I’m currently reading volume one of the four volume work by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Explorations in Theology: The Word Made Flesh, and a striking paragraph called for posting:

“The word that testifies asserts that the Word testified to, the Word of revelation, is infinitely richer than what can be drawn from scripture. And here the Word after the incarnation is essentially different from the word before it. The Old Testament word was only coming, not a Word finally come and fulfilled. For that reason it could not have been the subject of a “tradition” (meaning thereby the expression of the fullness of the Word manifested, a fullness that bursts all the bounds of scripture.) Regarding the Old Testament word’s expression of the law and the promises, it was on a par with what could have been comprised in ordinary speech and writing—it being always understood that this also could only have been assimilated in faith and through the grace of God who spoke it. The Jews however had as an object of faith no other divine revelations to Abraham or Moses, no other divine word to the prophets, than that contained (whether from the outset or subsequently) in their scriptures .Consequently there was in the old covenant no tradition as a source of faith: the scriptural principle was similar to that of Protestantism in relation to the New Testament. For it is not so much the organic character of history, as the Tubingen theologians held, that makes tradition a source of faith from the time of the incarnation, but primarily the uniqueness of the person of Christ and of his relationship to the mystical body, the Church. Except for tradition the scriptures of the new covenant would resemble those of the old covenant, having its law and promises; it would not be the word-body of him who also dwells and works in his Church as the living Eucharistic body (not present in the old covenant.)” (pp. 17-18)