J.T. Caldwell has requested that I define or seek to define what an “imperial critical perspective” is, for the rest of us. I am curious who “the rest of us” are exactly, but the question is well worth a description. Since there are a variety of authors whom I would align under the distinctive of imperial-critical, they often each have unique aspects to their individual hermeneutical presuppositions and methodologies. Thus, in a proper sense, there is no monolithic “imperial-critical perspective,” which explains my use of the indefinite article “an” at the head of my blog’s subtitle, implying that mine is one of a diversity of imperial-critical voices. As a point of reference, I would suggest that the following authors are “imperial-critical” in their orientation to biblical studies: Warren Carter (my adviser), J. D. Crossan, Richard A. Horsley, and a host of others. There is some relation also between what has emerged as “imperial-critical” and postcolonial biblical criticism/cultural criticism although they are not one and the same.
In brief, “imperial-critical” as a method seeks to foreground the Roman Imperial world ideologically, politically, in terms of power/domination, and most interestingly and relevantly–religiously, when considering the biblical texts. This stands over against the dominant or perhaps formerly dominant approach of foregrounding the Jesus movement among Judaism and more or less relegating the issues of social oppression, Roman Imperial Theology, and other aspects to background issues. Such a tacit assumption is embodied even in the titles of certain courses: e.g. “New Testament Backgrounds” or “Critical Issues and NT Backgrounds.” (A quick Google search for “courses NT backgrounds” will yield a variety of seminaries and bible colleges offering courses with such titles from a diversity of theological orientations [e.g. Mennonite to Capital Bible College, etc.]). The historical reality was that the early Jesus movement operated sociologically on the margins. They were not dominant socially, politically, or economically! However, methodologically, much previous NT scholarship has treated the NT as though it were “center stage” and issues of honor/shame, patron/client, imperial cult, imperial theology, and others were not issues that the NT had to negotiate around by the very act of speaking at all. This is precisely the point, the Roman empire and its theological justifications for dominion were, in fact, the very ideological concepts and claims to power that the NT message came into competition with. Jesus, a marginal Jew, went around teaching about the βασιλεία τοῦ οὐρανῶν/θεοῦ; “empire of heaven/god” being established through his mission, teaching, and deeds! His followers project upon him, and presumably he assumed, a title, arguably from the Similitudes of Enoch that predate the Jesus tradition in Galilee (on this see my Th.M. thesis: “Apocalyptic Imagery as Resistance Discourse” Dallas Theological Seminary, 2009). “That Son of Man” in the Similitudes, who appears with the holy angels and is enthroned brings the demise of oppressive regimes. Evoking such imagery certainly would have been cause for alarm to the ruling powers. Other clear imperial titles and roles are projected upon Jesus (e.g. Luke 2:1-12 σωτῆρα and κυριός; on this see my “‘Savior’ and ‘Lord’ in the Lukan Birth Narrative: A Challenge to Caesar? Pax Pneuma 5 (Spring 2009): 46-61). Thus, my point is that the Jesus movement pictured in the canonical gospels and then Christian theology articulated in the rest of the NT by its very existence ipso facto engages the Roman Imperial world. I would argue that many of the claims of early Christian communities cannot be fully appreciated without taking into consideration the socio-political and religious aspects of negotiating the Roman dominated world.
Hermeneutical/Philosophical Presuppositions:
- Historiographical Philosophy: Ancient historiography is an exercise in reconstructionive historiography, that is, in some sense imaginative in reconstructing plausibilities in antiquity based on disparate and partial historical evidence.
- Hermeneutics: To quote an author most recently read, Ehrensperger said: “To live is to interpret. There is no such thing as a pure event that speaks for itself” (That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, p. 5). Further, there is no such thing as a text that interprets itself! Therefore, the act of reading a text, as well as reconstructing historical periods and events, are acts of interpretation. Indeed, the ancient records we have are themselves specimens of interpretation. There is no “view from nowhere.” That is to say, every reader is situated and brings a priori understandings, preconceptions, and their own socio-politico-religious situatedness to the text in the act of reading. I defy the notion that these can be laid at the altar of historical-criticism. I find suspect those critical scholars who proclaim, usually from a modified agnostic/atheistic position, that they are able not to (because of their non-belief) fall prey to the same historical and interpretive critical conclusions that say believing critics do. In fact, it appears in that regard that the knife cuts both ways! Thus, neither belief nor non-belief are neutral, because neutrality does not exist. The best a critical scholar can hope to do is engage the data critically, attempt to be as open as possible to the range of possibilities, and identify and challenge their own presuppositions as best she or he can. I think that there are many readings, many of which are valuable in surfacing key issues in various texts.
Imperial-Critical: Towards a Definition
As the title suggests, this method, employs the construct of “empire” (note: a theoretic construct rooted in tangible historical phenomena) as a complex matrix of interrelated socio-historical factors, namely, sociological stratification (e.g. a concern with the socio-economic, political, and religious power differentiations among social groups within a culture or society), material and production (here drawing on aspects of the historical-materialist model), imperial ideology/theology (i.e. those social practices, constructed linguistic features, and common “scripts” that perpetuate, reinforce, and propel the construct of “empire” towards domination), historiography (i.e. here I assume that my method operates in relation to or perhaps as a modified or eclectic approach that appropriates the historical-critical method to some degree).
Perhaps a short list of grounding factors:
- Sociological-Class Factors: Those issues pertaining to the relationality of individuals and groups. This would, of course, include issues of patriarchalism/gender/sexuality, etc.
- Power Factors: Analysis of the way power dynamics possibly operated in the ancient world.
- Ideological-Religious Propaganda: The analysis of how texts, scripts, inscriptions, and the promulgation of ideas occurred, were perpetuated, and reinforced power/sociological factors.
- Psychological Factors: The analysis of domination/subjugation as a social phenomena that affected individuals and groups and their ideas.
- Intertextual Factors: Within various bodies of thought the development of, reaction to, and synthesis of texts in relation to other texts within their constellation of ideas. Here I would include issues specific to NT study, namely, the pseudepigrapha, apocalypticism, and messianisms that emerge prior to or at the turn of the millennium.
- Historical Factors: What can be reconstructed as historical events and the analysis of those events relative to the above factors.
After having read the above list, I think it would be difficult not to see the interrelation of each of these factors. In fact, in some instances I found it hard to describe one without in some sense relying on the other.
I don’t suppose that the imperial-critical approach necessarily divests “all” the meaning or significance a text may harbor. In fact, in some sense, my methodological approach is an amalgamation or eclectic array of analytic tools from various approaches (intertextuality, feminist(s) approaches, narrative and literary criticism, historical-critical, postcolonial theory to name but a few). However, I label my own approach imperial-critical because it best describes the anchor, as it were, to my approach. I find the Roman Imperial world to be the foreground historically. Thus, in reconstructing the thought-world or linguistic environment (e.g. “cognitive environment”), I find it most helpful to start with empire and then situate the Israelite or Christian traditions properly on the periphery, under the thumb of whatever empire (note, I am nuancing myself here to include Persian Yehud and other periods of domination by empire, albeit not of the Roman variety). Therefore, empire itself as a construct is the heart and starting point for my historical and then textual work. Of course, I am currently a PhD student and I am certainly open to revision, correction, and further construction of my critical method in biblical studies.
Concluding Thoughts and A Challenge:
I hope in some sense this helps to articulate “for the rest of us” what I mean by imperial-critical as an approach. As a challenge, I found this descriptive exercise extremely fruitful. I would like to further probe and attempt to articulate my own presuppositions more fully. I now thereby challenge my fellow bibliobloggers to engage in this same exercise from their social, religious, political, and critical perspectives. Please feel free to comment or critique my method as I hope to reflect on it further and refine it.