I will illustrate my point with a specific case. Brueggemann appears to take the position of Deutero-Isaiah (i.e., there were two authors of Isaiah and that the second part, ch. 40-66 was written during the exile, a helpful summary is on the Wikipedia page). In discussing YHWH, the God Who Creates [chapter 4, in Theology of Old Testament], he has a really nice section on The Context of Exile, which reads (p. 149-150):
In the Old Testament, creation faith receives its fullest articulation in Isaiah of the exile. [See, for example, Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemeption in Deutero Isaiah, 1970)] In the context of exile, Israel faced a twofold crisis that invited Israel to despair and to abandonment of its confidence in Yahweh. The concrete ground for the despair is the formidable reality of Babylonian military-political power. Behind that visiible authority, however, is the legitimating power of the Babylonian gods who guaranteed the regime and who appear to be stronger than the counterpower of Israel's own God....
... It is testimony to Yahweh's work as Creator that counters the ostensive power of Babylon.
[1Thus says the LORD,But actually, these insights are actually independent of when this passage was written. One could rewrite Brueggemann's paragraph as
the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him:]
......
12 I made the earth
and created man on it;
it was my hands that stretched out the heavens,
and I commanded all their host.
13 I have stirred him up in righteousness,
and I will make all his ways level;
he shall build my city
and set my exiles free,
not for price or reward,"
says the LORD of hosts.
(Isaiah 45:12-13)
In the Old Testament, creation faith receives a full articulation in Isaiah's prophesy concerning the exile. In the context of exile, Israel would face a twofold crisis that invited Israel to despair and to abandonment of its confidence in Yahweh. The concrete ground for the despair would be the formidable reality of Babylonian military-political power. Behind that visible authority, however, would be the legitimating power of the Babylonian gods who would guaranteed the regime and who might appear to be stronger than the counterpower of Israel's own God....
... It is testimony to Yahweh's work as Creator that counters the ostensive power of Babylon.
Ross, your re-write of Brueggemann's statement still seems to presuppose the knowledge he came to through an historical approach. (a) Israel's creation theology was a necessary response to exile; (b)an articulation of this creation theology is assisted by some knowledge of "second Isaiah's" historical context. In other words, an historical approach to Isaiah 40-55 provides depth to one's reading of the latter's theology.
ReplyDeleteHi Leigh,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful response.
Could I re-write your comment as follows?
My re-write makes use of and is stimulated by a perspective derived from a historical-critical approach which assumes (a) Israel's creation theology was a necessary response to exile; (b)an articulation of this creation theology is assisted by some knowledge of "second Isaiah's" historical context. Advocates of this historical approach to Isaiah 40-55 claim it provides depth to one's reading of the latter's theology.
However, just because certain assumptions lead to some useful insights does NOT mean that those assumptions are valid, nor that those assumptions are necessary.