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.