What do you think?
The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters
This volume is the first attempt at a comprehensive history of how the Bible has fared in the Third World, from precolonial days to the postcolonial period. It closely examines the works of biblical interpreters from Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and North America, bringing to the fore the obscure as well as the better-known interpretations, and investigating the Bible's reclamation by indigenous peoples in the postcolonial world. The volume will be an invaluable guide to anyone interested in learning about the impact of the Bible on non-Western cultures.
320 pages, Paperback
First published June 13, 1997
About the author
R.S. Sugirtharajah
25 books10 followersR.S. Sugirtharajah, a Sri Lankan theologian and lecturer, is Professor of Biblical Hermeneutics at the University of Birmingham, England. Prior to his current appointment, he was Senior Lecturer in Third World Theologies at Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 11, 2026
Before I begin I must start with something of a proviso - which may sound like an apology. I cannot with any sincerity criticize the work of an academic who is now an Emeritus Professor of Hermeneutics when the work in question is about the history of hermeneutics. I did not even manage a single GCSE A-level in English, history or religious studies. At the time I was into science and mathematics. So please allow me a little leeway, I m only expressing an opinion after reading a book.
This is a very interesting study which examines the reaction of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America to the Christian Bible and its teachings - or the way in which it was taught and assimilated. The author divided his study historically between the precolonial, colonial and postcolonial periods with the pivot being the European expansion and empire building from the sixteenth-century to roughly 1945, and analytically between the reactions to biblical interpretation due to the controls of imperialism, resistance and liberation.
Running through the book is, I suppose, an inevitable leaning toward the theory that white people can never be trusted based on what they did in the past and because of that I had a sense that the author would sometimes cherry-pick his sources and examples to emphasize his principles. A little like a scientist pushing basic scientific method to one side in order to show their hypothesis is correct. Don't gather evidence, examine it, and then form a workable hypothesis; form a theory then find evidence to support it and reject the data which shows it may be false.
Concentrating on Olaudah Equiano as a leader of resistance to colonial subjection seems a little shaky as the author admits. He may have been criminally kidnapped and begun as an escaped slave but he ended his career as a slave owner within the imperial system. If it is true, as the author suggests that Equiano "prided himself on being a model [slave owner]" that is irrelevant. A bastard who has a winning smile remains a bastard. I do not know at which point "Equiano saw himself as a latter-day Moses." If he ever did he never quite grasped the meaning of all of the commandments.
John Colenso, the Bishop of Natal toward the end of the nineteenth-century is another example. Colenso was a great champion of the Zulu people and had very clear and specific views on the interpretation of the Christian scriptures - which were often at a considerable variance to the established way of thought. From the book I gained the impression that Colenso's views are emphasized because he was anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-white supremacist and even anti-British. While I am reasonably he sure he was never anti-British, I feel his opinions on imperialism, colonialism and supremacism owed more to the influence of F.D. Maurice and Christian Socialism than to any early form of wokeism. The way it is presented seems to nudge the book closer to a political statement than a discussion of scriptural interpretation during and after the years of European imperialism.
Nevertheless it remains a fascinating study which introduced me to leading figures and their viewpoints I had never come across before, each of which deserves to be followed up. A very interesting read.
This is a very interesting study which examines the reaction of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America to the Christian Bible and its teachings - or the way in which it was taught and assimilated. The author divided his study historically between the precolonial, colonial and postcolonial periods with the pivot being the European expansion and empire building from the sixteenth-century to roughly 1945, and analytically between the reactions to biblical interpretation due to the controls of imperialism, resistance and liberation.
Running through the book is, I suppose, an inevitable leaning toward the theory that white people can never be trusted based on what they did in the past and because of that I had a sense that the author would sometimes cherry-pick his sources and examples to emphasize his principles. A little like a scientist pushing basic scientific method to one side in order to show their hypothesis is correct. Don't gather evidence, examine it, and then form a workable hypothesis; form a theory then find evidence to support it and reject the data which shows it may be false.
Concentrating on Olaudah Equiano as a leader of resistance to colonial subjection seems a little shaky as the author admits. He may have been criminally kidnapped and begun as an escaped slave but he ended his career as a slave owner within the imperial system. If it is true, as the author suggests that Equiano "prided himself on being a model [slave owner]" that is irrelevant. A bastard who has a winning smile remains a bastard. I do not know at which point "Equiano saw himself as a latter-day Moses." If he ever did he never quite grasped the meaning of all of the commandments.
John Colenso, the Bishop of Natal toward the end of the nineteenth-century is another example. Colenso was a great champion of the Zulu people and had very clear and specific views on the interpretation of the Christian scriptures - which were often at a considerable variance to the established way of thought. From the book I gained the impression that Colenso's views are emphasized because he was anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-white supremacist and even anti-British. While I am reasonably he sure he was never anti-British, I feel his opinions on imperialism, colonialism and supremacism owed more to the influence of F.D. Maurice and Christian Socialism than to any early form of wokeism. The way it is presented seems to nudge the book closer to a political statement than a discussion of scriptural interpretation during and after the years of European imperialism.
Nevertheless it remains a fascinating study which introduced me to leading figures and their viewpoints I had never come across before, each of which deserves to be followed up. A very interesting read.
February 24, 2026
The two stars are for how much historical primary source content there was. But sadly that is not what defines the book.
The author has two many underlying assumptions that he fails to make a compelling case for that really make the book an unconvincing read for me. The basic line goes… the historical critical method has proven the bible to be full of flaws, errors, and contradictions meaning that any sort of interpretative framework that maintains historical orthodoxy is only due to power structures and colonialism.
This leads to the author spending most of the book dunking on Protestant attempts to make the bible accessible in the vernacular, and celebrating every story of extreme syncretism he can find.
He claims post-colonial studies as a framework and even directly quotes Edward Said’s work on the Orient and the Occident throughout the book. But what was a framework for Said to re-align academic and political thought with careful nuance in Orientalism, has been turned into a blunt force moral framework here.
The author has two many underlying assumptions that he fails to make a compelling case for that really make the book an unconvincing read for me. The basic line goes… the historical critical method has proven the bible to be full of flaws, errors, and contradictions meaning that any sort of interpretative framework that maintains historical orthodoxy is only due to power structures and colonialism.
This leads to the author spending most of the book dunking on Protestant attempts to make the bible accessible in the vernacular, and celebrating every story of extreme syncretism he can find.
He claims post-colonial studies as a framework and even directly quotes Edward Said’s work on the Orient and the Occident throughout the book. But what was a framework for Said to re-align academic and political thought with careful nuance in Orientalism, has been turned into a blunt force moral framework here.
November 3, 2022
Have been really busy the last few months with work and haven't been able to read books as much as I want to. This has been the first book I've really had the time to read from start to finish. It's a phenomenal look at the foundational role the the Bible played in the colonial project within the Third World. Some of the better parts of the book are Sugirtharajah's argument that the Bible remained largely marginal to precolonial Christian communities in India, Africa, and China, his analysis of the way the British and Foreign Bible Society explicitly distributed the Bible as a means of colonial civilization making, and his constructive postcolonial hermeneutics. I find Sugirtharajah's constructive project both persuasive and helpful as someone who has largely considered themselves post-Christian for a few years now. To quote him at length:
Postcolonialism, on the other hand (compared to Liberation hermeneutics), sees the Bible as both problem and solution, and its message of liberation is seen as far more indeterminate and complicated. It is seen as a text of both emancipation and enervation. Postcolonial reading advocates the emancipation of the Bible from its implication in dominant ideologies both at the level of the text and at the level of interpretation. For postcolonialism, the critical principle is not derived only from the Bible but is determined by contextual needs and other warrants. It sees the Bible as one among many liberating texts.
All in all a great read for anyone looking to understand the Bible's colonial entanglement and a constructive path forward.
Postcolonialism, on the other hand (compared to Liberation hermeneutics), sees the Bible as both problem and solution, and its message of liberation is seen as far more indeterminate and complicated. It is seen as a text of both emancipation and enervation. Postcolonial reading advocates the emancipation of the Bible from its implication in dominant ideologies both at the level of the text and at the level of interpretation. For postcolonialism, the critical principle is not derived only from the Bible but is determined by contextual needs and other warrants. It sees the Bible as one among many liberating texts.
All in all a great read for anyone looking to understand the Bible's colonial entanglement and a constructive path forward.
Read
July 5, 2016Thought-provoking for sure.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews