African Biblical Studies: Unmasking Embedded Racism and Colonialism in Biblical Studies, by Andrew M. Mbuvi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In African Biblical Studies, Andrew M. Mbuvi, a distinguished professor of African and African American religions, delivers a compelling critique entwined with innovative solutions to confront deeply rooted social tensions in the field of Biblical Studies.Through a synthesis of his prior work and new ground-breaking advancements, Mbuvi's book emerges as an essential read for scholars and students alike who are navigating the intersections of Biblical Studies and African religions.Mbuvi skillfully employs a postcolonial lens to dismantle the racist and imperialist biases that have long shaped Biblical Studies.With a persuasive argument against the enduring legacy of racism that frames the discipline, he calls for a radical reimagining and dismantling of the "centerperiphery" binary (13).This ambitious proposition aims to decentralize Western hegemony, advocating for a polycentric approach to biblical interpretation that elevates diverse perspectives.Central to Mbuvi's thesis is the leveraging of African Biblical Studies, which he presents as a vital tool for challenging and exposing the colonial underpinnings of traditional biblical interpretations.His critique is meticulously structured into three parts, beginning with a historical analysis that traces the discipline's evolution from its Enlightenment roots.Mbuvi elucidates how the Bible's transformation during the eighteenth century -from a theological artifact to a tool of colonial expansion -underpinned a European mission that was as much about domination as it was about Enlighten-
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".