Here is another quote similar to the one I posted earlier from Brueggemann’s Old Testament Theology:
No Going behind the Witnesses
This testimony is relentlessly narratival in its utterance, and therefore the narrrative articulations are the originary form and way of Yahweh in Israel. That is to say, one cannot go behind the narratival (liturgical?) accounts, but will have to take the word of the witnesses. The witnesses sometimes claim to be eyewitnesses, but often no such claim is made. Even where it is not made, however, the authority of the witness is grounded in nothing more and nothing less than the willingness of the text community to credit, believe, trust, and take seriously this testimony.
In principle, the hearer of this text who listens for its theological cadences refuses to go behind these witnesses. This means that theological interpretation does not go behind the witness with questions of history, wondering “what happened.” What happened, so our “verdict” is, is what these witnesses said happened. In complementary fashion, this means that theological interpretation does not go behind this witness with questions of ontology, wondering “what is real.” What is real, so our “verdict” is, is what these witnesses say is real, Nothing more historical or ontological is available. But this mode of “knowing” finds such a claim to be adequate. (206)