Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brueggemann's emphasis on the "utteredness" of the text is a helpful corrective, but like many helpful correctives, it goes too far.
In addition to rejecting ontology and history as useful for the biblical theological enterprise, two other important categories dismissed by Brueggemann should be mentioned. The first is what he
terms "Enlightenment rationality." It is clear, however, from his
own description that what he discredits is really a caricature of Enlightenment rationality: The biblical "insistence on the reality of
brokenness flies in the face of the Enlightenment practice ofdenial.
Enlightenment rationality, in its popular, uncriticizedform [emphasis mine], teaches that with enough reason and resources,
brokenness can be avoided" (560).
More important, but not as immediately obvious as the rejection
of "Enlightenment rationality" is Brueggemann's rejection of the
notion of human sin as the basis of human brokenness. He describes
a dynamic scenario in which humans move from being "created for
obedience, discernment, and trust," to being "authorized in the Pit
for complaint, petition, and thanksgiving," to being "raised to new
life for praise and hope" (553). Precisely what he means by "authorized in the Pit" is unclear. In any case Brueggemann denies that
failure to obey, discern, and trust are the reasons humans are authorized for the Pit:
It is of particular importance that in tracing human life into the Pit
and out of the Pit, we observe that this sequence seems parallel to the
creation-sin-redemption pattern of Christian theologyexcept that
it is very different. It is possible to transpose this sequence, which we
have found in Israel's testimony, into a doctrinal pattern of "creation-fall-redemption." But that is not at all what happens in Israel's
testimony. Israel is not consistent in its judgment about how human
persons end in the Pit. It never occurs to Israel to reduce entry into
the Pit to guilt or anything like "the fall." Israel's way of thinking is
much more in medias res, without great explanatory curiosity (553).
Brueggemann's discomfort with traditional Christian theology
may be in part a result of his desire to be sensitive to Jewish readings
of the text, which have usually rejected the Christian
fall-from-grace scheme. Few Jews would be comfortable, however,
with Brueggemann's total severance of the tie between sin and punishment, which is at the heart of the biblical deuteronomistic philosophy (admittedly modified by writings such as Job, but never
thrown out entirely).
In The Concept of Biblical Theology James Barr has not attempted to write a biblical theology but rather a treatise on biblical
theological methodology. He begins with a working definition of
biblical theology: that it is done by biblical scholars, is something
heretofore unknown that biblical scholars must uncover, is ecumenicalthat is, both Jews and Christians can do it, is somewhat analogous to doctrinal theology, and is historical, dealing with the theology/theologies of the biblical period(s). Barr moves to a historical
overview and then sets up a typology of biblical theologies: 1) descriptive collection of religious ideas, 2) synchronic view of Old
Testament faith, 3) theology from the perspective of Christian revelation, 4) diachronic tracing of various theological trajectories, and
5) "canonical" biblical theologies. His perspective, however, is that
biblical theology involves a description of the theology of either
parts or the entirety of the Old Testament at various periods or
throughout the whole period of its composition, which, depending
on the part and periodhowever narrowly or broadly construedmay involve various methodologies.
Barr defines biblical theology in part through the differences and
overlap he sees between biblical theology, primarily a historical en-
pretations" (266). The word reparations was used after World War I
for the damages that the losers had to pay to the winners. But "reparations" rankles my sensibilities because it seems to suggest victimization and powerlessness on the part of those who will receive reparations (contemporary women are not powerless). It is a concept
held in suspicion by some marginated people because those who
promise reparations do not always deliver.
Related to gender-based images of God is the sexual conceptualization of God. Ban is particularly interested in this issue. Speaking
of the inscriptional evidence that YHWH was once believed to have
a consort, he writes:
there may well have been a very considerable reorientation of the religion in which this bipartite relation within deity was attacked and
eliminated. Such a process would fit within the numerous biblical
reports of idolatrous and polytheistic tendencies in Israel, although
this particular form, i.e. that of a male and female deity together, is
hardly explicit anywhere in the Bible. But it could be that a struggle
against sexuality of this kind within deity was the core of the establishment of monotheism, in other words, at some important stage, it
was thought more important and more immediate to have no female
goddess than it was to have one single deity. If so, this struggle could
well have been one of the most important stages in the development
of what became the biblical tradition. Some forms of biblical theology, however, ignore these possibilities totally and on principle: in
part because they are not expressly described in the biblical texts,
and in part simply because they are classed as belonging to history of
religion. In my submission, such phenomena are central to any task
of Old Testament theology, and are far more important than are the
adjustments made by the canonizers in thefinalstages of the literary
development (138).
Interestingly, although he acknowledges Tikva Frymer-Kensky's
role in setting up an important conference on the possibility of Jewish biblical theology, he ignores her important monograph on this
subject (1992).
Although Brueggemann advocates reparations for the exclusion
of women's voices from the biblical theology conversation, he
overlooks women's stories in the Hebrew Bible, which are far more
numerous than feminine images of God. He mines the Hebrew
Scriptures, utilizing every book except Ruth and the shortest book
of the Bible, Obadiah. Brueggemann's only mention of Esther is
mentioned in one of his several discussions of Phyllis Trible. He observes:
The outcome of Trible's work, as with the work of some other feminist readers, is to make available to us a troubled world of faith
where Israel had to live. The world such study exhibits is one in
which the God of Israel is frequently drawn into an alliance with
male abusers. But it is also a world in which an angel of God is dispatched to care for Hagar, and in which Esther is offered to Israel as a
model for how faith is to be portrayed at risk (99).
Of course there is much more to the book of Esther than this, as there
is much more to Trible's work than these insights. What is especially surprising about the absence of Ruth and the virtual absence
of Esther is that these books would provide good illustrations of
some of the points that Brueggemann makes. For example, in his
section on "Countertestimony," he considers "Contradictions Concerning Exclusionary Rules," such as the ones in Deuteronomy 23
against inclusion of foreigners within the Hebrew community. Although he cites Isa 56:3-8, which insists that foreigners should be
included, he could have strengthened his case further by a discussion of the book of Ruth, whose protagonist is a Moabite woman
from whom no less a Hebrew than King David himself is descended, according to the genealogy at the end of the book.
Brueggemann also overlooks women characters in the more historical books. When he focuses on personal encounters between
God and humans, he highlights Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, but
Hagar, who is thefirsthuman to whom God appears after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and the only human ever to name
God, is not mentioned at all (570-71). Examples could be multiplied. In Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament, women
are even more invisible than they are in the Bible!
Since Ban's Concept ofBiblical Theology is not a biblical theology but a discussion of definitions and methodology, his attitude toward feminist biblical criticism in general is not clear, nor is it obvious how he would handle women's stories in the Bible. Since most
of the work on women's stories has been done by women, indirect
evidence includes the fact that out of an author's index of seven
pages, only five women are mentioned and none of them receive
any substantial treatment in the volume.
In a discussion of Childs's attitude toward feminism, Ban acknowledges his own reputation as not being very sympathetic to
feminist thinking in general or inclusive language in particular
(410). He rebukes Childs for making antifeminist remarks that Ban
views as so absurd that they have the effect of making (even) him
more favorable to feminist views. Criticizing Childs for the wish
"that God would raise up in the new generation of the church's
scholars a Ms Calvin or a Martina Luther!" Ban then reflects, "Unfortunately, it seems that this is what God has already done" (410).
Pouring further contempt on Childs, he declares, "Barth, by contrast, might have been much more easy-going about feminism, in
spite of the absurd hatred that some feminists have thought itrightto
pour upon him" (410). In contrast to Ban's usual careful documentation of his assertions, he does not feel the need to document this
accusation. Similarly, in a discussion of the improper use of word
studies, he asserts in an endnote, again without any documentation,
that "if there is any area where these practices can be said to have revived, it is, regrettably, in feminist interpretation" (659, n.34). All
of this circumstantial evidence suggests that Ban's reputation as
unsympathetic to feminist biblical scholarship is not unwananted.
Ban criticizes Childs for his view that the God of the Hebrew Bible is without sex. Barr argues that the Old Testament"with some
qualifications in some few segments" (411)presents God as male.
He further states that in later tradition God's maleness was demythologized and that this development was an important one, but he
maintains that Childs is wrong to make the later, demythologized
view standard for the Bible as a whole. Perhaps, but given his canonical methodology, Childs is interested in an integrated perspective of the text of the completed canon, not in the views held by its
authors over time. Since God is occasionally presented in feminine
terms, it is difficult to argue without significant qualification that
the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is unequivocally male. Ban's
negative feelings about feminism seem here to distract him from an
unbiased reading of Childs, a reading that would judge Childs based
on how well he executes his own (Childs's) methodological approach, rather than expecting him to adopt Ban's methodology.
A comparison of Brueggemann and Barr reveals that
Brueggemann is more affirmative of feminist biblical scholarship
than is Ban. Although Brueggemann is far more positive in attitude,
this does not translate into much more than a rhetorical advocacy of
reparations. Brueggemann's index of names suggests a greater familiarity with the literature of feminist biblical scholarship than
Ban has, but neither Brueggemann nor Ban seems to have delved
Volume 27 Number 3 / J u l y 2 0 0 1
rity legislation. Since the purity code is an important part of the Hebrew Bible that Christians often ignore, and sexuality is an important element of God's creation, and matters of sexuality are
involved in some of the depictions of God's relationship to humanity, it is somewhat surprising that these issues are not more prominent concerns.
Concluding Reflections
Neither Brueggemann (except on a rhetorical level) nor Ban takes
seriously feminist, liberation, African-American, and queer biblical
scholarship. Brueggemann makes a positive effort, and for this he
should be sincerely thanked. It is a step in therightdirection, even if
only a very tentative step. Each generation, my own included,
stands on the shoulders of the previous one. Brueggemann should
not have suggested, however, that the emergence of new voices indicates "that hegemonic interpretation that was once taken for
granted can no longer be assumed or sustained" (98). This assumes
that those on the margins today will never become part of the hegemonic club. In reality, graduate training and participation in the academic guild gradually shape the participants into a particular mold
just as new participants slowly reshape the mold. A diversity of
voices has always vied for dominance, even when all those voices
were of white Christian males. The nature of diversity has changed,
but the dynamics are not as different as they superficially appear.
Having voiced concerns about the way Brueggemann and Ban
have dealt with issues of inclusivity in their volumes on Old Testament theology, I want to reemphasize the invaluable service that
both have rendered to the academic profession as well as the religious community. Both have a wonderful grasp of a large body of
biblical theological literature. Both have wrestled with the issues
facing the discipline, and both have helped all who are interested in
biblical theology to understand the crossroads at which we stand at
the turn of the millennium more clearly than we did before. No one
working in thisfieldcan ignore these two volumes. They are significant mileposts on the continuing journey.
References
BAILEY, RANDALL C.
1991
1995
CHILDS, BREVARD S.
1992
COPHER, CHARLES
1991
FRYMER-KENSKY, TIKVA
1992
LEVENSON, JON D.
1987
1993
PARDES, ILANA
1992
RICE, GENE
1995
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.