walter brueggemann in the context of old testament theology
Post on 27-Oct-2014
191 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Barnabas Aspray
1
Walter Brueggemann in the Context of Old Testament Theology
Walter Brueggemann wrote Theology of the Old Testament (TOT) at a time when OT studies
seemed “stalled in an impasse,” declares Childs.1 Brueggemann himself describes the discipline
as being in a “competitive, conflictual situation” and concludes rhetorically, “there seems to be
no way out.”2 But what kind of an impasse was the discipline in? In what ways did Brueggemann
attempt to move things forward, and how successful was he?
This paper is divided into three parts. To begin with, I will trace the history of Old Testament
studies, highlighting the key problems encountered. This will provide a context for
understanding Brueggemann’s work. I will then summarise the methodological approach
Brueggemann takes in TOT, focusing on the ways it attempts to resolve existing issues. Finally, I
will evaluate Brueggemann’s level of success in relation to these issues, pointing both to his
major contributions and to problems I believe remain unsolved from his work.
The beginning of Old Testament studies is commonly dated to 1787, the year Professor
Johann Philipp Gabler delivered an inaugural address distinguishing the roles of dogmatic and
biblical theology. 3
The former was to be concerned with normative statements: what is to be
believed in today’s context. The latter was given a descriptive role: that of delineating the
theological structures expressed in the biblical material. Gabler believed that dogmatic theology
would need to be practiced anew in every age and culture, whereas biblical theology was
theoretically a finite task. Once scholars had agreed on how best to present the historic biblical
understanding of God, Gabler said, the job would be done. Dogmatic theologians could then use
the resource of biblical theology as a foundation for their own continued work.
Over the next hundred years the real difficulty of doing biblical theology this way became
apparent. The Judeo-Christian religion could be seen to have undergone many changes
throughout the Biblical period, most clearly between the Old and New Testaments but also
within each Testament. Consequently, OT scholars began to do their work from within a
1 B. S. Childs, “Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament : Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy,”
Scottish Journal of Theology 53, no. 2 (2000): 228. 2 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1997), 63. 3 Ben C Ollenburger, The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament
Theology, 1930-1990 (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 113–150.
Barnabas Aspray
2
historical framework, showing how the religion of Israel progressed throughout the period of the
Old Testament. They also drew on extrabiblical resources – archaeology, and other ancient Near
Eastern texts – to help elucidate biblical material in its original context. Their approach became
increasingly what is called ‘history-of-religions’ in which the OT was nothing more than one
source among other sources for the task of reconstructing Israel’s religious development.
In this way the discipline of OT studies came to be governed by the historical-critical
method, an agreed set of principles and goals for the study of Biblical texts. According to this
method, the sole purpose of biblical study is to understand and describe the Bible in its original
historical setting, and to determine the relation of Biblical accounts to ‘objective’ history. In
other words, the goal is to get behind Biblical texts to the historical events and authors which
produced them. Under the governance of this method, scholars tended to be suspicious of
normative ‘theological’ proposals drawn from the text because they seemed insensitive to the
changing beliefs of Israel in her historical milieu. Gotthold Lessing famously talked of the “‘ugly
ditch’ that separates the historical from the theological.”4 It was hard in this environment to find
continuity in the OT, or to tie its many texts and themes together into a coherent statement.
However, in the 1930s Walter Eichrodt set a milestone by presenting covenant as the central
idea by which everything in the OT could be understood.5 For Eichrodt, God’s covenant
relationship with Israel was a continuous theme which brought the diverse statements of the OT
together. Thus Eichrodt re-introduced a normative quality to the OT material: something that
didn’t change even though its understanding and expression may have changed.
Eichrodt rapidly came under criticism from many sides. People found OT texts and themes
which did not fit his schema. For example, the Wisdom Literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) is
not much concerned with covenant. Other scholars wrote works positing alternative theological
‘centres’ (e.g. God’s holiness, Israel’s election, God’s lordship), but some people questioned the
validity of imposing any abstract theological centre on a text which is essentially historical in
nature. Foremost among these was Gerhard von Rad, whose own approach had two
distinguishing features. First, he insisted on hearing Israel’s own account of Israel’s history from
the OT without being distracted by alternative historical-critical evidence. His concern was not
4 TOT, 35.
5 Ibid., 27–31.
Barnabas Aspray
3
‘what happened’ but ‘what Israel believed happened’. This enabled von Rad to circumvent the
strictures of the historical-critical method without directly opposing it. Second, he resisted any
schematisation or abstraction of OT content, presenting God’s saving actions through Israel’s
history in their particularity. Rather than draw out normative statements from the OT, he saw it
as a continuous narrative in which God’s saving activity was displayed, each one specific to the
historical moment. Thus the concept of ‘salvation-history’ emerged.6
Von Rad’s work was echoed by a flurry of scholarly activity in North America known as the
‘biblical theology movement,’ chiefly concerned with the features of Israel’s worldview which
distinguished it from surrounding ANE religions. The primary distinctive was Israel’s linear
rather than circular notion of history, and the sense of narrative progression it engendered. With
von Rad, the biblical theology movement presented the OT as an account of “God’s mighty acts
in history.”7
A barrage of objections soon arose to meet this movement, centred around two principle
difficulties. First, the concept of God’s action in history, while claiming to avoid abstractions or
theological ‘centres’, was accused of being itself a ‘centre’ which left out important material.
The Wisdom literature was once again marginalised, not having much of a ‘historical’ aspect
(any more than a ‘covenantal’ aspect). Israel’s theology of creation was also notably absent from
this concept, falling outside the realm of ‘God’s saving acts’ in Israel’s history. Second, the
movement was accused of ambiguity in its use of the word ‘history’, failing to distinguish
between “history investigated by historical criticism” and “history proclaimed by the OT.” The
notion of salvation-history was not so much a bridge from history into normativity as it was a
conflation of the two resting on questionable assumptions – a theological interpretation of
observable historical events.8
Nothing really arose to take the place of the biblical theology movement. In the wake of its
demise, OT scholarship fragmented into a variety of methodological approaches, each supported
by some and criticised by others. Meadowcroft describes a “lull” in OT theology “in the sense of
6 Ibid., 31–38.
7 Ibid., 34–42.
8 Ibid., 42–49.
Barnabas Aspray
4
an attempt at a comprehensive statement.”9 There was also a growing unease with the historical-
critical method, and doubts emerged about the assumptions lying behind its ‘assured results’.
Additional problems were identified, such as how to relate Christian scholarship to Jewish OT
studies. Conventionally the OT had been linked with the New Testament and Christian tradition
without consideration of other ‘reading communities’ like Judaism. This raised the question of
how the OT relates to the NT and whether it is imposing external categories to assume a priori
that their theologies are the same.
OT theology was left with the five following problems. First, how to relate the Bible to the
historical-critical method? Second, how to move from a descriptive historical account to
normative theological content? Third, how to organise the OT’s subject matter coherently
without neglecting significant elements? Fourth, how to relate OT scholarship to Jewish
interpretations on the one hand, and the NT and church tradition on the other? Fifth, how to
arbitrate between methodologies in a discipline no longer governed by a common approach?
These problems are all interrelated. Even without historical criticism’s leaning towards
descriptiveness and resistance to normativity, any theological proposal from the OT invariably
encounters texts which either question the proposal’s centrality or undermine it altogether. This
problem is only exacerbated by adding the NT into the mix. But most importantly, underneath
any conclusions lies a methodology, and underneath any methodology lie a number of
presuppositions not shared by everyone concerned.
One contemporary solution, championed by Brevard Childs, interprets the OT through the
lens of canon, demonstrating the validity of the concept of canon by historical-critical methods,
yet refusing to submit entirely to historical-critical assumptions. Childs sees Jews and Christians
as reading different documents, thus legitimating strictly Christian interpretation of the OT and
NT in which both are assumed to contain the same theology. Childs insists that the collection of
OT texts into a single canon enables their interpretation into a coherent theological framework,
which allows flexibility for new readings of the text, but does so within the limits set by the
canon.
9 T. Meadowcroft, “Method and Old Testament Theology : Barr, Brueggemann and Goldingay Considered,”
Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 37.
Barnabas Aspray
5
Brueggemann, however, rejects the canonical approach, considering it “massively
reductionist,” flattening the “playfulness and ambiguity” inherent in the text, and subjecting it to
“interpretive categories that come from elsewhere.” 10
Brueggemann insists that the text is too
“polyphonic”11
to be forced into “hegemonic interpretations” such as Childs’.12
Brueggemann’s alternative solution is one he believes emerges from the Old Testament itself.
For him, the state of OT theology now mirrors the nature of the text it studies: many voices
existing in tension, a plurality of scholarly approaches and a plurality of voices in the text, each
contributing something valuable to the debate. The parallel he draws between the conflict in the
academic community and the conflict in the text provides Brueggemann with a unique answer to
the question of whether the OT has a ‘centre’. He finds his central OT concept in the dissonant
and multi-voiced nature of the text – i.e. in the denial of any centre.
We can come to an understanding of Brueggemann’s solution by examining his
organisational structure: the “testimony-dispute-advocacy” of a lawcourt trial. This model
resonates strongly with both his central themes and his epistemological basis. Deeply suspicious
of the Enlightenment’s ontological claims, Brueggemann sees testimony as its own “mode of
knowledge.” In a trial, the court must make a judgement based on testimonies concerning reality.
If the court believes the witness, “the testimony is turned into reality.”13
It is therefore the court’s
duty to hear the testimony as a claim to reality.
For this reason, in order to hear the OT testimony clearly, Brueggemann “bracket[s] out all
questions of historicity. We are not asking ‘What happened?’ but ‘What is said?’”14
The
Enlightenment-based concern with ontology is sidelined in favour of a testimony-based
epistemology. What this means practically is that the OT is seen as one witness, while historical-
critical reconstructions, archaeological evidence and extrabiblical ANE texts are seen as other
10
TOT, 92. 11
Ibid., 732. 12
Ibid., 710. 13
Ibid., 121. 14
Ibid., 118.
Barnabas Aspray
6
witnesses. Brueggemann is concerned to hear the Old Testament’s own account of itself before
bringing other witnesses to the stand.15
The lawcourt metaphor not only enables Brueggemann to treat the OT separately from
historical-critical concerns, it also provides space for the plurality of witnesses within the OT
itself. “Israel’s best utterances are shot through with disputes that must always be
reconsidered.”16
The structure of his work reflects this disputational nature. Part I, ‘Israel’s Core
Testimony’ is juxtaposed with Part II, ‘Israel’s Countertestimony’ in which the former’s absolute
claims are challenged. Brueggemann uses this metaphor because he finds it explicitly in the OT
(e.g. Second Isaiah). “I regard testimony not simply as a happy or clever convenience for my
exposition, but as an appropriate way to replicate the practice of ancient Israel.”17
Finally, the lawcourt model reflects the plurality of OT methodologies currently in the field.
Brueggemann is resistant to methodologies which claim dominance and deny the validity of
alternatives. He values historical criticism, admitting that “everything we are now able to do is
dependent on that era of study.”18
He also incorporates insights from canonical criticism, limiting
his subject matter to the canonical text.19
However, he ultimately resists both of these as too
hegemonic and reductionistic. He wishes to give a hearing to all readings, both ‘centrist’ (white,
male, establishment) and ‘marginated’ (liberationist, black, feminist). In his view, the variety of
readings simply reflects the nature of the text. “To wish for a more settled interpretive process is
to wish for something that is not available in the Old Testament, and no amount of historical
criticism or canonical interpretation can make it so.”20
To summarise, the lawcourt metaphor first reflects Brueggemann’s epistemology about how
reality can be known. Second, it allows him to focus on the OT as one witness without settling
questions of historicity. Third, it provides space for the multiplicity of voices within the text.
Fourth, it provides space for the multiplicity of voices within OT studies. Finally, he believes
15
This does not invalidate historical-critical claims, but only relativises them against competing claims. His
intent is to “take the text seriously as testimony and to let it have its say alongside other testimonies, including the
testimony of Enlightenment rationality.” (Ibid., 718). 16
Ibid., 72. 17
Ibid., 119–120. 18
Ibid., 708. 19
Although he does not credit Childs in TOT, his response to Childs’ review acknowledges that “my own debts
to him are very great (and I think quite evident in my work).” (Childs, “Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old
Testament,” 234). 20
Brueggemann, TOT, 64.
Barnabas Aspray
7
that it reflects the nature of the text itself. The pluralist approach is thus “congruent with the
reality of pluralism (a) in the text, (b) in the methods of interpretation, and (c) in interpretive
communities.”21
This pluralism also opens the door to Jewish readings. For Brueggemann, a shared reading
community of Jews and Christians can enrich both sides’ understanding. The OT’s very plurality
makes Christian interpretation one of many possible ones, but to engage the OT requires being
“resistant to making a claim on the text that is narrowly Christian.”22
Brueggemann’s testimony-based epistemology coheres with his hermeneutic of rhetorical
criticism, which he believes to be also consistent with the OT’s nature. In contrast with the
‘essentialist’ epistemologies of the church (which he links with canonical criticism) and of
historical criticism, which try to find things (God, history) ‘behind’ the text, he claims that “the
shape of reality finally depends on the power of speech.”23
Therefore, “primary attention must be
given to the rhetoric and the rhetorical character of faith in the Old Testament.”24
To believe the
testimony of the text is to enter a world in which that testimony becomes reality. “The God of
Old Testament theology ... lives in, with, and under the rhetorical enterprise of this text, and
nowhere else and in no other way” (italics original).25
We now turn to a brief summary of the content of TOT. Brueggemann begins the main
section of his work by succinctly stating his focus. “The primal subject of an Old Testament
theology is of course God.”26
Part I expounds Israel’s positive testimony about Yahweh.
Demonstrating von Rad’s influence, Brueggemann begins by identifying verbs with God as
subject, highlighting the importance of Yahweh’s decisive action. Yahweh creates, promises,
delivers, commands, and leads. These verbs lead Israel to generalise about the character of their
Subject. Hence Yahweh is a God of justice, righteousness, faithfulness, compassion, and shalom,
a king, judge, warrior, artist, father, shepherd, mother, and healer. In these metaphors a tension
21
Ibid., xvii. 22
Ibid., 108. 23
Ibid., 71. 24
Ibid., 64. 25
Ibid., 66. 26
Ibid., 117.
Barnabas Aspray
8
emerges between “Yahweh’s self-regard and Yahweh’s regard for Israel”27
which Brueggemann
insists should not be readily resolved, letting it “open the way for further exposition.”28
Part II, “Israel’s Countertestimony,” examines texts that dispute these positive claims.
Contrasted with Yahweh’s decisive action, texts such as the wisdom literature describe a God
hidden from visible intervention. Against Yahweh’s faithfulness, certain texts dispute Yahweh as
unreliable and ambiguous. Most problematic, however, are the witnesses to “Yahweh’s failure to
adhere to covenant” either by silence/neglect in the midst of need, or by disproportionate
punishment for disobedience.29
The conclusion of parts I and II foregrounds the tension between Israel’s testimony and
countertestimony. “It is my judgment that this tension between the two belongs to the very
character and substance of Old Testament faith, a tension that precludes and resists resolution.”30
Together, parts I and II can be seen as the centrepiece of Brueggemann’s work. Here he focuses
on what Israel has to say about Yahweh through the pluralistic lens of multiple conflicting
witnesses.
Part III, “Israel’s Unsolicited Testimony,” exposits the material in the OT which pertains, not
directly to Yahweh, but to Yahweh-in-relation to various partners: Israel, human individuals, the
nations, and creation. Part IV examines “Israel’s Embodied Testimony,” the ways Yahweh was
mediated to Israel: torah, king, prophet, cult, and sage. Part V concludes with a discussion of the
future of OT theology, highlighting ongoing concerns that should be taken into account.
Every scholar’s work must be judged within its historical setting. It would be easy to critique
Brueggemann for being so pluralistic that he ends up offering nothing concrete, only a set of
contradictory theological assertions. Indeed my initial reaction to the work was that it is so open-
ended that it does not constitute an OT theology at all. But if one takes into account the fractured
nature of OT scholarship, it is clear that his strategy has allowed him to bring diverse
perspectives to the table, presenting their insights without attempting to adjudicate between
them. His solution to the descriptive-normative problem, and to the problem of whether the OT
has a centre, is elegant and fitting to the circumstances. Focussing on the ‘rhetoric’ of the text
27
Ibid., 303. 28
Ibid., 313. 29
Ibid., 373. 30
Ibid., 400.
Barnabas Aspray
9
makes every OT utterance about Yahweh normative, but the plurality of utterances in the text
leads to a plurality of ‘dissonant’ normative statements. Instead of consolidating these statements
into a coherent theology, Brueggemann does the very thing he believes the text does: he holds
them together in tension, inviting the reader to enter into the disputation. Thus Brueggemann’s
work intentionally reflects the way he sees the OT itself: both are more suggestive than
conclusive, conforming to the reality of lived experience.
I only have a problem with Brueggemann’s “dissonance” as a centre when he locates it “in
the very character of Yahweh.”31
I do not think this does justice to the overwhelming affirmation
in the text of Yahweh’s consistency, in which light the countertestimonies only point to a
consistency beyond the reach of our understanding – and Yahweh’s incomprehensibility is surely
also a concept deeply embedded in the text.
However, Brueggemann’s inclusivity is nonetheless admirable. TOT continually dialogues
with diverse communities of OT scholarship. He uses the work of Jewish scholars (especially
Levenson), feminist scholars (e.g. Trible), and many others. 32
He avoids gender-specific
pronouns for God, consistently using the name ‘Yahweh’ where a pronoun would have sufficed.
One difficulty was raised by a female reviewer: although Brueggemann expounds feminine
metaphors for God, he “overlooks women’s stories,”33
having no references to Ruth and only one
to Esther.
This oversight could, however, be due to a broader problem with the work: a more general
lack of attention to stories. Childs notes that part I “tends to lose the dynamics of Israel’s
narrative, the discovery of which has been a hallmark of much recent Old Testament
scholarship.”34
James Barr goes further: “history altogether is very largely ignored... The
passages quoted are strung out without any indication of the time from which they came or, in
most cases, the historical situation.”35
Brueggemann does in fact endorse narrative criticism, but
31
Ibid., 715. 32
See the index of names, Ibid., 771–777. 33
Alice Ogden Bellis, “Walter Brueggemann and James Barr: Old Testament theology and inclusivity,”
Religious Studies Review 27, no. 3 (Jl 2001): 236. 34
Childs, “Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament,” 229. 35
James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1999), 545.
Barnabas Aspray
10
his use of it to “focus first on verbal sentences”36
only captures part of the richness found in
narrative. Extensive use is made of biblical poetry in the Psalms and Prophets throughout TOT,
but narrative texts are much less frequently discussed. Sklba also observes that “apocalyptic
seems to receive a briefer consideration than expected.”37
These deficiencies are probably due to
Brueggemann’s emphasis on rhetorical criticism, whose natural habitat is poetic proclamation
more than narrative. At the risk of requiring TOT to be even longer, a section on Israel’s story
may have done much to restore the balance of material.
Brueggemann has not, I think, entirely solved the problem of OT-NT relations. Two things he
does well. First, every section points to ways the NT takes up OT themes, and in this way he
continually dialogues with the NT. Second, he insists on hearing the voice of the OT in its own
right and not through a NT lens, which I consider self-evident. But although his pluralism allows
him to engage seriously with Jewish readings, he often takes it so far as to relativise the claims of
the NT itself. As Barr notes, “Brueggemann’s emphasis is on the ‘openness’ of the Old
Testament message, so that a Christian reading should not ‘pre-empt or foreclose’ [it] ... But then
what can a Christian reading achieve?”38
Brueggemann rejects the common “two-stage” method
of first reading the OT “on its own terms” and afterward in light of the NT, because the OT
“does not obviously, cleanly, or directly point to Jesus or to the New Testament.”39
It is not clear
why this invalidates the two-stage model. Surely the first stage, honestly done, still abides by the
same principles he himself uses for TOT? Thus although it is helpful to see some pointers to the
NT throughout his work, a more powerful tracing of NT themes back through the OT,
demonstrating the coherence of biblical theology, would have been much more valuable.
Overall, Brueggemann has done a magisterial job of drawing together the many threads,
problems, texts and methods into a powerful articulation of Israel’s testimony. He has seamlessly
incorporated the previously neglected creation theme as one of Yahweh’s partners in part III.
The wisdom literature also fits without strain, classed as one of the countertestimonies to
Yahweh’s hiddenness and as one of the “embodied witnesses” which mediate Yahweh’s
36
TOT, 66. 37
Richard Sklba, “Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy,” Theological Studies 59, no.
4 (1998): 721. 38
Barr, Concept, 550. 39
TOT, 731.
Barnabas Aspray
11
presence.40
He has not been shy in bringing the text into dialogue with contemporary politics,
ecclesiology and culture; although his discussions may rapidly become dated and provoke
opposition, it is refreshing to find helpful links made between OT themes and current concerns in
a way that makes the text come alive. He has been consistent in his use of historical criticism,
incorporating research that elucidates the meaning of the text without becoming distracted by its
alternative testimony. In sum, rather than combating the pluralistic context, he has used it as an
organising principle for his work and thereby joined together the many insights from all the
fragmented corners of the discipline. In so doing, he has moved OT scholarship in a fruitful
direction. We wait with anticipation to see how future scholars will build on this significant
foundation.
40
Ibid., 333–358, 680–694.
Barnabas Aspray
12
Bibliography
Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1999.
Bellis, Alice Ogden. “Walter Brueggemann and James Barr: Old Testament theology and
inclusivity.” Religious Studies Review 27, no. 3 (Jl 2001): 233–238.
Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Childs, B. S. “Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament : Testimony, Dispute,
Advocacy.” Scottish Journal of Theology 53, no. 2 (2000): 228–233.
Meadowcroft, T. “Method and Old Testament Theology : Barr, Brueggemann and Goldingay
Considered.” Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 35–56.
Ollenburger, Ben C. The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century
Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1991.
Sklba, Richard. “Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.” Theological
Studies 59, no. 4 (1998): 720–722.
top related