With the spate of books since mid-century on the Old Testament in the New and related topics, some explanation is required if yet another book appears on some aspect of the subject. But if scholars and general readership could be offered an annotated bibliography on the theological problem of the relationship between the two Testaments, it might be a welcome contribution. Moreover, if this annotated bibliography could provide a lucid explanation and classification of the plethora of modern approaches to the problem, it would constitute a valuable tool for further studies. And if that tool could combine its objectivity in analysing the works of others with a positive new approach to the problem, it would be a book worthy to be published, purchased and prized. D. L. Baker has offered us such a book in his Two Testaments, One Bible.

Baker weaves his way masterfully through the major and minor modern solutions to the theological problem of the relationship between the Testaments. He isolates ‘eight distinct, though not all mutually exclusive, major solutions’ (p. 5). Some, like A. A. van Ruler and K. H. Miskotte stress the Old Testament member of the relationship, others like Bultmann and Baumgärtel emphasize the New Testament at the expense of the Old. Four major ‘biblical’ solutions have been popular in recent years and they receive special treatment by Baker. Especially those of Vischer and von Rad are analysed and form the basis, together with a new approach to typology, of Baker’s own concluding suggestions. While recognizing the tension between continuity and discontinuity, Baker shows that the ‘biblical’ solution to the problem of the relationship between the Testaments is the most satisfactory because it alone takes seriously the evidence as it stands, i.e. two Testaments in one Bible. He thus affirms the ‘essential theological unity of the Bible, which centres on Jesus Christ, who is not merely the difference between the New Testament and the Old but in his person brings together the two Testaments into one Bible’ (p. 372).

Baker’s work, despite his disclaimers to exhaustiveness (p. 391) gives the impression of being an analysis of all the important contributions to the debate in modern study on the relationship between the Testaments. This is borne out by the extensive bibliography (135 pages) and his lists of relevant works at the end of each discussion. Hardly a name is missed. The range of views considered is impressive, and Roman Catholic (p. 78) and ‘Fundamentalist’ (p. 77) are noted. The ‘Nazi Bible’ (p. 80) and the reaction to it are discussed. These and many other solutions to the problem are discussed in the first part of the work, which traces the historical antecedents of the contemporary debate. In this first part the section entitled ‘transition to the modern period’ should be read by all who seek to understand modern attitudes toward the Bible.

There are, however, a few names not mentioned by Baker, whose contributions probably deserve to be discussed. No mention is made of G. Vermes, R. LeDeaut, and M. McNamara, to list just a few who have demonstrated the first-century currency of Targumic parallels to the New Testament. Their work has important consequences for the study of the Old Testament in the New. Especially Vermes’ discovery of interpretative traditions in the New Testament era has made both possible and necessary a synoptic approach in the study of the use of the Old Testament. The relationship between the Testaments can now be viewed, with increasing precision, in comparison with the use of the Old Testament at Qumran, in Philo and Josephus, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Rabbinic Judaism and Patristic writers. The theological problem of the relationship between the Testaments must be assessed not only against the background of the modern theological discussion, but also in the light of first-century biblical interpretation. Moreover, it is surprising not to find in the abbreviations list references to either Revue de Qumran or the Journal of Jewish Studies. Access to the contributions of the above-mentioned scholars and to articles in these journals may be obtained through works Baker cites (e.g. E. E. Ellis, R. Longenecker, M. P. Miller, etc., pp. 34–35) but it might have been better to have included them in this particular bibliography. Since Baker’s work is a basic tool, it is hoped that these contributions might be included in a reprint, thus enhancing the value of an already important book.