Biblical Theology: Is It Good for the Jews?

II

The voluminous work of James Barr, both a review of the most significant works of OT theology written in the twentieth century and a summa of views and errors, of antisemitic and "scientific" approaches to the Hebrew Bible--this great book at the very least knows what the problems are, and sometimes also why proposed solutions fail to satisfy. The Christian view of the OT is not only a reflection of what Christians have long thought of Jews but also what they have thought of their own faith tradition.

Few if any of the great Christian students assert any more that the Christ is present in the OT literally and actually. But many insist that he is foreshadowed, perhaps unknowingly, by the whole of Israelite mentalities. Non-Jewish categories of methodologies are substituted for authentic ones. Confessional or neo-orthodox views are read into the Biblical witness. Often the theologian is seeking to validate his own particular version of Christian theology by calling on OT positions, now re-read in order to dispute the Christian consensus.

It appears that the impulse to "Christianize" the Old Testament may take two different forms, and these arise from two different principles, both of which are to some extent embedded in Christian tradition. On the one side there is the principle that the Old Testament, though of course a Jewish book, is also fully a Christian book, and if left to itself it will say Christian things. But to encourage it in doing so, the expositor reads into it categories such as those I have mentioned above. On the other side is the principle that the Old Testament will say Christian things; but only if carefully checked and sifted through an application of Christian standards, usually supposed to come from the New Testament. The effect of this may be a kind of "spiritualizing" interpretation: the Old Testament in itself sometimes says fully Christian things, sometimes on the other hand it says things that are not really Christian, or things that are Christian only when they are taken in a special way. (Barr, 263)

Post-Biblical Judaism is ordinarily disparaged or ignored by these scholars. An old notion that, beginning with the late books of the OT and from then on, Judaism becomes rigid and untrustworthy is still prevalent. Nor is the Jewish defense against this position well conceived. Barr quotes Bernard Jackson, a leading scholar of Jewish and, especially, Talmudic law:

"We Jews have in recent years allowed ourselves to believe all too readily that the Jewish reply to Christian critics of Judaism, the reply represented by the works not only of Jews like Montefiore, Israel Abrahams, Schechter, Heschel, and Boaz Cohen but also of non-Jews such as Moore and Herford, has convinced the mainstream of at least informed Christian opinion that Judaism is not so bad after all; that it has its inwardness; that it is not obsessed by rewards and punishments; that it delights in the law and is not burdened by it. But this is selling the past. It is seeking to justify Judaism in Christian, not Jewish terms. Moreover, it has succeeded less fully than some believe." (Barr, 272)