Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History

Overtures to Biblical Theology

by Walter Brueggemann, Leo G. Perdue (Editor)

In this informative and keen look at contemporary trends in Old Testament theology, Perdue builds on his earlier volume The Collapse of History (1994). He investigates how a variety of perspectives and methodologies have impacted how the Old Testament is read in the twenty-first century literary criticism; rhetorical criticism, feminist, womanist, and mujerista theologies, liberation theology; Jewish theology; postmodernism; and postcolonialism. Perdue provides a sensitive reading of the aims of these approaches as well as providing critique and setting them in their various cultural contexts. In his conclusion, the author provides a look at the future and how these various voices and approaches will continue to impact how we carry out Old Testament theology.

Genres: Theology

416 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Walter Brueggemann was an American Christian scholar and theologian who is widely considered an influential Old Testament scholar. His work often focused on the Hebrew prophetic tradition and the sociopolitical imagination of the Church. He argued that the Church must provide a counter-narrative to the dominant forces of consumerism, militarism, and nationalism.

Reviews

[Johnny · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (The title is slightly different on my older edition.) is one of those books which should have had a broader audience. It should have been a required textbook in seminaries and it should be a vital reference for every pastor and teacher who desires to bridge the “ugly chasm” between past understanding of God and contemporary awareness of God’s activity, for every interpreter who wishes to move beyond mere criticism to authentic relevance. It may well be that Perdue’s work has been overlooked because so much of it is an overview of scholarly efforts, trends, and “schools” which have gone before, but my feeling was that it was absolutely vital for considering past scholarship due to the author’s insightful criticisms. I was also impressed with his paradigmatic use of Jeremiah as a referent for each approach to Old Testament Theology in demonstrating strengths and weaknesses for each approach.

This is not a book with a lot of brilliant quotations. It isn’t designed for the lay person. Yet, one cannot help but glean a few useful phrases throughout the book that I wouldn’t hesitate to use anywhere. My favorite is: “Covenant love is threatened primarily by the seduction of other gods who promise more for less.” (p. 123) I also benefited from the insight that, “If there is a unifying factor in postmodernism, it is ironically, an affirmation of pluralism in ways of knowing and being in the world.” (p. 10) Another insightful note was in the discussion of creation theology: “Creation is not limited to a once-occurring action in the remote primordial past but is ever recurring in the conception and birth of new individuals through an event that is intimate and primal to human creatures. …Creation and providence go hand in hand.” (p. 137) One I hope to use with my History of Games class is from Perdue’s summary of Paul Ricoeur’s work: “History is more fictional than positivists would allow.” (p. 280)

The books is logically designed to pick up with movements in biblical theology which were not primarily concerned with historical criticism (subjecting the Bible to traditional standards of historiography and the history behind the text) and those which allowed the text to be an interpretation of history—more specifically, salvation history. The discussion begins with the attempt of the biblical theology movement in North America (George Ernest Wright, John Bright, Frank Moore Cross, etc.) to recover the redemptive history within the Scripture. This group was not anti-history in their theologizing. They recognized that archaeology and the study of social traditions gave insight and perspective to the passages, but they were more concerned with the message than the historical events, how people of faith positioned those events than how accurately they were portrayed. In general, this movement believed that archaeological excavations confirmed the historical kernel of the history of the Old Testament, but they also recognized that the writers/editors only preserved the portions of the historical kernel which pointed to God acting in history.

The discussion continues with the idea of tradition history. As with the work of Gerhard von Rad, there was a movement of scholars who believed that the Old Testament is indeed a history book (recounting of historical events) but that the history was written and preserved on the basis of core traditions of confessional statements. That is, if one could isolate the earliest confessional statements, one could understand how layers of tradition, ritual, and faith responses developed and reacted to that confessional core. This core can be synthesized (for von Rad and others) into “law and gospel” with the Exodus-Sinai tradition representing law and the tension between Conquest and Settlement representing gospel (p. 49). But von Rad and company are perceived as being more concerned with the interpretation of saving events in Israel’s history than in the events themselves. By seeing the development of these interpretations, it allows the Christian (in von Rad’s words) to discover the Old Testament as a “book of increasing anticipation.” (p. 53) The problem, of course, is perspective. Why does von Rad identify Deuteronomic confessions as superior to any other core message or them in the Old Testament? Is his work and those of the tradition-history school bound to a certain perspective?

On the other side, Perdue discusses the work of Norman Gottwald, the foremost proponent of a sociological approach to Old Testament Theology. There is much to commend the light on the community of Israel that Gottwald’s approach has shown, but there are two major problems (from my perspective and that’s how I read Perdue, as well). Gottwald is very Marxist in his approach to the message of the Old Testament. His message seems to see evil in: 1) the royal centralization of the powers to tax and conscript the commoners; 2) the concentration of wealth in a parasitical “non-productive” class; 3) constriction of land ownership from distributed ownership to that of a few wealth landowners; and 4) royal agendas leading Israel into trade, diplomacy, and war, often working against the health of the society as a whole (as noted on p. 88). Therefore, Gottwald sees the “message” in both the covenant and prophetic theologies as essentially an egalitarian social message to the neglect of any individual transformative message. And that leads to a more significant problem! By casting everything in terms of the sociological aspects and reducing the message to social transformation under an egalitarian model, Gottwald eliminates the transcendent God from much of the message. How do you have a theology without a God who gets involved? (p. 105)

The next portion of the discussion is tied to myth and ritual. Recognizing that much of the Old Testament’s theology has been influenced by myths told and preserved in the Near Eastern setting, many Old Testament theologians have crafted a cosmic suzerainty based on a combination of creation myths where order is imposed on chaos and ideas of sacred space where order is imposed on chaos to express the ideal of creation. Instead of relying on presumed confessional creeds as per von Rad, practitioners of this school ponder parallels between the myths of other cultures and the important themes in the Old Testament. So, ritual and retelling becomes the most important aspect of theology. Coronations become re-enactments of creation and sacred space symbolizes assurance of covenant relationship. To be sure, much of this approach fits and makes sense, but there are times when it seems like these scholars have an extra puzzle piece they have to jam into the puzzle (my interpretation of Perdue’s criticism on p. 124).

The next discussion is on the so-called canonical approach to Old Testament study in general and theology in particularly. The foremost exponent of this method has been Brevard S. Childs and Perdue summarizes the approach as meaning: 1) the interpreter attempting to understand the particular shape and function of individual books in the Hebrew canon, 2) examining the final form of the text, and 3) considering the community of faith and practice that both shaped the text and was shaped by it. (p. 158) The most important insight in Childs’ work is likely the fact that the Scripture is more than a recounting of the revelation of God for long ago, but “contains within it a Word of God which addresses normatively and authoritatively, future generations, including our own.” (p. 184) But the overriding question as one surveys Childs’ work is a matter of which canon is authoritative? Childs opts for the Masoretic text, but others argue that the Greek text of, for example, Jeremiah may be closer to the original prophecy. So, which is of more value? To Childs, this isn’t a question as he perceived both early and late transmissions of the revelation to be valuable. To others, there is no room for give and take between equally valuable traditions. I personally side with Childs on this, but am sensitive to the concern raised by others.

Perdue lumps in feminist theology and rhetorical criticism into, basically, the same movement. The bulk of this chapter is spent on feminist reconstructions of theology, some of which are based on rhetorical criticism. However, rhetorical criticism gets basically a page pointing back to James Muilenberg who points back to Bishop Lowth and J. G. Herder. He doesn’t even mention the brilliant Jesuit scholar Luis Alonso-Schokel whose attention to “Stylistics” in biblical translation and interpretation is even more focused than the work of Muilenberg. As someone who was personally inspired by Alonso-Schokel and has based much of his personal work on the Jesuit’s methodology, I was very disappointed in the perfunctory dismissal of the rhetorical critical school.

Perhaps, Perdue felt that these techniques would complement the techniques of the narrative school of Hans Frei and Robert Alter with their idea of “close reading.” They do and they don’t. “Close reading” focuses on the text as opposed to the author, avoids issues with regard to the intentionality of the author, and finds meaning in a correct interpretation of the literary context itself (pp. 240-241). “Close reading” is intensely interested in repetition and patterns such that it may borrow from rhetorical criticism, but it is more interested in the narrative as a whole. “Pure” narrative theology doesn’t spend as much time with “stylistics” (as Alonso-Schokel called it) or “rhetorical criticism,” so I labored through this chapter, even though I like reading the practitioners such as Frei, Alter, and Frank Kermode.

Finally, we read about the “imagination theology” movement. I had, heretofore, identified this approach strictly with the literary approach of Amos Wilder and the profundity of David Tracy (Tracy is best known for Analogical Imagination where he attempts to address theological conversation to the academy, the church, and society in that progressive order—p. 277). In Perdue’s summary, he deals extensively with the work of Gordon Kaufman who (judging from Perdue’s analysis) discounts revelation to the point that it becomes, at best, Jungian shared consciousness and, at worst, pure Freudian humanism (pp. 274-276).

Ironically, however, the paradigmatic scholar in this section is one of my favorites, Walter Brueggemann. Why is this ironic? It is ironic because Brueggemann draws from historical, social, and linguistic, literary methods to build his arsenal before he applies imagination to theology. Brueggemann’s theology resonates with me because it recognizes the necessity of revelation, tradition, and text in providing an argument for legitimizing structure and also notes how the involvement (dare we say “pathos?”) of God periodically transforms the societal structure to reflect the relationship of God and God’s people. It is a powerful dialectic and one that makes more sense than looking for one central foundation for all of biblical theology.

After this guided tour through the methodologies used in Old Testament Theology throughout the decades since World War II, Perdue leaves the reader with his assessment that there needs to be authentic dialogue between all of these approaches. Yet, he asserts that it is not reasonable to have such a dialogue without both historical investigation and linguistic, creative investigation. To that I must agree. This isn’t a book for lay people, but it is a vital book for those who wish to formerly engage in discussion and debate about “theology.”

[slaveofone · Rating 3 out of 5]

At long last, after a century of Positivist, Romanticist, Fideist, tendentious, question-begging, elitist, white, male, Western, Protestant structures, paradigms, and perspectives of "OT Theology," there is a book that swings wide the door to the present state of the discipline. This is a book to read if you'd like to move beyond 1980 and straight on into the 21st Century of theological scholarship on the Hebraic texts of the Jewish and Christian canons. No longer is the theology of Hebraic texts a Christian-only discipline. No longer is one particular canon being favored above all others or the value of extra-canonical texts brushed aside. No longer is an ancient and foreign history the definitive question and the only relevant answer. No longer are alternate voices, concerns, and perspectives dismissed from participation, silenced, or rejected. Scholarship is now moving beyond the tired old boundaries of descriptivism, exclusivism, and consensus as it has come to realize that all knowledge is situational and contextual--shaped within and by individual perspective, preference, culture, and context--and that a religious text which cannot speak towards vital concerns of today such as ethnic or sexual identity, social justice, and oppression are dead and powerless, serving only as a window onto a past reality instead of a vehicle for change in the present. And this is one of the few books on the theology of the "OT" that takes all that seriously. Whereas there are at present many new avenues from which to pursue an "OT theology," such as the explosion in literary and sociological criticisms, this book focuses particularly on that which falls under the category of "liberation" theology. It seeks to give voice to various perspectives that have historically been left outside the discipline or trodden beneath the heel of imperialism such as Latino and Latina theology, Jewish theology, African-American theology, Asian theology, Feminist theology, and Indian theology. In addition, there are extensive discussions and explorations of both Postmodern and Postcolonial theology. In many cases, sections of a chapter on a particular sort of theology are actually written by those who hold the theologies under consideration, thus allowing these voices to speak for themselves instead of being subordinated by the author's own particular understanding and bias.

In one case, however, I felt the book failed rather strongly in its presentation and analysis: Postmodern theology. While the author is right about many of the strengths and weaknesses of Postmodern theology, there was not enough interaction with actual Postmodern theologies or theologians and an exceeding abundance of negative criticism directed at the less erudite or extremist minority. Most critically, however, it seemed as if the author didn't actually understand Postmodern theology (something that is virtually admitted at numerous points). Here, rather, is one standing at the Modernist end of the spectrum trying to figure out the what and why of the one on the other side without actually crossing over and peering out from that vantage point. Far too often, what Perdue sees as nihilism or loss of identity and meaning is the very opposite within the framework of Postmodernism.

[Alyssa · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to understand critical approaches to the Old Testament, pair this with John Barton's book "Reading the Old Testament," and you'll be set! It is excellent. I saw one reviewer gave him a 1 for ignoring conservative scholarship. That is true, but, frankly, to be expected. With such a broad topic he can only sample scholars, so why would he cover ones he disagrees with? So the only thing I would say is that if you're conservative reading this book, please know there are more conservative scholars doing all the methods he discusses (liberation, feminist, post-colonial, etc. readings of the Bible).

[R. Fox · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lots of info, but decided to leave those from conservative traditions completely out of the mix; the writing is terrible; this one is a snooze fest.