Israel’s Countertestimony
Given the inevitable selectivity in
processing the massive amount of material characteristic of any discipline or
field, Brueggemann notes that “the decision to include or exclude, to accent or
deemphasize, is never innocent.”
What
emerges in any given work are the “presuppositions” that underlie the
interpretive biases of the selection process.”
While the interpretive process is inescapable
by the constructive nature of theological probing, what he describes as
“themetization “violates the very character of the testimony that relishes the
detail” embedded in exacting description.
As further put, “
themetization is
our required work and our most profound hazard” (italics in original).
[i] Other than noting this dilemma, he does not directly
confront its implications at this point, which, as always with Brueggemann,
requires further amplification.
As Brueggemann further explains,
thematization is not synonymous with systematization in that the former “aims
only at a rough sketch and not close presentation.”
In resisting “closure,” thematization “allows
for slippage, oddity, incongruity, and variation,”
[ii] while
providing some basis for coherent argumentation.
In short, without making thematic claims
there would be little of value to say, in which all cats would be grey, even as
claiming too much carries its own set of problems.
Wrestling with the gap between core
assertions and the multitude of facts on the ground requires a perpetual
winnowing process where for Brueggemann boldly sharp claims are made as central
arguments which then become qualified as additional considerations are brought
into the picture.
Thus, the emphasis he
places on Israel’s core and countertestimony is qualified by what he refers to
as “Israel’s embodied testimony” in which the various testimonies provided
within the Old Testament narrative are arbitrated themselves through continuous
negotiation.
This goes as well for Brueggemann’s
account of texts that speak of radical disjunctions between God’s
uncompromising standard of holiness and his unyielding faithfulness to an often
unfaithful Israel. Although he states
that he does not want to exaggerate these seemingly irreconcilable tendencies,
sharply dualistic polarization is built into the very thematization that
structures his text. This tension needs
accounting for, which he partially undertakes in the later sections of Theology of the Old Testament, where he offers
important qualifying commentary. While
duly noted, “Core Testimony” and “Countertestimony” provide the dramatic
structure and organizing framework for Brueggemann’s courtroom drama.
No comments:
Post a Comment