Featured White Papers
- PCI DSS therapy for the smaller retailer (McAfee)
- Webcast: Growing your business with CRM (BNET)
- Hosted CRM buyer's guide (Inside CRM)
Content provided in partnership with
Words that testify of God: The Theology of the Old Testament
Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2001 by Robert K. Gnuse
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-modernists. (Unfortunately, he never explains in detail what their methodology really does and how they proceed.) Yes, he is correct in declaring that critical scholarship can be boring and sometimes spiritually 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 hands of a small child, they are weapons.)
Brueggemann could not begin to craft the theology he has articulated without the heritage of several centuries of historical critical scholarly groundwork. His deep, personal assessment of texts reflects the fact that he is himself well-grounded in the Historical Critical Method as a master 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 Brueggemann more positively used the Historical Critical Method, rather than trying to ignore it, he might have strengthened the volume greatly. Bart believes that Brueggemann was in a unique position to draw together the theological task with critical methods and the socio-scientific approach to the Bible, but Brueggemann 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 produce creative and inspiring interpretations of the biblical text. Sometimes they can result in interesting but uninspiring studies also, at least from the perspective of someone 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.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Autos
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »