theology of OT

1. http://btb.sagepub.com/
of Bible and Theology
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal
http://btb.sagepub.com/content/31/3/90
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/014610790103100303
2001 31: 90Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology
Robert K. Gnuse
Words That Testify of God: The Theology of the Old Testament by Walter Brueggemann
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.
can be found at:Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and TheologyAdditional services and information for
http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://btb.sagepub.com/content/31/3/90.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 1, 2001Version of Record>>
by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Benin Benson on October 16, 2013btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2. An Extended Book Review
Words That Testify of God:
by Walter Brueggemann
THETHEOLOGYOF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Robert K. Gntrse
Abstract
Valter Brueggemann crafts a First Testament theology around the organizing principle of Israel’sspeech
about God. He discusses the themes of First Testament thought in four categories: Israel’s Core Testimony,
Israel’sCountertestimony,Israel’sUnsolicited Testimony, and Embodied Narrative. He attemptsto generate a
dynamic theology that captures the rhetorical power of the biblical text. Vith his own classic style he theolo-
gizes excellently on the text in a mode designed to address the needs of theologians,teachers, and preachers,
more so than critical scholars. He eschews the HistoricalCritical Method in favor of post-moderncriticism,
which this reviewer feels is a mistake.
Walter Brueggemann seeks to craft a biblid theology
in a new and distinct mode; it is a theology which builds
upon the “speech” or “testimonies”of the First Testament.
He boldly declares, “What we have in the Old Testament
is speech, nothing else” (p. 713), by which he means to
emphasize that the written words of the biblical text,
which lie before us, once were dynamic spoken words in
the life of a people. If we truly wish to capture the spirit of
the biblical text and generate a theology from it, we must
focus upon what that text once was: words of testimony
about Yahweh spoken in faith. We must organize and
reflect upon those spoken testimonies to feel the power of
the biblical text and to properly apply it to our modern sit-
uation. This dynamic approach to the task of biblical the-
ology is for Brueggemann a way out of the impasse created
by biblical theologies of the past, which failed to capture
the spirit of the bible.
As he sets forth on this ambitious undertaking, Brueg-
gemann organizes the language in the biblical text into
four categories of discourse:
“Israel’sCore Testimony,” wherein the biblical authors
praise and confess the actions of Yahweh on behalf of
Israel and individuals in the community in diverse
ways.
“Israel’s Countertestimony,” wherein Israelites and
Jews lament the pain and tragedy in their lives, or
members of the intelligentsia reflect upon the ambigu-
ous nature of Yahweh who can be the source of evil.
“Israel’s Unsolicited Testimony,” which includes indi-
rect testimonies about the nature of Yahweh suggest-
ed by discourse on Israel’s relationship to the deity in
covenant and other forms of partnership.
“Embodied Narrative,” which focuses upon those
forms of mediation (Law, King, Prophet, Cult, and
Sage) which enable people to experience Yahweh in
diverse intellectual and cultural manifestations.
Overall, Brueggemann’s approach is clever and
refreshing; it is a very different way by which to arrange the
concepts and texts of the First Testament into an organized
format. One senses that he favors the approach of Valter
Eichrodt’s attempt to systematically organize ideas of the
text rather than Gerhard von Rad’s attempt to trace their
ideational development in Israel’s history. Placed alongside
other First Testament theologies, this volume provides a
wonderful complement, and for many readers it will be
seen as a refreshing change from the direction taken in
many other theological expositions. Brueggemann’s style of
homiletical discussion also will appeal to many who find
traditional theologies difficult to digest.
Robert K. Gnuse, P1i.D. (Vanderbilt University) is Professor of
Old Testament at Loyola University, New Orleans (e-mail
rkgnuse @loyno.edu). He is author most recentlyof the follom-
ing volumes: THEOLDTESTAMENTAND PRWESSTHEOLOGY
(Chalice, ZOOO), EMERGENTMOSOTHEISMIN ISRAEL(Sheffeld,
1997), and DREAbtS AND DREMl &PORTS IN THE vRITISGS OF
JOSEPHUS (Brill, 1996). He is the author of over thirty articles,
includingseveral in the BIBLICALTHEOLOGYBULLETIN,of which
he is an Associate Editor.
90

3. In his exposition Brueggemann relies upon the use of
many biblical texts, some of which he quotes at length. As
he approaches a topic or a theme, his discussion is replete
with biblical quotes to illustrate a type of oral discourse or
a perception of Yahweh‘s nature. He heavily favors the
Psalms and the prophets, especially Isaiah. For he is
attracted to those texts which demonstrate a deep existen-
tial encounter with the divine, often of pain or the joy of
restoration. His previous work on the Psalms is most evi-
dent in this volume. As he quotes texts (often at length)
he does not go into detailed exegetical analysis or delve
deeply into the theological issues which might be raised by
a specific text. (Only heaven knows how long the volume
might have become had he done that! His text is 750pages
in length.) What he seeks is a moving theological exposi-
tion of the various texts that avoids becoming bogged
down in critical scholarly details. Hence, by comparison he
does not consider some texts in the depth that Eichrodt
did in his two-volume theology. One is reminded of the
theological approach evident in the commentaries of the
Interpretation series, to which Brueggemann also has con-
tributed.
This is the style at which Brueggemann excels, for as
he moves from text to text with his flowing rhetoric, one
senses that his theological exposition is akin to preaching.
The reader will discover that the classic rhetoric of Brueg-
gemann flourishes as he niovcs through the volume and
Walter Brueggernann,THETHEOLOGYOF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
1997. Pp. xxi + 777. Cloth, $48.00.
addresses the many issues that have drawn his attention
over the years. Critical scholars may be somewhat frustrat-
ed by‘Brueggemann’s approach, because he does not dis-
cuss critical issues in sufficient detail, nor does he organize
texts and concepts in the ways that scholars usually do in
their scholarly discourse. Critical scholars may find it diffi-
cult to cite much of Brueggemann’s text on particular top-
ics or biblical texts they might be analyzing for their own
critical articles or monographs. (I myself find reading the
volume a little frustrating in that regard, because I like
critical, exegetical, and historical analyses.) I surmise that
Brueggemann would not care. I believe he envisions his
audience to be theologians, preachers, teachers, and per-
haps above all, his seminary students (some of whom I
have known over the years). The volume attempts to step
back and to give a focus to the various themes and the
image of God in the biblical text. This focus is meant to
provide a religious intellectual with a sensitive feeling for
what is being said in the First Testament in existential
terms rather than exegetical or historical categories. Such
a volume is meant to enable seminarians to have a deeper
understanding of the text, which will affect their preaching
and pastoral ministry.
Brueggemann begins his theology with two chapters
entitled “Retrospect.” Herein he undertakes the ambitious
task of summarizing how the last five hundred years of
Christian reflection paved the way for modern biblical the-
ology with the Protestant sola scriptiiru principle, a sense of
human autonomy, rationalism, a sense of developmental-
ism, and the critical study of the Bible. After a review of
significant biblical theologians, including Eichrodt, von
Rad, and Norman Gottwald, Brueggemann sets forth the
direction he believes biblical theology must take in the
future. Brueggemann affirms the insights of Leo Perdue
(1994), that the old theologies are outdated and we have
witnessed the “collapse of history”; that is, the attempt to
envision Yahweh in old Heilsgeschichteimagery is no longer
valid. Nor can se confidently reconstruct the history of
the development of Israelite or biblical thought with our
critical methodologies. In the future biblical theology must
do the following:
admit the failure of historicizing,
see the text as central rather than penetrating the text
to reconstruct events,
acknowledge the importance of speech behind the
written text,
view much of the biblical text as a response to the
Babylonian Exile,
observe inter-tcxtuality, how texts influence each
other, and
recognize the Jewishness of the text.
When theologizing, the biblical scholar must respond
to the demands of critical methodology, the doctrinal
teachings of the Christian church, and the inherent Jewish
identity of the text.
The Four Testimonies
In the first of four parts Brueggemann considers First
Testament texts which function as Israel’s “Core
Testimony.” He chooses to organize the material under the
rubric of parts of speech, which is rather clever, since he
makes such an issue of considering the biblical text as a
written form of what were once spoken statements. The
bulk of Israel’s “Core Testimony” is spoken language of
worship, thanksgiving, and praise (chapter 3). Testimony
comes powerfully in the form of verbal sentences which
confess Yahweh as creator, promise-maker to the Israelites
91

4. and their ancestors, deliverer of Israelites, one who com-
mands laws (he criticizes the antinomianism of Christians,
especiallyLutherans, on this topic), and leader of people in
exodus and war (chapter 4). Yahweh is characterized by
adjectives, including merciful, faithful, loving, just, and
righteous, all of which are relational, not absolute terms
(chapter 5). When Yahweh is described by verbs and
adjectives, these are particular characterizations, but the
use of nouns moves us to a more general characterization
of Yahweh. Nouns are metaphors, because a literal under-
standing of any noun fails to capture the real power of
Yahweh‘s identity. Hence, verbs and adjectives are to be
preferred to nouns. Judge, warrior, king, and father are
strong images used by a marginal community, like Israel, to
speak. of divine protection; while divine attributes like
artist, potter; healer, gardener, mother, and shepherd all
describe that part of Yahweh’s persona which provides sus-
tenance (chapter 6). Put together, all these attributes tes-
tifY to the passion, zeal, and pathos that Yahweh has for
Israel (chapter 7).
In the second part attention is given to the
“Coi~ntertestimony”given by Israel and the Jews, especial-
ly in the language of the Psalms, prophets, and wisdom.
Herein we find affirmations which probe the statements of
“Core Testimony”and question their validity. Wisdom per-
spectives attest to the subtle activity of Yahweh, or divine
“hiddenness” (chapter 9). In stories concerning Ahab and
the false prophets, Jeremiah, the flood, the favoring of
David over Saul, and the census of David we are permit-
ted to view the dark ambiguities in the persona of Yahweh,
especially when the deity deceives or experiences change
of mind (chapter 10). Strong laments in the Psalms and
Lamentations, as well as reflection in Ecclesiastes, show us
the truly negative side of Yahweh, and raise the question of
theodicy (chapter 11). Above all, such “Counter-
testimony” leads us to maintain a tension in the portrayal
of the divine nature (chapter 12).
In the third part of the book Brueggemann discusses
what he calls “UnsolicitedTestimony,”or texts which indi-
rectly allude to the nature of Yahweh. In these texts one
finds the belief that Yahweh is committed in freedom with
passion to Israel, to individuals,to nations, and to creation
(chapter 13). People are Yahweh‘s partners, and they are
describedas being in a covenant relationship. An appeal to
covenant calls for people to act with justice, to see the
glory, beauty, and holinessof Yahweh in worship, and to be
a blessing for people in the greater destiny of the world. In
these texts Israel is loved, commanded to obey, exiled,
returned to Yahweh, and gathered to hope (chapter 14).
People are in the image of God and in a personal relation-
ship of freedom and responsibility which leads them to
92
obey, be wise, and trust (chapter 15). The nations are
Yahweh‘s partners in that they can be used by divine sov-
ereignty to punish Israel, be punished, be restored, and
bring about blessing (chapter 16). Creation is Yahweh‘s
partner in its function of fruitfulness,but creation can be
in jeopardy by a very real power of evil against which
Yahweh must fight (chapter 17). Overall, Brueggemann
observes in the drama of partnership with Yahweh a com-
mon pattern of grace, failure or tragedy, and restoration,
which he calls a metanarrative. In this symbolic narrative
it is Yahweh alone who grants sufficiency to the world, not
the world itself (chapter 18).
In the fourth part Brueggemann discusses the
“Embodied Narrative” about Yahweh, or those forms of
mediation which bring the power of the divine close to
people in an intimate fashion. In the primary form of medi-
ation Yahweh came to Israel at Sinai through the interces-
sory work of Moses. At other times the patriarchs mediat-
ed the divine presence; and ultimately the biblical text per-
forms this role for us (chapter 19).The Torah mediates the
divine for Israel through human agents, including Moses,
Joshua, Samuel, Josiah, and the prophets. Christians must
learn the positive value and message of Torah, rather than
dismissing it as mere legalism (chapter 20). The king
mediates Yahweh by providing justice and righteousness
for the people he rules. Kings are appropriately indicted
when they fail to do this. Ultimately, royal images provide
the messianic vision of hope (chapter 21). The prophet
mediates Yahweh and inspires people with poetic imagina-
tion (PROPHETIC IhlAGINATION is the title of an earlier
Brueggemann textbook). Prophets utter a mediating word
of Yahweh through oral forms of discourse, including
divinely proposed lawsuits, imperatives to repent, and
promises of hope (chapter 22).The cult mediates the pres-
ence of Yahweh for devout worshippers. Christians too
often disdain such texts, unfortunately, because they
assume Jesus superseded them. But in reality, cult imagery
in the First Testament may provide inspiration for us in our
worship patterns. in the cult the symbolic drama of life is
acted out. Brueggemann discusses briefly issues of temple
ritual, sacrifice, and cult and how they mediate the divine,
as well as how the Deuteronomic authors and prophets
criticized aspects of arrogant cultic piety (chapter 23). The
sage is a mediator of the divine in the family, the school,
the court, and public life in general. Though secular at
first, wisdom discourse finally merged with Torah (chapter
24). In general, Torah mediates holiness, the king mediates
justice, the prophet mediates covenant, the cult mediates
communion, and wisdom mediates order in the world. All
mediate life from Yahweh, but each can become perverted
and deceive people, when the human functionaries lay

5. claim to hold power over the absolute (chapter 25).
Brueggemann concludes his work by discussing inter-
pretation in a pluralistic context (chapter 26). At this
point in this volume he attacks the “critical positivism” of
the Historical Critical Method, which grew out of
Enlightenment values. On this issue he waxes so eloquent
with rhetoric, that it becomes somewhat difficult to under-
stand the precise criticisms he actually has against the
Enlightenment and all that flows from that era of human
intellectual development. He opines that true pluralism
emerges only after the “hegemony of the Enlightenment”
is broken. This can be accomplishedby a serious appeal to
the total canon, so that for example, we perceive that the
disparate messages of the Deuteronomistic Historians and
the Priestly Editors stand in tension with each other and
testify to plurality within the biblical text. He attacks the
quest for historicity proposed by earlier biblical scholars,
and instead affirmsthe literary readings of the text encour-
aged by post-modernist critics. Above all, he attacks the
“military consumerism’’of the West. In this particular sec-
tion (chapter 26) Brueggemann’s text glows with sermon-
like rhetoric, but,almost every sentence leads the reader to
wonder what he really refers to in concrete categories.
By attacking the Historical Critical
Method, [Brueggemann] bites the
hand that feeds him.
In the final chapters Brueggemann makes some valu-
able observations.Israel’s utterance about God tells us that
God is elusive (chapter 27). Significant issues to be
addressed by biblical theologians include the following:
overcoming the deficiencies of the Historical Critical
Method as a hindrance to theology and actual belief
in God (p. 728),
overcoming the tendency of First Testament theology
to lead to supersessionism (Christians must acknowl-
edge that they alone do not possess the First
Testament as revelation from God), and
acknowledging that above all, the First Testament tes-
tifies to distributive justice (chapter 28).
We must recover the messageof the First Testament as
dynamic speech that still addresses us. The Academy of
biblical scholars cannot move beyond history, and too
often Christians cannot move beyond either a liberal
rationalism or a conservative scholasticism. The theolo-
gian must release the power of the text to attain a true the-
ology (chapter 29).
Response to Brueggemann
In the precis outlined above we can observe how
Brueggemann organizes the themes of the First Testament,
and each briefly mentioned item is a significant section in
his discussion. Most of these topics are addressed by any
First Testament theology, whether it is historical, systemat-
ic, or descriptive. The appeal of Brueggemann’seffort is the
distinctive way in which he integrates these topics into his
organizationalformat. His sequence of topics is refreshing-
ly new, and we must admire how he has handled all of the
themes. At times, however, his outline does produce a cer-
tain degree of repetitiveness with particular texts and
themes.Brueggemann has a certain agenda which he push-
es in his exposition, sometimes in dramatic or even heavy-
handed fashion. He is quick to preach against the “supers-
essionisni’ of Christians-the tendency to regard First
Testament and Judaismas having been surpassed by a more
final and superior religion, Christianity. As a faithful First
Testament scholar and theologian he seeks to remind us
that God’srelationship with the Jews has never been abro-
gated, and the Jews should never be denied the status of
God’s people equal to Christians. Likewise, their sacred
text, the First Testament,should never be viewed as a “dead
letter,”the religion of legalism,or the religion of a wrathful
God, etc., which so often popular Christianity has done.
Rather, the First Testament has a living and vibrant testi-
mony that can still meaningfully inspire Christians today.
Brueggemann is also faithful to his “Reformed” heritage,
which has tended historically to take the First Testament
more seriously the than other Christian traditions do. His
“Reformed” approach, however, is less dogmatic and far
more dynamic than that of many of his theological prede-
cessors in the Calvinist tradition. Like Brevard Childs,a fel-
low “Reformed” theologian in First Testament studies,
Brueggemanndoes the Church a favor by bringing the First
Testament forward as a living source of spiritual and theo-
logical authority. On this issue I applaud him.
He beats the drum on some other issues, however,
which make me a little nervous. Brueggemann takes too
much delight in criticizing the Historical Critical Method
in favor of post-modernist critique. He calls the critical
methods “reductionistic” and lauds the new insights of
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and other post-mod-
ernists. (Unfortunately, he never explains in detail what
their methodologyreally does and how they proceed.) Yes,
he is correct in declaring that critical scholarship can be
boring and sometimesspiritually lifeless. But I believe one
should put the blame for that on some of the practitioners
and not the method itself. (Woodworking tools in the
hands of a craftsman or craftswoman produce art; in the
93

6. hands of a small child, they are weapons.)
Brueggeniann could not begin to craft the theology he
has articulated without the heritage of several centuries of
historical critical scholarly groundwork. His deep, person-
al assessment of texts reflects the fact that he is himself
well-grounded in the Historical Critical Method as a nias-
ter craftsman. His assessment of the Psalms reflects the
great heritage of form critical analysis of the Psalter from
the turn of the century onward; his assessment of various
prophets and the Pentateuch reflect even more serious
source critical and traditio-historical studies of the past
two centuries. In addition, he quotes with evident
approval in his footnotes the scholarly observations and
conclusions provided by many contemporary authors who
have used the Historical Critical Method to come to their
conclusions. His book is built upon observations obtained
by critical methodologies. By attacking the Historical
Critical Method, he bites the hand that feeds him. He
should have referred more directly and positively to the
critical methodologies which he actually has assumed in
the specific observations he made on particular passages. I
agree with James,Barr’s contention that, had Bruegge-
niann more positively used the Historical Critical Method,
rather than trying to ignore it, he might have strengthened
the volume greatly. Barr believes that Brueggeniann was in
a unique position to draw together the theological task with
critical methods and the socio-scientific approach to the
Bible, but Brueggeniann chose not to do this (1999: 545).
I believe that Brueggemann, like all of us at times, got
carried away with his rhetoric in this volume and did not
really mean to leave the impression that he is so totally
opposed to the traditional critical methods of textual
analysis. Critical methods, when properly used, can pro-
duce creative and inspiring interpretations of the biblical
text. Sometimes they can result in interesting but unin-
spiring studies also, at least from the perspective of some-
one who might read them for theological or homiletical
resources. Furthermore, I have read some post-modernist
critical assessments of the biblical text and found them
occasionally to be as boring and spiritually lifeless as any
turgid critical exegetical analysis (if not more so). One
cannot generalize about the method’s inability to produce
inspiring theological commentary; the ability to inspire the
reader lies with the author’s use of the method and
approach to the material.
Brueggeniann does not like the Enlightenment, either.
He calls the Enlightenment of the 18th century “reduc-
tionistic,” maintaining that it has left us with bad intellec-
tual assumptions. However, he, like the rest of us, lives
with its benefits, and he is not willing to acknowledge
these. The Enlightenment, for example, produced denio-
cratic thought, and the classic documents of our society
have been produced by thinkers steeped in Enlightenment
thought (Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration
of Independence). Are these the documents that have pro-
duced the tyranny of thought and and oppressive cuItural
hegemony of which Brueggeniann speaks?I do not believe
he really means to imply that. The Enlightenment helped
give rise to critical methodologies, a sense of objectivity,
and a respect for belief systems other than our own. All of
these become part of the process by which a biblical inter-
preter undertakes to read the text in a new and fresh fash-
ion by attempting, in part, to separate himself or herself
from personal assumptions and prejudices. Though we
cannot be totally objective, nonetheless, as interpreters we
try as best we can to be objective (or at least to recognize
our own personal prejudices), and then we seek to discov-
er new meanings in the text. This is what Brueggeniann
does, and he does it well. The intellectual apparatus for
this entire endeavor has been created by the Enlighten-
ment experience, and I do not believe he really wishes to
disavow all these intellectual benefits that flow from that
great period of human intellectual accomplishment.
Brueggemann speaks of how the Enlightenment with
its nionolithic worldview must be replaced by a worldview
which affirms diversity and plurality. Excuse me, but I
think it may be the Enlightenment, niore than any other
movement, that has helped us in the modern world to
appreciate diversity and plurality, My own persona1 opin-
ion is that the Enlightenment, despite its secularity, actu-
ally grew out of the Christian worldview and really imple-
ments Christian values in a way that is deeper than what
Christians have been wont to do throughout much of their
history. But that is another book, I suppose! At any rate, by
attacking the Enlightenment and its values-often in
wide-ranging generalizations-Brueggeniann may again be
biting the hand that feeds him.
The specific issue of antinoniianisni perks my interest.
Brueggemann condenins antinoniianisni. Again, this is a
very general term which can be used in many different
ways. In one sense Christians can be said to be antinomi-
an, in that they no longer use the Mosaic Law as binding
in their moral lives. But in another sense they are not,
since Christians have moral norm derived from Jesus’
teachings, Paul’s paranesis, and a creative reinterpretation
of the Ten Commandments, which we Christians in our
freedom have reappropriated as a mode by which to teach
general nioral norms. I would willingly call myself an anti-
nomian, because I believe that Christians appeal not to the
literal letter of biblical laws but to the spirit of biblical
nioral teachings, those of the Second Testanient being
more significant for US than those of the First Testament.
94

7. The teachings of neither Testament should be taken liter-
ally, because that would mean taking them out of their
social and historical context and thus distorting their real
message to us today. Brueggemann does not advocate tak-
ing biblical laws literally either; soby my definition he, too,
would be antinomian. In my view, he is overstating a valu-
able point, which is that we can take inspiration from bib-
lical laws’in the First Testament to address our moral issues
today. I have attempted to do as much in previous works of
my own (1985, 1997, 2000). But we take such inspiration
from those laws without keeping them in the same way
that an ancient Israelite or Jew, or a post-Talmudic Jew,
ivould. We are inspired by the spirit of those laws, but we
do not keep them literally. We are antinomians.
Brueggemann and I probably intend the same thing
when we appeal to specific First Testament laws for social
reform today. We simply say it,differently. That is because
he indeed is Reformed, and I am Lutheran. He is right,
from his perspective, that Lutherans do appear antinonii-
an (at least modern American Lutherans in the ELCA
might). This is because of the strong Lutheran emphasis
upon grace and individual autonomy, and our institutional
reluctance (in the ELCA) to make definitive statements
on modern social issues, leaving such decisions to the indi-
vidual consciences of our members. By contrast the histor-
ical Reformed or Calvinist tradition in America, which has
been very strong since the colonial foundation of our
nation, has often sought serious guidance and direction
from the biblical text, especially the First Testament, in the
articulation of moral and social guidelines for people. They
did found Plymouth and Boston, after all! Thus, theoreti-
cally Brueggemann and Gnuse might define their assunip-
tions about the authority of those First Testament laws in
different ways, but our actual exposition of biblical texts
probably would appear very similar as we appeal to the
modern Christian conscience.
I believe that Brueggemann could have strengthened
his presentation in general, and his thesis in particular, had
he used niore of the biblical Hebrew terminology in his
exposition. This would seem logical, basically, because of
his great appeal to the biblical texts as oral speeches.
Reference to Hebrew terms could have been used to illus-
trate the beauty and poetic style of the original spoken tes-
timonies. Reference to the original language at certain
points could have been useful in terms of showing how
humor, double entendres, irony, and other literary tech-
niques were brilliantly used by the biblical authors. He
does, indeed, cite Hebrew words at times. But with his
strong emphasis upon the orality of the text and the impor-
tance of speech, failure to incorporate more Hebrew into
his discussion seems to be a significant omission.
In a related vein, it is my personal opinion that
Brueggemann has relied too heavily on certain texts, espe-
cially those in the Psalms and the prophetic corpus. In fact,
his appeal to similar texts in different chapters, such as the
Lament Hymns from the Psalter, appears almost repetitious
and makes the overall structure and direction of the book
look a little vague. A reader might wonder why
Brueggemann keeps returning to similar texts in the vari-
ous chapters which approached the biblical text from dif-
ferent perspectives. A greater use of narratives from the
Pentateuch would have been satisfying. But on this point I
might be quibbling over a minor detail. There certainly is
a fairly wide variety of texts discussed at various points in
the volume.
Conclusion
Let not these criticisms that I have voiced seem to
imply that I disagree with Brueggemann’s theological
assumptions or the bulk of his exposition. My agreements far
outweigh my disagreements. The part of me that is a Sunday
morning preacher (every Sunday nowadays) finds his pres-
entation cogent and inspiring. Brueggemann was certainly
able to express the deep existential feeling which resonates
in most texts. He gravitates to truly significant passages in
his exposition, such as the Lament Hymns (even if he does
it a bit much with that genre). His text will engender a pos-
itive response from most people who read it. Of course,
there will be criticisms, but I believe that Brueggemann
would be disappointed if his work failed to engender some
critical response. Any time an author seeks to engage in a
serious theological and biblical exposition with the zest, pas-
sion, insight, and the rhetoric with which Brueggemann
operates, serious dialogue on many levels will be invited.
Works Cited
Barr,James. 1999.THEC ~ S C E ~OF BIBLICALTHEOLOGXANOLD
TESTAX~ENTPERSPECTIVE.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Brueggemann, valter. 1997. THEOLOGYOF THE OLD TESTAhtENT:
TESTIMONY, DISPUTE,ADVOCACY.Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press.
Gnuse, Robert. 2000. THEOLDTESTAUENTAND PROCESSTHEOL-
OGY. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
1997. No OTHERGODS:EMERGENTMOSOTHEISMIN AXCIENT
ISRAEL.Sheffield, UK: SheffieldAcademic Press.
THE BIBLICALTMDITION.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Perdue, Leo. 1994.THECOLLAPSEOF HISTORY:RECONSTRUCTISG
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.Overtures to Biblical Theol-
ogy. Minneapolis, hlN: Augsburg Fortress Press.
1985. YOU SHALL NOT STEAL:COXtStUSlTY &’D PROPERTY IN
95