Volume 27 Number 3 / July 2 0 0 1

WALTER BRUEGGEMANN AND JAMES

BARR: OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AND
INCLUSIVITY
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: TESTIMONY,
DISPUTE, ADVOCACY
By Walter Brueggemann
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997
Pp. xiii + 777. $48.00.
THE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: AN OLD
TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE
By James Barr
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999
Pp. xvii + 715. $48.00.
Reviewer: Alice Ogden Bellis
Howard University School of Divinity
Washington, DC 20017

alter Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament and

James Barr's The Concept of Biblical Theology are fascinating, complex, and fundamentally different approaches
to biblical theology. Brueggemann has written an Old Testament
theology, while James Barr has discussed what an Old Testament
theology should look like. Brueggemann's perspective is
postmodern; Barr's is more difficult to categorize with a single
word, but it is decidedly not postmodern. In spite of major differences in both approach and perspective, these two pre-eminent biblical theologians reflect amazingly similar views, at least on a
functional level, of what may broadly be called inclusivity. Both are
concerned to be open to Jewish readers, and both succeed in being
more sensitive in that area than many previous Christian Old Testament theologians. Brueggemann is much more sympathetic than
Barr with the concerns of women and racial minorities; however, in
practice, both Brueggemann and Barr contribute very little to conceiving biblical theology in a manner that takes the issues raised by
women and ethnic minorities seriously. Finally, on the matter of human sexuality, Brueggemann deals briefly with homosexuality,
while Barr's only mention of this issue is his complaint that
Brueggemann's book has no subject index, thus making it hard to
find a topic like homosexuality.
Before focusing on matters of inclusi vity, a brief description and
evaluation of the two books in their entirety is in order. As the subtitle to Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament suggests, the
Hebrew Scriptures are viewed as testimony in a lawsuit about God.
After two retrospective chapters tracing biblical theology from the
Protestant Reformation to the present, Brueggemann begins his
own work of Old Testament theology with what he calls "Israel's
Core Testimony," focusing on the verbs, nouns, and adjectives used
in biblical authors' testimony about God. The second part of the
book deals with "Israel's Countertestimony," in which the core testimony is cross-examined. God's attributes, as presented in the core
testimony, are here challenged by those who experience God's
hiddenness, ambiguity, and even negativity. Part III is called "Israel's Unsolicited Testimony." In this section, Brueggemann considers God's partners: individual humans, nations, and creation as a
whole. Part IV, "Israel's Embodied Testimony," strains the lawsuit
framework, as Brueggemann himself concedes. Here the mediation

Religious Studies Review / 2 3 3

of God's presence through the Torah, kings, prophets, worship, and

wisdom is considered. In the final section of the book,
Brueggemann reflects on "Prospects for Theological Interpretation."
The testimony framework is useful. It provides a convenient lens
through which the various theological data of the Old Testament
may be viewed. It also places important emphasis on the nature of
the material as rhetorical utterances, an emphasis that has often
been lacking in previous efforts. Such efforts have been more interested in content than form and have often been suspicious of aesthetics. As a faculty member in a historically black theological
school where a powerful rhetorical tradition shapes preaching in
ways that I often find moving, I am appreciative of Brueggemann's
focus on rhetoric.
At the same time, Brueggemann may be faulted for emphasizing
the "utteredness" of the text at the expense of ontology. For example, he declares emphatically, "shall insist, as consistently as lean,
that the God of Old Testament theology as such lives in, with, and
under the rhetorical enterprise of this text, and nowhere else and in
no other way" (66, italics his). Toward the end of the book, this
statement is reiterated even more emphatically with an acknowledgment of how extreme the position is. "Yahweh lives in, with, and
under this speech, and in the end depends [emphasis mine] on Israel' s testimony for an access point in the world. This is, of course, a
sweeping statement, one that I shall perhaps regret before I am finished" (714).
Brueggemann seems to have missed one of the most obvious
themes in the Hebrew Bible; the text itself points to a God whose
power is not dependent on any human utterance or other human
form of power. Brueggemann himself suggests that "at some important level, faith consists in a willingness to live in the world of this
utterance, and to accept as reliable [emphasis mine] its speech as
testimony" (722). Similarly he avers that "adherents to Yahweh, in
the Old Testament, are those who accept this characteristic testimony as a valid articulation of reality [emphasis mine], on which
they are prepared to act" (722). At the least, tension exists between
these last two statements and the earlier ones that suggest God lives
only in the text.
Just as Brueggemann is uncomfortable with ontology, he is
equally dismissive of the importance of history. He writes, "'the
world behind the text' is not available.... Moreover, were that world
behind the text available, it would not be in any direct way generative for theological interpretation" (57). Reacting to the "suffocating hegemony" of "the pursuit of 'the world behind the text' in historical criticism" (57), Brueggemann rejects both the possibility of
knowing anything about this world and the usefulness of such
knowledge for theological interpretation. This is an overreaction to
an admittedly real problem. It is true that the search for the world behind the text has sometimes been so all-consuming that those interested in theological interpretation have at times become lost in the
maze. It is also true that discovering what happened in ancient Israel
is fraught with difficulty because of the nature of the sources. Ancient peoples, and not just ancient Hebrews, had a different understanding of history than moderns do. For them the overriding concern was to convey moral, philosophical, and religious truth, not
simply to describe what happened. Indeed, all history includes elements of interpretation. This reality does not mean, however, that
the goal of knowing what happened is erroneous in itself. Without
some historical knowledge of the ancient world in which the text
arose, we cannot connect with the text in any meaningful way. Thus,

2 3 4 / Religious Studies Review

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-

Volume 2 7 Number 3 / July 2 0 0 1

terprise, and other fields of study such as doctrinal theology, a

constructive task involving some historical components, and the
history of religion, also a historical task, the focus of which is
broader than biblical theology. Based on the attitudes expressed in
biblical texts, Barr is more open to natural theology as an element of
biblical theology than is currently fashionable. He is also more optimistic about the possibility of "objective" biblical theology than
Brueggemann and other postmodernists. In Barr's view, a faith
commitment leads not so much to a skewed reading of a text as to a
search for an objective description of its contents.
Barr views the task of biblical theology as primarily a historical
descriptive one that does not give immediate answers to the burning
questions of the day. He prefers a model in which we begin with
contemporary problems and then look to the Bible as one of a number of factors to be considered in problem solving. Thus Barr differs
from Brueggemann, not only in what he sets out to doconsider
what biblical theology ought to encompass rather than doing biblical theologybut also in his antipathy to the postmodernist disdain
for objectivity and historical criticism, as well as in his ultimate conclusion that the Bible is not a particularly good source for contemporary ethical decision-making. Although Brueggemann would
agree that we must look to sources beyond the Bible on these issues,
he gives greater weight to the Bibleinterpreted along certain
linesin this regard than does Barr.
Inclusivity
Although a great diversity of scholars has contributed to biblical
theology, those who consider themselves and are considered biblical theologians have been and continue to be mostly white, heterosexual, Christian males. The circle has been drawn in such a way
that feminist, liberationist, and queer approaches have largely been
excluded. The remainder of this review will be devoted to a consideration of how issues of inclusivity are (or are not) addressed by
Brueggemann and Barr in the volumes under review.
Sensitivity to Jewish Perspectives
Jon D. Levenson's 1987 article, "Why Jews are not Interested in
Biblical Theology," and his 1993 book in which this article is included, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, have perhaps done more than anything else to make Christian
biblical scholars in general and biblical theologians in particular
aware of the ways in which they have excluded Jewish perspectives
and participation. The Jewish theological tradition has been much
less sanguine about the possibility of writing a biblical theology of
the Hebrew Scriptures than the Christian tradition has been of writing an Old Testament theology. The first testament is so rich, complex, and diverse in authorship, social-political-historical context,
and theological perspective that trying to pull all of the themes and
perspectives together into a relatively unified whole has been a vexing problem that no one has fully succeeded in solving. Additional
concerns flow from the way Christians have related the two testaments, often disparaging the descendants of those who created the
Hebrew Scriptures in the first place. In the last ten years Christian
biblical theologians have become much more sensitive to Jewish
concerns than ever before. Brueggemann and Barr have made positive contributions in this area.
Brueggemann's distancing himself from the traditional Christian fall-from-grace reading of the story of the Garden of Eden may
in part be an attempt to respond to this need. He has also demon-

Volume 27 Number 3 / July 2 0 0 1

strated his openness to the Jewish community in his emphasis on the

particularity and Jewishness of the Old Testament, while at the
same time claimingI believe correctlythat the Hebrew Scriptures may be validly interpreted by Gentiles as well as by Jews.
Brueggemann includes Levenson, along with Brevard Childs, Rolf
Rendtorff, and James Barr, in his list of "centrist" biblical theologians, by which he seems to mean mainstream rather than theologically centrist. That this inclusion can be viewed as a kind of tokenism, however, may be suggested by his use of the vocalized
tetragrammaton (Yahweh), an anathema to many traditional Jews,
which could easily have been avoided by using the traditional
Christian translation of "Lord" or even the more generic "God."
Similarly, in his discussion of the levitical purity codes,
Brueggemann suggests in a rather condescending fashion that those
who are concerned about the sinfulness of homosexuality may be
pastorally understood as operating on the basis of these Old Testament codes, which have been superseded by the New Testament understanding ofjustice: "the justice trajectory has decisively and irreversibly defeated the purity trajectory" (196). Although
Brueggemann does not use the word "superseded," which he finds
offensive, that is the thrust of his argument at this point. Not only
does he not consider the purity codes sympathetically in their historical context; he also draws a New Testament conclusion with which
many New Testament scholars and theologians disagree.
James Barr also makes a solid attempt to listen to Jewish perspectives. In addition to a chapter devoted to "Judaism after Biblical
Times," which suggests the usefulness of postbiblical Jewish texts
for an understanding of the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, Banincludes an additional chapter on the question, can there be a "Jewish Biblical Theology?" Here he begins with a discussion of the
Christian nature of the very term "biblical theology" and moves to a
consideration of a number of Jewish biblical scholars whose work
fits into this category, even if the term "biblical theology" is unacceptable to some of them. His conclusion is that if we mean by biblical theology "a comprehensive description of implied intellectual
concepts, taken within the terms and boundaries of the Hebrew Bible and seen as far as possible within its own self-understandings"
(289), then there is no reason that it cannot be equally a Jewish and
Christian enterprise. He thoroughly rejects the notion that one must
be a Christian, or even a person of faith, to engage in the academic
discipline of biblical theology. In addition, Barr suggests that Christian biblical theologians need to keep in mind the question of how
Jewish colleagues will respond to their work. This will help keep
them from being insular in their perspectives.
Responding in part to Jon Levenson's publications, especially
The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism, in
recent years Jewish biblical scholars have been exploring what
Christians have traditionally called biblical theology. These developments are relatively recent, much more so than feminist,
womanist, and liberationist theological approaches to the Hebrew
Scriptures. Yet both Brueggemann and Barr give fairly serious consideration to the implications of Jewish participation in the discipline. As mentioned above, Brueggemann even includes Jon
Levenson in his group of "centrist" biblical theologians, in spite of
the fact that unlike the other members of the inner circle (with the
possible exception of Barr, whose latest book, though rich and important, is not a biblical theology), Levenson has not written, is not
in the process of writing, and has not to my knowledge declared his
intention of writing a full biblical theology. Nevertheless,
Levenson's work has been an important stimulus, as I myself recog-

Religious Studies Reiiew / 235

nized when asked by Religious Studies News (1995) to choose and

comment on what I viewed as the most important recent book in
biblical theology; I selected The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament,
and Historical Criticism. It may be said that both Ban* and
Brueggemann have taken to heart the criticisms leveled against the
tradition of Christian biblical theology by Jewish biblical scholars
and have made a real effort to respond to their challenge.
Sensitivity to Feminist Perspectives
The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of Brueggemann's and
Ban's responses to feminist biblical scholarship. It must be noted
that this challenge is of a different sort from that of Jewish biblical
scholars, even though there is some overlap between the groups.
Whereas Jews often question the very possibility of biblical theology under any name and are offended by the Christian tendency toward supersessionism, women who consider themselves feminists
(mostly Euro-Americans, although the term is also used of anyone
with sensitivity to women's concerns), womanists (African Americans), and mujeristas (Hispanic/Latina women) are concerned with
what used to be called something like "the doctrine of man" or "anthropology" and might now be termed somewhat more generically
"the concept of humanity." The issue is not whether humans are
conceptualized holistically or dualistically (body/soul), but how
men and women are understood in terms of gender. Are they the
same or different or some of both and in what ways? This question
involves both the way men and women in the Bible are portrayed
and the masculine and feminine images used of the deity, as well as
the related question of whether God was understood to have a consort.
Brueggemann does include a chapter called "The Human Person
as Yahweh's Partner." Here he focuses on relational, dynamic concepts of personhood and rejects all "essentialist" notions, while acknowledging that they have dominated much theological discussion. He claims that "the notion of humanity in 'the image of God'
plays no primary role in Old Testament articulations of humanity"
(452, emphasis his). Whether or not this is true, it is clear that the
Hebrew Scriptures have much to say about human gender that has
had a deleterious effect on women. In effect, Brueggemann makes a
decision that, at least for theological purposes, humans are radically
equal, and he chooses not to deal with any biblical evidence to the
contrary or any biblical ammunition that might be marshaled
against the negative material. Unfortunately, many people have noticed the biblical texts that are negative toward women and have not
heard about the "countertestimony" that many female biblical
scholars have labored to point out. By lifting up this material,
Brueggemann could have contributed to the liberation of women,
which he, in other parts of his book, advocates. Judging from his index, he relegates all but a handful of feminist Hebrew Bible scholars
to notes. Only Phyllis Trible receives any significant consideration,
and even the substance of her contributions is largely ignored.
Brueggemann's interest in gender issues is most pronounced in
his discussion of feminine imagery for God. He "poses the question
of whether those habitually excluded from the long-established patriarchal enterprise are entitled to 'reparations'that is, some intentionally granted advantage in the cunent process of interpreting
the patriarchal tradition" (265). Brueggemann is open to this idea
and suggests that reparations might mean "both a disproportionate
honoring of noun-metaphors that critique patriarchal claims, and an
acute, self-critical recognition that patriarchal images traditionally
exercise a disproportionate influence in text and in traditional inter-

2 3 6 / Religious Studies Review

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.

Volume 27 Number 3 / July 2001

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

Religious Studies Review / 237

portant representative and presents a summary of his work that is

much clearer and less ambiguous than his coverage of Pixley. In the
same footnote in which he provides the bibliographic information
Perspectives on Liberation Theology
about Mosala, he also mentions a volume edited by African-American New Testament scholar Cain Hope Felder (1991).
Like feminist biblical scholarship, liberation theology is ac- Ironically, in that volume are chapters contributed by Afriknowledged by both Brueggemann and Ban. Ban mentions libera- can-American Old Testament scholars Charles Copher and Randall
tion theology six times in his 600-plus-page text, each time as an el- Bailey, who do attend in a sustained way to textual interpretation.
ement in the thought of a scholar whom he is considering. It is more Copher identifies biblical characters with aspects of African heridifficult to gauge his evaluation of it than to glean his attitude to- tage. Bailey analyzes biblical texts that refer to Africans, revealing
ward feminist biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, the perspective is the highly affirmative attitude of the ancient Hebrews to Africa and
implicitly negative. In particular, in presenting the work of Rainer Africans. Admittedly, Copher's and Bailey's work is not explicitly
Albertz, Ban observes: "The sociological emphasis is there, and liberation theology, but that does not mean it is not important to libwith it the ethos stemming from liberation theology. There really eration theology or the work of biblical theology.
was [emphasis mine] a 'liberated major group' stemming from the
In spite of the fact that the further south one goes in Africa, the
Exodus" (120). Ban continues by quoting Albertz: '"The Yahweh less archaeological work has been done, a number of clues in the
religion of Israel originates in the liberation process of an oppressed Hebrew Scriptures suggest a far more significant African contribuoutsider-group in Egyptian society, and their religious symbolism is tion to the first testament than is generally believed. From Egyptian
therefore directly related to the process of historical political libera- names like Moses to parallels between the Garden of Eden story and
tion'" (120). After a couple of sentences dealing with what Ban sub-Saharan African creation stories, the Hebrew Scriptures are
considers to be Albertz's uncritical acceptance of Jewish positions filled with African clues to the biblical sources puzzle that most
and criticisms, especially those of Jon Levenson, Ban then sug- Euro-American biblical scholars have tried to solve looking only to
gests:
Mesopotamia. While both Brueggemann and Ban emphasize the
There is a distinct similarity to the picture, drawn by Gottwald and
Jewishness of the text, neither is interested in its Africanness. Since
others, of an early Israel that was an egalitarian society, while the
Ban is usually attentive to theological elements that are only hinted
Canaanites, who in older days used to be guilty of orgies and reliat in the biblical text but are found in extrabiblical sources, such as
gious abominations, here tend to become monarchical organizers
inscriptions that portray YHWH with a consort, one might expect
and oppressors, if not capitalistic exploiters (120, emphasis mine). that he would be interested in the ways in which African contribuThe suggestion that Albertz anachronistically views the tions have influenced the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. One
Canaanites as virtually capitalist exploiters is apparently intended example is the possibility that the Egyptian Isis-Osiris mythology
to ridicule his position. Barr's critiques of Childs's and may lie behind the strange story of God trying to kill Moses,
Mildenberger's incorporation of liberation theological elements Zipporah's solving the problem by circumcising their son, and her
into their work is similar. His apparently derisive attitude toward apparently vicarious circumcision of Moses (Exod 4:24-26; Pardes
liberation theology is never explicit but is often implied.
1992). Another is the argument in favor of a Cushite origin for the
With respect to Central American and black liberation theology, worship of YHWH (Rice 1995).
Brueggemann includes the Nicaraguan Jorge Pixley and the South
As in the case of feminist biblical scholarship, Brueggemann's
African Mosala Itumelung (along with Phyllis Trible) as examples evaluation of liberation theology is more affirmative than Ban's, alof "Efforts at the Margin." He questions the validity of Pixley's though his actual engagement with it is very limited. Ban never
reading, based on critiques by Jon Levenson (which he describes in mentions a liberation theologian, or Central American or Afria way that leaves the reader in some confusion about Levenson's can/African-American biblical scholar by name except to report
concerns about Pixley) and by Terence Fretheim (which he does not Brueggemann's inclusion of Pixley and Mosala in his list of marsummarize at all). Brueggemann then poses the question of norms, ginal biblical theologians. In addition to Brueggemann's brief treatsuggesting that
ments of Pixley and Itumelung, womanist biblical scholar Renita
such a centrist consensus itself is now exceedingly problematic. As aWeems makes it into his endnotes three times. Neither Ban nor
result, Old Testament theology must recognize that other readings
Brueggemann considers African presence in the Hebrew Scriptures
outside the centrist consensus must be acknowledged as operative
or possible African contributions to Hebrew religion. Perhaps these
and must be taken seriously. It is evident in the work of Pixley,... that
issues will make it onto the radar screens of the next generation of
such marginateci readings can see dimensions of the text that estabbiblical theologians.
lished readings of a historical-critical or theological-dogmatic kind
have missed. Indeed, a reading like Pixley's is crucial if we are to atPerspectives on Sexual Minorities
tend to the polyphonic character of the text (101).
into this material at any great depth, judging from the books under
consideration.

The reader may be surprised to hear that a centrist consensus exists

and will wonder what it is when the centrists are identified by
Brueggemann as scholars as diverse in viewpoint as Ban, Childs,
Levenson, and Rendtorff. The reader is also left not knowing precisely what dimensions of the text lifted up by "non-centrists" like
Pixley are considered important by Brueggemann.
Brueggemann then turns to black liberation theology, about
which he states that "it is difficult to identify black African or African-American readers who attend in a sustained way to actual interpretive work" (101). He then chooses Itumelung Mosala as an im-

One final issue of inclusivity should be raised: sexual minorities

in general and homosexuals in particular. Oddly enough, neither
Ban nor Brueggemann deals with sexual mores other than homosexuality. Queer biblical theology is not acknowledged. Ban mentions homosexuality only once when criticizing Brueggemann for
his lack of an index to help readers find his discussion of various
topics, one of the examples being homosexuality. As mentioned
above in the discussion of Brueggemann's sensitivity to Jewish
readers, he deals with gay sexuality as part of his treatment of the
levitical purity code, accepting homosexuality and rejecting the pu-

Volume 27 Number 3 / July 2001

2 3 8 / Religious Studies Review

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

"Beyond Identification: The Use of Africans in Biblical

Poetry and Narrative." In Cain Hope Felder (ed.), Stony
the Road We Trod: African-American Biblical Interpre
tion, 165-86. Fortress.

BELLIS, ALICE OGDEN

1995

Review of Levenson 1993. Religious Studies News 10:3,

14.

CHILDS, BREVARD S.

1992

Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theo

logical Reflection on the Christian Bible. Fortress.

COPHER, CHARLES

1991

"The Black Presence in the Old Testament." In Cain

Hope Felder (ed.), Stony the Road We Trod: African-American Biblical Interpretation, 146-64. Fortress.

FRYMER-KENSKY, TIKVA

1992

In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and th

Transformation of Pagan Myth. Free Press.

LEVENSON, JON D.

1987
1993

"Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology." In

Jacob Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (eds.),
Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Fortress.
The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical
Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. West
minster John Knox.

PARDES, ILANA

1992

Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach.

Harvard University Press.

RICE, GENE

1995

"Africans and the Origins of the Worship of Yahweh."

Journal of Religious Thought 50:27-44.

^ 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.