Walter Brueggemann on Going “Behind” the Text
Posted by Reformed Reader on February 22, 2009
Walter Brueggemann is so good at pointing out the places where liberals and fundamentalists agree; in this case, on their obsession with reaching back behind the text. Brueggemann has noted that in many respects, the world behind the text is simply not available to us (at least not as some would have it available) as the only access we have to that world is analogical – access mediated by a text that is more concerned with projecting itself upon us than it is with allowing us to reach back through it. After all, when we do this, we tend to ignore the text’s own shape and message.
Generations of students of Scripture have tended not to read the text itself, believing that matters of real interest lay behind the text, to which the text only referred or to which it bore remote witness. This inattentiveness to the text is evident in the characteristic way that historical questions have been posed in Scripture study. Conservatives have characteristically been intensely interested in whether something reported in the biblical text “actually happened,” and to determine that one had to go behind the texts, perhaps be means of archaeology. Conversely, liberals have been endlessly interested in explanatory, comparative material outside the text. The case was similar in the posing of theological questions. The text was thought only to point to the God who is ontologically situated somewhere else “in reality,” but certainly not in the text as such. Thus in both historical investigation and in theological interpretation, reality was assumed to be elsewhere than in the text.
Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Fortress Press, 1997), pg. 53.
_______________
Andrew
Reformed Reader said
Good. This is helpful. I’m reading Frei right now (Eclipse) on 18-19th century hermeneutics, which has tons to do with the text, “behind it,” “in front” of it, in it and so on. The deists, rationalists, Supernaturalists, and orthodox had much to say in these centuries!
Anyway, I also see that a favorite of ours, John Hobbins (Ancient Heb. Poetry) pointed out a blog on some of Brueggeman’s weak spots. Go to HERE to check it out. I’ve noticed the things pointed out in this blog concerning Brueggemann myself: the tension that moves from tension to discontinuity/inconsistency. “Textual tension” is one thing; textual tension resulting in contradiction is another.
Speaking of the above thread, be sure to read Phil Sumpter’s comments and links, if you’re interested.
shane
Andrew said
Yeah, I definitely think that Childs’ critiques of Brueggemann are on the money. Phil and John both nail that sort of thing. Good call!
Rich said
How is Brueggemann’s theological commentary on the Psalms?
Reformed Reader said
Rich:
I have “The Psalms and the Life of Faith” by Brueggemann. Not sure if this is exactly what you’re talking about, but just FYI, it is amazingly good and not so good at the same time (there’s gotta be a cool Latin phrase for that).
On the one hand, he’ll say awesome things like this: “The praise of Israel makes no distinction between Yahweh’s fidelity toward stars and moon, and toward widows and prisoners. Both forms of God’s fidelity are cause for wonder in our world where such fidelity is so unknown” (p. 41).
Then, you want to chuck the book when he says things like this: “This Psalm (6) is a witness to Israel’s theological realism. There are unanswered prayers. There are unresolved situations. There are times when Yahweh’s hesed is not mobilized and not operative” (p. 56). In this context, Brueggemann says that Israel does not speak of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient “God of the catechism” but instead a faithful (hesed) and reliable (emet) God, as if they were contradictory things.
This eardrum shattering dissonance is also notable in his “Theology of the Old Testament.” As I said up there, “Textual tension” is one thing; textual tension resulting in contradiction is another.
Hope this helps,
shane
Matt said
Andrew,
Did you ever read that review that Waltke did of Bruggie’s OT Theology? I think it was in Regent’s quarterly (Krux), so it’s not exactly widely available to the public. But it was a full-length article….and absolutely vintage Waltke!
Anyhow….now you know why I don’t have a lot of interest in archeology!!! :-)
~Matt
Andrew said
Hey Matt – good to see you back in blogdom!
I didn’t read the review, but I did note what he said in his OT Theology. Pretty helpful and brief critique. It’d be cool to see the big one though. I remember in the OT Theology volume, he said something about Bruggemann making the counter-testimony – at the end of the day – more accurate or real than the core-testimony because the counter testimony was borne out of real life experiences. Not something I’m all that convinced of. I think Phil Sumpter made the comment once that at the end of the day, Brueggemann’s approach isn’t quite as robust as is Childs and leaves a lot of loose ends. Of course not everyone will take Childs over Brueggemann, but thats a different debate!
I struggle with Archaeology and the history behind the text. On the one hand, general revelation (when interpreted correctly) can often be the occasion to re-think how we’ve been interpreting special revelation. But regardless of how the text relates to and interprets that history back there, for the church we are dealing with THIS text and ITS interpretation of reality, and it is to THIS text that we submit ourselves as God’s word. Nevertheless to understand how the text relates to what may have “really happened” (I hate language like this) seems like a helpful way of at least understanding some of the early exegetical and theological concerns evident in the text itself.
Anyway . . . I’m getting long winded and am procrastinating. Got to get back to translating 1 Kg 8 (3 Reigns 8) from the LXX for class tomorrow. Then Hammurapi . . . ugh.
Matt said
Here’s the best zinger from Waltke’s review that I wrote down:
“Is is too hard to recall that the Serpent also asked, ‘Did God really say?’ Brueggeman’s epistemological uncertainty — like that of de Wette, who drew a similar conclusion centuries ago, and of Agur, who more than two millennia ago said the same thing prior to his finding wisdom in God’s word that does not like (Prv. 30:2-6) — is due to his dependence upon his finite human mind.”