Sunday, April 13, 2008


Well, in reading my inaugural post I thought I was reading David Hume suddenly! I might have over stated my skepticism, for I do think knowledge is possible, even religious knowledge; but in regards to what and how much...those are the issues that are of present concern. Nevertheless I press on...

Currently, among other things I have been working through Stephen D. Moore's Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006). It is simply fascinating, like stumbling into an underground club and when you become cognizant of the character of individuals who are in here, you realize you are more at home among them than any you have known before. While admittedly only having my toe in the pond as it were at this point, the edge it seems to me is as follows.

Whereas anti-Imperial studies has been my heart's cry for a time, I have always been away of the somewhat forced dealing with the data. That is, to argue that NT author's were "anti-Empire" is one thing, but usually to do so virtually requires that the author be completely averse to Imperial rhetoric, etc. A feature that is not as clear, at least consistently through virtually all the NT authors. That is, I think my case for Luke's birth narrative as polemic of the Imperial cult is virtually cut and dry; however, the problem is showing that Luke is consistently against Empire (many contend that he is sympathetic to Rome). This, for me, is a real problem. [[ N.B. just for the record, my argument is pertaining to how the Gospel text would have been heard by specific audiences in various locales in Asia Minor, I'm definitely not arguing for authorial intention, as though that were accessible (fodder for another post)]]. What Moore seems to be setting forth, however, and not just Moore, but Postcolonial studies is that the NT documents reflect not a "thoroughgoing" {to quote N.T. Wright's phrase} Imperialistic sympathy nor a thoroughgoing anti-Imperial emphasis... rather, the colonized (e.g. the shivering Jewish denizens) is so immersed, oppressed, and affected in terms of the Imperial grip reaching into the fabric of their Weltanschauung and thereby even their offensive against Empire, itself is embodied in Imperial mimicry, whereas the colonized mimic the colonizer rhetorically and possibly even methodologically in their resistance discourse. This to me, seems to forge a way through the conundrum at least in so far as I am thinking through it presently. These are my thoughts for the day...

I plan to write something soon concerning my thoughts on cosmology, God, and world; these thoughts have been "impeding my work" {-Stewie, the Family Guy} for weeks now.

No comments: