Week 10: “Exodus-Toward-Egypt” -Fernandez (Sugirtharajah)

In her piece on the connections that exist between the biblical story of Jacob and his family’s exodus toward Egypt, with the Filipino exodus to America, Fernandez, brings up some very interesting points about the necessity of this exodus, as well as what it does to the psyche of the individuals who must engage in it. The most intriguing aspect of her discussion was in seeing Egypt (America) as the only alternative to eventual starvation and destruction, this comparison also fit quit well in how the families of Filipino-Americans view their American sons and daughters in comparison with how Jacob’s family viewed his position in Egypt, as “sold-laborers”. I enjoyed this piece for several reasons, but mainly because it takes a different approach to exodus, rather than the commonly discussed Exodus from Egypt, Fernandez focused on the aspects of society that make it necessary for a marginal people to enter Egypt in the first place. I think this piece challenges how we as Americans view and posit the “American dream”, and what we in the Church are proposing for those that find themselves on the outside of this dream, as we uphold it in sermons and books as a sign of God’s grace. Are we merely as the Church and as Americans encouraging a marginal people to enter Egypt once again to become the slaves and servants in our egoic imperialistic system that demands for a class underneath ourselves? and How can we as the Church combat this Egypt, both the Egypt of Emigration and Immigration?

Week 10: “Cutchery Tamil versus Pure Tamil” -Israel (Sugirtharajah)

In his piece on the controversy surrounding the revision of Protestant Tamil canon from one particular missionary translation to another, Israel, shows the necessity of a non-Western Protestant community’s need for a deeply rooted and historicized text to validate its place among native historical religions. The most interesting aspect of this discussion was Israel’s commentary on the inability of older Protestant Tamils to accept a recently altered text based primarily out of there cast position, as well as their desires to combat deeply historical native religion. This debate is one still held today, and one that Christians past and present have attempted to debate. The common debate and apologetic used among Western Christians is that the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures points to and affirms the existence and importance of Jesus. This recognition is very important for Christians today as well as the past, because this historicity serves as affirmation for the validity of our faith, which is similar to the debate of Tamil Protestantism and their desire for a “true” historically Tamil text.

Week 10: “Canonization and Marginalization: Mary of Magdala -King (Sugirtharajah)

In her discussion on the marginalization of Mary of Magdala, King, brings up an interesting debate on the necessity of orthodoxy and canonization. In her piece King demands that a clearer picture of Mary Magdalane be given based upon the depiction of her in the non-canonical, often Gnostic, texts, notably The Gospel of Mary. King claims that these texts must be added to the discussion of Mary’s character and importance in the Gospel stories. She also goes to state that her identification by the church fathers as well as the canon (outside of the incorrect depiction of her as penatent prostitute) is closer to her original position, but was still canonized within a patriarchial view of women in ministry. I agree with King in the idea that the marginal picture presented of Mary was used to downplay women in ministry, but I believe a more true reading of this would also be to discredit what scholars such as King herself are attempting to do, rewrite canon. The reason that one cannot include non-canonical references to Mary as consistent mainly arise out of questions such as: historicity (many Gnostic texts were written much later than canonical texts), motivation (many Gnostic texts were written to support a specific picture or counter a specific claim made by canonical texts (therefore according to King’s logic these must be thrown out along with the canonical documents)). When scholars attempt, as so many have, to include Gnostic texts in the reconstruction of biblical figures one must first begin to analyze these non-canonical texts with the same skepticism used by these scholars to refute canonization. There were reasons behind canonizations, there were motivations, ideas, and beliefs, I trust these beliefs, mainly because I trust in the sovereignity behind these reasons.

Week 10: Castle Readings

I have completely exhausted the Castle source, so Ryan told me to put this up on the blog to let you know.

Week 10: “How Local Divine Powers were Suppressed” -Mbuwayesango (Sugirtharajah)

In her piece on the usurpation of the Shona peoples’ God Mwari, Mbuwayesango, brings up an interesting point about the blurring of lines between colonization and evangelism by missionaries during the “scramble for Africa”. Mbuwayesango comments that in Shona interpretations of the Bible the word Mwari, which was orignially a specific word for a Shona God, was hijacked by English interpreters seeking to incorporate and replace a previously understood God, with the Christian God. This is a thought-provoking point, but one that must be probed further beyond a mere agitation with Western evangelical revision. I believe the difficulty in transliterating the word for God in the Old Testament, into Greek, and ultimately into English is the real culprit in this situation. To merely attack English missionaries for something that had been taking place since the inception of the canon, as well as the Septuagint, one must first analyze the fact that the English word “God” was taken from a Greek understanding for God which was clearly different from the word the Hebrews used to denote their monotheistic deity. This has always happened in the art of translation, instead of reading an underlying theme of oppression into these translated texts, one could also see the art of attempting to use a word that exists outside of a language, explain this word to those that have never spoken it, using words that do not exist to them. When I read about missionaries attempting to incorporate a previously held understanding of God by a native people, it seems to me rather progressive, much more progressive, I would argue, than say a tract explaining “God” to people here in America, while completely avoiding all relative language to said people.

Week 9: “Racial Discourse and Irish History” -Gibbons (Castle)

In his piece on the construction of Irish history, Gibbons, pays considerable attention to the formation of a national identity with specific focus paid on the effects of race. The most interesting aspect of this article was the discussion on the similarities and differences between the English depiction of American Indians, Blacks, and the Irish. With considerable time spent on the difficulty of the English to define the Irish as an ethnically inferior group, despite the apparent similarities in skin tone. According to Gibbons the Irish, in the eyes of the English, began to resemble the American Indians with which a paternalistic viewpoint was given, one of inferiority, but of a less vitrolic nature, than say that of the Blacks. Although the Indians were admired to a degree for the ruggedness and freedom, both of which the Irish did not appear to possess. This comparison ultimately confined the Irish to a place somewhat more inferior to that of the American Indian, one of an uncouth nature, but lacking the freedom and admirable qualities of the Native Americans. This view of ethnicity began, as all race categories ultimately do, to become internalized in Irish culture, ultimately, according to Gibbons, resulting in an ever-increasing desire for equality, but solely on English terms, literature, and sensibilities…a gap that ultimately the Irish would never be able to dissolve.

Week 9: “Inventing Ireland” -Kiberd (Castle)

In his discussion on the fluidity surrounding the construction of a national identity, Kiberd, uses the proliferation of the Irish language as well as the rise and fall of the Gaelic League, to discuss the subsequent identities of the Irish citizenry. The most interesting aspect of his piece was the discussion of the nationalists’ desire to construct an Ireland that was merely anti-English, rather than pro-Irish. A similar logic appears to pervade our current Church culture, one in which we as Christians define ourselves not by what we are, per se, but rather by what or whom we are not. This kind of logic is posited as merely being “Christian” in nature, and the activites that fall outside of this paradigm are described as “non-Christian” in nature (whether or not Christianity had anything to do with their inception). These ideas can be most clearly seen in the backlash surrounding the “atheistic” movie “The Golden Compass” in which numerous Christians are opposing because of its supposed atheist overtones. Which ultimately will create a great deal of buzz and probably increase the audience for a children’s movie about a talking bear and a nautical device…ironic to say the least.

Week 9: “Reading a Woman’s Death” -Bourke (Castle)

In her piece on the death of Bridget Cleary, Bourke shows how its mythology formed a framework of masculine savagery and a necessity for the colonizer to rescue the highly eroticized and fearful indigenious woman. This framework was also seen in the Spivak’s discussion on the sati in Indian culture, and how the British viewed this again as masculine savagery and saw themselves as necessity for preserving the helpless female culture. Bourke also discusses how the proliferation of the image of indigenious males as “savage” promotes not only a continued subjugation by the colonizer, but also promotes a patriarchial view of women as both highly eroticized and helpless. Therefore, according to this view, the colonizer is justified in all activities of subjugation and control over the indigenious because of their inability to behave as “humans”. This framework has been used to control and dissolve culture after culture because of the inherent inequality and savage nature of their indigenious practices. A question arises from this framework…Can anything be savage? Does any practice transcend cultural appreciation, into a violation of human rights? Is there an inherent humanity within us all?

Week 9: “God at the Crossroads: Sophia” -Rivera (Sugirtharajah)

In her article on the hybridized spirit figure ‘Sophia’ in Old Testament literature, Rivera, brings up the necessity of hybriditized individuals within cultures, to enact change and question normative beliefs. Rivera does this in light of a feminist reading of the term “logos” used in John’s gospel as a term of continuity and divinity for Christ, but she proposes that this same term could be read in light of the feminine spirit Sophia. In this reading Rivera uses this to show the importance of claiming and exalting figures who, in history, have been difficult to place and to name. She states these figures as those most important to igniting change within our beliefs and orthodoxies, because they not only allow for ambiguity, but they also embody it. I struggled with this reading a bit, mainly because I am severly unfamiliar with the “myth of Sophia” and again I find the logic of this piece somewhat difficult to follow, seeing as Rivera is attacking a strictly patriarchial reading of canon, while only still allowing for a severly feminist re-wording. This is remniscient of several other pieces of post-colonial biblical interpretation that we have encountered over the quarter.

Week 9: “Maori “Jews”: Resistant Reading of John 5:10-47″ -Huie-Jolly (Sugirtharajah)

In her piece on the Maori tribes of New-Zealand, Huie-Jolly, brings up an interesting point on the nature of native interpretations in light of colonial missionaries. Huie-Jolly proposes that the Maori tribe who chose to identify themselves not with Early Christians and the Orthodox Imperial Church, but rather with the exiled and anti-thetical “Jews” spoken of in John’s Gospel, did so due in large part because of the interplay between Christian missionaries and Imperialist powers. Huie-Jolly uses the orthodox presentation of Jesus as Son to be the Imperalist dogma associated with the colonial powers, and subsequently believes that this lead to Maorist reading of “the Jews” who in John’s Gospel were the antithesis of this Sonship belief as the heroes of anti-Imperialism. This article raises several questions on the nature of evangelism and how we are presenting the “gospel” to those both in as well as outside our particular contexts? Are we presenting a clear and fair picture of the message of Jesus to those who do not share our particular worldview? or Are we presenting a message of Jesus that those living in oppression would choose to avoid, because of its coupling with oppressive and subjugative forces?