| dc.description.abstract | Even though the demographics of World Christianity demonstrate a population shift to the Global South, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, the preponderance of biblical scholarship continues to be dominated by Western scholars in pursuit of their contextual questions that are influenced by an Enlightenment-oriented worldview. In nascent efforts to bridge this chasm, research in intercultural biblical hermeneutics has typically first established “Western” interpretations using predominant methods of classical exegesis and then compared and contrasted to it various indigenous interpretations. Unfortunately, this method continues to marginalize the other voices.
In contradistinction, this research combines a theoretical framework developed from Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutical philosophy with Ellen Herda’s anthropological protocol of “participatory inquiry,” wherein that dialogue and participant transformation facilitates a “fusion of horizons” in order to build bridges of understanding across cultures and beyond worldviews.
The fundamental research question is: How do we more fully understand the “generational curses” in the Pentateuch? The generational curse phrase, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation,” appears four times in the Pentateuch: Exod 20:4–6; Exod 34:6–7; Num 14:18; and Deut 5:8–10. These four texts are studied in a “dialogical exegetical” approach such that content from commentaries by American biblical scholars are intersected with transcriptional material from conversations with Maasai Lutheran theologians of Tanzania, East Africa. The intersection of interpretations is facilitated by a contextual conceptual paradigm, which is an intentional strategy to reduce the marginalization of these other voices.
This intercultural analysis of American and Maasai interpretations of the Pentateuchal texts of the generational curses demonstrates that intercultural hermeneutics increases understandings, which otherwise would have been limited by one worldview. As on one hand
8
phenomenological generational curses are prevalent within the Maasai worldview, on the other hand the Enlightenment-influence worldview minimizes the attention of curses as a phenomenon. This examination of the biblical texts from two cultural contexts is beneficial to enhance understanding.
Analyzing the transcriptions from dialogues with the Maasai conducted in 2012 resulted in the identification of a contextual conceptual paradigm, or lens, of reconciliation through which to view the generational curses in the biblical texts. This conceptual lens—confirmed during follow-up conversations in 2013 with all the Maasai research participants—views a loving, parental God who desires to bless; however, sin will thwart God’s blessings. Remarkably, the Maasai understand that such curses can be seen as a good thing. They are viewed as “blessings in disguise,” put in place and enacted by God in order to deter wrongdoing. However, if the threat of a curse fails in prevention, then a curse is perceived to be a wake-up call to reconcile the wayward wrongdoer back into a right relationship with God and the community.
This intercultural biblical analysis demonstrates that the inter-generational curse is related only to flagrant disobedience to the core of the covenantal relationship with YHWH, a jealous God; literally, the trans-generational recompense in these texts applies only to rebellious apostasy, often manifested through idolatry. However, the fear-inducing theophanic revelations and impassioned calls to teach the children faithfully was to impress upon the people that the serious consequences are meant to serve as a deterrent; both the incidences of transgression and the numbers of people involved were to be minimal. When apostasy occurs, the discipline of a loving God is meant to be severe enough to drive the apostate to repentance and bring reconciliation with God. Then, the covenantal steadfast love of YHWH will continue with promised blessings to the thousands of generations. Because the family members have “skin in the game” or have a personal stake in the outcomes, they are incentivized to act for the common good. This corporate responsibility—that is inherent within the Maasai conceptual paradigm of
9
reconciliation—serves to provide both preventative and corrective impulses through societal accountability, mediation, and shared calamitous consequences.
The dialogical exegesis demonstrated that the Western scholars do not generally engage the metaphysical implications of the curse as it extends to the third and fourth generations. Their interpretations include: 1) silence, with only a mere paraphrase of the verse; 2) an identification of a primitive perspective in an evolutionary scheme, such that it is later “corrected;” 3) an interpretation of the “those who hate me” phrase (Exod 20:4–6 and Deut 5:8–10) that assigns culpability to the individual, regardless of the interpretive implications, because most scholars identify this as being a later addition; 4) natural consequences of social ills, metaphorically described as children suffering in a broken home or pollution; and 5) a minority who hold the tension of the plurivocality as seen within the Hebrew Bible. The two predominant aspects of dismissing or denigrating corporate responsibility and supernatural aspects within the Bible are representational of an Enlightenment-influenced worldview.
In contrast, the Maasai theologians hold a traditional Maasai metaphysical understanding of generational curses, which they overlaid upon the biblical texts. Instead of considering the texts’ apostasy/idolatry as being the cause of phenomenologically effective generational curses, the Maasai theologians refer the cause of the curses to the sins of the fourth through seventh commandments (in the traditional Lutheran numbering), which correlate to the traditional Maasai worldview. They assert that disrespect of parents, killing, adultery, and stealing are the causes of supernatural consequences for non-Christians, their families, and their livestock. They hold that Christians are freed from the curses through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
In spite of overt influence from the traditional worldview, the Maasai understand that one’s harm of others has consequences for one’s relationship with God. This demonstrates that the Maasai have a more holistic worldview, as they do not separate the horizontal and vertical dimensions of life. In contrast, the Enlightenment-influenced individualistic interpretations in the American context tend to see “loving God” and “loving others” as distinct from each other.
10
Consequently, the interpretations of communal accountability by the Maasai theologians more accurately represent the corporate responsibility as seen within the biblical texts.
Accordingly, I argue that intercultural dialogue and the Maasai contextual conceptual paradigm of reconciliation is a fruitful interpretive tool for addressing the primary research question: How do we more fully understand the “generational curse” in the Pentateuch?—which also results in a “fusion of horizons” with Maasai theologians. | nb_NO |
