Covenant

b. 1890 d.

19’78

Theological Synopsis

In the decades surrounding World War I, the discussion of Old Testament theology in Germany was remarkably intense. On one side of the debate were those who insisted that Israel’s religion could be presented only in terms of its historical development. Others argued, just as insistently, that such “genetic” accounts of Israel’s religion could not penetrate to its life and spirit. Walther Eichrodt was anxious to preserve Old Testament theology as a historical discipline, one that treated the essence of Israel’s religion instead of only its development. He believed that, if it followed “a new concept of the essential nature of true historical study” (1961: 13), Old Testament theology could be genuinely historical, without falling into

’ “the tyranny of historicism” (1961: 31).

Eichrodt had already put forward his ideas on “the essential nature of true historical study” in his article. “Hat die Alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstandige Bedeutung innerhalb der Alttestamentlichen Wissen- schaft?” (1929; “Does Old Testament Theology Still Have Independent Significance within Old Testament Scholarship?“; English translation on pp. 30-39 above). In his Theology of the Old Testament, published in 1933, just prior to another war, he put these ideas into practice. His aim was to interpret the religion recorded in the Old Testament “as a self-contained entity exhibiting, despite ever-changing historical conditions, a constant basic tendency and character” (1961: 11). Eichrodt argued that the constant basic tendency of Israel’s religion was best expressed in the Old Tes- tament concept of covenant: It “enshrines Israel’s most fundamental conviction, namely its sense of a unique relationship with God” (1961:

17). Old Testament theology must then undertake a systematic analysis of the Old Testament, in order to make visible “the structural unity of the

OT message. n (1961: 17). For Eichrodt, systematic analysis was not op- posed to historical-critical inquiry. In fact, the “complementary role” of each was essential to the true historical study of the Old Testament that he recommended (1961: 32). Since the terms of Old Testament theology were given and defined by the Old Testament itself, covenant was a dy- namic concept, not a static or dogmatic one: It is “the typical description of a living process” (1961: 18).

Eichrodt did not investigate only those texts that speak explicitly of covenant. Instead, he examined a cross section of Israel’s life, history, and literature to discover the living process that covenant describes. In this way, Eichrodt attempted to avoid both historicism and the imposition on the Old Testament of static theological categories, and at the same time to show the Old Testament’s necessary relation to the New. His concern for that relation led him to characterize Judaism as having a “torso-like appearance, ” thereby implicitly denying its continuity with Israel and, hence, its legitimacy.

The organization of Walther Eichrodt’s Theology of the Old Testament (around God’s relation to the people, the world, and the individual) was influenced by his teacher, Otto Procksch. Eichrodt studied under Procksch at the University of Erlangen, where he completed his Habilitation ( 1915- 22). He had previously studied philosophy and theology at Bethel, Greifs- wald, and Heidelberg. In 1921, he was called to the faculty of the University of Basel, where he taught Old Testament and the history of religion until 1966. He wrote numerous commentaries (e.g., Ezekiel) and exegetical articles on biblical books and themes, as well as a history of Israelite religion.

B.C.O.

Writings by Eichrodt 1929

1933 1935 1939 1959 1961

Hat die Alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbsdndige Bedeutung innerhalb der Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft? Zeitschrift fiir die Alt- testamentliche Wissenschaf 47:83-91. [English translation on pp. 30- 39 above.]

Theologie des Alten Testaments. Volume 1: Gott und Volk. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Theologie des Alten Testaments. Volume 2: Gott und Welt. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Theologie des Alten Testaments. Volume 3: Gott und Mensch. Leipzig:

Hinrichs.

Theologie des Alten Testaments. Volume 1: Gott und Volk. 6th edition.

Stuttgart: Rlotz/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht.

Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 1. Translated by John A. Baker.

London: SCM/Philadelphia: Westminster.

60 Walther Eichrodt 1964

1967 1969 1970

Theologie o!es Alten Testaments. Volume 2/3: Gott und Welt/Gott und Mensch. 5th edition. Stuttgart: Klotz/Giittingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht.

Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 2. Translated by John A. Baker.

London: SCM/Philadelphia: Westminster.

ZIeZigionsgeschichte Zsraels. Bern: Francke.

Ezekiel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated by Cosslett

@in. London: SCM/Philadelphia: Westminster.

Writings about Eichrodt Gottwald, Norman K.

1970 W. Eichrodt: Theology of the Old Testament. Pp. 23-62 in Gmtempora?y Old Testament ThzoZogians. Edited by Robert B. Laurin. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson.

Saeb0, Magne

1982 Eichrodt, Walther. Volume 9: pp. 371-73 in T~oZogische Realenzykh+

@die. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Spriggs, David G.

1974 Two Old Testament Theologies: A Comparative Evaluation of the Contri- butions of Eichrodt and von Z&zd to Our Understanding of the Nature of Old Testament Theology. Studies in Biblical Theology 2/30. London:

SCM/Naperville, Illinois: Allenson.

Stoebe, Hans J., Johann J. Stamm, and Ernst Jenni (editors)

1970 Wart-Gebot-Glaube: Beitrdge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Walther Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59. Zurich: Zwingli.

Walt-her Eichrodt’s

Approach to Old Testament Theology

Excerpted with permission from Walther Eichrodt, Theology of Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1961), vol. 1: pp. 25-33.

Old Testament Theology:

The Problem and the Method

I1251 Among all the problems known to OT studies, one of the most far- reaching in its importance is that of the theology of the OT: for its con- cern is to construct a complete picture of the OT realm of belief; in other words to comprehend in all its uniqueness and immensity what is, strictly speak- ing, the proper object of OT study. The tasks of this science are very vari- ous in character, but this is the crown of them all; and to this, therefore, the other disciplines involved are ancillary.

But though the domain of OT theology proper is comparatively re- stricted, yet it is closely linked both to the prolific variety of pagan reli- gions and to the exclusive realm of NT belief. Thus it exhibits a d o u b k aspect.

On the one side it faces on to the comparative study of religions. T o adapt a well-known dictum of Harnack’ (which he coined in opposition to the thesis of Max Miiller that ‘The man who knows only one religion knows none’) one might say, ‘The man who knows the religion of the OT knows many.’ For in the course of its long history it has not only firmly consolidated its own unique contribution, but also, by a process of absorp- tion and rejection, has forged links with the most varied forms of pagan- ism. Hence the study of it can become at the same time a course in the comparative study of religions. No $n-esentation of OT theology can jn-Operly be made without constant reference to its connections with the whole world of Near 1l:astern religion. Indeed it is in its commanding such a wide panorama of the rich domain of man’s [260 religious activity that many will prefer to see the special significance of the faith of the OT.

And yet there is this second aspect, looking on towards the New Testa- ment. Anyone who studies the historical development of the OT finds that throughout there is a powerful and purposive movement which forces it- self on his attention. It is true that there are also times when the religion seems to become static, to harden into a rigid system; but every time this occurs the forward drive breaks through once more, reaching out to a

1. Die Aufgabe der theologischm Fakultci’ten und die allgemeine &ligionspchichte, 190 1, p. 10.

62 Walther Eichrodt Covenant 63 higher form of life and making everything that has gone before seem in-

adequate and incomplete. This movement does not come to rest until the manifestation of Christ, in whom the noblest powers of the OT find their fulfilment. Negative evidence in support of this statement is afforded by the torso-like appearance of Judaism in separation from Christianity.

The affinity with the NT is not, however, exhausted by a bare historical connection, such as might afford material for the historian’s examination but no more. It rather confronts us with an essential characteristic, which must be taken into account if the OT is to be understood. More- over this is an impression which is confirmed over and over again when we enter the unique spiritual realm of the NT. For in the encounter with the Christ of the Gospels there is the assertion of a mighty living reality as inseparably bound up with the OT past as pointing forward into the fu- ture. That which binds together indivisibly the two realms of the Old and New Tes- taments-da@r-ent in externals though they may be-is the irruption of the Kingship of God into this world and its establishmt here. This is the unitive fact because it rests on the action of one and the same God in each case;

that God who in promise and performance, in Gospel and Law, pursues one and the selfsame great purpose, the building of his Kingdom. This is why the central message of the NT leads us back to the testimony of God in the old covenant.

But in addition to this historical movement from the Old Testament to the New there is a current of life flowing in the reverse direction from the New Testament to the Old. This reverse relationship also elucidates the full significance of the realm of OT thought. Only where this two-way relationship between the Old and New Testaments is understood do we

‘find a correct definition of the problem of OT theology and of the method by which it is possible to solve it.

11270 Hence to our general aim of obtaining a comprehensive picture of the realm of OT belief we must add a second and closely related purpose -to see that this comprehensive picture does justice to the essential relution- ship with the NT and does not merely ignore it. Naturally this does not mean that the language of the OT must be artificially screwed up to the pitch of the New in order that both Testaments may be on the same spiritual plane. To seek to do this would merely betray a very poor idea of the difference between a process in real life and a process in logical thought.

It was just at this point that the old orthodoxy, in spite of having a sound idea of the correct course, had the misfortune to lose its grasp of the living reality and to slip back into the procedures of logical demonstration, thereby concealing rather than clarifjling the actual relation between the Old and New Testaments. The reaction to this was rationalism with its root-and-branch rejection of the OT.

This then is the problem that confronts us. In expounding the realm of OT thought and belief we must never lose sight of the fact that the OT religion, ineffaceably individual though it may be, can yet be grasped in this essential uniqueness only when it is seen as completed in Christ.

None other than B. Stade, well known for the radical nature of his criticism, emphasized this ‘homogeneity and similarity of the Old and New TeStament revelations’ in his own theology of the OT; and he saw in this fact the premiss from which this branch of OT studies could be proved to be a necessary part of Christian theology.*

The more clearly the shape of this problem is seen, the more appar- ent it becomes that it is not to be solved along the lines which OT studies have so far taken, namely the consideration of the process of historical development only. It is not just a matter of describing the all-round expansion of OT religion, or the phases through which it passed, but of determining to what extent- as B. Stade remarked-it ties up with the NT revelation and is analogous to it. But this can only be done by taking a cross-section of the realm of OT thought, thus making possible both a comprehensive survey and a sifting of what is essential from what is not. In this way both the total structure of the system and the basic principles on which it rests can be exposed to view. In other words we have to undertake a systematic examination with objective classification and rational arrange- ment of the varied material. This does not in any way imply that the historical method [28] of investigation is worthless, nor that it should be set aside. We ought rather to build deliberately on its conclusions and make use of its procedures. Nevertheless developmental analysis must be re- placed by systematic synthesis, if we are to make more progress toward an interpretation of the outstanding religious phenomena of the OT in their deepest significance.3

A glance at the history of our particular discipline will abundantly confirm that this method, deriving as it does from the nature of the material, is the proper one. As we have already stated, rationalism tore to shreds the inadequate attempts of orthodoxy to demonstrate the inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments by the collation of proof-texts and an extensive system of typ01ogy.~ It proved that it was impossible to reduce the whole realm of OT thought, conditioned as it is by such an immense

2. Biblische Theologie ok Alten Testaments, 1905, p. 15.

3. I have given the main outlines of the relationship between this task and the dogmatic religious presentation, properly so called, of OT religion in my lecture, ‘Hat die alttesta- mrntliche Theologie noch selbsdndige Bedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissen- schaft?‘, ZAW47, 1929, pp. 83ff. [See pp. 30-39 above for an English translation.]

4. It is not possible to take into consideration in this work such exceptional cases as (;. Oalixt and J. Cocceius.

64 Walther Eichrodt

variety of ages and individuals, to a handbook of dogmatic instruction without doing violence to it. Rationalism itself, however, was quite unable to offer any substitute; for in its delight in critical analysis it lost its feeling for the vital synthesis in the OT and could only see the differing teachings of individual biblical writers.5

Into the meaningless confusion of disjecta membra, into which the OT on such a view degenerated, the new approach to history which began to flower with the age of romanticism brought a unifying principle. It dis- missed once for all the ‘intellectualist’ approach, which looked only for doctrine, and sought by an all-inclusive survey to grasp the totality of religious life in all its richness of expression. Furthermore it brought this un- expected expansion of the field of study under control with the magic formula of ‘historical development’, allowing all the individual elements to be arranged in one historical process and thus enabling the meaning of the whole to be demonstrated in its final achievement.

This method of treatment, which began with Herder’ and de [r29]

Wette,’ reached its high-water mark with Wellhausen’ and his school, and for decades diverted work on OT theology into historical channels. Of what avail was it that a Beck9 or a Hofmann lo should attempt, about the middle of the last century, to develop a system of biblical doctrine? By making use of the OT for this purpose they were indeed standing up for its vital importance for the Christian faith, but they made no headway against the rising stream of historical investigation-to say nothing of the fact that the dogmatic system to which they harnessed the thought of the OT was seriously defective.

All the more deserving of notice, therefore, are three men who in the second half of the nineteenth century, right in the thick of the triumphal progress of historical criticism, attempted to expound the essential content of the OT in systematic form, while at the same time giving full consideration to the newly emer ent problems connected with it. These were G. F. Oehler,*’ A. Dillmann,’ and H. Schultz.13 All three took account of

5. Cf. C. F. Ammon, Bib&he Theologie, 1792; G. L. Bauer, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1796, and others.

6. The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, Letters on Theology, The Oldest Documents of the Human Race, etc.

7. Beitriige ZUT Geschichte des Alten Testaments, 1806-7; Biblische Dogmatik, 1813, 3rd edn, 1831.

8. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, ET, 1885; originally 1878; History of Israel, ET, 1894;

Dir ismelitisch+idi.sche Religion, 1906 (Kultur der Gegenwart 1, 4).

9. Die rhristlirhe Ixhnuissenschaft nach den biblischen Urkunden, 1841.

10. lkr Srhr@eweis, 1852-55.

1 I. Thmlogie dev Altm Testaments, 1873; 3rd edn, 1891.

12. Handbuch dpI alttestanmtlichen Theologic: ed. R. Kittel, 1895.

13. OU 7’rstammt Theology: ET in 2 vols., 2nd edn, 1898; 5th German edn, 1896.

Covenant 6 5

the new movement by prefacing their exposition with a historical sum- mary of OT religion. They then went on, however, to contend earnestly for a systematic correlation of the elements which had so far been examined only as they occurred in the course of the historical process. It was unfortunate that the two first-named works did not appear until after the deaths of their authors and so were alread at the time of their publica- tion no longer defensible in many details. Y4 Nevertheless, repeated new editions witness to their having met a pressing need. Even today they still provide the most thorough treatment of the realm of OT belief from the systematic standpoint; and even though since that time research has brought to light much new relevant material and has introduced different ways of framing the problems, so materially altering the total picture, one can turn to them again and again. It is significant that for twenty-five years after the last edition of Schultz’s Theology no one ventured on a further attempt to provide an exposition of this kind in the realm of OT belief. The historical approach had triumphed on every side.

[30] To say this is of course not to attempt to deny that this method accomplished an immense amount for the historical understanding of OT religion. It is impossible even to conceive of a historical picture that does not make use of its findings, and to that extent not one of us can help be- ing in its debt. For this very reason, however, the method had a particu- larly fatal influence both on OT theology and on the understanding of the OT in every other aspect, because it fostered the idea that once the historical problems were clarified everything had been done. The essential inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments was reduced, so to speak, to a thin thread of historical connection and causal sequence between the two, with the result that an external causality-not even suscep- tible in every case of secure demonstration-was substituted for a homogeneity that was real because it rested on the similar content of their experience of life. How appallingly this impoverished the conception of the relationship of the two Testaments strikes one at once; but it is also clear that the OT itself, if valued only as the historical foundation or fore- runner of the New, was bound to lose its own specific value as revelation, even though from the historical angle it might be assessed as highly as ever. One consequence of this is the fact that the OT has completely lost any effective place in the structure of Christian doctrine. Indeed, in the circumstances, it sometimes seems more from academic politeness than from any real conviction of its indispensability that it is so seldom denied all value as canonical Scripture¹⁵-a step which would enable the whole

14. This applies also to the less important OT Theology of E. Riehm, 1889.

15. Harnack (Marcion, 1921, pp. 247ff.) was one notable exception.

Dalam dokumen The Flowering of Old Testament Theology - MEDIA SABDA (Halaman 36-42)