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

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

Related to the claim that the literature has no unity, and thus is not subject to merely conceptual analysis, is the striking lack of attention given to wisdom literature. First of all, it is under-represented in the Hebrew Bible itself, which lacks Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. Second, with some exceptions in Sirach and Wisdom, it stands outside the dominant emphasis on Heilsgeschichte. When it is used, as in the case of Janowski's discussion of the Shekinah, it is sparing, and limited to the personification of Wisdom. The existence of the diversified types of literature found in the wisdom books and the level of its anthropology and theology have been obstacles to any unification plan. They posed a problem to George Ernest Wright (1952: 103), as is evident from his statement that he could not really coordinate them in his view of Old Testament theology. There is a certain irony in this. From the point of view of a tidy unity or center, he was correct, but the failure to deal with wisdom should have been a sign to later "centrists" to exercise more caution.

Is it really feasible "to write an Old Testament theology on the basis of the Christian Bible" in the manner presented by Spieckermann? He grants that his is not "the only way," but an "appropriate way" (327). It is appropriate for a Christian who can see God's steadfast love incarnate in Christ "as the leitmotif [this term is as close as he gets to the word center] of all scriptures" (327). But his approach resembles tunnel vision. It fails to deal adequately with the diversity of the Old Testament. His expert use of pertinent biblical texts that develop the notion of divine hesed is surely informative, and attractive, flowing from a hermeneutical stance governed by the Incarnation. From a Christian point of view the Incarnation crowns the Old Testament manifestations of God's love. Does this conclusion really differ from the traditional patristic and medieval insights? In the final analysis it is no different, except that the treatment of the Old Testament data is expertly done by a critical mind. His method is more sophisticated and refined, because it derives from historical criticism, and is able to catch more of the nuances of the Old Testament text. A clearer picture of the Old Testament data on the steadfast love of God appears, but not in virtue of the Incarnation. In lesser hands the approach might lead to a superficial analysis of the biblical data.

Continuity from the Old Testament into the New is only to be expected. But the Old Testament, and with it biblical theology, is short-changed when unity is reduced to one line of continuity. Moreover, the discontinuities are not to be dismissed; one thinks here of the significance of the Sabbath, divine and human, which Christianity has never really absorbed (Goshen-Gottstein: 632), or the dialectic of retribution, which is not to be solved by a simplified eschatology. There are many aspects of Old Testament thought that still call for exploration. The paradox is that a search for a unifying center fails, but it has produced a harvest of insights into the riches of the Bible.