Appendix:
Response to reviewers of "Theologies in the Old Testament",
published in Horizons in Biblical Theology 25, 2003, 109-120:
(A. Introductory
Statement)
1. What have
been my intentions in writing a study on "Pluralism and Syncretism
in Old Testament Faith" as the German subtitle suggests?
At heart I never have ceased to be a parish minister to the Christian
community. That means, my academic work always has been oriented
towards living faith in present day contexts. Since my personal
biography has been decisively molded by various social and cultural
settings (located in Germany, the United States, and Brazil) I
did experience important varieties of contemporary theological
thinking and Christian as well as other religious life.
2. The gospel
we live by and communicate to others has to be linked to the realities
of our own day and context, just like the Word and Presence of
God always wants to be experienced within distinct environments.
There is nothing like a single, enduring, and unchangeable concept
of God, nor of human beings, in this transient world. This basic
insight is valid in spite of the fact that God may be visioned
as the One and Unchanging. We ourselves, however, lack existential
knowledge of the Eternal, and we do not have at our disposal adequate
means to articulate the Absolute.
3. Reality
nowadays as well as in ancient times is not and never has been
homogeneous or: one-dimensional. This fact immediately leads to
the following consequence: Theology, which may be thought of as
human response do divine being and action, is and needs to be
contextually pluri-form and multi-layered, according to the various
levels and brands of human experience. Much of our traditional
efforts to distill from the Sacred Scriptures only one coherent
theological system are to be considered egocentric illusions,
borne out of a desire to give support to our own, one-dimensionally
fixed world.
4. The antique
world, including the biblical reality, may be perceived from our
present perspective (with its own ways of thinking, grasping,
constructing world-views) in terms of social layers and organisms
instead of prevailing systems of thoughts, creeds or other conceptualizations.
Our own worlds, likewise, are composed of conglomerates of social,
ethnic, gender etc. configurations. By using, as it were, social-scientific
instead of philosophical distinctive categories in regard to ancient
and modern world-constructs we may enhance our capability to correlate
better old and new theologies.
5. Of course,
cultural and religious history especially in the Western Hemisphere
has produced deep changes over against ancient biblical patterns
of life and society. The most notable differences in regard to
social organisation in antiquity are modern individualism and
globalizing tendencies. Both characteristics have been made possible
for the most part by scientific, technical and economic developments.
In the wake of recent achievements of well-being for industrialized
countries two thirds of humanity are being deprived of ressources
and dignity.
6. A responsible
Christian theology has to strive for an honest recognition of
its own fragmentariness and transience, that is, its own intrinsic
involvement in this multi-layered, fragmented world. In fact,
our theology, as a rule, is serving not only the true God of Life
and Justice, but ever so often the particular group interests,
and sometimes even deities of death and destruction. Consequently,
we have to abdicate all absolute claims, and seek the dialogue
of all confessions and religions in order to get closer, with
all human beings, to the truth only to be revealed in the future.
We have to do theology conscious of our serious contextual limitations,
in humility and recognition of the others' truths and rights.
Keeping firmly in mind all human beings, Christian theology is
to nurture the vision of one God and Father of Jesus Christ, to
the benefit of all humankind and all creation. Beyond this aim,
global, truly ecumenical and inter-religious theology is necessary.
But it must not be a system of belief or values imposed by the
powerful. Ecumenical and inter-religious theology should be a
common roof to shelter confessions of many kinds down through
the ranks of social and ethnic stratifications. On the other hand,
faith in particular realms of social and cultural organisation
has to refrain from the hybris of power; it has to admit the rights
of others and aim at the dignity of all. Perhaps one ancient truth
needs to be recovered: Faith in the personal God may best flourish
in small human groups free from religious pressures. Higher ranking
religious entities should live their insights of divine manifestations
exploring the wider dimensions of religion and ethos but serving
- not dominating! - the individual and familial needs for orientation,
protection, fulfilment. At least on the plain of religious faith
there should be an abstention from power on all levels of social
organisation.
7. The five-fold
stratification of society and religion proposed in my book does
offer but a tentative sketch of a possible array of images of
the Divine. These Biblical models have been germinal for the Western
kinds of theological thinking. They remain pivotal as beams from
the past while we are seeking our way in rugged new territory.
We have urgently to look for the dialogue with those testimonies
of old, just as we desperately need cognizance of and contact
with the relevant forces and voices of our own societies. All
together are we on our way towards that union and unity which
may be the hidden purpose for our planet.
(B. Response
to panelists)
I am extremely
grateful to the four panelists who directed their spotlights on
my theses: It sure is a special feat to be scrutinized and portrayed
by critical colleagues. Under inspection like this, one may discover
a little better who one is, what one looks like from the outside,
and where the weaknesses are of one's own construals. The valiant
four did give me full load of appreciation and castigation. How
may I digest it?
1. (Language)
The vocabulary used for evaluation is significant in my opinion.
There are expressions which point to transgressions of border-lines:
"radical", "daringly experimental", "beyond
conventional modes of presentation". My work apparently is
seen as taking place in some other realm than the customary. Some
designations like "relativistic", "critical",
"rational" lament the absence of the eternal in my analyses,
or they decry a false orientation, namely e.g. an "almost
religious allegiance to modern sociology". There are connotations
of brutality in phrases depicting my approach as "unrelentingly
critical", "rigorous", bringing to "one possible
logical conclusion" the rationalistic enlightenment of J.J.
Semler and marking the "demise" of the "'biblical
theology' movement" of past decades. On the other hand, there
are numerous tags of "important", "fresh",
"innovative", "stimulating" along the line.
So it appears quite obvious that my work may be evaluated from
different angles, causing rather emotional reactions.
2. (Methodology)
To the traditional mind it may seem strange to consider not only
the plain biblical texts, but search for their social moorings.
Historical criticism and form-criticism stayed mostly with the
text, although the latter (H. Gunkel) already made "life-settings"
a very important criterion for exegesis. All kinds of socio-linguistics
and socio-cultural literary theory do emphazise the formative
role of underlying social organisations. If social conditions
and communicative acts constitute the very soil for texts, are
these "overground" literary offshoots hampered, constrained,
misshaped by the study of the "underground"? On the
contrary, texts are better understood when seen in their intricate
connection with their social setting. But this is truly a strange
thought for most exegetes. Fears are high, that something improper
is being done: Texts are "bound" to their matrix, become
"relativistic", loose their "endurance" and
"perpetual meaning". Seeming instability and transience
of social conditions are the dangers which make exegetes to cling
to the pure "Word". But this may be an illusion: The
"Word" always has to turn "Flesh" in order
to be heard. As a matter of fact, no interpreter ever did his
work without resorting to a second level of parameters underneath
or besides the wording. The text traditionally has been projected
into a grid of historical, psychological, or philosophical (seemingly
enduring!) parameters to make sense. The only difference may have
been be the illusion, not to need such a projection but to "let
the text speak for itself", so that the everlasting meaning
might be heard directly from the source. I believe: A socio-political
or some other "implantation" of a given text into the
ground is necessary. It can be achieved, this is true, only by
anthropological and sociological methods and parameters.
3. (Holy Sociology?)
Each relevant social layer, each grouping or class, may prove
significant for understanding given texts. I do distinguish, within
the Hebrew Scriptures, five organisational levels in ancient Israel,
which existed partly successively, partly side-by-side. Each of
them I credit with peculiar molds of permitting concepts of the
divine to be formed. Sometimes, I do reduce this number to two,
without giving up the peculiarities of the five: the small face-to-face
communities of family, clan, neighbourhood and the larger, anonymous
organisations of tribe, state, empire do constitute something
like a main juxtaposition. The parish organisation so important
for the Judean society, certainly is closer to the first group,
but nourishes traits from the second one (dreams of a renovated
kingship; world-wide Torah-union, etc.). I try to evaluate all
levels of societal arrangement on account of modern research in
parallel structures. Is it "romanticism" to acknowledge,
that what we call "human life" normally is harboured
in small-group entities? May we take it for granted that groupings
of more than 100 persons start to loose their intimacy, begin
to be ruled by more juridical and administrational norms, need
to develop substitutions for small-group-solidarity, in short,
have to be construed artificially and anonymously? Would it be
unrealistic to ask future architects of society to revert exaggerated
emphasis on public life, to demand that the nuclei of human organisation
receive more attention, and that the "higher" social
arrangements become more subservient to the "lower"
ones? Current debates about the plight of humans lost in the networks
of large organisations do give force to my argument. And what
about biblical preferences: The God of Israel certainly deals
with a great people, but this national or religious unit does
consist for the most part of individual and familial believers!
The whole of Tora does design neither economic nor political master
lines for mass-behaviour, state-administration, company-management.
I even doubt that we have elaborate blue-prints for state religion
in the Bible (cf. Deut 17:14-20; Rom 13:1-7).
More important,
though, is the theological weight of social determinants, and
the concomitant value of sociology itself. Does this branch of
knowledge now take the place of philosophy, and dictate the contents
of our theological discourse? Not by a long shot! In my understanding,
we have to acknowledge that (social, cultural, historical etc.)
reality, in the midst of which theological reflection takes place,
today as well as in antiquity. From all human experience we deduce,
that each context offers certain conceptual molds for fulfilling
also the theological work. But within these molds much can be
creatively said about the Divine which is present in every and
all contexts possible. Theology is a reaction to the unlimited
which is being perceived within the contextually limited situations
of old and today. Sociology does not call the numbers, but helps
to understand what is going on in each given situation.
If we take
social structures instead of philosophical concepts as significant
for theological discourse , we gain a huge interpretive advantage
over against traditional ways of reading biblical texts. Social
structures of old and of our own times do resemble each other,
they can be seen in "dynamic analogy" inside a common
social development of humankind. Philosophical concepts of the
Ancient Near East were much more incompatible with our present
Western ideas. We, after all, have been heavily molded by Greek
and Roman patterns and values. Social conditions, in contrast,
can be seen more easily in conjunction, because human organisational
needs are quite similar even in differing environments and times.
4. (Theologies)
Albrecht Alt in his essay "The God of the Fathers" first
spoke of that different "type of faith" which later
was entitled ancient Near Eastern "Personal religion"
(better: household or family religion). On the basis of such studies
and on account of clearly discernible social structures within
the Hebrew Scriptures I ventured to portray four more religious
classes of distinct theological concepts. I fully realize that
this is a somewhat artificial undertaking, because social structures
are in flux, and conceptualizations of the divine overlap in any
given organized entity. Yet, the social groupings envisioned in
my opinion did really exist in Israel and Judah, their theological
and ethical profiles can be nicely elaborated (just as in present
times!), their distinct spiritual heritage should be honoured
- separately - even in our days. I feel very much attached to
and enriched by all the different theological concepts present
in the Bible (and in the Ancient Near East, for that matter).
Do the old concepts of the divine impede our faith? Sometimes
they do, because contexts and experiences have changed over the
millenia (cf. the warrior-God of old!). Why not acknowledge the
contextuality and transience of divine concepts bound to certain
social and cultural patterns? Does faith really need to make universal
and eternal claims? Why? Mic 4:5 did not want to, nor need to
do it. And if I allegedly go on to make "normative"
statements in ch. 8 - 10 of my book, I feel misunderstood. Not
one phrase should be taken as a universal or eternal affirmation,
but as my own personal insight, after a good amount of reflection
with students of theology in three continents, but totally "relativistic",
tied to a small segment of time and space, bound to be criticized,
modified, replaced by many who are concerned like myself about
the fate of humankind on this planet. Nothing normative or authoritative.
Yet insights should be placed on the table and debated, according
to our present system of social organisation, which is the democratic
option.
Does plurality of divine concepts perturb Christian people? Why
should that be the case? There never has been a time when good,
believing people had adhered to one and the same God on all levels
of life. Even to give the same name to differing deities does
not help out of the dilemma: God acts in markedly different ways
on different levels of social organisation. A family God will
bless the tricks of his client (Gen 27; 31); a tribal or national
deity will severely punish any infractor (Josh 7; Lev 24).
Thus, the task of theologians old and new always has been to harmonize
conflicting concepts of the divine within any given society. (Innumerous
foreign deities always complicate the matter still further). The
plurality of God-experiences and God-talk in fact has always been
a great stimulus for theological thinking and, of course, an enigma
of sorts for our frustrated mind. Still today, we have to discuss
seriously the importance of religion on all levels of society,
and their interrelations to each other. Which rules will the God
of a single person hand out, and which ones the God of planet
earth (not to speak of our modern universe which was so far beyond
the imagination of the ancients, that they cannot possibly have
left the tiniest fragment of an idea as to its purpose and significance)?
5 (Monotheism)
The ancient world long before Israel started to produce monotheizing
concepts of God, most of all due to the emerging multi-cultural
empires which claimed to encompass the "whole world"
and "all humanity". The second impulse may have been
the discovery in wisdom circles of a basic sameness of humankind.
Thirdly, there has been the enormous pressure of suffering in
Israel in the context of imperial gestations which caused a re-evaluation
of the one world. Monotheism is strictly linked with special phases
and dimensions of social and cultural development; it is nothing
"natural" or "pre-historic" or "eternal".
I perfectly agree with my critics, that this amazing theological
concept still is fresh and dynamic in our own days, because we
are again wrestling with the related visions of one world and
one humankind, in a more existential way as the antique world
could have surmised: Our survival is seriously questioned unless
we find solutions for our one world. That our world is but one,
experiencing the same destiny under human greed and lust for power,
has been impressively demonstrated by recent globalizing developments
in economy, politics, communication techniques, sciences. Therefore,
the wonderful discovery in ancient times of the oneness of God
still is the most appropriate theological idea on the level of
global organisation. Peace and justice for all seems to be much
more plausible under the reign of one Deity, than in any dualistic
or polytheistic creed. Oneness in peace and justice, so far, never
has been realized on earth: we regretfully have to admit this
fact. There has been quite often religious usurpation of the exclusive
power for partisan ends. But the goal seems promising: To strive
for the all-inclusive oneness which acknowledges the other ones
in their own rights. I heartily agree with all critiques insisting
that in my book I barely scratched the surface of the continuing
problem and promise of monotheistic faith.
6. (Modern
Times) One of the strong points, in the opinion of some, is my
endeavour to draw the connecting lines between ancient faith and
post-modern times. This feature in itself, of course, is a legacy
of years of pastoral work and of my teaching period in Brazil.
I cannot imagine doing exegesis and theology without bringing
ancient contextual creeds into a dialogue with our own situations
today. After all, why else should we study the Bible? It remains
the inspiring testimony of many voices who became aware of God's
actions in their environments. Now, are we able to discern where
and how God is acting in our own times for the well-being of creation?
We have to take seriously the new parameters of life today: in
terms of society, culture, religious beliefs, science, technology
etc. There is no way simply to repeat old formulas, insights,
or experiences of old. Some of these certainly remain valid in
a new guise, like we saw in the case of the monotheistic process.
For many (excepting those who suffered under totalitarian patriarchisms)
God the Father remains a comforting image, for others it may be
the motherly God. I do not want to decry the biblical conceptualizations,
they are precious in their own settings and meanings, and they
are stimulating, they carry corrective and sometimes repulsive
potential (cf. God the avenger, Isa 63:1-6). In any case, however,
the much neglected present day conditions of life and their inherent
divine fibre (perhaps better: elusive traces of divine presence!)
need to be taken seriously. To countercheck that conjured possibility
to make a Zeitgeist the supreme authority we cling to Bible and
tradition. Our forebears in faith laid the way which points, broadly,
into a determined direction. Modern religious experiences are
expected to occur in continuation of the old visions of the Divine,
although in new, far away territories. The task of exegesis and
theology is not an easy one, but it is full of promise: to bring
life, and not death, to this beautiful planet with its marvellous
humankind. We should keep in mind, however, that we are pilgrims
and contextually fixed, very relativistic beings during our very
short sojourn on earth. Wandering towards the infinite, why should
we bother to spell out or nail down the ultimate, except sketching
it dimly in precursory dreams (cf. 1 Cor 13:12)? The general directions
of faith and world are important, the process of divine realization
is, not the dogmatic formula or any final confessional edifice.
7. (Details)
At the end I should like to thank again the four panelists who
put so much energy and time into their statements. They, indeed,
offered a rich bouquet of observations and insights, which will
make me think for some time to come. In order to recognize their
individual contributions I want to say a few words to each of
them:
Walter Brueggemann:
Dear, old friend, I really feel much obliged to your sometimes
highly positive evaluation, as I already had been deeply impressed
by the Old Testament witnesses' "testimony, dispute, advocacy"
in your voluminous "Theology of the Old Testament".
What strikes me in your comments is your succinct analysis of
my sociological approach, reducing it to the alternative of Ferdinand
Tönnies: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, with the sharp juxtaposition
of mercy and cold, soulless anonymity. Of course, there is some
truth in this simple model of social conditions. But I should
like to investigate without bias at least the five types of social
organisation recognizable in the Hebrew Scriptures. I like to
recognize the peculiarities of each of them in regard to theological
articulations. The human self certainly plays different roles
in every single configuration. Predominance of the family-clan-faith
to my mind does not derive from bad experiences with the Prussian
etc. state, but from biblical witness and from daily realities
as reported throughout history.
James A. Sanders:
I am very proud that you accepted the invitation to join this
panel. So we had the chance to meet here personally for the first
time, and I am grateful, indeed, that this is the beginning of
a closer relationship than the mere literary one could offer.
Your concern for canon-building and canon-interpretation is known
around the world. I am happy to say, that I have been greatly
enriched by your sensitive, scholarly approach to the variety
of canons in Jewish - Christian traditions. You have quite convincingly
described the functions of canon for the respective communities.
In my book, I have taken exception only (deliberately omitting
your name from the list of adherents) with dogmatic canon - critics,
who only acknowledge one normative collection of sacred writings.
- I do see the dangers of self-reliant rationalism, but I hope
to be able to avoid exactly that decisive error: to make our rational
conceptualizations the final and absolute step in theological
development. And your ideas of "dynamic analogies" between
the social organisations, as well as "progressive monotheism"
are much to my liking and very useful to me. Thank you for your
valuable participation.
Joel Kaminsky:
There are basic concerns which I share with you, Joel: The quest
for valid orientation by Scripture and tradition; the aversion
against modish trends turned into normative guidelines. Both issues
I tried to deal with above. "The present continues to draw
nourishment from the past" - I fully agree, if we may add:
The real concerns of our societies need to be taken into account
in the ungoing theological debate with past testemonies. - One
specific issue you raise is that of purity laws in Leviticus.
The priestly authors did visualize only the good, cultic order
of the world, which included a thorough dichotomy between the
"holy" and the "impure", and the eradication
of the "abominable" from the good creation? Even if
this were true, generations of exegetes have to wrestle with this
essential division of the world created by one God. Does it herald
a fundamental incompatibility of parts of creation with God? We
sure have to raise the same question in regard to "good"
and "evil", "righteous ones" and "godless
people", "elected" and "non-elected".
How do biblical writers deal with all these deep discrepancies
and the concept of the one and all-encompassing God? The least
we must do, in my opinion, is to state the abismal problem which
is still plaguing our own theological thinking. It has not been
resolved at any time in any context, remaining an aching dilemma
of pure Monotheism.
Dennis T.
Olson: Most of the main problems you call to my attention in a
most determined and fair way I have tried to deal with in the
general treatment above. You interestingly point out that the
title of my book already betrays much of its intention, and a
careful scholar like you yourself gets to the difficult points
quickly by focusing on the plural of "Theologies" and
the preposition "in" (instead: "of") the Old
Testament. This is amazingly true. The gist of the matter, then,
reveals a central controversy. You believe, that the Old Testament
is "a collection of ancient literature", which, I presume,
we have to interpret as it stands: as "regardless of any
social or other conditionings". You probably can count on
a majority of scholars in our field to support you at this point.
I for my part am strongly convinced that texts without their social,
cultural etc. "soil" are nearly meaningless. Or else
they are subject to much more manipulating and absorbing interpretation
than well-grounded pieces of literature. This insistence on "life-settings"
for any given text (it does apply even to our newspaper reports
every morning) to my mind has nothing to do with "sociological
determinism", but gets us closer to the ancient meaning of
the words we read; it does not lead astray from the textual basis
but into its very midst. Therefore, I do not believe that the
preposition "in" should be replaced by either "under"
or "behind" the Old Testament. - Next, you call to attention
our Christian commitment in doing theology, which you find lacking
in my treatise. Instead, it is moving, you claim, "to a much
more humanistic and Enlightenment vision of the need for the brotherhood
and sisterhood of humanity under one global, tolerant theology
of justice and freedom for all." I really regret the absence
of a specific New Testament part, it would have taken another,
long period of study to write it. But I doubt that the addition
of contextual Christian messages from their family and parochial
backgrounds would have changed the basic direction of my argument
or altered substantially the gospel of "Life, Justice, Love"
already present in the Hebrew Scriptures. Sure, there are specific
theological traits in face-to-face early Christian groupings,
especially as far as christological and eschatological stances
are concerned. But we should also remember the firm grounding
of both christologies and eschatologies of early Christianity
in the concepts of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ definitely
belongs into the sequence of prophets, priests and kings of old.
- About your final attack ("totalizing rhetoric"; "watering
down our exclusive religious claims" and my alleged withdrawel
into a "religious tower of Babel", where "we can
save ourselves" and adore a "clan deity of mutuality,
intimacy, humility and tolerance" or other "innocent
or idyllic" deities) I would rather refrain from making any
comments other than the ones already made.
To conclude:
I do realize much more clearly than before the panel-discussion
what the shortcomings of my treatise are and how many of them
are interspersed in my line of argument. While promising to work
on defects and omissions of my book and more precisely delineate
my positions over against others I feel confirmed in my basic
approach and want to investigate its possibilities further on.
A big "thank you" to all participants and readers.
|
