rearranging, re-elaborating, and reshaping older material’ (Ska 2005:4, Tan 2001:601). Ska (2005: 5) further explains the duty of the redactor(s) included living channels of transmission, being custodians of the ancient sources, and interpreting the ancient text. The substantial work in this paradigm is accredited to scholars like Bultmann, G. von Rad, W. Marxsen and H. Conzelmann, among others (Bray 1996:401, Ska 2005:5). Redaction critics claim that the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, 1 and Kings as well 1 and 2 Samuel underwent several interpolations which ultimately changed the theological emphasis of the books. This outcome has resulted in three groups among scholars in Christian circles. These are (1) total repudiation; (2) qualified acceptance; and (3) ready adoption (Tan 2001:605). Concomitant to this division, this study chooses qualified acceptance, because the biblical text is primarily a document of faith and it should be regarded as such. It is designated for believers in Yahweh to trace the supernatural things he has done through the characters represented, whether moral or immoral. All of

this is meant to transmit moral lessons to the present generation (Nkansah-Obrempong 2007:142). But all in all, we cannot be naïve to scientific discoveries about the transmission of the biblical text.

One staunch believer in Redaction criticism is Joe Barhart. In an article that appeared in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, he endorsed that:

The material of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Kings 1-2 contains putative accounts of characters’ employing fabrications to serve presumably worthy purposes. The following are some examples: Nathan’s story of the beloved lamb slaughtered; David’s lie to King Achish; Jacob’s persuading Ahimelech; possibly Nathan and Bathsheba’s lie to the dying David; Ahimaaz’s serving as David’s secret agent; Saul’s deceiving the medium at Endor; David’s telling Jonathan to lie to Saul regarding his absence at the New Moon festival; the young messenger’s lie that he had killed King Saul; Joab’s deceiving Abner and murdering him; Amnon’s lie to David and Tamar regarding his supposed illness (2006:231).

The analysis of Barhart that the content of selected texts is to be seen as ‘fabricated information done willingly,’ are questionable. Many Christian faith traditions accept that the biblical text has a moral fabric woven tightly to benefit future generations. So to regard the Bible as wilful fabrication is not only questionable, but is not helpful in a worshipping context. However this critique is important to let us know that every interpreter has his or her own biases that are brought into the text, whether consciously or unconsciously (Surrey 1960:51). Although it is accepted that some forms of Redaction criticism may be helpful in exploring the text horizon and more specifically the historical origin of the text, the focus of this study is primarily on the horizon of the readers, which fuses with the horizon of the text to bring about useful meanings in the context of AIDS.

2.2.3 Form criticism

The great progenitor of Form criticism was a German scholar called Hermann Gunkel. Bray (1996:396-400). Longmann (1985:46-67) argues

that Gunkel’s contribution to Form criticism is a response to the failure of source criticism to appreciate literary creations embodied in the biblical text. While Source criticism takes a diachronic approach, Form criticism is synchronic (Chisholm Jr 2005:368-369). Whereas Source criticism has been blamed for dissecting and dismembering the text and leaving it bare, Form criticism has been praised for viewing the text as a whole (Longmann III 1985:59-60, Long 2000:512). Gunkel’s approach to the text was influenced by a comparative study of other religious texts, which exemplified close resemblance in the mood or thoughts of the text, linguistic forms (grammar and vocabulary) and the social setting. The initial task of Form criticism is taxonomic. This has to deal with classification of forms of Hebrew literature into a group of psalms, prose, genre, lament, or prophecy, among others (Muilenburg 1969:3). Brueggemann (1975a:11) argues further that ‘Form criticism can help us see that the mode and form of community, intentional or not, is to some extent a political decision about the way in which reality will be presented … to that extent form criticism is not one method among others but the most elementary way in which the interest behind the text can be discerned.’ At the risk of exaggerating, Longmann (1985:47) has argued that if Form criticism can be employed properly it is possible to some extent to recover the author’s original meaning.

Current research in biblical studies indicates that Form criticism has been growing from antiquity to the present. It has taken many forms which include: narrative criticism; rhetoric criticism; structuralism; reader-response analysis and other methods after their kind. Just like other reading strategies, Form criticism has its inadequacies. Muileburg (1969:5-6), summarises them to include (1) that the ancient men of Israel, like their Near Eastern neighbours, were influenced in their speech and their literary compositions by convention and custom and (2) aversion to biographical or psychological interpretations and its resistance to historical commentary. Seeing that there is yet a method to be discovered that will give a full view of ‘an elephant’, this therefore suggests that we will always have the need to advance old methodologies into new frontiers of scholarship. The current study focuses on the horizon of the reader, which fuses with the horizon of the text to bring meanings useful in the era of AIDS.