Search Results (2)

The Documentary Hypothesis proposed by Julius Wellhausen has sparked discussions for over a century. The core of this debate revolves around the perspective through which the creation of the Torah should be viewed. Previous studies have often neglected the focus on “people”. The Torah was created by individuals and was profoundly influenced by the era in which they lived. In this specific study, instead of concentrating on the texts or historical background, we should focus on the “authors” or “redactors”, exploring how they processed and created the texts under the influence of their times. In Jewish history, the destruction of the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom played a crucial role in the creation of the Torah. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom, the Deuteronomists, reflecting on historical lessons, formulated a set of legal norms for theology and society, which established theological standards for further interpreting and writing ancient Jewish history. Following the destruction of the Southern Kingdom, Diaspora group and Returnees, centered on reflecting on their catastrophes and responding to contemporary crises, further created and integrated texts of ancestral traditions and the Promised Land, embedding the historical memory of ancestors-land for the Jewish people. Full article

Deuteronomy 23:3, says: “No … Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord”. This verse is motivated by a discriminatory tendency embedded in the ontology of the Deuteronomist. Interestingly, Deuteronomy 23:3 was used by Ezra-Nehemiah to discriminate against the “Moabites” during the Second Temple. Such ontology is countered by the author of Ruth in the narrative of Ruth during the Second Temple. This demonstrates an ontological “war” within the Bible itself. The primary contestation lies in whether God is exclusive or inclusive. This development necessitates a hermeneutics of suspicion. In the course of history, the “theology” of Deuteronomy has been used to grossly violate the human dignity of many God-fearing African people and many other people of the South for colonial purposes. To exacerbate the situation, there were persistent attempts from some quarters to universalise such a discriminatory biblical perspective. This would feed into the centre–periphery arrangement, with the centre feeding the periphery with such hermeneutics. For this reason, African scholars are implored to be very vigilant against ardent pressures put on the biblical texts by ontological, epistemological, and contextual biases of interpretations. Accordingly, Andrew Mbuvi identifies African Biblical Hermeneutics perfectly when he says it seeks to undo “the very construct of the ‘centre-periphery’ binary by allowing the possibility of multiple centres”). Kenneth Ngwa, thus, rightly asserts that African Biblical Hermeneutics considers African epistemologies and conditions “to be invaluable and legitimate contexts and resources in biblical interpretation”), drinking from our own wells). In consequence, this paper intends to set a dialogue between Deuteronomy 23:3 and Ruth 4:18–22. This paper aims to examine the understanding of God behind these verses. This paper will then compare the two theologies with the African philosophical concept of God. Harnessing the African concept of Ubuntu, this paper will de-ideologise the two texts and thus will provide a recommendation concerning the two texts. Full article