Once again—the "center" of the Old Testament - Old Testament theology

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2001 by Roland E. Murphy

The basic principle of Spieckermann seems to be that "the truth of Old Testament theology can only be established by considering New Testament theology" (308). That thesis seems incapable of proof. There is surely some truth to Old Testament theology apart from the New. His beautifully articulated expression of "steadfast love" in the Torah, Psalms, and Prophets could have been written just as easily by a non-Christian, or at least by anyone who might be simply unaware of Christian premises concerning the God of the Bible. This is not to say that there would be universal agreement on every specific aspect that Spieckermann discusses, but his exposition is not all that unique, or inspired uniquely by a Christian perspective, in the history of exegesis. What is new about the "new conception of Old Testament theology"? Apparently it is the explicit starting point, the New Testament perspective. Proceeding from New to Old is not the usual path for Old Testament theologians to pursue, although they cannot escape entirely their presuppositions, Christian or otherwise. This orientation may have the advantage of bringing both Testaments together and forming a biblical theology. But it is not clear that the Christian Bible presents a necessary perspective for a "new conception of Old Testament theology." It does provide a new context for expanding the Old Testament data as described by Spieckermann.

Spieckermann's article, absent the thesis of the role of the New Testament, is an example of what "biblical theology" at its best can do--and has done in fact. It can trace the various changes and developments of certain terms and concepts throughout either Testament singly or preferably both together. But this procedure does not lead to a unified theology that constitutes a "center." Rather, one finds in the article a series of sharp exegeses and careful conclusions in pursuing an idea through several differing literary media.

Conclusion

What insights can be drawn from these two recent explorations of biblical theology? There are some very welcome features. For both scholars, the two Testaments are part of the theological enterprise; theirs is a biblical theology. Janowski is particularly concerned with the recognition of Jewish tradition as continuing the thrust of the Tanak, parallel to the way in which the New Testament completes the Old. As indicated above, however, this parallelism is somewhat awry. The Mishnah and Talmud are part of the oral Torah of Judaism; it incorporates the oral version of the original Mosaic teaching; this is really unique to orthodox Jewry. The only possible, but inexact, parallel is Christian tradition. There is something asymetrical about Janowski's lining up of the sources: Tanak (OT)/Mishnah & Talmud on the Jewish side, as opposed to the OT/NT trajectory on the Christian side. He leaves no room for Christian traditioin, which is at least comparable to the rabbinic tradition. Is this imbalance due to a certain discomfort with the role of Christian tradition? There is, of course, a trajectory from the Tanak to the beliefs and practices of Judaism, but as J. Neusner has clearly stated, there is also a gulf: Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament (1986: xi).