The Link between the New Testament and Torah?

This is my comment on a posting at http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/ (posting included)

Do you take the New Testament to be a modification or view correction of the Torah/Tawrat? At saying this I have never read the Torah (Jewish) or Tawrat (Muslim) or even works on either of them: although if I came across an English translation I probably would. What I am getting at is if the words of Jesus (in the New Testament) is taken as a modification to these, but not a complete replacement of, then a middle-ground/blind of the two types of thoughts could be said to exist (i.e., concrete and abstract).

__________

http://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/
Saturday, April 19, 2008

Underlying Hermeneutical Question
We've been doing some pretty in-depth studies on baptism. It is quite interesting to realize that, contrary to the very prevalent protestant (and especially Baptist) ideas that prevail today, baptism is fairly closely linked to salvation in the New Testament. It is definitely linked to that in the writings of the apostolic fathers. Further, infant baptism is pretty prevalent in the early Christian writings and closely linked to circumcision.
Obviously, there is a question of how to evaluate these things. Protestants today are very likely to overlook these things in the apostolic tradition or say they got it wrong (while ironically appealing to the same writers for the support of such essential doctrines as the canon and trinity).
I think that beyond the level of questioning the authority of tradition, there is an underlying hermeneutical question that taints our interpretations of the biblical and historical data.
If we examine ancient Hebrew thought, including at the time of Christ, we learn that they are very concrete thinkers. They don't look at things in terms of abstract concepts but much more rigid and concrete standards and symbols. They describe God in terms of analogies to concrete, everyday things, not in abstract concepts like omniscience that must be examined philosophically. Those abstract ideas are much more Greek.
Interestingly, the reformation occurred right on the heals of the renaissance, when Greek thought reemerged in Europe. I think this new emphasis on Greek thought deeply influenced the reformers, and thus we see a shift to much more abstract theology. It is at this point in history that we see the emergence of thought opposed to infant baptism or to baptism as necessary to salvation.
So, the question, it seems to me, is should we follow the hermeneutical ideas of the ancient Jews or should we take a more contemporary western thought pattern. If we follow an older hermeneutic, it seems we are very likely to find our doctrines re-embracing much of what was left behind in Catholicism because of its concrete symbolism. If we decide to follow the thinking of the reformers, we will find ourselves delving into much more philosophical areas of theology that lead to different sets of conclusions.
I may be looking at that in a completely wrong manner. Being myself someone who is very interested in philosophy, I find certain things appealing about both sides of this discussion, leading to my seemingly constant desire to find the middle-ground. Any thoughts?